Bleeding from every pore

[pellegrino]

What a silly discussion to have at Church.

"Like anyone can even know that, Kip."

this is the best post of the entire thread.

[Katy Lied]

Seems a little odd to me to accept, on the one hand, the notion that Christ, an immortal being, vicariously took upon himself the sins, pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind; and then on the other hand to question whether he could possibly have emitted some blood from every pore during the performance of such an act.

I wonder that every time some Baptist scoffs at Mormon ideology.

[All-American]

Incidentally, the clinical term for bleeding from pores is hematidrosis.

Hematidrosis (also called hematohidrosis) is a very rare condition in which a human being sweats blood. It may occur when a person is suffering extreme levels of stress, for example, facing his or her own death.[1] Several historical references have been described; notably by Leonardo da Vinci: describing a soldier who sweated blood before battle, men unexpectedly given a death sentence, as well as descriptions in the Bible, that Jesus experienced hematidrosis when he was praying in the garden of Gethsemane . . . .

"Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form. Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture. The blood goes into the sweat glands. As the sweat glands are producing a lot of sweat, it pushes the blood to the surface - coming out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis[/ame]

[creekster]

this is the best post of the entire thread.

I agree, although in the movie it was a comment by Kip not addresses to him.

[Goatnapper'96]

I agree, although in the movie it was a comment by Kip not addresses to him.

Why did they name him that? Aaaaargh!

[Moliere]

BTW, that line is not found in any of the earliest NT manuscripts. It was added later.

Here's a thread started by one of my favorite posters on this board that discusses this....

Actually, that line isn't in the later manuscripts of the NT, either; it just says that his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. The "bleed from every pore" line comes from the book of Mormon and the D&C.

Yes, and I posited before that the verses from the BoM and D&C quite likely drew their idea from Luke, which was likely not part of the original text.....which brings up interesting questions. It seems to me though, and I'm obviously speculating, that the additions to the Luke account take the suffering a little bit further to give the reader more sympathy for Christ or maybe to anthropomorphisize him better. Then the BoM and D&C authors then take the Luke account just a little bit further (basically indulging) to add even more emphasis to the pain and suffering. Basically it's a game of "who can make the Savior seem to suffer more" with the latest scriptural context winning.

[cougjunkie]

Incidentally, the clinical term for bleeding from pores is hematidrosis.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis

Doctorcoug just got out doctored by a lawyer. HaHa!

[Flystripper]

[LA Ute]

[TripletDaddy]

not so fast. This is a very critical issue!

[UtahDan]

Seems a little odd to me to accept, on the one hand, the notion that Christ, an immortal being, vicariously took upon himself the sins, pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind; and then on the other hand to question whether he could possibly have emitted some blood from every pore during the performance of such an act.

I agree that it is a bit angels on the head of a pin. To me the issue is trying to make literal something (at least in Luke) that is a literary device. There has been a lot of ink spilled on this. I have a good article by Bart Ehrman that addresses it, in part, as well as an opposing view by Christopher Tuckett out of Oxford.

There is a lot of debate about whether Luke is even really saying Jesus suffered. Another translation of the same word is more like struggle, as in performing a great feat or act and the copious sweat (which is compared to blood to emphasize that it was really a lot of sweat) fits in better with that. Also fits in better with other Greek martyr narratives (Luke was written by a Greek speaker).

[jlwalden]

Well, the bible would also have you believe in magic--a witch brings an old Israelite king back from the dead in the scriptures and many scriptures that preach against witchcraft denote that magic indeed exists in order to be against it. Do you believe that that is "figurative" magic? What is figurative magic exactly?

[woot]

Seems a little odd to me to accept, on the one hand, the notion that Christ, an immortal being, vicariously took upon himself the sins, pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind; and then on the other hand to question whether he could possibly have emitted some blood from every pore during the performance of such an act.

Agreed, but it also seems a little odd to me to insist that not only did Christ take upon himself the pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind, but also that blood came out of his pores! The latter is so trivial relative to the former that it just doesn't matter.

Particularly given that the gospels don't actually report it happening, it doesn't seem to be doctrinally or theologically of any value, and represents yet another implausible occurrence for those who have a hard time with unnecessary magical happenings. Blood coming from every pore is impossible unless by magic, but it wouldn't have served any purpose. Wouldn't god be more judicious with his magical powers?

[Moliere]

Agreed, but it also seems a little odd to me to insist that not only did Christ take upon himself the pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind, but also that blood came out of his pores! The latter is so trivial relative to the former that it just doesn't matter.

Particularly given that the gospels don't actually report it happening, it doesn't seem to be doctrinally or theologically of any value, and represents yet another implausible occurrence for those who have a hard time with unnecessary magical happenings. Blood coming from every pore is impossible unless by magic, but it wouldn't have served any purpose. Wouldn't god be more judicious with his magical powers?

I offered up a response to this issue once and it likely got buried.

I think it has tremendous value, even if it is false or misleading. The thought that Christ "sweat blood" humanizes the suffering in a way that we can better understand. It anthropomorphizes him and thus helps us relate a bit to what he went through. I'm not an expert, but I'd be willing to guess that it was added as a way to help people connect more with his suffering.

But of course, once the "sweat blood" verses were inserted, the BoM and D&C took it even further (and probably too far) by saying he sweat blood from every pore. I doubt the writers of the BoM and D&C really meant for this to be taken literally and instead wanted to emphasize the suffering even more than what was currenly in the Bible.

[LA Ute]

Agreed, but it also seems a little odd to me to insist that not only did Christ take upon himself the pains, heartache and suffering of all generations of mankind, but also that blood came out of his pores! The latter is so trivial relative to the former that it just doesn't matter.

Particularly given that the gospels don't actually report it happening, it doesn't seem to be doctrinally or theologically of any value, and represents yet another implausible occurrence for those who have a hard time with unnecessary magical happenings. Blood coming from every pore is impossible unless by magic, but it wouldn't have served any purpose. Wouldn't god be more judicious with his magical powers?

You make some good points. Bottom line for me is that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the literality (is that a word?) of the account. My point was that those who do make a big deal out of whether this really happened (I happen to believe it did, but that's just me) are straining at a gnat (whether or not He bled from every pore) while swallowing a camel (His atonement).