Bleeding from every pore

[UtahDan]

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.

I think you would enjoy the articles I mentioned above. Here is an excerpt from Ehrman, who argues that Luke 22:43-44 are interpolations (later additions). He argues it on numerous grounds, but this one the is closest to what you are talking about.

The critical theological issue concerns whether Luke sought to portray Jesus facing his death with fear and trembling or with cool equanimity. Brun suggested that the saying at Luke 12:50, together with the frequent emphasis on the suffering Son of Man, compels the former conclusion.29 Such a depiction of Jesus would be consistent with Luke 22:43-44. Nevertheless, it can be convincingly argued, as Jerome Neyrey has done recently,30 that Luke actually presents Jesus as emotionally restrained, without λύπη or φόβος. In the scene on the Mount of Olives, Luke omits any mention of Jesus' fear or sorrow (cf. Mark 14:33-34), depicts Jesus as kneeling rather than falling on the ground (Luke 22:41; cf. Mark 14:35), omits Jesus' prayer for the hour to pass (cf. Mark 14:35), and adds an important condition, εί βούλει, to the prayer for God to remove the cup from him (Luke 22:42; cf. Mark 14:36). Elsewhere in Luke's passion narrative as well, Jesus is in control of himself and the situation: he does not allow Judas' kiss (22:48); he talks with women along the via dolorosa (23:28-31); he forgives his executioners (23:34, but another textual problem); he converses with the two thieves while on the cross (23:29-43); and instead of uttering the awful cry of dereliction (Mark 15:34-35) he commits his soul to the Father, apparently in control even of the time of his death (23:46).

Only Luke 12:50 could serve as a counterexample to the predominant portrayal of Jesus as facing death with equanimity: βάπτισμα (Εχω βαπτισθή-ναι, καί πώς συνέχομαι δως δτου τελεσθη. But even if συνέχομαι were to be rendered psychologically as "afflicted" (which itself is doubtful; cf. RSV "constrained"), Luke does not say that the συνοχή is because of the passion, but that it is until the passion is completed. Hence the συνοχή applies not to the passion itself, but to Jesus' ministry prior to the passion. Read in the context of 12:49, the verse signifies Jesus' longing to fulfill his mission in Jerusalem.

Given this understanding of Jesus' calmness in the face of his death, 22:43-44 appears to be theologically intrusive in its context. In all of Luke's passion narrative, only here is Jesus portrayed as out of control; only here does he fail to approach his fate with calm assurance.

[Mosiah2.41]

It is possible to bleed from every pore.

I just listened to a lady tell us how Jesus truly bled from every pore, not figuratively. Belabored the topic with a bunch of GA quotes. Was pretty condescending to those of us that believe it was figurative bleeding.

I say, baloney. Suppose there are 1 trillion pores. Bleeding "great drops of blood" from every pore would be 20 drops per mL. 1000 mL per liter leaves us with...50 million liters of blood.

Average human has 5 liters of blood. 1 liter of water is defined as 1 kg. blood and water have similar densities. So, Jesus would have bled 50 million kilos, or 110 million pounds of blood. Imagine Jesus was an awesome 6' 10", that means his BMI is nearly 200 million.

The New Testament indicates that Jesus underwent hematidrosis before the Crucifixion of Jesus, during the Agony in the Garden (Luke 22:44).[7][8] These claims are plausible, given that the modern day dermatological research notes the presence of hematidrosis in people awaiting execution.[9]

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

[Clark Addison]

Let's see your response to that doctorcoug!

[Northwestcoug]

I learned a new word today.

[Walter Sobchak]

The New Testament indicates that Jesus underwent hematidrosis before the Crucifixion of Jesus, during the Agony in the Garden (Luke 22:44).[7][8] These claims are plausible, given that the modern day dermatological research notes the presence of hematidrosis in people awaiting execution.[9]

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

Looks like someone stumbled onto this site while preparing for a Sac talk for tmro. Good luck Mosiah!

[Bo Diddley]

Looks like someone stumbled onto this site while preparing for a Sac talk for tmro. Good luck Mosiah!

And for the sake of your testimony, STAY AWAY!

[Solon]

The New Testament indicates that Jesus underwent hematidrosis before the Crucifixion of Jesus, during the Agony in the Garden (Luke 22:44).[7][8] These claims are plausible, given that the modern day dermatological research notes the presence of hematidrosis in people awaiting execution.[9]

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

This is the worst first-time post ever.

[smokymountainrain]

This is the worst first-time post ever.

Oh c'mon, it was kinda funny.

[San Juan Sun]

This is the worst first-time post ever.

Bizarre to first-time post about (unless you are grapevine). Bizarre when you cite Wikipedia. More bizarre when you actually read the Wikipedia footnote links and realize just how tenuous the Wikipedia claims are.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You guys are jerks. No way we see post #2 now.

[Eddie]

You guys are jerks. No way we see post #2 now.

Seriously. I thought doctorcoug's post was much more out there. Is he seriously trying to measure the volume of "as if it were great drops"? I'm guessing that no one actually went up to him and measured these things to make sure they had a completely accurate record for later.

[hostile]

Seriously. I thought doctorcoug's post was much more out there. Is he seriously trying to measure the volume of "as if it were great drops"? I'm guessing that no one actually went up to him and measured these things to make sure they had a completely accurate record for later.

Had he been there, I'm sure doctorcoug would have recorded the data.

[falafel]

Seriously. I thought doctorcoug's post was much more out there. Is he seriously trying to measure the volume of "as if it were great drops"? I'm guessing that no one actually went up to him and measured these things to make sure they had a completely accurate record for later.

I liked when he decided that "Bleeding 'great drops of blood' from every pore would be 20 drops per mL." No "about" 20 drops per mL. Straight up 20 drops per mL, as if "great drops" were a defined scientific measurement.

[Bo Diddley]

So would bleeding great drops from every pore be so impossible that it would be considered a miracle if it actually happened?

[creekster]

putting aside the every pore stuff from the BOM and D&C for a minute, what does the text from Luke mean? His sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood. "As it were"? What does that mean there? Is that an effort to say that the writer realizes it really wasn't blood, but that it was a really heavy sweat, or was he trying to emphasize just how hard the task that was being observed (the atonement) really was to Christ? Can one of you Greek speakers explain if the translation giving us "as it were" might have some sort of meaning or offer some insight into the following clause?

Also, I find it sort of amusing that this thread acts as though the fact that the drops of blood verses were likely added long after the original text means they aren't accurate or have less legitimacy. Heck, Luke wasn't even there. In fact, he doesnt even claim to have been there. The gospel wasnt even written at all for decades after Christ's death. So if the whole thing is essentially inspired text (which it must be if you believe it) why couldnt there be some inspired augmentation later on? Maybe it's just me.