bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Christ sweat blood?  (Read 12344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

YellowStone

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2007, 01:44:51 PM »

Kat,

My dear sister you have outlined it perfectly. Jesus was a MAN, a perfect man but still a man.

Who could possibly know what agony he experienced, for we can only imagine but are yet clueless because surely our senses have been numbed due the sin in us. The same sin that he was without.

It matters little if Jesus while praying sweated blood or sweat tainted with blood or if the only used it figuratively, but as others have mentioned and Joe shown, this phenonoman is not unknown.

The real question is whether or not the understanding of this passage  (luke 22:44) distracts from the real message and Kat you pointed out the focul point perfectly. "He was in agony, because He knew what He was going to endure. "

Whether or not his sweat contained blood is irelevant to the true message. Perhaps his agony was also fueled by the knowlede that even with his ministry and the years spent teaching his disciples, they still didn't get it and 2000 years later, there are only a few more that do. (not saying that I am one of them) :)

Thanks Kat :)

Your brother in Christ,
Darren

« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 01:55:20 PM by YellowStone »
Logged

Bill

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2007, 02:55:09 PM »


Luke 22:44 and, coming to be in an agony, more intensely, was he praying; and his perspiration became, as if great drops of blood, falling upon the ground.

In my opinion, it is the first part of this verse that brings some understanding.
He was in agony, because He knew what He was going to endure.  Not only was He aware of this means of execution, but as God of the OT He had first hand knowledge of it. 
Now some might would think that as God in flesh, He could just spiritually raise above this suffering on the cross.  But this strongly indicates he could not, He was in 'agony' over what He was physically going to endure.  He was going to feel the pain and suffer to the extent that He was going to die from it, just like any man would.  Nobody could say, sure He died but He was God, so it was different.
So I am looking at how this shows His distress and the humanity of our Lord, at this grave point in His soon to end life on earth.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat



Hi Kat,

I agree with what you have said and I think most of Christianity would also agree.  But one thing I have learned from reading much of Rays work is that there is usually multiple layers to what is written.  Most people will just look at what is physically written and over look the spiritual side.  This is something I have and still am struggling with, which is seeing the deeper meaning in some things in the scriptures.   So if we try to look at this at a deep spiritual level is there a deeper meaning to Luke 22:44.  To be honest I do not know and perhaps I am try to dig to deep where there is not anything there.


God Bless


Bill
Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2007, 04:33:58 PM »


Hi Bill,

I think you are right about there being "multiple layers" to the scripture.  Many only can see the physical now, but when your eyes are opened you do begin to see beyond the physical to the spiritual.  And even with the understanding of the spiritual, I think you continue to see it to a deeper and deeper degree.
I will say I am still at the spiritual level where I have to be shown most all of these spiritual truths. 
It's like reading Ray articles, the first time I read it I gain a lot I didn't know, the next time I see things I didn't see the first time, and this continues with every reading.
But even when shown these profound truths most still do not see it, so I feel quite blessed.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 08:42:00 PM by Kat »
Logged

Brett

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2007, 06:57:13 PM »

From the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer the word AS-IF is found in 20 different verses in the NT.


Hi Arcturus,

Yes, I see 'as if', too. But I do not understand what is mean 'as if'? Is that mean, 'whether' or 'either'? Maybe I said 'Like' could be not right :-\.

Thank you,

Brett
Logged

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2007, 07:45:06 PM »

Hello Brett

I think that AS-IF means as you say..."like" and my post simply was to add to what you observed too!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)

Logged

hillsbororiver

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2007, 11:40:05 PM »

It is my belief that our Lord did experience an exteme amount of stress that none of us can even begin to imagine.

In an earlier response I named the medical term for this;


hematidrosis /he·ma·tid·ro·sis/ (he?mah-tid-ro´sis) excretion of bloody sweat. (Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers)

We have learned that virtually everything in scripture whether a literal event or prophetic is in fact a parable of a deeper spiritual truth, I am not going to expound on my feeling or even speculate as to what this deeper truth might be but I did want to throw some other points and scriptures into the mix.

 1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

What exactly is sweat? It is primarily water and salt, what is one of the uses of salt in scripture, what is salt's place in regard to sacrifice?

Lev 2:13  And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Did our Lord salt the fulfilment of all sacrifices with the salt of His own Body?


Another interesting bit;
 
Heb 9:19  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,

Joh 19:29  Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth.

Joh 19:34  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Is there another scripture that testifies to John 19:34?

His Peace to you,

Joe

Logged

Brett

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2007, 01:47:49 AM »

Hi Joe,

Good post. Sometimes I wonder what it mean in John 19:34  "...spear pierced his side and forthwith came there out blood and water." (sorry I couldn't find another scripture testifies in John 19:34), is that something about what kind of blood look alike? Like thin blood came from heart and other thick blood (with out water) came from somewhere in body?

Or other: is that mean only Jesus had water and blood or both Him and all humans too?

I'm just learning and wondering. Thanks for brought up, Joe :).

Brett

« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 03:09:07 AM by Brett »
Logged

Brett

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2007, 01:49:31 AM »

Hello Brett

I think that AS-IF means as you say..."like" and my post simply was to add to what you observed too!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)



Arcturus, Thank you ;).

Brett :D
Logged

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2007, 03:02:43 AM »

Hello Joe

Thank you for the edifying scriptures and thoughts.

1 Cor 11 : 25 Similarly when supper was ended, He took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant, ratified and established in MY BLOOD. do this as often as you drink it, to call Me affectionately to remembrance.

John 7 : 38 He who believes in Me, who cleaves to and trusts in and relies on Me, as the Scripture has said, From his innermost being shall flow continuously, springs and rivers of living water.

These may have some bearing on John 19 : 34. In fact I think the whole Bible is the witness to that scripture especially Revelations!

My pleasure Brett!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 03:03:52 AM by Arcturus »
Logged

Pax Vobiscum

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2007, 11:52:55 AM »

I can look up the references if you wish, but my recollection is that the sweating of blood (bleeding of sweat?) was not recorded earlier than the Latin Vulgate.  Since many translations used the Vulgate as their primary source, the entries continued.

Hi Pax,

If you would not mind I would be interested in hearing more one this.  When you have the time of course. 

If it is true that you feel it was added and is not scripture why do you feel it was added?

Thanks


Well, Bill here’s my two cents on Lk 22:43-44 – remember, you asked for it!

OK, Jesus is on the Mount of Olives the night he was to be arrested and betrayed (of course we know that the Gospels disagree on which night of the week this was).  Jesus enlists his disciples to “pray, lest you enter into temptation” which is a provocative statement in its own context.  Jesus gets on His knees and prays, “Father, if it be Your will…” (anyone want to kick around the non-existence of the Trinity?).

Next comes an event, recorded only in the Third Gospel, in which Jesus is to have “bloody sweat.”  This account is in many early manuscripts, but more on that in a bit.  This thread has already explored the comparative “Like/As” and that needs no reinforcement here.  However, you asked you asked for a more thorough examination of the disputed passage.

When comparing ancient texts, especially when trying to figure out which manuscript is the purest manuscript, many attributes need to be considered.  Chief among them is “shortest wins the day.”  That is to say that the most conservative telling of a tale often enjoys a slight edge over the longer version.

Let’s make up an example that may clarify this point.  Let’s recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  “… one nation, under God, indivisible…”    is published and re-published and is an accepted phrase within this oath.  Perhaps an archivist looks in the Congressional Record and finds the earliest authorized account to date – yet this account has only the phrase “…one nation, indivisible…”  Hmm…

We have three options at this point:  1) “Under God” was added at some later time to assert some agenda, 2) There could perhaps be an undiscovered earliest account which contains “under God,” which leads to 3) Somebody forgot to write “under God” in this earliest account when copying it.  Like I said, in textual criticism option one holds the lead as the most likely explanation.

So, if you are still reading this, let’s get back to our topic…

When we look at this section of the Third Gospel, there are great and accepted manuscripts in which the majorities contain and some others omit the “sweaty blood” reference.  While the majority manuscripts speak loud, the manuscripts which do not contain the “sweaty blood” account are older and just as authentic.  The only thing we can reasonably state is that a corruption of the original text occurred – we just cannot be sure which the corrupted Scripture is.  We can tell when the corruption occurred, however.

If the verses in question were added later, it must have occurred in the middle of the second century (the “100’s” if you will).  We know this because the verses are attested by such early fathers as Justin, Irenaeus, and other Latin and Syriac writings.  If these verses are original, they would have been deleted in roughly the same time period.  These verses are not found in Clement and are missing from the Alexandrian manuscripts which are considered to be the writings of earlier traditions.

There is a considerable body of writings which debate the style and word choices of the disputed passage.  While they are elegant arguments, they are ultimately inconclusive.

So, from a literary criticism perspective, all we can conclude is that a corruption occurred.  We just cannot be precise in determining which the corruption is.  But there is a theological spin in action here which may prove interesting when considering why the corruption took place.

One writer disputes 43-4 in a contextual schema – the writer of the Third Gospel has gone to great lengths to present a condemned Jesus who is calm, in control, and confident of the Father’s Will.  Jesus is the strong, silent type right up to the end.  Now here’s where it gets interesting….

We know that Mark is the earliest written Gospel.  Many believe it is reasonable that Luke knew of Mark’s writing and used it as a source for his own Gospel.  Comparing Mark’s and Luke accounts of the Passion then becomes instructive.  Mark paints a very different picture of the condemned Jesus.  Luke, to produce this stalwart Jesus had to leave out big chunks of Mark’s account to keep Jesus’ stoicism intact – except for 22:43-44!  It is the only place in Luke where Jesus is in such visible agony.

A verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14 shows too many contrasts to go into here – look them up and see for yourself.  Mark has Jesus in agony and despair while Luke (except for 22:43-44) has a confident Jesus headed for a fulfillment of God’s Will. 

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the accounts of the crucifixion.  Mark’s walk to Golgotha is silent; the disciples have fled, and even the faithful women look on from a distance.  Jesus is mocked by the crowd – a man who is beaten, even forsaken by God Almighty!  Mark’s Christology, of course, gave reason for this.  Luke, in contrast has a Jesus who is far from silent.  Here is a Jesus who makes confident claims and pronouncements.  He tells women not to weep for Him – He knows what He must do.  On the cross, He remains calm and forgiving.  He does not cry out “Why have You left me behind?” to His God as He does in Mark; instead, He calls upon His Father to forgive His executioners for they don’t know what they’re doing.

Nowhere else in Luke’s two-volume series do we find any reference to Jesus’ agony -- only in these two disputed verses.  Although it doesn’t alter my theology at all, I am of the mind that those verses were added later.  Many Bible publishers agree and often make notations next to these verses.  This type of thing is usually a stumbling block for those who believe that the Bible is a flawless book.

The “why” question is pretty simple.  Second century Christians believed many different things about Jesus.  There were Docetists (actually there were two main Docetic camps), followers of Marcion, Ebionites, and on and on.  Each with a different Christology.  One of the loudest arguments was the Jesus as Phantasm vs. Jesus as Man debates.  The agony (that Jesus sweat blood, felt pain, was strengthened by angels, etc) was used to “prove” Jesus’ humanity.  That He was “fully human” as it were.  The polemic of “fully human/ fully divine” came much later and after much debate – a theological compromise which I feel is not supported by the Scriptures. 

Making Jesus fully human in the Gospels and possibly adding passages to support this was meant to quash the Docetic movements which were gaining a foothold in early communities.   Making Jesus Fully divine was John’s job.  Have you ever tried to make a decent argument for the divinity of Jesus without using the writings attributed to John?

Anyway, I hope that this lengthy reply is received in the spirit in which I write it – to edify the community of believers who want to know a bit more about our faith.  This was fun and got me reviewing things that I had not considered in a long time.  I hope it helps.

Whew!

Peace

Logged

Bill

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2007, 02:45:45 PM »

I can look up the references if you wish, but my recollection is that the sweating of blood (bleeding of sweat?) was not recorded earlier than the Latin Vulgate.  Since many translations used the Vulgate as their primary source, the entries continued.

Hi Pax,

If you would not mind I would be interested in hearing more one this.  When you have the time of course. 

If it is true that you feel it was added and is not scripture why do you feel it was added?

Thanks


Well, Bill here’s my two cents on Lk 22:43-44 – remember, you asked for it!

OK, Jesus is on the Mount of Olives the night he was to be arrested and betrayed (of course we know that the Gospels disagree on which night of the week this was).  Jesus enlists his disciples to “pray, lest you enter into temptation” which is a provocative statement in its own context.  Jesus gets on His knees and prays, “Father, if it be Your will…” (anyone want to kick around the non-existence of the Trinity?).

Next comes an event, recorded only in the Third Gospel, in which Jesus is to have “bloody sweat.”  This account is in many early manuscripts, but more on that in a bit.  This thread has already explored the comparative “Like/As” and that needs no reinforcement here.  However, you asked you asked for a more thorough examination of the disputed passage.

When comparing ancient texts, especially when trying to figure out which manuscript is the purest manuscript, many attributes need to be considered.  Chief among them is “shortest wins the day.”  That is to say that the most conservative telling of a tale often enjoys a slight edge over the longer version.

Let’s make up an example that may clarify this point.  Let’s recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  “… one nation, under God, indivisible…”    is published and re-published and is an accepted phrase within this oath.  Perhaps an archivist looks in the Congressional Record and finds the earliest authorized account to date – yet this account has only the phrase “…one nation, indivisible…”  Hmm…

We have three options at this point:  1) “Under God” was added at some later time to assert some agenda, 2) There could perhaps be an undiscovered earliest account which contains “under God,” which leads to 3) Somebody forgot to write “under God” in this earliest account when copying it.  Like I said, in textual criticism option one holds the lead as the most likely explanation.

So, if you are still reading this, let’s get back to our topic…

When we look at this section of the Third Gospel, there are great and accepted manuscripts in which the majorities contain and some others omit the “sweaty blood” reference.  While the majority manuscripts speak loud, the manuscripts which do not contain the “sweaty blood” account are older and just as authentic.  The only thing we can reasonably state is that a corruption of the original text occurred – we just cannot be sure which the corrupted Scripture is.  We can tell when the corruption occurred, however.

If the verses in question were added later, it must have occurred in the middle of the second century (the “100’s” if you will).  We know this because the verses are attested by such early fathers as Justin, Irenaeus, and other Latin and Syriac writings.  If these verses are original, they would have been deleted in roughly the same time period.  These verses are not found in Clement and are missing from the Alexandrian manuscripts which are considered to be the writings of earlier traditions.

There is a considerable body of writings which debate the style and word choices of the disputed passage.  While they are elegant arguments, they are ultimately inconclusive.

So, from a literary criticism perspective, all we can conclude is that a corruption occurred.  We just cannot be precise in determining which the corruption is.  But there is a theological spin in action here which may prove interesting when considering why the corruption took place.

One writer disputes 43-4 in a contextual schema – the writer of the Third Gospel has gone to great lengths to present a condemned Jesus who is calm, in control, and confident of the Father’s Will.  Jesus is the strong, silent type right up to the end.  Now here’s where it gets interesting….

We know that Mark is the earliest written Gospel.  Many believe it is reasonable that Luke knew of Mark’s writing and used it as a source for his own Gospel.  Comparing Mark’s and Luke accounts of the Passion then becomes instructive.  Mark paints a very different picture of the condemned Jesus.  Luke, to produce this stalwart Jesus had to leave out big chunks of Mark’s account to keep Jesus’ stoicism intact – except for 22:43-44!  It is the only place in Luke where Jesus is in such visible agony.

A verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14 shows too many contrasts to go into here – look them up and see for yourself.  Mark has Jesus in agony and despair while Luke (except for 22:43-44) has a confident Jesus headed for a fulfillment of God’s Will. 

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the accounts of the crucifixion.  Mark’s walk to Golgotha is silent; the disciples have fled, and even the faithful women look on from a distance.  Jesus is mocked by the crowd – a man who is beaten, even forsaken by God Almighty!  Mark’s Christology, of course, gave reason for this.  Luke, in contrast has a Jesus who is far from silent.  Here is a Jesus who makes confident claims and pronouncements.  He tells women not to weep for Him – He knows what He must do.  On the cross, He remains calm and forgiving.  He does not cry out “Why have You left me behind?” to His God as He does in Mark; instead, He calls upon His Father to forgive His executioners for they don’t know what they’re doing.

Nowhere else in Luke’s two-volume series do we find any reference to Jesus’ agony -- only in these two disputed verses.  Although it doesn’t alter my theology at all, I am of the mind that those verses were added later.  Many Bible publishers agree and often make notations next to these verses.  This type of thing is usually a stumbling block for those who believe that the Bible is a flawless book.

The “why” question is pretty simple.  Second century Christians believed many different things about Jesus.  There were Docetists (actually there were two main Docetic camps), followers of Marcion, Ebionites, and on and on.  Each with a different Christology.  One of the loudest arguments was the Jesus as Phantasm vs. Jesus as Man debates.  The agony (that Jesus sweat blood, felt pain, was strengthened by angels, etc) was used to “prove” Jesus’ humanity.  That He was “fully human” as it were.  The polemic of “fully human/ fully divine” came much later and after much debate – a theological compromise which I feel is not supported by the Scriptures. 

Making Jesus fully human in the Gospels and possibly adding passages to support this was meant to quash the Docetic movements which were gaining a foothold in early communities.   Making Jesus Fully divine was John’s job.  Have you ever tried to make a decent argument for the divinity of Jesus without using the writings attributed to John?

Anyway, I hope that this lengthy reply is received in the spirit in which I write it – to edify the community of believers who want to know a bit more about our faith.  This was fun and got me reviewing things that I had not considered in a long time.  I hope it helps.

Whew!

Peace



Hi Pax,

Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

If you do not mind I have a couple more questions:

Can you show me the alternative verse with out the bloody sweat?  Is it just the mention of bloody sweat that is stricken or the whole verse?  Also do have any reference of other scripture that are contention like this.  I believe mark 28:19 (Email to Ray) has had some discrepncy as well.  But it would be interest if there is such a list of controversal verses.

Also you mentioned that you feel that this may have been added to strengthen Marks account and Mark and Luke had a different outlook.  Why is that? shouldn't the gospels build upon each other and witness to each other and not show differences?

I will do as you suggested and do a verse-by-verse comparison of Luke 22 and Mark 14.

God Bless

« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 02:56:30 PM by Bill »
Logged

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2007, 04:07:10 PM »

The Gospel of Mark omits the birth of Jesus and begins with John the Baptist’s preaching. Does this mean Jesus was not born?

The message of Mark is written  to encourage and to prove beyond a doubt that Jesus is the Messiah by what He does and not necessarily by what He says.

Luke affirms Jesus’ divinity with emphasis on His humanity. Mark records more of Jesus’ miracles than sermons. Luke put emphasis on dates, details and relationships as he was a medical doctor and historian.

This does not mean that the scriptures contradict or disagree. It also does not mean that there are not errors in translations such as hell or eternal, that give rise to  beliefs in purgatory, the trinity and free will, or that there are not openings for theologies of man that bite the dust and would have others do the same.

The scriptures do not contradict and neither do they disagree. They are spirit and are only discerned by the spirit and not by intellectual rationalisations assumptions and innuendo. To teach through mans understanding and not by revelation is to walk where angels fear to tread.

Ray teaches through revelation and uncovers the mysteries that cause us to have stronger faith and greater confidence and knowledge of God. Compare other teachers who’s teachings lead to weakened faith and shipwrecked confidence in Gods word. This is what should be compared, not one scripture against the other to prove fallibility of Gods word that has survived down through the ages despite errors in translations.

The Apostles were the body of Christ. They were of like mind and in accord not in competition. They had their growing pains and challenges to be of one mind that was not left undone or unsettled or in discord or competition. The writings of the apostles are not examples of variance, disagreement or contradiction. In fact, they are a portrait of our Lord and each Gospel offers its own colour that makes up the body of the message and beautiful and full choreography of Gods Holy Spirit and word. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

Peace to you

Arcturus :)
Logged

DWIGHT

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2007, 05:12:14 PM »

Hi all,

I must agree with our sister, that these "supposed contradictions" that you surmise, are nothing more than God sending a strong delusion to them who believe the lie.  It is not God's intention for everyone, yea only a few, that can ever see the spirit behind the letter.  The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. We can analyze scripture till the cows come home, and all be for naught.  We must always be on guard as Peter wrote....

" 2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

"2  Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

Believe the scriptures that say, "John 4:1
Most dear brethren, do not ye believe to each spirit, but prove ye the spirits, if they be of God; for many false prophets went out into the world."

We have been commisioned by the Lord Himself, to judge the world and angels and to try the spirits whether they be of God. 

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. I Tim. 4:1

 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev. 22:19

 

 
Logged

hillsbororiver

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2007, 05:54:26 PM »

Excellent post Arcturus and a brilliant follow up Dwight, thank you.

The fact that all 4 Gospels are not word for word is no reason to automatically throw doubt on what is written, of course we should scrutinize and search the original Hebrew and Greek and pray for spiritual discernment but I do not see Luke's account as being outside of what we know was an extremely excruciating time for our Lord. I did find it interesting that it was Dr. Luke who wrote about this rare stress related phenomena, there is medical verification that blood pigmented sweat can and does occur, the ancient Greeks wrote of this as well as modern medical journals.

Read a synopsis of a sporting event by 4 different authors, an accident report by 4 different witnesses, they will each have their own unique perspectives and vantage points resulting in 4 somewhat different versions, putting them all together gives a more textured and complete picture.

One of my areas of responsibilty at the Residential Home Builder I am employed with is Quality Control, I have 8 people on staff and typically I have at least 2 more often 3 people (individually, one at a time over a one or two day period)  go through a house to do a Quality Walk and complete a check list that covers every room and every portion of the house interior and exterior, it is no longer amazing how the reports are never exactly the same, ever. The result is a more thorough snapshot of where the house is at that time resulting in a house our customer is less likely to find fault with.

I must say this has been a very interesting thread, so many perspectives.  ;)

His Peace to you,

Joe 

 

Logged

Deborah-Leigh

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2007, 06:03:12 PM »

Thank you Joe and Dwight for the Scriptures.

Joe I found it very constructive that you gave the medical information regarding this condition and that the ancient Greeks also knew of it too!

Peace to you

Arcturus :)
Logged

YellowStone

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2007, 07:13:59 PM »

I would like to thank Arcturus, Dwight and Joe for the sharing the spirit of truth that is so apparent in each of your posts.  :)

Truly my Sister and Brothers, it is the wisdom of simple truth that makes this forum the wonderful truthful place it is and without each of you and the truth you share, it would be a lesser place indeed.

Not sure why I am so impressed....... :) Your posts just fit so perfectly I just had to share my thanks.

Love to you all in Christ,
Your brother,
Darren
Logged

Pax Vobiscum

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2007, 08:00:27 PM »

Well!  Those are some responses!  I would love to scripturally refute many of the claims made here, but I will just  sit back for a while and let everyone calm down.

Bill, to answer your latest question, usually the verses (Lk 22:43-4) are omitted not replaced.

To claim that the Bible has not blatant contradictions is ludicrous.  How one handles his or her faith based on this fact is another subject entirely.  Personally, I think that Biblical contradictions and errors are a part of the Plan -- it keeps me believing in God and not putting my faith in an anthology of truly blessed writings.

We should all keep searching for deeper understanding using all of the gifts God gave us as humans.

Peace 



Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2007, 10:04:45 PM »


Interesting discussion, here is an email where Ray answers about another scripture 'contradiction'  but his answer could apply here as well.

http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2084.0.html ----

Dear Joed:

I will not take the time (it could take days) to try and unscramble all of the sources of scholarly bickering over whether words were changed or statements were added, etc. I believe Paul made the statments attributed to him regarding women not  teaching in the congregation.

There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. I cannot take the rest of my life to try and explain them all. Hope you understand. It just doesn't bother me. Why spend time on what appear to be slight variations in the Scriptures?  What is gained?  Does the fact that the Bible says "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven," when in reality, for the sun to not move across the sky, it is the EARTH that would have had to "stand still" prove that the Bible is false, unreliable, and not of God?  From the perspective of the earth, the sun DID STAND STILL IN THE MIDST OF HEAVEN.  From the perspective of the earth, the sun DOES RISE and the sun DOES SET.  We do not speak of earthrise and earthset.

Now for the Centurion:  One account tells us that Jesus spoke to the Centurion and the Centurion spoke back to Him and the other account tells us that it was those whom the Centurion dispatched that spoke to Jesus and Jesus to them.  How can they both be true?  Does not this story itself give us the principle by which both can be true?  Did not the Centurion state that he had authority over his men and when we spoke the word or command the word or command was to be followed?

The "friends" that the Centurion sent to meet Jesus just before arriving at the house were the Ambassadors, if you will, of the Centurion.  His word was in THEIR MOUTHS.  What they spoke to Jesus was the same as if the Centurion himself was speaking, and this is the way that I believe Matthew portrays this account, just as Jesus Himself is the "WORD of God" His Father.  When Jesus speaks, IT IS GOD SPEAKING (listen to my Bible Conference tape on the Forum).

Don't get hung up on trivial things to the extent that you fail to see the lesson in the teaching. Forget whether it is the Centurion himself or his Ambassadors--what is the lesson to be learn from it. I assure you that both accounts give the exact, God-inspired, spiritual lesson.

God be with you,

Ray   
-------------------------------------------------------

mercy, peace, and love
Kat

Logged

Bill

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2007, 11:04:18 PM »


Bill, to answer your latest question, usually the verses (Lk 22:43-4) are omitted not replaced.
Thanks pax


To claim that the Bible has not blatant contradictions is ludicrous.
How do you handle these contradictions?

Bill
Logged

Pax Vobiscum

  • Guest
Re: Did Christ sweat blood?
« Reply #39 on: April 14, 2007, 12:48:30 AM »

I handle Biblical contradictions and errors the same way I handle the contradictions and errors of everyday living:

God is love.  All else is style.

Peace
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.119 seconds with 25 queries.