If Jesus bled, he was not dead.

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
"Many people believe that Jesus did not [die on the cross]. Certain Gnostic Gospels, the Koran and some early Christian heretics--and perhaps the Priory of Sion--have taken the view that a substitute (possibly Simon of Cyrene) took his place,, while others think he suffered crucifiction but was taken down alive and that his 'resurrection' simly referred to him being healed of his wounds. Certainly Leonardo [da Vinci] believed he had been taken down from the cross and lived: the blood is still running on the image of the man on his faked 'Holy' Shroud of Turin, and blood does not continue to run on a corpse. (Even if our thesis is wrong, and Leonardo did not fake the Shroud, whoever did do so must have believed that Jesus did not die on the cross--and if, against all the evidence, it really is the Shroud of Jesus then it clearly proves that he was alive in the tomb.)"

The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, Lynn Pinkett and Clive Prince, Simon & Schuster, 1997, page 289.
 
It is not true that the gnostics believed Jesus survived the cross. The only one who may have held this view (according to Irenaeus) was Basilides, but that is also a matter of interpretation.
 
Medicine Woman said:
"Many people believe that Jesus did not [die on the cross]. ...
Click to expand...

Many people believe in astrology.
Many people believe in past life regression.
Many people believe in UFOs.

Many people believe in any number of things without evidence. Therefore?
 
MW:

Honestly, I'd have a difficult time thinking of a worse source of information than the Templars. The original knights were founded in the Dark Ages, around 1100AD, and the modern cults cannot even lay claim to these origins as they were eliminated a couple hundred years later.

~Raithere
 
Raithere said:
MW:

Honestly, I'd have a difficult time thinking of a worse source of information than the Templars. The original knights were founded in the Dark Ages, around 1100AD, and the modern cults cannot even lay claim to these origins as they were eliminated a couple hundred years later.

~Raithere
*************
M*W: The authors of this book are journalists and researchers and not Knights Templar. Their works include Da Vinci's participation in the Shroud of Turin and the hidden mystical symbols of Renaissance art.
Click to expand...
 
MW,

I wasn't suggesting that the authors were Templars themselves but that information regarding the Templars is notoriously full of crap. I spent a considerable amount of time tracing the history of the Templars, Masons, Roscrucians, etc. in my studies and found that most of the information and all claims to an ancient and secret body of knowledge are utterly unfounded. When you start throwing the shroud and conspiracies about Jesus' death into the mix your bullshit detector should be on defcon 1.

The shroud was first displayed publicly in 1357 and first declared a forgery in 1389.
Seeing as Leonardo was not born until 1452 I'm quite intrigued as to how they conclude that DaVinci had any part in its creation.

~Raithere
 
The shroud has been repeatedly carbon dated with almost the same results, circa 1325-1350 ad.
 
Raithere said:
MW,

I wasn't suggesting that the authors were Templars themselves but that information regarding the Templars is notoriously full of crap. I spent a considerable amount of time tracing the history of the Templars, Masons, Roscrucians, etc. in my studies and found that most of the information and all claims to an ancient and secret body of knowledge are utterly unfounded. When you start throwing the shroud and conspiracies about Jesus' death into the mix your bullshit detector should be on defcon 1.

The shroud was first displayed publicly in 1357 and first declared a forgery in 1389.
Seeing as Leonardo was not born until 1452 I'm quite intrigued as to how they conclude that DaVinci had any part in its creation.

~Raithere
*************
M*W: I respect the efforts of your research. There's about as much truth to all the conspiracy theories as there is to Christianity. In fact, there is probably more truth to the theories.
Click to expand...
 
Medicine Woman said:
I respect the efforts of your research. There's about as much truth to all the conspiracy theories as there is to Christianity. In fact, there is probably more truth to the theories.
Click to expand...
Actually, there's probably less. Think of it this way, if you question the reliability of the earliest accounts how much less reliable are accounts based (at least in part) upon those accounts? One does not get to the truth by walking in the opposite direction.

~Raithere
 
Though actual active bleeding stops at death, blood pooling and dripping can still occur. During autopsies, blood often gets on sheets through the cuts made by the ME. Though this isn't technically bleeding, and it isn't copious amounts of blood, some blood may be present, especially if the body is wrapped very close to the time of death and clotting or rigor hasn't yet occured.
 
Last edited:
if you think about it doesn;t even seem like he even got crucified. Jesus was such an important man and a figure so dont you think the place of his crucifctaion or the cross would be recoded by his folowers or the killers. also where were the nails put in hus hands? look at the pictures in the CHURCHES, in some pictures the nail goes through the palm in others through his wrist.

also he apparently died to forgive mankinfd of its sins but according to the Bible no soul should be tried for the sins of another. and a father should not be accountable for the sins of his son and vice versa. also if Jesus is either the "son of God" or "God in human form" shouldnt he have some power over forgiving sins himself.
 
@ munim_786

Absolutely not. Read John 5:19.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, teh Son also does in like manner.

Read the whole chapter and I'm sure you'll understand better. :)
 
§outh§tar said:
@ munim_786

Absolutely not. Read John 5:19.
Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, teh Son also does in like manner.

Read the whole chapter and I'm sure you'll understand better. :)
Click to expand...

ill read the chapter later but in the mean time can you tell me what you are trying to come accross with this. what are you trying to argue with me about an what are you trying to prove.
 
Circe said:
It is not true that the gnostics believed Jesus survived the cross. The only one who may have held this view (according to Irenaeus) was Basilides, but that is also a matter of interpretation.
Click to expand...
She/He said "certain gnostic gospels", NOT gnostics or all their gospels. ANyway, what was the actual question you us to discuss?
 
rainbow__princess_4 said:
She/He said "certain gnostic gospels", NOT gnostics or all their gospels. ANyway, what was the actual question you us to discuss?
Click to expand...

It looks like YOU want to discuss these certain gnostic gospels that state that Jesus didn't physically die. Please do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top