What about the blood?

(Red_Letters88;47607)
Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.Is there any significance why Jesus didnt include blood?Is this because the blood of the lamb had been spilt? Are we to believe that even though he was real and physical after the resurrection his body had no blood? He had open wounds on his hands, feet, and side so if our Lord had blood I think that could have been an issue- but it wasnt. So what do ya think- is there meaning in leaving out blood in His words?
Red Letters, I think you may be trying to look a little too deep into this one. I don't think there is any significance to it at all... accept that simply, Jesus wasn't giving a full comprehensive theological explaination of things. He was just asking them to look at the holes in his hands, and He was indeed alive and well. Previously (a few verses or the verse prior) we are told that they were terrified because they thought they saw a Spirit. They were astounded, thinking they were not believing their eyes because Jesus stood before them."Spirit have not flesh and bones." Jesus was simply awakening them to the ever present reality that He is indeed alive, not a spirit.

(Red_Letters88;47688)
Yeah at first I thought I may be looking too deep into this as well. But then the question hit me- Jesus obviously had OPEN wounds in his hands/feet/side...yet blood wasnt gushing out of them. I think this may be due to the Lambs blood that had been spilt. Maybe im looking too far, but for me I think Ill stick with this idea. Afterall, it only glorifies and testifies to what happened to the Lamb of God.
What *I DO THINK IS INTERESTING* is that when God healed Jesus, and brought Him back to life... He did in fact leave the scars.Now that is interesting. I think it is often the case with us.I once heard a song in church, "Heal the wound but leave a scar."The wound is healed, there is no more pain. But the scar helps us to remember where we've been. Jesus is saying, "Look where I have been. I am here, live and in the flesh!" I am thankful for those scars. They remind me of what was once ruined, but has been healed... reminds me of where I've been, and where I am now.

(Red_Letters88;47750)
Yeah, good input there. Thanks I really do appreciate these things.Not to sound rude or uncaring but my question remains....I mean Jesus had OPEN wounds on his hands/feet/side yet blood was NOT an issue. Would you or anyone else here agree with me (or correct me) that this is because the Lamb of God gave His blood for us, to cover all sin?
Aye. Not to sound rude either but your question has been answered. There is no significance to it. Jesus didn't talk about His blood everytime He spoke. This is one verse in the Bible... He was merely pointing out that he was flesh and bone, not a spirit.But, by all means, if someone else thinks there is something significant to it... please post. I to would be interested in hearing what you say.

(Red_Letters88;47607)
Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.Is there any significance why Jesus didnt include blood?Is this because the blood of the lamb had been spilt? Are we to believe that even though he was real and physical after the resurrection his body had no blood? He had open wounds on his hands, feet, and side so if our Lord had blood I think that could have been an issue- but it wasnt. So what do ya think- is there meaning in leaving out blood in His words?
I think this is a good observation/question, the blood of Jesus had to be spilt....In his resurrected body there was no blood...flesh and blood can not enter heaven-right?

(setfree;47784)
I think this is a good observation/question, the blood of Jesus had to be spilt....In his resurrected body there was no blood...flesh and blood can not enter heaven-right?
I don't think so. His body had flesh, Jesus points that out to show that He wasn't a spirit, (FLESH and blood cannot enter heaven reference) and there was certainly blood in his veins. Respectfully, there really no significance to the blood not being mentioned here that I can see.

Two verses I came across...One was Acts 2:31, This says that Christ body did not see corruption..So his physical body was resurrected,Right? If life is in the blood he would have to have blood...maybe?Also 1 Cor. 15:50 says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...This is speaking of in the flesh we cannot inherit spiritual (this is here on earth). It does not refer to entering heaven with flesh and blood. Is this correct, or am I way off base here?

I agree with treeoflife, Jesus is trying to assure them that he is not a ghost or apparition. I think the Corinthians reference is making a distinction between corruptible (our present bodies) and the incorruptible (the resurrected body in the next life)

Guess we were thinking more of why would we ask this question or trying to explain why it would not occur to us to ask.Would it surprise me that someone I witnessed walking on water, raising the dead, instantly healing wounds, and now after being dead He appears suddenly in a locked room in the FLESH? Would I still wonder or be able to not accept an ability to have open wounds that did not bleed?Am not sure why we need to speculate whether He had blood or not. Would God not have the ability to stop open wounds from bleeding? Would a resurrected/glorified body that could materialize/dematerialize, travel great distances instantly be any more (or less) miraculous if it could also exhibit control (from a mind/soul and body in perfect union) over it’s physical form/integrity (open wounds that did not bleed).Shifting focus; He gave/shed His Blood for all of us. Would be a waste to have even a single drop spill out on the ground.

There's alot of things that could be known, understood, reasoned, and discovered, but I decided to know nothing (focus on) Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2) and simply let His grace be sufficient for me (rest in Him). The temptation to understand everything is great (and admirable), but we are told that now we see dimly (fine by me).

(Red_Letters88;47896)
You guys are missing my point completely. I KNOW Jesus' body was changed, and I KNOW Jesus was assuring the disciples he was Real and Physical. I didnt ask about that though.My original post/question....Jesus obviously had OPEN wounds on his hands/feet/side...yet blood WASNT an issue. Would this mean his new glorified body is without blood?
Flesh and blood do not enter heaven. Because of this I don't believe it can be argued that Jesus will have flesh or blood in heaven.

(treeoflife;48125)
Flesh and blood do not enter heaven. Because of this I don't believe it can be argued that Jesus will have flesh or blood in heaven.
Where does it say flesh and blood do not enter HEAVEN?

I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 15:50I just don't see why Jesus would have to be bloodied our wounded for all eternity, once we are on the other side. Is there some reason that this would be, or need to be so?

(treeoflife;48145)
I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 15:50I just don't see why Jesus would have to be bloodied our wounded for all eternity, once we are on the other side. Is there some reason that this would be, or need to be so?
It says will not inherit the kingdom of God. You will not in the flesh recieve anything concerning spiritual things. God's Spiritual kingdom is here, Christ brought it in by the cross, the Holy Spirit is here to help us.

(setfree;48146)
It says will not inherit the kingdom of God. You will not in the flesh recieve anything concerning spiritual things. God's Spiritual kingdom is here, Christ brought it in by the cross, the Holy Spirit is here to help us.
So, what will Jesus look like in heaven? Will He have human-like form? Is there something in the Bible that tells us?

(treeoflife;48151)
So, what will Jesus look like in heaven? Will He have human-like form? Is there something in the Bible that tells us?
Sorry, I can not answer this.