Timeline for In Luke 22:44 did Jesus actually sweat blood?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2022 at 12:42 | comment | added | Olives obi | @Arthur so what's so difficult in accepting a very clear possibility that Jesus capillaries around the sweat glands bursted, due to unimaginable agony, and it's blood contents poured out with the sweat. This is a very real situation and very reasonable to accept. Why all these twists and turns as if the gospel is no longer within the reach of simple folks. | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 18:24 | comment | added | Arthur Daniels Jr | @Sam. The essence of exegesis is reading the text in context and seeing what is being said, and what is not being said. As I pointed out, the Spirit knows how to say something became blood, and how to say something became LIKE blood. There is a difference. If you can't see that simple truth, then I suggest seeing an ophthalmologist. And it is also not wise to ignore the simile language in the immediate context, as if the color of the sweat must be implied by the use of "aima," as if the simile did not exist. Stop the eisegesis and bad reasoning. | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 14:48 | comment | added | Sam | @Arthur Daniesl Jr. αἷμα used in NT 98 times all for "blood." The color of "all blood" is known "red" including incarnate Jesus, is very "common knowledge" back then, still is. The absence of the word "red" does not disprove "red" nor much less prove your rejection. We say "red wine" or "white wine", but not always say "red blood." Taking the Scripture as it says is the essence of the exegesis. | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 5:51 | comment | added | Arthur Daniels Jr | @Sam. I would also again point out a flaw in your argument. Nowhere in the text does it say anything about the sweat being "red," as implied by your comment, "What other body fluids can make the sweat red?" There is a perfectly good Greek word for "red," and it is NOT used in the text. Let's do proper hermeneutics and exegete (read out of) the text, not eisegete (read into) the text. | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 5:47 | comment | added | Arthur Daniels Jr | @Sam. I am well aware of what Luke 1:1-4 says. I am not challenging what Luke or any eyewitness said. Anyone can just claim that the ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματο in v. 44 "implies the blood mingled with sweat." But again, what does the text SAY? The Holy Spirit is the Author, and He said what He meant, and meant what He said. And what He did NOT say is, "and His sweat became blood," which would support your claim. In Revelation 8:8, 16:3, and 16:4, we see that the Spirit can clearly tell us that something BECAME actual blood. So no, Luke 22:44 is not saying implying His sweat mixed with blood. | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 18:27 | comment | added | Sam | @Arthur Daniels Jr. I'd like call your attention to Luke 1: 1-4, where Luke states he compiled an "accounts passed on by eyewitnesses and servants of the words." We are "not" witness, and we are in no way to "judge" what was written in the Canon of Scripture. No thesis of non-witness, how lengthy, scholarly they may be, are but a conjecture, can never stack up against the Scripture. The ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος in v. 44 implies the blood mingled with sweat (what other body fluids can make the sweat red?) witness(s) saw "on the ground." "Scripture cannot be broken"-Jesus. Welcome to BH! | |
| Jul 24, 2020 at 14:26 | comment | added | Arthur Daniels Jr | Thanks for the welcome. I would not be so quick to misjudge that since part of my answer was addressed to a previous discussion that it was "irrelevant." No, I included it because it was quite relevant to a more comprehensive answer to the question. Brief answers are ok, but they usually do not address major issues that are often raised on more scholarly levels. | |
| Jul 24, 2020 at 13:53 | comment | added | Nigel J | Welcome to BH. Please see the Tour and the Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. The question is a simple one, hermeneutically, and several of the answers have answered it hermeneutically, regarding 'as' or like' blood not actually blood. Some have answered in a way which favours the idea of a medical condition. I didn't read all of your very long answer as it was addressed to a previous discussion and was irrelevant. Notice how brief the other answers are regarding this very simple and straightforward question. | |
| Jul 24, 2020 at 6:37 | history | edited | Arthur Daniels Jr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jul 23, 2020 at 21:22 | review | Late answers | |||
| Jul 29, 2020 at 18:28 | |||||
| Jul 23, 2020 at 21:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 24, 2020 at 7:28 | |||||
| Jul 23, 2020 at 21:05 | history | answered | Arthur Daniels Jr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |