Jersey Girl wrote:Why do you think Christ was actually bleeding?
I always figured it was because it was so much pain from taking on all the lying, cheating, stealing, masturbating, drinking coffee, and wearing tank tops of all the human race.
It was so much pain and suffering that the human body of Jesus simply could not handle it. The Godly pain exceeded the capacity of the flesh, so it spilled over (blood came out of the pores).
That is how I figured it went down. I never put much more thought into it than that, though.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote: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.
As do many other non-believers. What can I say? You don't believe.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Aristotle Smith wrote: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.
Aristotle,
Do you believe the Mormon church would benefit from hiring paid clergy who are studied in Christianity (say PhD or MA as a minimum)? Otherwise, maybe even the leaders are loose cannons.
I paid and trained clergy would help, but it's not a panacea.
The main problem as I see it is that Mormons have consciously rejected Christian and Jewish thought on the Bible, at the institutional level. Some very smart and pious (as well as some stupid and not-so-pious) people have thought long and hard about theology, philosophy, and biblical interpretation. But as a general rule, LDS leaders cannot just incorporate their thought into LDS thought, mainly because doing so calls into question fundamental assumptions about apostasy, revelation, and authority.
Thanks, Buff. I had to brush up on my papyri (no, not the Book of Abraham:-). I thought it was P4, not so. Luke 22:44 would have been part of P75 (Luke/John combination) and you're right, those verses do not appear in the earliest extant copy of Luke.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:Why do you think Christ was actually bleeding?
I always figured it was because it was so much pain from taking on all the lying, cheating, stealing, masturbating, drinking coffee, and wearing tank tops of all the human race.
It was so much pain and suffering that the human body of Jesus simply could not handle it. The Godly pain exceeded the capacity of the flesh, so it spilled over (blood came out of the pores).
That is how I figured it went down. I never put much more thought into it than that, though.
Thanks, zee.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:Thanks, Buff. I had to brush up on my papyri (no, not the Book of Abraham:-). I thought it was P4, not so. Luke 22:44 would have been part of P75 (Luke/John combination) and you're right, those verses do not appear in the earliest extant copy of Luke.
Most modern translations bracket Luke 22:43-44 as doubtful on a number of grounds. It doesn't command universal assent as not being original, but I think the majority of scholars see it as being not original to the text.
by the way, this is actually a fairly big problem for LDS doctrine. LDS posit that what counted was Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane along with the work on the cross and the resurrection. Luke 22:43-44 are the favorite proof text for this. If it's not original to Luke, Poof! Bye bye doctrine.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aristotle Smith wrote:by the way, this is actually a fairly big problem for LDS doctrine. LDS posit that what counted was Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane, not the work on the cross and the resurrection. Luke 22:43-44 are the favorite proof text for this. If it's not original to Luke, Poof! Bye bye doctrine.
Not true. LDS posit the suffering in Gethsemane and the "work on the cross and the resurrection" all count. Let's not get desperately silly.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Aristotle Smith wrote:by the way, this is actually a fairly big problem for LDS doctrine. LDS posit that what counted was Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane, not the work on the cross and the resurrection. Luke 22:43-44 are the favorite proof text for this. If it's not original to Luke, Poof! Bye bye doctrine.
Not true. LDS posit the suffering in Gethsemane and the "work on the cross and the resurrection" all count. Let's not get desperately silly.
What happens to the Mosiah and D&C references to the sweating blood if the Luke passage is one of those later scribal additions?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.