Did Christ sweat blood?

[DapperDan]

Seems like a pretty weak chiasmus to me. He kneeled down then he got up. He move away from his disciples, then he came back. Isn't that just telling the story in the order thing happened?

Also, does your footnote say that the section on blood sweat was not found in other sources, or not found in the earlier sources. This seems like a big distinction, and based on your post, you may have made a leap that wast there.

This being a later addition seems to be a somewhat commonly held position among NT scholars. In a lecture series on the NT I listened to earlier this year the professor* mentioned this addition in passing and didn't seem to think it was too controversial.

* It was either Luke Timothy Johnson or Bart D. Ehrman. I want to say it was LTJ because I've listened to him more recently, but I've listened to multiple lecture series from both so they tend to muddle together.

[taekwondave]

Seems like a pretty weak chiasmus to me. He kneeled down then he got up. He move away from his disciples, then he came back. Isn't that just telling the story in the order thing happened?

Also, does your footnote say that the section on blood sweat was not found in other sources, or not found in the earlier sources. This seems like a big distinction, and based on your post, you may have made a leap that wast there.

Weak, maybe, but I would be curious how many others can be found in the same book, and if that looking for them would shed more light on what other things may have been added later, or if this was just a fluke. Anybody who could shed light on that would get my vote.

[Moliere]

It's a mixed audience and runs the spectrum from atheist to convinced practicing Mormon. Moliere's question was poorly crafted. It should have been, "According to the New Testament accounts, did Christ sweat blood?"

That question would have gotten 2 maybe 3 responses since it's pretty clear those verses were not part of the earliest texts. My question opens it up to more discussion. Your suggested question is the poorly crafted one.

I'm not looking for the correct answer, I'm looking for a discussion with facts, opinions, and maybe some scholarship-type responses.

[taekwondave]

Unless you're Michelle Bachman. You'll never get my vote.

[Moliere]

Weak, maybe, but I would be curious how many others can be found in the same book, and if that looking for them would shed more light on what other things may have been added later, or if this was just a fluke. Anybody who could shed light on that would get my vote.

My understanding is there is little chiasmus inthe NT, thus this one sticks out. I can only think of one other in John 1, but I'm not a scholar so that's definitely not an authoritative statement.

As for the footnote it says "Other ancient authorities lack verses 43 and 44" but if you read other sources (as DD pointed out) it appears the more ancient and authoritative sources lack the verses.

[byu71]

Unless you're Michelle Bachman. You'll never get my vote.

Bachman as POTUS has started catching on with me. I used to give her 0% shot at winning the Presidency. I have moved it up to a .5% chance.

[LA Ute]

That question would have gotten 2 maybe 3 responses since it's pretty clear those verses were not part of the earliest texts. My question opens it up to more discussion. Your suggested question is the poorly crafted one.

I'm not looking for the correct answer, I'm looking for a discussion with facts, opinions, and maybe some scholarship-type responses.

I could have worded it better, but substantively I asked the question you are asking. You seem to want an answer based on a critical analysis of the NT, which is fine, but the way you've titled this thread suggests otherwise. Nothing wrong with your inquiry, but I think wuap and I can be forgiven for scratching our heads and saying, "Well, what about D&C 19:18?"

[Moliere]

I could have worded it better, but substantively I asked the question you are asking. You seem to want an answer based on a critical analysis of the NT, which is fine, but the way you've titled this thread suggests otherwise. Nothing wrong with your inquiry, but I think wuap and I can be forgiven for scratching our heads and saying, "Well, what about D&C 19:18?"

That was the point of the question. I almost put D&C 19 into the original post but I figured some of the smarter crowd would bring it into the discussion. My question isn't so much "does the NT say Christ sweat blood?" but more "given that Luke 22:43-44 is likely not original how does this impact the way you view D&C 19 or other references to the bloody sweat by modern day prophets?"

I could have done the same with the story of the woman taken in adultery (which is likely not original) or the last couple verses of Mark (also likely not original) that are contained in the BoM but the bloody sweat is more interesting given its connection with canonized modern-day revelation. But if you and wuap want to just appeal to religious authority that's fine, however it surprises me.

[LA Ute]

That was the point of the question. I almost put D&C 19 into the original post but I figured some of the smarter crowd would bring it into the discussion. My question isn't so much "does the NT say Christ sweat blood?" but more "given that Luke 22:43-44 is likely not original how does this impact the way you view D&C 19 or other references to the bloody sweat by modern day prophets?"

I could have done the same with the story of the woman taken in adultery (which is likely not original) or the last couple verses of Mark (also likely not original) that are contained in the BoM but the bloody sweat is more interesting given its connection with canonized modern-day revelation. But if you and wuap want to just appeal to religious authority that's fine, however it surprises me.

I simply thought your question contemplated revelatory sources as well.

[taekwondave]

I simply thought your question contemplated revelatory sources as well.

I think I've figured out that you are, indeed, a male as well. It would really be nice if the avatars of males and females on this site could reflect that. It would save me some embarrassing comments I think. The face in your avatar is a woman and it really throws me off. Same with bluehair apparently. I see Katy Perry but I hear Matthew Perry. Makes my head hurt.

[Moliere]

I simply thought your question contemplated revelatory sources as well.

I'm a complicated man

[Northwestcoug]

Doesn't D&C 19:18 make it pretty clear? He says his suffering caused him to "bleed at every pore."

That was the point of the question. I almost put D&C 19 into the original post but I figured some of the smarter crowd would bring it into the discussion. My question isn't so much "does the NT say Christ sweat blood?" but more "given that Luke 22:43-44 is likely not original how does this impact the way you view D&C 19 or other references to the bloody sweat by modern day prophets?"

I could have done the same with the story of the woman taken in adultery (which is likely not original) or the last couple verses of Mark (also likely not original) that are contained in the BoM but the bloody sweat is more interesting given its connection with canonized modern-day revelation. But if you and wuap want to just appeal to religious authority that's fine, however it surprises me.

Well, haven't we cannonized the fascimiles of the Book of Abraham? If we can agree that Joseph's interpretation of them is completely inaccurate, can't we at least explore the possibility that the language of other cannonized scripture might not be the "gospel truth"?

[hostile]

sweating blood seems physiologically impossible. then again, so does resurrection.

There was an article several years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association (or New England Journal of Medicine. I can't remember which) that discussed the physical aspects of Christ's death. One thing they discussed was "sweating blood" and compared it to other documented instances of similar symptoms. I'll see if I can track down the article.

[LA Ute]

I think I've figured out that you are, indeed, a male as well. It would really be nice if the avatars of males and females on this site could reflect that. It would save me some embarrassing comments I think. The face in your avatar is a woman and it really throws me off. Same with bluehair apparently. I see Katy Perry but I hear Matthew Perry. Makes my head hurt.

The old-time Postum ad (from 1910) just struck me as funny when I saw it.



[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postum"]Postum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Postum_Advertisement_1910.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Postum_Advertisement_1910.jpg/220px-Postum_Advertisement_1910.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/18/Postum_Advertisement_1910.jpg/220px-Postum_Advertisement_1910.jpg[/ame]

[taekwondave]

Whether it is documented as possible doesn't actually prove that Christ indeed did so though. It proves that if Christ were just a regular human that it was possible, but not that it happened. But most believers don't think he was a regular human and so that point is moot anyway because even if it WASN'T possible for a regular human, they could just cite the belief that he wasn't a regular human. I think the point of this is not to find out whether any other people have sweat blood, although perhaps they have, but to find out whether the original document said he did, or if it were added in later, which we know was something that happened all the time.