Bloodless Theory

[Pyreaux]

Being a well of multiple and conflicting theories, MustardSeed has inspired me to post more topics more often that are about these doctrinal theories. I often only been posting doctrinal topics as a long and complete thesis. And there was little discussion, because people said it was its length. So, I've resolved to post shorter topics and a few sources to draw from and apply myself to this cause often. I will try to make multiple provocative statements so anyone can go off topic an encourage variant types of discussion.

Today's topic will be the "Bloodless Theory", I mentioned it once and most said they never heard of it.

The recent Come Follow Me topic on Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35

Quote

Jesus Christ was born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father.

In Matthew 1:18–25 and Luke 1:26–35, notice how Matthew and Luke described the miracle of Jesus’s birth. How do their descriptions strengthen your faith in the Savior? Why is it important to you to know that Jesus was both the Son of God and the son of Mary?

President Russell M. Nelson explained that the Atonement of Jesus Christ “required a personal sacrifice by an immortal being not subject to death. Yet He must die and take up His own body again. The Savior was the only one who could accomplish this. From His mother He inherited power to die. From His Father He obtained power over death” (“Constancy amid Change,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 34).

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

"The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50]" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Pg 273)

"Our Father in heaven and our Savior and all those who have passed through the resurrection have physical bodies of flesh and bones, but their bodies are quickened by spirit and not by blood, hence they are spiritual bodies and not blood bodies. The immortal body is quickened by spirit, but the mortal body is quickened by blood... . Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creations." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 76-77)

It seems for a time, Jesus was impervious, many times people tried to seize Jesus and kill Him. They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but Jesus passed through the midst of crowd they couldn't grab him. (Luke 4:16–30). Another time the Jews picked up stones to execute Jesus by stoning Him to death, but He just passed through the middle of the mob and left (John 8:48–59). Once again, during the middle of a discussion, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death but once again, they couldn't. (John 10:31–39) Only after Gethsemane that they could finally seize and kill him (John 18:1-14).

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Being a well of multiple and conflicting theories, MustardSeed has inspired me to post more topics more often that are about these doctrinal theories. I often only been posting doctrinal topics as a long and complete thesis. And there was little discussion, because people said it was its length. So, I've resolved to post shorter topics and a few sources to draw from and apply myself to this cause often. I will try to make multiple provocative statements so anyone can go off topic an encourage variant types of discussion.

Today's topic will be the "Bloodless Theory", I mentioned it once and most said they never heard of it.

The recent Come Follow Me topic on Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

"The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Pg 273)

Our Father in heaven and our Savior and all those who have passed through the resurrection have physical bodies of flesh and bones, but their bodies are quickened by spirit and not by blood, hence they are spiritual bodies and not blood bodies. The immortal body is quickened by spirit, but the mortal body is quickened by blood... . Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creations." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 76-77)

It seems for a time, Jesus was impervious, many times people tried to seize Jesus and kill Him. They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but Jesus passed through the midst of crowd they couldn't grab him. (Luke 4:16–30). Another time the Jews picked up stones to execute Jesus by stoning Him to death, but He just passed through the middle of the mob and left (John 8:48–59). Once again, during the middle of a discussion, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death but once again, they couldn't. (John 10:31–39) Only after Gethsemane that they could finally seize and kill him (John 18:1-14).

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

 

I'm surprised this is new, I've heard it (and similar things) back when I converted as a college student in the 70s. I shrugged it off, figuring there was no way to apply faith in this sort of thing to become a better disciple. In general, it supports the idea that God's ways are way above our ways, etc. but I don't need Twighlight Zone for that.

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

 

I've heard that Paul essentially had a somewhat similar view to Joseph Smith's views, in that the spirit would have been made of some kind of matter - however, it wouldn't be a tangible thing that you could touch. The resurrected "wind body" or "spirit body" that is raised from the dead has physicality but it's not solid - that's what Paul meant when he said that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom. The new body is neither flesh nor blood nor bone, but "wind." 

The idea that resurrected physical bodies have "flesh and bone," but NOT "flesh and blood" seems to be an attempt to harmonize the contrasting views of Paul and the author (and/or redactors) of Luke. Luke's gospel emphasizes the physicality of the resurrection to combat Marcionism, which taught that Jesus was incorporeal. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Eschaton

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm surprised this is new, I've heard it (and similar things) back when I converted as a college student in the 70s. I shrugged it off, figuring there was no way to apply faith in this sort of thing to become a better disciple. In general, it supports the idea that God's ways are way above our ways, etc. but I don't need Twighlight Zone for that.

Our belief is that God uses principles which are "natural" while yet being beyond our scientific ability to understand.

This topic does not include that idea in its formation.

We cannot limit God to using only science we can presently understand, like how to resurrect a body from 5000 year old dust scattered to the winds thousands ago.

It's like asking about a Zoom conversation with someone half a world away in in the year 397 BC.

Such a conversation would be impossible at that time, and so is this one today.

I say fergitaboutit, it is pointless lipflapping. 🧐

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Being a well of multiple and conflicting theories, MustardSeed has inspired me to post more topics more often that are about these doctrinal theories. I often only been posting doctrinal topics as a long and complete thesis. And there was little discussion, because people said it was its length. So, I've resolved to post shorter topics and a few sources to draw from and apply myself to this cause often. I will try to make multiple provocative statements so anyone can go off topic an encourage variant types of discussion.

Today's topic will be the "Bloodless Theory", I mentioned it once and most said they never heard of it.

The recent Come Follow Me topic on Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

"The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Pg 273)

Our Father in heaven and our Savior and all those who have passed through the resurrection have physical bodies of flesh and bones, but their bodies are quickened by spirit and not by blood, hence they are spiritual bodies and not blood bodies. The immortal body is quickened by spirit, but the mortal body is quickened by blood... . Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creations." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 76-77)

It seems for a time, Jesus was impervious, many times people tried to seize Jesus and kill Him. They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but Jesus passed through the midst of crowd they couldn't grab him. (Luke 4:16–30). Another time the Jews picked up stones to execute Jesus by stoning Him to death, but He just passed through the middle of the mob and left (John 8:48–59). Once again, during the middle of a discussion, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death but once again, they couldn't. (John 10:31–39) Only after Gethsemane that they could finally seize and kill him (John 18:1-14).

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

 

I’ve decided that from now I’m rarely going to post on this board because I’ve come to the determination that doing so is an exercise in frustration and too often a unproductive waste of time. But I’m making one of the rare exceptions on this thread because its premise is so absurd that I find it very difficult to stop myself from responding.

Did you ever stop to think that it might be a good idea to check first with the scriptures to see if this theory squares with the word of God before starting this thread?

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say,whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1)

and…

 

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (John 19) 

 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve decided that from now I’m rarely going to post on this board because I’ve come to the determination that doing so is an exercise in frustration and too often a unproductive waste of time. But I’m making one of the rare exceptions on this thread because its premise is so absurd that I find it very difficult to stop myself from responding.

Did you ever stop to think that it might be a good idea to check first with the scriptures to see if this theory squares with the word of God before starting this thread?

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say,whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1)

and…

 

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (John 19) 

 

Thank you for using up your precious time here to address me with your superior erudite. One last thing before the door hits you, at what point did I ever suggest he did not have blood during the crucifixion? You seem very condescending for someone who clearly skipped a few paragraphs before saying things that don't seem to apply to the theory at all.  

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Being a well of multiple and conflicting theories, MustardSeed has inspired me to post more topics more often that are about these doctrinal theories. I often only been posting doctrinal topics as a long and complete thesis. And there was little discussion, because people said it was its length. So, I've resolved to post shorter topics and a few sources to draw from and apply myself to this cause often. I will try to make multiple provocative statements so anyone can go off topic an encourage variant types of discussion.

Today's topic will be the "Bloodless Theory", I mentioned it once and most said they never heard of it.

The recent Come Follow Me topic on Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

"The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Pg 273)

Our Father in heaven and our Savior and all those who have passed through the resurrection have physical bodies of flesh and bones, but their bodies are quickened by spirit and not by blood, hence they are spiritual bodies and not blood bodies. The immortal body is quickened by spirit, but the mortal body is quickened by blood... . Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creations." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 76-77)

It seems for a time, Jesus was impervious, many times people tried to seize Jesus and kill Him. They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but Jesus passed through the midst of crowd they couldn't grab him. (Luke 4:16–30). Another time the Jews picked up stones to execute Jesus by stoning Him to death, but He just passed through the middle of the mob and left (John 8:48–59). Once again, during the middle of a discussion, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death but once again, they couldn't. (John 10:31–39) Only after Gethsemane that they could finally seize and kill him (John 18:1-14).

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

 

Alma said it best: “Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear.”

 

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm surprised this is new, I've heard it (and similar things) back when I converted as a college student in the 70s. I shrugged it off, figuring there was no way to apply faith in this sort of thing to become a better disciple. In general, it supports the idea that God's ways are way above our ways, etc. but I don't need Twighlight Zone for that.

See?! I'm not the only one. I might be drawing upon a relic from decades ago, but I'm not making this stuff up.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Alma said it best: “Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear.”

 

Willy Wonka said it best:

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I've heard that Paul essentially had a somewhat similar view to Joseph Smith's views, in that the spirit would have been made of some kind of matter - however, it wouldn't be a tangible thing that you could touch. The resurrected "wind body" or "spirit body" that is raised from the dead has physicality but it's not solid - that's what Paul meant when he said that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom. The new body is neither flesh nor blood nor bone, but "wind." 

The idea that resurrected physical bodies have "flesh and bone," but NOT "flesh and blood" seems to be an attempt to harmonize the contrasting views of Paul and the author (and/or redactors) of Luke. Luke's gospel emphasizes the physicality of the resurrection to combat Marcionism, which taught that Jesus was incorporeal. 

Indeed, like Lazarus and the rich man or Paul's ascent into heaven as a possible spiritual body that was apparently indistinguishable from his physical body, depicts the spiritual realm that is very similar to ours. Spirits seem rather tactile to at least other spiritual beings and even spiritual objects, as spirits even wear cloths.

As far as whether humans can touch spirit matter, the Holy Spirit [Ruah: spirit/wind] is a being able to interact with matter such as the wind on the day of Pentecost; or grab Ezekiel and Christ to transport them (or just spirited them away), and bringing dust to life. Or the spirit of the Lord-God who is able to eat Abraham's bread and wrestle Jacob, or Satan wrestled Joseph Smith in the Grove. It might be a not-so substantive substance, difficult to feel, but it seems to be able to exert some force and influence on us.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[gav]

Great! a fellow delver of mysteries...

I've been a bloodless/immortality guy since the '80's. The flesh and bone/flesh and blood thing was something we discussed in some of my Aaronic Priesthood classes back then.

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

John 10:17-19

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

When the atonement was complete or "finished" The Christ wilfully laid down his life...

From James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ

Quote

Jesus, though weakened by long torture during the preceding night and early morning, by the shock of the crucifixion itself, as also by intense mental agony, and particularly through spiritual suffering such as no other man has ever endured, manifested surprising vigor, both of mind and body, to the last. The strong, loud utterance, immediately following which He bowed His head and “gave up the ghost,” when considered in connection with other recorded details, points to a physical rupture of the heart as the direct cause of death. If the soldier’s spear was thrust into the left side of the Lord’s body and actually penetrated the heart, the outrush of “blood and water” observed by John is further evidence of a cardiac rupture; for it is known that in the rare instances of death resulting from a breaking of any part of the wall of the heart, blood accumulates within the pericardium, and there undergoes a change by which the corpuscles separate as a partially clotted mass from the almost colorless, watery serum. Similar accumulations of clotted corpuscles and serum occur within the pleura. Dr. Abercrombie of Edinburgh, as cited by Deems (Light of the Nations, p. 682), “gives a case of the sudden death of a man aged seventy-seven years, owing to a rupture of the heart. In his case ‘the cavities of the pleura contained about three pounds of fluid, but the lungs were sound.’” Deems also cites the following instance: “Dr. Elliotson relates the case of a woman who died suddenly. ‘On opening the body the pericardium was found distended with clear serum, and a very large coagulum of blood, which had escaped through a spontaneous rupture of the aorta near its origin, without any other morbid appearance.’ Many cases might be cited, but these suffice.” For detailed treatment of the subject the student may be referred to Dr. Wm. Stroud’s work On the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Great mental stress, poignant emotion either of grief or joy, and intense spiritual struggle are among the recognized causes of heart rupture.

The present writer believes that the Lord Jesus died of a broken heart. The psalmist sang in dolorous measure according to his inspired prevision of the Lord’s passion: “Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psalm 69:20, 21; see also 22:14.)

No immortal blood equivalent is required before the resurrection. In fact prior to that it would be a hindrance post death and pre resurrection. It would be a hindrance in life, interrupting the usual growth and aging processes, getting tired, getting sick, feeling sad, depressed etc. etc. Jesus descended below all things to experience all thing that he may know how to succor his people.

Alma 7:12

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

Christ not only experienced the infirmities of mortality in Gethsemane and on the cross but throughout his life... he would need blood throughout his life for this. After the resurrection... not so much

Edited January 5, 2023 by gav

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Willy Wonka said it best:

But the Ecclesiast said, “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.”

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

Here’s a guy trying to make what wasn’t  working for himself better.  Not a victim . I’d say this entire site is folly.  Who cares. Enjoy! 

[Rain]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Being a well of multiple and conflicting theories, MustardSeed has inspired me to post more topics more often that are about these doctrinal theories. I often only been posting doctrinal topics as a long and complete thesis. And there was little discussion, because people said it was its length. So, I've resolved to post shorter topics and a few sources to draw from and apply myself to this cause often. I will try to make multiple provocative statements so anyone can go off topic an encourage variant types of discussion.

Today's topic will be the "Bloodless Theory", I mentioned it once and most said they never heard of it.

The recent Come Follow Me topic on Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness. For "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). A resurrected body has "flesh and bones", Jesus' open wounds do not bleed (Luke 24:36–39).

Unlike in neo-platonic Greek philosophy, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is animated, not with blood, but by spirit, there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 367).

"The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50]" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, Pg 273)

"Our Father in heaven and our Savior and all those who have passed through the resurrection have physical bodies of flesh and bones, but their bodies are quickened by spirit and not by blood, hence they are spiritual bodies and not blood bodies. The immortal body is quickened by spirit, but the mortal body is quickened by blood... . Now when Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creations." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 76-77)

It seems for a time, Jesus was impervious, many times people tried to seize Jesus and kill Him. They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but Jesus passed through the midst of crowd they couldn't grab him. (Luke 4:16–30). Another time the Jews picked up stones to execute Jesus by stoning Him to death, but He just passed through the middle of the mob and left (John 8:48–59). Once again, during the middle of a discussion, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death but once again, they couldn't. (John 10:31–39) Only after Gethsemane that they could finally seize and kill him (John 18:1-14).

So, in the Bloodless Theory, it is argued that Jesus was half-immortal, and most all his life he was bloodless and so was unkillable until after Gethsemane, when Jesus' first obtained blood and bled "sweat was as it were great drops of blood," (Luke 22:43-4). In the theory, a physical change occurred, filling him up with blood, so much that it is coming out his pores. This ends his protection, allowing Him to bleed and die. A secondary portion of the theory is when he gets stabbed by a spear what looks like streams of "blood and water" comes out (John 19:34) might be co-mingled mortal and immortal blood. Possible? To help those interested in making counter arguments, they may involve Jesus might have had angelic protection (Luke 4:11), Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and assorted medical theories about water in the lungs, etc.

 

Thank you for posting this.  While I don't have any replies to it at the moment I appreciate the chance to discuss it.  I hope others will participate and I'll keep checking back in.

[manol]

20 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I've heard that Paul essentially had a somewhat similar view to Joseph Smith's views, in that the spirit would have been made of some kind of matter - however, it wouldn't be a tangible thing that you could touch. The resurrected "wind body" or "spirit body" that is raised from the dead has physicality but it's not solid - that's what Paul meant when he said that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the kingdom. The new body is neither flesh nor blood nor bone, but "wind." 

 

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Indeed, like Lazarus and the rich man or Paul's ascent into heaven as a possible spiritual body that was apparently indistinguishable from his physical body, depicts the spiritual realm that is very similar to ours. Spirits seem rather tactile to at least other spiritual beings and even spiritual objects, as spirits even wear cloths.

As far as whether humans can touch spirit matter, the Holy Spirit [Ruah: spirit/wind] is a being able to interact with matter such as the wind on the day of Pentecost; or grab Ezekiel and Christ to transport them (or just spirited them away), and bringing dust to life. Or the spirit of the Lord-God who is able to eat Abraham's bread and wrestle Jacob, or Satan wrestled Joseph Smith in the Grove. It might be a not-so substantive substance, difficult to feel, but it seems to be able to exert some force and influence on us.

In addition, there are modern-day accounts of ordinary people seeing or otherwise interacting with Jesus Christ, usually in the Spirit world (during a near-death experience) but occasionally in this one.  I have not come across any which directly address whether Christ's resurrected body has blood in its veins; the emphasis of these accounts tends to be on other things, as one might expect.  For anyone interested (and I find these EXTREMELY interesting), here are two video compilations of such accounts, cued up to skip the interviewer's introduction:

https://youtu.be/jC2rgxhn_nU?t=69  The last account took place in a church and included brief physical contact. 

https://youtu.be/LEgFmfDDG6g?t=62  My understanding is that the woman in the fifth account, Betty Eadie, is LDS.

Edited January 5, 2023 by manol

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

It has been LDS belief that Jesus is a literal and natural son of the Father (often a source of confusion from non-members sees sources as "Mormon Doctrine" as referring to conception, i.e. "sex with Mary", instead he was miraculously conceived, but is a natural son of a physical embodied God, which is the unique belief. It is opposing the idea that Jesus was "100% man" at odds with his spiritual self, like at Gethsemane. Physically, Jesus is a Demi-God, he inherited physically and physiological traits of an immortal.

What are immortal traits? What causes immortality? Bloodlessness.

So, did Jesus have a belly button? If so, then what (other than blood) could have possibly been transmitted to him through the umbilical chord from Mary during gestation?

 

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, did Jesus have a belly button? If so, then what (other than blood) could have possibly been transmitted to him through the umbilical chord from Mary during gestation?

 

Oh, good one, sir. Hmmm, perhaps one could rope the Virgin Mary into the bloodless theory. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception designates the belief that the Virgin Mary was born very special. The Gospel of James says she was miraculously conceived of Anne. Though the same problem you suggested would apply for Mary's belly button. Perhaps during Jesus' conception and the Holy Spirit fell on Mary, its plausible she was Transfigured for all the pregnancy... Transfigured beings like Moses have inhuman physiological changes, Moses was able to not need food or water for 40 days. But she might of also of had a glow if that were so, it would be hard not to notice, unless she vailed up.

You also help bring attention to another issue, as a part of Mary, the cutting of the umbilical cord and being circumcised, should constitute physical "harm" to his theoretically 'impervious' pre-Gethsemane self.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Pyreaux

[SeekerB]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We cannot limit God to using only science we can presently understand, like how to resurrect a body from 5000 year old dust scattered to the winds thousands ago.

I recall Brigham Young saying something about needing to keep track of all the parts of bodies that aren't buried, like those who drowned or were eaten by wild beasts or sharks. But he had never heard of DNA. I think all that is needed to make a resurrected body is the person's DNA pattern, something I'm sure is stored in a database somewhere up there.

[MrShorty]

Can I speculate wildly? I'm kind of developing this as I type, so I hope it ends up being coherent.

Is it possible that this whole "blood as the main carrier of mortality and disease, and something other than blood is what makes us immortal" theory is an outgrowth of the old humorist theories (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism )? According to Wikipedia, these humorist theories (that health and wellness was determined by balances/imbalances in different "humors" (fluids) in the body) were prominent/dominant until the mid to late 19th century when the germ theory of disease began to take over. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would have likely believed in the basic idea that blood/humors are a critical part of being mortal. Would they, then, naturally be drawn towards theories that believe that Christ would have been without corruptible humors/blood until the time came for Him to die? Would they also be drawn to speculate that our own process of going from mortal to immortal involves completely replacing these corruptible humors that can too easily get out of balance with a substance/element that cannot get out of balance?

When we talk about the flat earth, geocentric cosmology of Genesis, we often say that Moses received the revelation in those kinds of terms because Moses and the ancient Israelites would only be able to understand a flat earth, geocentric cosmology. We say that God speaks to us in our language so that we will understand. Is it possible that our own founding prophets latched onto ideas about health and wellness that they understood and used those as a basis for speculating about the nature of Christ's earthly and heavenly bodies and even about our own earthly and heavenly bodies? Latch onto ideas consistent with what they knew/believed about health and wellness to speculate about what makes a body mortal and immortal?

Of course, we have a much more sophisticated understanding about how the body works. Physiology and biochemistry tell us in great detail how food is digested and how energy is stored and moved through the body and how DNA orchestrates the process through RNA and proteins and on and on and on until your head is spinning. We have a much different idea of how a body works and what goes wrong when a body gets sick, and our understanding doesn't really map well at all onto a humorist model. Are we expected to take this bloodless theory as literal scientific fact, or is it possible that, like geocentric cosmologies in our scriptures, they are there as a way of explaining that something about Christ's mortal body was different than us pure mortals and that our mortal bodies will somehow be different from our resurrected bodies?

[Peacefully]

13 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

I recall Brigham Young saying something about needing to keep track of all the parts of bodies that aren't buried, like those who drowned or were eaten by wild beasts or sharks. But he had never heard of DNA. I think all that is needed to make a resurrected body is the person's DNA pattern, something I'm sure is stored in a database somewhere up there.

Yes! I will be cremated, but I figure my spirit will find my resurrected body. I love the idea of a huge db up there. We may find that instead of everyone wearing robes and looking like they lived 2000 years ago., the will wear clothing that is far advanced (if they wear clothing, lol) 

[manol]

18 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Yes! I will be cremated...

Thinking outside the box, I see...

[Pyreaux]

14 minutes ago, manol said:

Thinking outside the box, I see...

.... And into the urn? Cremation... I think that would make an interesting topic.

[Calm]

No formaldehyde… I have enough chemicals in me already, I don’t want to be pickled too.  No locked box restricting movement (I have restless legs syndrome and not being able to move is one of my persistent nightmares…think of the buried up to your neck and having honey poured over your head to attract ants torture scenes, but upside down, the ants are all over everything below the neck).  
 

I like the symbolism of releasing the spirit up through the smoke, but doesn’t exactly work with today’s incinerator version…still up in smoke but watch it come out of a pipe in the roof isn’t the same as watching flames engulfed the body, etc.

However, am very partial to getting planted in a green pod and let nature turn me into dirt.  And having tree roots grow around my remains.  Maybe a mole or two take up residence in my bones.  I really like that thought.  Only way I am going to get “back to nature” these days, lol.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Calm

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No formaldehyde… I have enough chemicals in me already, I don’t want to be pickled too.  No locked box restricting movement (I have restless legs syndrome and not being able to move is one of my persistent nightmares…think of the buried up to your neck and having honey poured over your head to attract ants torture scenes, but upside down, the ants are all over everything below the neck).  
 

I like the symbolism of releasing the spirit up through the smoke, but doesn’t exactly work with today’s incinerator version…still up in smoke but watch it come out of a pipe in the roof isn’t the same as watching flames engulfed the body, etc.

However, am very partial to getting planted in a green pod and let nature turn me into dirt.  And having tree roots grow around my remains.  Maybe a mole or two take up residence in my bones.  I really like that thought.  Only way I am going to get “back to nature” these days, lol.

I wanted the option of being part of the Neptune Memorial Reef but it is very expensive. I’ll just let them scatter me in the gulf at Galveston. I like the idea of staying close to Texas, although, who knows where my ashes will end up:) 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Peacefully

[mfbukowski]

On 1/4/2023 at 6:04 PM, teddyaware said:

I’ve decided that from now I’m rarely going to post on this board because I’ve come to the determination that doing so is an exercise in frustration and too often a unproductive waste of time. But I’m making one of the rare exceptions on this thread because its premise is so absurd that I find it very difficult to stop myself from responding.

Did you ever stop to think that it might be a good idea to check first with the scriptures to see if this theory squares with the word of God before starting this thread?

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say,whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1)

and…

 

33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (John 19) 

 

I totally understand, but I hope you stay. We may not always agree but you are a good and strong poster.