Although this chapter was really only a preface to the entire book it still got me to think about the way we act toward death. When Wright talks about the acts that we do during a funeral, such as putting things into coffins, it got me thinking about funerals that I have been to. When my great-grandfather passed away one of my aunts put a fork in his coffin saying that "you always save your fork because the best is yet to come." I've always thought it was a bit odd and now I'm still thinking it's a bit odd. The thing that struck me the most in this short chapter was in the end when he started to mention New Ageism and Princess Diana's death., specifically the part were someone left a message as in Diana's own voice saying that she will always be with us. This is something that I have always heard when someone is talking about another passing away, not in necessarily the same sense as this but with people saying "they always be watching out for you, they're looking down on you" etc. It just strikes me as odd how much of other religions we tend to incorporate into our own unknowingly.
BSH -
Probably the thing that struck me the most was the difference in experience between the Wright and myself. Growing up on a farm, with pets, and being the youngest child of a youngest child, I encountered death on all levels and wasn't sheltered from it at all, unlike the author's self-disclosed experience. At 5 or 6 I attended the funeral of my uncle, and I remember that vividly. Cats & dogs got run over by cars or trucks all the time. Pigs and cows I raised from babies were sent off to the butcher and never came back (well, to my mind anyway. I never connected the hamburgers or steaks we ate to "Bessie."
BSH -
Probably the thing that struck me the most was the difference in experience between the Wright and myself. Growing up on a farm, with pets, and being the youngest child of a youngest child, I encountered death on all levels and wasn't sheltered from it at all, unlike the author's self-disclosed experience. At 5 or 6 I attended the funeral of my uncle, and I remember that vividly. Cats & dogs got run over by cars or trucks all the time. Pigs and cows I raised from babies were sent off to the butcher and never came back (well, to my mind anyway. I never connected the hamburgers or steaks we ate to "Bessie."
Along with that, I suppose growing up in the buckle of the Bible belt, we didn't hear much reincarnation or annihilation talk either. Granted, we did hear that "Grandpa died and went to Heaven," but I suspect the reason was out of trying to explain the concept to a young mind, not out of theologicall error or confusion. That being said, I did have the "Circle of Life" song going through my head as I was reading the parts about death being nothing or that "I am the gentle autumn rain" part.
Something that struck me as a little nit-picky is that whole bit about putting stuff in a person's coffin (It was, however quite funny about the explosion in the crematorium). I'm not sure placing a beloved item in a coffin carries with it the belief that it will a "comfort" or a "help in their life to come." When a bereaved person is burying their dead they are not at their most theologically astute. I know my M-I-L wants to be buried with her nurses pin. I intend to honor her wishes, but not because I think that she will have it in heaven. Most of the time, it is a way to help the bereaved get some closure. What do you think?
BL -
I'm going to colorcode mine, because I need all the organizational help I can get. (No smart aleck comments JJ.)
I'll start at the end of the chapter. Wright concludes that, "What is more worrying, this multiple ignorance seems often to be true in the churches as well" (12). Some of that is willful ignorance, but a lot of it is a lack of good teaching using sound exegesis and discerning PRINCIPLES and regularly imparting them (as opposed to various weekly topical self-help lectures). So "amen" from me to NTW.
I agree with Brad - the presently bereaved are not at their most theologically astute - but I'll go back to the willful ignorance that I previously mentioned. We can decide to believe that which comforts us the most. When my dad died, my mom said often that "he's happy now" and that he was "up there with his farmer friends looking down and criticizing so-and-so." My best friend, however, as he took his 3 year-old to view my dad's body, explained it as "he's sleeping until Jesus comes back." As simplistic as it may be, I think that it's way more orthodox than anything else I've heard in a long time.
Frankly, I think the custom of putting stuff in coffins is more about making the living feel better than comforting the dead somehow - but I don't know of any data to substantiate it.
BSH --
Yes, I agree with you Bill, our teaching has been woefully negligent. However, when was the last time a church offered a class on Hermeneutics? Method is so unsexy. I mean, who wants to analyze form and genre when reading either Genesis 1 or Revelation 4ff? It is SOOOO much easier to say the winged creatures are attack helicopters and the antichrist is the Pope, Stalin, Putin, or Barack Obama (Or that the Creation of the Earth in 6 24-hour days is the point of the creation narrative). As an aside (I suspect I'll have a lot of those, so forgive me) at the church we were at in Dallas, there was a lady that taught an interpretation class, but she called it "Homiletics" instead. Crazy. I tried to explain to her the difference between the two, but to no avail. I will really be looking forward to your discussion on the next chapter as both a songwriter and a theologian.
BL-
Jeff Street offered a "how to use a bible" class last spring, but it is indeed rare. Asides are what makes this vital, so bring 'em on.
BSH--
Of course, I think our lack of hermeneutical teaching also comes from a basic philosophy rooted in common sense realism that says that everyone can read the Bible and get the "plain sense" of it without much work at all...
BL -
I'm going to colorcode mine, because I need all the organizational help I can get. (No smart aleck comments JJ.)
I'll start at the end of the chapter. Wright concludes that, "What is more worrying, this multiple ignorance seems often to be true in the churches as well" (12). Some of that is willful ignorance, but a lot of it is a lack of good teaching using sound exegesis and discerning PRINCIPLES and regularly imparting them (as opposed to various weekly topical self-help lectures). So "amen" from me to NTW.
I agree with Brad - the presently bereaved are not at their most theologically astute - but I'll go back to the willful ignorance that I previously mentioned. We can decide to believe that which comforts us the most. When my dad died, my mom said often that "he's happy now" and that he was "up there with his farmer friends looking down and criticizing so-and-so." My best friend, however, as he took his 3 year-old to view my dad's body, explained it as "he's sleeping until Jesus comes back." As simplistic as it may be, I think that it's way more orthodox than anything else I've heard in a long time.
Frankly, I think the custom of putting stuff in coffins is more about making the living feel better than comforting the dead somehow - but I don't know of any data to substantiate it.
BSH --
Yes, I agree with you Bill, our teaching has been woefully negligent. However, when was the last time a church offered a class on Hermeneutics? Method is so unsexy. I mean, who wants to analyze form and genre when reading either Genesis 1 or Revelation 4ff? It is SOOOO much easier to say the winged creatures are attack helicopters and the antichrist is the Pope, Stalin, Putin, or Barack Obama (Or that the Creation of the Earth in 6 24-hour days is the point of the creation narrative). As an aside (I suspect I'll have a lot of those, so forgive me) at the church we were at in Dallas, there was a lady that taught an interpretation class, but she called it "Homiletics" instead. Crazy. I tried to explain to her the difference between the two, but to no avail. I will really be looking forward to your discussion on the next chapter as both a songwriter and a theologian.
BL-
Jeff Street offered a "how to use a bible" class last spring, but it is indeed rare. Asides are what makes this vital, so bring 'em on.
BSH--
Of course, I think our lack of hermeneutical teaching also comes from a basic philosophy rooted in common sense realism that says that everyone can read the Bible and get the "plain sense" of it without much work at all...
JJ-
This goes into a whole other subject of interpretation in the church. I was reading Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell just recently and he brought up a point that I learned in PBS II (Principles of Bible Study 2), that we all come at the Bible with our own preconceived ideas. No one can read scripture impartially or without any preconceived ideas and say that they can "get the bible" without any outside help is just plain ridiculous. I think that this is the biggest problem we face in the church today, this egotistical idea that all we need to do is read the bible and go to church on Sundays and we'll be good. And if people don't agree with the sermon it's probably most likely because it's something they don't agree with because, wait for it, they already have an opinion on the subject, but their "interpretation" is still better.
BL (8/23/09 9:21 PM) -
Amen, JJ. We prefer to cling to our preconceived notions that we're most comfortable with, and it's compounded even more when we think we have the authority of scripture on our side (which may, in actuality, just be a well-intentioned misinterpretation - or worse: a rationalization of something that is clearly wrong).
Tonight I mentioned to JJ that I had a bit of a theological issue with something that was said from the stage regarding the immediate state of the believer after death. Why is it so important to us to believe that our loved ones are immediately experiencing bliss in the presence of God after they die? What would be the difference if the next conscious experience after death was the resurrection? Would it matter if it was 15 seconds or 1500 years?
I know several people more intelligent and well-educated than me who hold different opinions about this. One of the things I hope to gain personally from this study and dialog is a more concrete and well-reasoned opinion of my own.
BSH--
Oh... that explains the whole "he's asleep until Jesus comes back" statement.
While I agree with the statement that we all have our own preconceived notions about truth or the Bible or whatever, I feel we need to go a step further than just acknowledging that we have them. Because stopping there may lead to two unhelpful, albeit different concluions: 1). We must get rid of all "preconceptions" in order to discover the TRUE truth (which has been the prevalent choice in most of my interp classes) or 2). Everyone's interpretation is equally valid. The first conclusion is self-contradictory. The 2nd leads to a pluralism that in unintelligible.
No, instead of stopping there, we have to take it a step further to acknowledge that our frameworks (or structures or even preconceived notions) can be helpful, while not infallible. After all, it helps my theology to be internally coherent. That way I can read the entire Bible without, just for example, being a Monotheist in some places and a Trinitarian in others. But we also need to recognize that some preconceptions or interpretations are better than others, and some have just as much validity as our own even if we don't agree with them. This requires both humility and study. Like in eschatology, for example. I, as an avowed amillennialist, can recognize that premillennialism is an equally live option, but can dismiss the "Jesus comes back and sets up a chocolate shoppe in Newark" theory as out of the bounds. BL (8/23/09 9:21 PM) -
Amen, JJ. We prefer to cling to our preconceived notions that we're most comfortable with, and it's compounded even more when we think we have the authority of scripture on our side (which may, in actuality, just be a well-intentioned misinterpretation - or worse: a rationalization of something that is clearly wrong).
Tonight I mentioned to JJ that I had a bit of a theological issue with something that was said from the stage regarding the immediate state of the believer after death. Why is it so important to us to believe that our loved ones are immediately experiencing bliss in the presence of God after they die? What would be the difference if the next conscious experience after death was the resurrection? Would it matter if it was 15 seconds or 1500 years?
I know several people more intelligent and well-educated than me who hold different opinions about this. One of the things I hope to gain personally from this study and dialog is a more concrete and well-reasoned opinion of my own.
BSH--
Oh... that explains the whole "he's asleep until Jesus comes back" statement.
While I agree with the statement that we all have our own preconceived notions about truth or the Bible or whatever, I feel we need to go a step further than just acknowledging that we have them. Because stopping there may lead to two unhelpful, albeit different concluions: 1). We must get rid of all "preconceptions" in order to discover the TRUE truth (which has been the prevalent choice in most of my interp classes) or 2). Everyone's interpretation is equally valid. The first conclusion is self-contradictory. The 2nd leads to a pluralism that in unintelligible.
With regards to Bill's question as to why it is so important to believe about conscious existence in an intermediate state, may I offer a twofold opinion as to why: #1) Doctrine is existentially important to some (many? all?) people. That's why systematic theologies are constructed, even though they are human constructs and as such are historically conditioned and imperfect. We really do want to be faithful to what the authors of Scripture have to say about regarding said topic (Again, part of the problem is that the Bible doesn't lend itself very easily to that task, because of it's issues of genre, etc).
#2), the doctrine of a conscious intermediate state does have a rather lengthy heritage in Church history. Not that tradition is by any means unified or even immune from re-examination, but it does serve as a good guide to what has been considered "in bounds" and what has been deemed "out of bounds" by a whole lot of important Christians who have thought much deeper and better about issues than you or I. I believe that brother Wright will address this in later chapters, so let's not get too ahead of ourselves, shall we?
However, this whole discussion of mine makes the assumption that people are generally aware of the content of the Scriptures and are actually engaged in the study of them. Not so, unfortunately. There is quite a bit of "folk religion" that has been passed down from generation to generation that has very little to do with the texts and much to do with a form of spiritual urban legends that people just assume is in the Bible someplace.
Geesh. I felt like I've just given a lecture on epistemology... will someone please shut me up before I strike again????
BL (8/24/09 9:07 PM)
It's OK, Brad. If you're boring us we can just skip ahead. :-)
...and I didn't mean jump into subsequent chapters. Not trying to run out in front of the author, but it just came up in my experience.
I'm chewing on a lot of stuff in the second chapter right now, but since Dustin and Judyta won't have books until at least tomorrow, I propose that we hold off on specific second chapter postings until Thursday.
Ok… I really did have more thought written down in a very inconsistent, and not very coherent way to people that don't have a direct insight into my brain... so here is what I think I have thought and written down fairly logically.
ReplyDeletePrincess Diana died August 31st, 1997. Mother Teresa died September 5th, 1997. It is quite unfortunate that these two come so close together, and because they did Princess Diana got the big fat going away party, and mother Teresa quietly disappeared for our sight, or course now she will be a Catholic saint, but it is sad that we have been deprived by the media of a story of a lifelong devotion (omitting controversial stories), for the sake of soaking in a tragic love story.
When coach Hoddle was mentioned, I couldn’t help wonder… about the compromises that we take. How much we are willing to embrace what is similar… not the same but similar… just so we don’t lose the unity. That takes me to the controversial ecumenical issue. My country is dominated by Catholic religion, in the spiritual and political spheres. Many of our protestant churches participate in ecumenical services and meetings in our city, but it is not as clear in my head as to… how close I want to get to people, who believe that Jesus died and rose again (so we have some fundamental things in common), while at the same time firmly believe in purgatory, and bow before a painting of Mary to which they must also pray… I lived in a place where over 40 000 000 people did that every year. Do I want my spiritual identity to be associated with that? I understand striving for unity, but how far do we go? Could it perhaps be one of the reasons why we have a little bit of everything in the church? Some members believe in reincarnation, some combine Joga exercises with spiritual experiences and it’s considered to be normal (?!), because in their minds it has nothing to do with them being Christians, some dress their kids as witches on Halloween, as if it was harmless to play games with spiritual reality like this, because it’s just a children’s costume, an innocent game…. This and a whole lot more pushes us to developing dualistic thinking within the church in which… nothing’s obvious anymore, and in reality we live different lives then we think.
I think in practical, everyday life situations it is not that obvious that Christians stand verbal about their outlook on death. It is one of those controversial subjects, I think most of us avoid. It’s so much easier to talk to people about Jesus, and how much he loves us, and how wonderful things he did. Death, pain, suffering, anger, money… always seemed to me to be seen as unfriendly grounds to minister to people on.
As to Plato’s views on death, life and vision... I do recall from “The Cave” the reference to shadows on the walls of the cave. That, I always associated with the Biblical theme of 2 Cor 13:12.
Hegel: - death is complete. “That renunciation of existence, when it is complete, as it is in death, is one that does not revert to the consciousness that makes the sacrifice; it simply is: this consciousness does not survive the renunciation and exist in its own self completeness (an und fur sich), it merely passes away into the unreconciled opposite. That alone is true sacrifice of individuality, therefore, in which it gives itself up as completely as in the case death, but all the while preserves itself in the renunciation.
“the sole and only work and deed accomplished by universal freedom is therefore death – a death that achieves nothing within its grasp; for what is negated is the unachieved, unfulfilled punctual entity of the absolutely free self. It is thus the most cold-blooded and meaningless death of all, with no more significance than cleaving a head of cabbage or swallowing a draught of water.”
ReplyDelete“… a gasping of the imaginative idea (Vorstellung) that the Divine Being is reconciled with its existence through an event, - the event of God’s emptying Himself of His divine Being through His factual incarnation and His Death. The grasping of this idea now expresses more specifically what was formerly called in figurative thinking spiritual resurrection , or the process by which God’s individual self-consciousness becomes the universal, becomes the religious communion. The death of the Divine Man, qua death, is abstract negativity, the immediate result of the process which terminated only in the universality belonging to nature. In spiritual self-consciousness death loses this natural significance; it passes into its true conception, the conception just mentioned. Death then ceases to signify what it means directly – the non-existence of this individual – and becomes transfigured into the universality of the spirit, which lives in its own communion, dies there daily, and daily rises again.” (page 780, The Phenomenology of Mind).
“Death is the absolute subjugator (die absolute Bezwingun). “ Page 91, 92, Natural Law
As far as I remember Plato’s ideas in Politics, one of the most prominent once (for me), but I don’t think widely discussed by him was the idea that instantly took me to Philippians 1:21. Namely, how it is a rare privilege to live and die in honor, for a CAUSE. Like in Sir Gawain the Green Knight, where… he did stumble along the way, but he still longed to complete his quest for King Arthur. Is it our lack of trust in Gods true protection and omnipresence that causes us to fail to strive aspire higher, and take more risks? (Surprise, surprise Bill: Petra had a song about it:)… I don’t think we think of ourselves as souls dressed in a body, but as a body WITH a soul. If we would focus on spiritual reality and viewing ourselves as souls, that live here, and will continue to live on in a different world with Jesus at some point, we would look at a death of a body from a different angle.
“And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.”
Mr Wright talks mentions the common question people ask: Why is there so much hate in the world, if God is truly in it too. On the beginning of one of the C. S. Lewis’ books and it was Surprised by joy, or… perhaps it was in the set of his letters to an American Lady… ANYWAY, yes he answered this question. And just like in Narnia he said, that the witch didn’t know about the law that has been created before she came to be, which seems like the simplest and most obvious, and… really logical answer as to why Satan wanted Jesus crucified, he said that people wanted freedom. You can’t want something, take it, act independently on it, and accuse someone else of the results.
“The nihilism for living, and death is once again in the cultural air. “
OK - I think I got more questions than answers from your post, Judyta. That’s perfect, though - questions lead to growth; answers to often try to close the door to it.
ReplyDeleteAs to your reference of Phil. 1:21, I’m always cautious about the idea of a “CAUSE” because of the diabolical perspective on it that Lewis presents in Screwtape Letters. It’s apparent, though, that you mean a devoted pursuit of God (such as Paul’s own) or the analogy portrayed in the quest of Sir Gawain. I think that’s a bigger issue than almost anything else.
You wrote:
“Is it our lack of trust in Gods true protection and omnipresence that causes us to fail to strive aspire higher, and take more risks?”
Yes - I agree that it’s a trust issue - trust and submission to be exact. I think most people who fashion themselves as Christians, aren’t following God in a devoted, dynamic relationship. We’re not allowing ourselves to be transformed in our intellect and emotions, therefore we cling to ideas and feelings that make us comfortable instead of wrestling with and being shaped by Truth and Love. It leads to the specific situation where we have no consistently orthodox view of death. Hence NTW’s book; ergo our discussion.
I mostly agree with the idea of “viewing ourselves as souls, that live here, and will continue to live on in a different world with Jesus at some point” but I have, at least, some semantical issues with it. I’d replace “different” with “restored” or “recreated” - and I’m always a little leery of making too many distinctions between soul, mind, body, etc., because I think the story of scripture teaches us that the whole of our being is fallen, broken and crippled - and the point of that story is that God will redeem, heal, and recreate the WHOLE of our beings. I don’t think we disagree, necessarily - I’m just particularly fussy about the language. (No-one's surprised!)
I have to agree with the thought of seeing ourselves as a whole being, rather than body or soul. The argument in theology has been whether to see ourselves as a bichotomy or a trichotomy. Maybe the answer is a unicochotomy (I'm just making up words now!). I think the value of seeing ourselves in parts is only effective if we understand how each part affects the whole being. Obviously in the context of death, this is a problem without the resurrection (or with simply speaking about dying and going to heaven/paradise as our highest goal. More on that with the upcoming chapters though.
ReplyDeleteLove the rough Lewis quote (Clive Staples, not Bill): You can’t want something, take it, act independently on it, and accuse someone else of the results.
Unichototomy? You're so creative.
ReplyDeleteYeah - most of my favorite Lewis quotes are from the Chronicles. I think it's because the principles come out of the narrative.
The correct term is Monism, not Unichotomy.
ReplyDelete:)
And yes, I prefer to think of the human person as a whole, with physical(material) aspects, and nonphysical (mind, conscious, soul, whatever) aspects.
Judyta, I appreciate the Hegel quote, but please enlighten me as to its relevance to this discussion. Hegel is difficult to understand, even when not muddling through the translation. I would love to appreciate the quote more.
Judyta, I know there has been a longstanding feud between Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians for a long time, but I would caution before distancing ourselves from them in Christian fellowship. Most of our "problems" with the Roman Catholic practice of Christianity stem from caricatures which are less than gracious in their representation. Plus such tone continues a very detrimental continuation of the "us vs. them" language which has far too long prohibited understanding that might bring those caricatures to an end.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, we all have enough doctrinal problems to receive 40 slaps from the apostles at judgment, and "our" errors are no less silly or insidious as our perceived notion of "theirs."
Bill, since you asked me to throw my 2 cents...
ReplyDeleteI just finished lectures with Dr. Hook from Mayo Clinic that came for our bioethics class, my first all day class, followed by cheerful festivities, which wore me out, just because they were too cheerful for some of us… and full of people… so thoughts I am about to generate may seem as if chewed and spitted out by a dog. I don’t know if this saying actually culturally translates into your language… Anyway… creative… yes that would be me… only sometimes by mistake.
Hegel’s quote was significant here for me here… why? At this point I don’t remember, I only remember a price of White Zinfandel at IGA, and the taste my Belgium chocolate from Bill left in my mouth last time I ate it. BUT I will come back and say something that makes sense when I regain reason.
Judyta,
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly think you're creative, my smart aleck remark about being creative was actually aimed at Dustin. :)
I think the intellectual battle has been joined by all of us and my money is ultimately on...
...well I'm going to play that close to the vest, but I don't think that the victor will be a staff member from Jeff Street.
So, in your "free time" - teach us about Hegel.
"Death then ceases to signify what it means directly – the non-existence of this individual – and becomes transfigured into the universality of the spirit, which lives in its own communion, dies there daily, and daily rises again." I think is the main idea of the quote. It's stating the obvious, but I liked how he phrased it.
ReplyDeleteLooking at a person as whole... is Biblical. You are right. I perhpas... didn't phrase exactly how I meant it. I understand the Biblical side of unity.
Is it a huge conflict for me? Not really. I respect, and nurture the temple, but it helps me not to be too "self occupied." I consider working on my soul a priority, so I don't want distractions. I have my personal reasons for it, as a shallow,
I didn’t mean to isolate ourselves from Catholics. That would take away opportunities to minister to them. However, the idea of looking for common grounds, by the price of overseeing the differences… I just find unsettling. Before, I was baptized I read several books about World religions, not particularly because I felt the need to but because my dad told me I should before I make up my mind. When I chose Christianity, and started looking for denominations that I could consider, I took some of their doctrines and I compared it with my Bible. That’s how I chose where I wanted to be. When you are a Catholic, you become an automatic member, shortly after you’re born. I thought it was s cultish thing to do, take the human being, when he doesn’t know what’s going on, making him a member, with out his conscious consent…. And then when you leave you are told that you have decided to detach yourself from the source of truth and thus you will not be saved. Salvation is attainable for those who chose God, but never were at the source of truth (Catholic church), or for once that are in it, but for once that just rejected it the punishment will be greater, I don’t even think purgatory is attainable here (according to the Catholic tradition – since it is not in the scripture, aside from one lose interpretation of a verse taken out of context). ANYWAY, point is, because I looked for doctrines before I chose, I expect people that are within a church to know their doctrine and know if they agree with it. I know some of the Catholics are Christians. I do not reject them, almost all of the people I knew in Poland were catholic, aside from very few from my church. It would be hard to reject a whole Polish population, BUT I will not hug them hello to embrace our similarities by the price of overlooking differences. Simply because the differences are too great. I still remember, participating in religion classes in middle school, where a Catholic priest was teaching that the reformation started with Luther, who had an affair and thus got kicked out of church, and basically all protestant denominations are cults. I argued with him, so I was thrown out of the class room. This is the angle that I know, because I come from a country were… if you live in a country and you see someone black, you either want to attack him, or you’re so shocked that you’re not sure what to do. The same thing related to religion. Each of the members of my family, myself included, have a vast experiences with people who has a hard time accepting that we are protestant.
This is my perspective, partly rational, cultural and emotional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, I just read your comment Dustin. I think the area where God continually shows me how much I lack is my soul, and my character. As I said in my unfinished thought, I try to take care of and respect the temple, I know my soul and body come together here on earth, but I also know that if on anything, God will look at my heart in a spiritual sense, and there’s too much filth there, for me not to try to devote my whole focus to that.
ReplyDeleteI also don’t exactly think that the body we think we’re talking about is the same kind of body the scripture is talking about in reference to resurrected bodies. I think 1 Cor 15:35-49 explains the significant difference between the physical body at death, which may be buried or disposed of in various ways, and the spiritual body of the resurrection. Jesus’ resurrected body bore scares from crucifixion (Luke 24:39) and was evidently nourished by physical food (Luke 24:42-43), but it also was supernatural and has qualities his physical body did not possess (John 20:19).
This is not exactly very clear issue to me.