How similar was the resurrected body of Jesus to his physical human body? Different Christian denominations have differing theologies of the resurrection: what it means for us, how it happened, and so on. What do the main bodies of Christian belief (Orthodox, Catholic, "mainline" Protestant) have to say, if anything, about Jesus' resurrected body, compared with the human body he had in his lifetime? Did he sleep? Did he grow tired? Did he get hungry? Did he have to defecate?

This passage from Luke seems to say that Jesus had flesh and bones, was hungry, and ate food, and this question assumes all those things are to be taken literally.


  Luke 24:36-43 ESV As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.


Again, I'm looking for an overview of beliefs from major Christian denominations; answers can be based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Fathers, or whatever each denomination uses to construct its fundamental beliefs.
Oh man this is a good question!
As always, coming from a Catholic perspective:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about resurrection generally:

What is &quot;rising&quot;? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.
How? Christ is raised with his own body: &quot;See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself&quot;; but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, &quot;all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear,&quot; but Christ &quot;will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body,&quot; into a &quot;spiritual body&quot; [Documents and Statements of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215]

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel.... What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.... The dead will be raised imperishable.... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. (1 Cor 15:35-37, 42, 52, 53)


What I get from this is essentially that it's not clear, and it's not going to be clear until it happens, just exactly how Jesus' or any other person's resurrected body works. Of course things like growing tired, getting hungry, and eliminating food waste are natural processes; there's nothing wrong with them (though at least in the case of the last we have privacy restrictions and taboos relating to it). But resurrection gives us a &quot;glorious body&quot;, and no one knows how that's going to work.
On the other hand, the older catechism, the Catechism of Pius V, is possibly a bit more definite:

Not only will the body rise, but whatever belongs to the reality of its nature, and adorns and ornaments man will be restored.

This seems to indicate that since these processes &quot;[belong] to the reality of [the body's] nature&quot; now, they will in the future. On the other hand, one of the qualities which this Catechism attributes to the resurrected is

impassibility, which shall place them beyond the reach of suffering anything disagreeable or of being affected by pain or inconvenience of any sort.

That certainly seems to mean that at a minimum there will be no upset stomachs :-) It might also be interpreted to mean that any of these processes that might be considered an &quot;inconvenience&quot; of sorts might also be eliminated.
I looked as well at Aquinas' Summa Theologica; that doesn't really seem to have anything that I could reasonably apply. So that's all I've got.
I'd have to go with the modern Catechism's apparent answer: &quot;We really don't know.&quot;