If Jesus rose from the dead with a glorified body, why did it still have nail wounds and a hole in its side?

This is one thing I have never understood; Christian teaching is that we will be made whole upon resurrection, yet when Jesus rose from the dead and presented himself to the disciples, he still had nail wounds in his hands and a hole in his side, as, according to the biblical story, he presented these as evidence of his identity to doubting Thomas.





Now, either resurrection carries over the effects on the physical body, or perhaps Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but was rescued from it and recuperated, as some theories hold. This is a speculative question, of course, since there can never be a concrete answer divorced from personal opinion; regardless, I am interested in the personal opinions of everyone.If Jesus rose from the dead with a glorified body, why did it still have nail wounds and a hole in its side?
Let's see... snippy answers, thumbs down... *sigh* God I luv coming to R%26amp;S... LOLIf Jesus rose from the dead with a glorified body, why did it still have nail wounds and a hole in its side?
((((Jack)))) Thanks!

Report Abuse

Christ's death is a special case no matter how you slice it (within the Christian perspective, of course). It is possible that the wounds remained on his risen body as an eternal testament to what he and God had done for humanity, or even that he chose to maintain his wounds after resurrection for the sole purpose of putting Thomas' doubt to rest. Either way, what really makes you think that the resurrection of mankind is of the same nature as Christ's?
God goes out of His way, even for one who will hear.


The Bible says that Thomas, known as Thomas, the Doubter; proclaimed to all the disciples ';unless I see the scars, and I put my hand on the wound in His side, I will not believe.'; He was referring to the Lord's resurrection.


And when he did see the scars and did touch the wound, he proclaimed ';My Lord and my God.';
A Glorified Body Meant Spiritually, He wasn't as Bound to earth so to speak. He Rose From the dead, He still had his physical body and his Physical body was wounded. The theory of him being Saved from the Cross is not valid since he still was pierced on the side with a spear to make sure he was dead.
Obviously Jesus could heal wounds. He could raise others from the dead, and restore lost ears, fingers, noses from lepers and from the servant at the garden the night of His arrest. It is well known that the ONLY reminder of sin after it is all destroyed in the lake of fire will be those scars. For all eternity there will be a reminder of the cost of disobedience, and will forever be a guard against sin ever occurring again.
It was a sign to prove to the people That He chose to reveal Himself to that it was indeed Him. And because of the reason for the nail holes and pierced side, it may be with Him forever. A glorified body can have these imperfections and still be glorified.





God be with you,


William, a bond-servant of Jesus


%26lt;';)))%26gt;%26lt;
I ve often wondered this same question. And the only thing Ive been able to surmise is that, a. He knew that Thomas(and other doubters) would need to see to believe and b. those scars represent what he did for those that do believe. It is also conceivable that battle scars are cool when you have defeated the enemy.
Oh, silly, Renaissance painters did that. Of course this is a speculative question, and if I may speculate, a la Occam's Razor, I would speculate that some poor guy was brutally executed for his beliefs and it really pissed off a whole bunch of people, as it rightly should. %^%^%26amp;%%26amp;^% Romans.
Hey, I'm no Christian, but I'll bet you anything Jesus wanted to show off his martyr wounds since he is such a glorified sissy.





Like, ';Hey ya'll look and my wounds. Don't you feel GUILTY??????? You hurt me, but I still love you.';





What I never got is why some people hang a cross with a crucified Jesus on it in their homes. Can you say, ';morbid';?
There is an OT verse in the Book of Zechariah that Jesus will have to prove to the Jews at the end time that He was the Messiah !!! So He is keeping those scars at least until then !!!





Remember doubting Thomas, he became a missionary to the East Indians and they have a memorial church in his honor in Madras, India !!!





Keep asking good questions and I trust you will get good answers !!!
Yeah - like many Christians have told me that if you are ugly in life you'll be ugly in Heaven but no one will care. Maybe if you can ';glorify'; war by calling it a crusade or jihad - you can glorify wounds by calling them evidence.
God left those marks on him because he didn't look the same so he needed the ability to prove who he was to those that knew him.
Jesus was first resurrected and did not receive his glorified body until he was transfigured before his ascension.
Jesus just thought that battle scars looked cool at the time. Now that he's older he regrets getting them during his young, wild and reckless phase.
He revealed them, the wounds are symbolic of His sacrifice.
no, he was totally healed when he rose again.
None of that particular story ever happened anyway. It is all fiction. We live -we die -That's it
magicians can make mistakes.
to show the world the scares they placed on his hands and his love he did for everyone.
Aesthetic reasons. (It look well hard).
To prove to the apostle's that it was really him.
Jesus was showing us the proof. We people alway are wanting proof. He showed it, the apostles believed it so much that they died for Him.
Maybe he didn't scrub hard enough...
So then, if his body was glorified and it had a hole its side... wouldn't that be a ';glory hole';...?
Why do you put God in a box?





Aren't these marks trophies for Christ?
Well sweetie, which part of ';glorified body'; confuses you? It's still His body, but now glorified.





Obviously He had to come back in a body to show His disciples that it was still Him - only with that whole glorified part added on - so He showed them what they needed to see. If indeed He is the Son of God, then why would you think Him incapable of showing them what they needed to see?





And that little theory about Him surviving the cross ... that was sort of the whole point for Him to die like He did, don't you folks see that? If there was any doubt that He was dead, the resurrection would be in doubt.
The cross was the glory of Christ. Notice the wounds from the scourging are conspicuously missing from the description and those would have been much worse than two holes in the wrists, two holes above the feet and a hole in the side. The Roman scourging would have ripped most of the flesh off of his body and this is not presented in the text as part of the resurrected body. The wounds from the crucifixion are so that we always remember what Christ has done for us.





Also, to say that Christ came off the cross alive is lunacy. The scourging ripped up his flesh and most likely broke a few ribs. The blood loss from that alone would be debilitating. The actual execution was performed by trained killers who knew when somebody was dead and made sure of it before the let someone off the cross or else they would be the next ones executed. The spear through the heart kind of seals the deal though. There is no possible way someone can survive that and then in three days roll away a large stone and sneak past a group of guards and then inspire anyone to want to follow him. He would elicit more pity than worship but the disciples went from being terrified of being associated with Christ to 10 out of the remaining 11 being horrifically executed after he reappeared.