The pain threshold of Jesus

[_zeezrom]

I was thinking last night that Jesus must have had some sort of pain threshold were he just went sort of numb from bleeding out of every pore on the Mt. that warm night before his trial. Also, the physical pain he felt on the cross must have eventually dulled after a few hours. I believe though his pain must have been pretty bad, it could not have surpassed the pain felt by some people with chronic illness that involves a lot of pain.

Surely a few hours of tons of pain would be better than 30 years of chronic pain.

Also, I think there have been some cruel tortures done to people that may surpass the pain Jesus felt due to the nature of the torture and duration of it. When I visited the torture chambers of Pol Pot's regime, I became aware of just how much pain humans can inflict on each other.

I recall wondering about this as a TBM. I thought, how can Jesus feel the pain of all the sins of the world? How did his physical body have the capacity to feel more pain than a human can feel before going numb or insane? My answer was that since he was part God, he was able to feel MORE pain than regular humans.

But still, what about a person that is treated poorly from childhood all the way through his life? I don't know. I'm having a hard time believing Jesus was worse off than lots of other people.

[_Hoops]

Your confusion may come from this.

My answer was that since he was part God, he was able to feel MORE pain than regular humans.

But still, what about a person that is treated poorly from childhood all the way through his life? I don't know. I'm having a hard time believing Jesus was worse off than lots of other people.

Was he supposed to be?
I'm assuming then that you don't embrace the idea that Jesus bore the pain of an entire world's sin, so we'll just stick with physical pain.

[_jon]

Did He bleed from every pore or was it that he sweated profusely?

A careful reread of Luke (an embellished account drawing on the content in Mark) might be useful.

[_zeezrom]

Your confusion may come from this.

My answer was that since he was part God, he was able to feel MORE pain than regular humans.

Well, let's see. Mary (a mortal) mothered him. Heavenly Father (a God) fathered him.

Where am I going wrong in saying Jesus was not fully a God while here on earth?

[_Jersey Girl]

zee

I was thinking last night that Jesus must have had some sort of pain threshold were he just went sort of numb from bleeding out of every pore on the Mt. that warm night before his trial.

Scripture ref, please.

[_zeezrom]

Scripture ref, please.

No problem, Jersey Girl! :)

D&C 19:18

[_Hoops]

Well, let's see. Mary (a mortal) mothered him. Heavenly Father (a God) fathered him.

Where am I going wrong in saying Jesus was not fully a God while here on earth?

Really, if you're going to be critical of someone's beliefs, at least know what they believe.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man. Neither one less at the expense of the other. If he were NOT FULLY God, then His sacrifice would be insufficient - as man is His highest creation.

Now, you may choose to disbelieve the Bible, and that's fine. But that's what Christians believe.

[_Buffalo]

Really, if you're going to be critical of someone's beliefs, at least know what they believe.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man. Neither one less at the expense of the other. If he were NOT FULLY God, then His sacrifice would be insufficient - as man is His highest creation.

Now, you may choose to disbelieve the Bible, and that's fine. But that's what Christians believe.

Chapter and verse, please.

[_zeezrom]

The Bible tells us that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man. Neither one less at the expense of the other. If he were NOT FULLY God, then His sacrifice would be insufficient - as man is His highest creation.

I'm shooting from the hip never having the opportunity to debate with Non-Mormon Christians like yourself. Forgive my ignorance. So let me ask, how does a being take on Full Godhood and Full Manhood at the same time? Isn't that like saying I have one cherry pie and one chocolate rum pie and now have 1 pie?

Hmmm. I guess if I had a larger pan, I really could make one, single pie out of two wholes. This idea of a Full Man and Full God being mixed together to make a Full God, Full Man just isn't making sense to me.

Should I chalk this up to the "don't worry, you will understand when you die" category?

[_Aristotle Smith]

The Bible tells us that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man. Neither one less at the expense of the other. If he were NOT FULLY God, then His sacrifice would be insufficient - as man is His highest creation.

I'm shooting from the hip never having the opportunity to debate with Non-Mormon Christians like yourself. Forgive my ignorance. So let me ask, how does a being take on Full Godhood and Full Manhood at the same time? Isn't that like saying I have one cherry pie and one chocolate rum pie and now have 1 pie?

Hmmm. I guess if I had a larger pan, I really could make one, single pie out of two wholes. This idea of a Full Man and Full God being mixed together to make a Full God, Full Man just isn't making sense to me.

Should I chalk this up to the "don't worry, you will understand when you die" category?

No, it's just a different way of looking at things. The doctrine of fully God and fully man comes from the council of Chalcedon, and is the orthodox Christian way of interpreting the Bible. Like all things divine, you are ultimately dealing with something beyond comprehension. However, I do think there is a close analogue in physics: wave-particle duality. When you are dealing with fundamental physics you can't really ask the question: Is this a wave or is it a particle? The answer is both, and anyone who tells you this makes perfect sense to them is lying. Sure, the math works out but at an intuitive level it does not. Something similar is going on with Jesus.

By the way, I think that Mormons get into all kinds of trouble in interpreting the New Testament because they play so fast and loose with Christology.