Topic: warm Eucharist

[nrse]

now that i am chrismated and taking the Holy Mysteries i have a simple question- why is it warm?...i have taken in 3 different churches now and all are warm although the temperature varies...why is that?

thanks, Georgiana

[PeterTheAleut]

now that i am chrismated and taking the Holy Mysteries i have a simple question- why is it warm?...i have taken in 3 different churches now and all are warm although the temperature varies...why is that?

thanks, Georgiana

I believe it's because of the ancient tradition of cutting the wine with hot water to prepare it for distribution as Holy Communion, partly by diluting its alcohol content and partly to make it easier to distribute a finite amount of wine to a large number of communicants.

[Shiny]

now that i am chrismated and taking the Holy Mysteries i have a simple question- why is it warm?...i have taken in 3 different churches now and all are warm although the temperature varies...why is that?

thanks, Georgiana

I believe it's because of the ancient tradition of cutting the wine with hot water to prepare it for distribution as Holy Communion, partly by diluting its alcohol content and partly to make it easier to distribute a finite amount of wine to a large number of communicants.

Isn't there a theological usage behind the hot water? I wish I had my Eucharist catechumen paperwork with me, but I'll have to look it up.

[PeterTheAleut]

now that i am chrismated and taking the Holy Mysteries i have a simple question- why is it warm?...i have taken in 3 different churches now and all are warm although the temperature varies...why is that?

thanks, Georgiana

I believe it's because of the ancient tradition of cutting the wine with hot water to prepare it for distribution as Holy Communion, partly by diluting its alcohol content and partly to make it easier to distribute a finite amount of wine to a large number of communicants.

Isn't there a theological usage behind the hot water?

As with virtually every liturgical action, there probably is. I just can't recall what that is right now.

[akimori makoto]

This might be of assistance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeon_(liturgy)

Zeon (Greek: "boiling", "fervor") is a liturgical action which takes place in the Divine Liturgy of the Rite of Constantinople, during which hot water is added to the chalice. The same term is used as a noun to describe the vessel used for this purpose.

Immediately following the fraction, the altar server hands the deacon a vessel of hot water. The deacon presents it to the priest and says, "Bless, Master, the hot water." The priest blesses it with his right hand saying, "Blessed is the fervor of Thy saints, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen." The deacon pours a portion of the hot water into the chalice, making the Sign of the Cross with the water, as he says, "The fervor of faith, full of the Holy Spirit."[1]

The historical beginnings of the ritual are unknown; however, it is clearly of ancient origin.[2] Symbolically, the warm water represents the water which flowed from the side of Jesus at the time of the Crucifixion; and also the Christian belief that the Body of Christ is life-giving. Orthodox Christians believe that they partake of the Resurrected Body and Blood of Christ,[3] and the warmth of the chalice is a reminder of that doctrine.

The type of vessel used differs depending upon whether the Greek or Slavic Rite is used. In the Greek practice, the zeon vessel tends to be shaped like a very small ewer set on a tiny plate, and the Greeks use only a few drops of hot water. The Slavic practice, by contrast, uses a larger vessel shaped like a cup with a flat handle, set on a somewhat larger plate, and they will use a larger amount of boiling water, enough to heat the entire chalice.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Interesting theological and liturgical aspects of warm Communion in the Byzantine traditions, I had never heard of that before.  I am not familiar with this kind of practice within any of the Oriental Orthodox, and not in the Ethiopian tradition either, that is specifically warm or boiling water used. Initially I thought this thread was going to be a question about it being warm without any explanation other than a coincidence of timing, I didn't imagine a theological implication.

 On the two occasions I recall taking Communion and the Bread being warm (which was initially a bewildering surprise) it was simply because it had been baked hurriedly that morning and didn't get to cool down even after the few hours of the Service, and so was "fresh-baked" warm and aside from the that all the other times I commune it is what we may think of  as "room-temperature" (both the Wine and Bread) albeit spiritually warming to the depth of my soul

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Αριστοκλής]

now that i am chrismated and taking the Holy Mysteries i have a simple question- why is it warm?...i have taken in 3 different churches now and all are warm although the temperature varies...why is that?

thanks, Georgiana

I believe it's because of the ancient tradition of cutting the wine with hot water to prepare it for distribution as Holy Communion, partly by diluting its alcohol content and partly to make it easier to distribute a finite amount of wine to a large number of communicants.

Isn't there a theological usage behind the hot water?

As with virtually every liturgical action, there probably is. I just can't recall what that is right now.

When Christ's side was pierced by the centurion's spear blood and water issued forth.
I have never heard nor seen boiling water used, but warm , yes.

[mike]

We use boiling.

[zekarja]

We use boiling.

The three parishes that I have been to use boiling as well.

[SakranMM]

When the priest (or the deacon) pours in the hot water, he says, "The warmth of faith, full of the Holy Spirit," or some similar version of this statement.  The hot water represents the zeal of the faith and the Holy Spirit that dwells within the saints (and those called to be saints!)

The water representing that which flowed from the Lord's side is added before the liturgy, at the proskomide service.

Priest Michael

[rakovsky]

Hello! I remember reading a scientific claim that the reason water and blood both poured out of Christ's side was because he was in hypovolemic shock.

As I remember, one of the articles said that Christ was fasting before His passion, and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Does anyone happen to remember anything saying Christ was fasting before His passion on Good Friday? I know that there is a Fast of the Firstborns that occurs in Judaism on the first day of Passover, but Jesus' Passion occurred on that same day.

Thank you.

[podkarpatska]

This might be of assistance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeon_(liturgy)

Zeon (Greek: "boiling", "fervor") is a liturgical action which takes place in the Divine Liturgy of the Rite of Constantinople, during which hot water is added to the chalice. The same term is used as a noun to describe the vessel used for this purpose.

Immediately following the fraction, the altar server hands the deacon a vessel of hot water. The deacon presents it to the priest and says, "Bless, Master, the hot water." The priest blesses it with his right hand saying, "Blessed is the fervor of Thy saints, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen." The deacon pours a portion of the hot water into the chalice, making the Sign of the Cross with the water, as he says, "The fervor of faith, full of the Holy Spirit."[1]

The historical beginnings of the ritual are unknown; however, it is clearly of ancient origin.[2] Symbolically, the warm water represents the water which flowed from the side of Jesus at the time of the Crucifixion; and also the Christian belief that the Body of Christ is life-giving. Orthodox Christians believe that they partake of the Resurrected Body and Blood of Christ,[3] and the warmth of the chalice is a reminder of that doctrine.

The type of vessel used differs depending upon whether the Greek or Slavic Rite is used. In the Greek practice, the zeon vessel tends to be shaped like a very small ewer set on a tiny plate, and the Greeks use only a few drops of hot water. The Slavic practice, by contrast, uses a larger vessel shaped like a cup with a flat handle, set on a somewhat larger plate, and they will use a larger amount of boiling water, enough to heat the entire chalice.

And where the Slavs were influenced by the practice of the Greeks, they are more familiar with that of the Greeks - particularly those Slavs who lost contact with Constantinople after the fall and who were further separated from the Russian Slavs during the centuries of the Unia.

[Punch]

When the priest (or the deacon) pours in the hot water, he says, "The warmth of faith, full of the Holy Spirit," or some similar version of this statement.  The hot water represents the zeal of the faith and the Holy Spirit that dwells within the saints (and those called to be saints!)

The water representing that which flowed from the Lord's side is added before the liturgy, at the proskomide service.

Priest Michael

Likewise.  The priest says "the warmth of faith . . ." and the water is boiling.  A small amount of room temperature water is added at the proskomide to represent the water that flowed from the Lord's side. 

[LBK]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

However, the physiological effects of crucifixion do lead to death by suffocation due to fluid buildup in the lungs, hence the emergence of water as well as blood when the centurion's lance pierced Christ's side.

[choy]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

[Salpy]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Interesting theological and liturgical aspects of warm Communion in the Byzantine traditions, I had never heard of that before.  I am not familiar with this kind of practice within any of the Oriental Orthodox, and not in the Ethiopian tradition either, that is specifically warm or boiling water used. Initially I thought this thread was going to be a question about it being warm without any explanation other than a coincidence of timing, I didn't imagine a theological implication.

 On the two occasions I recall taking Communion and the Bread being warm (which was initially a bewildering surprise) it was simply because it had been baked hurriedly that morning and didn't get to cool down even after the few hours of the Service, and so was "fresh-baked" warm and aside from the that all the other times I commune it is what we may think of  as "room-temperature" (both the Wine and Bread) albeit spiritually warming to the depth of my soul

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I'm not sure, but I thought the Copts add hot water to their Eucharist.  Perhaps one of our Coptic brothers can confirm if this is true.  It's been a while since I have communed in a Coptic church, but I seem to recall it being warm.

In the Armenian Church, we don't add water at all.

[mike]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

Amateurs. Everyone knows you boil it two times. The second one - with the beginnings of Our Father.

[celticfan1888]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

Amateurs. Everyone knows you boil it two times. The second one - with the beginnings of Our Father.

Twice? What? 

[Orthodox11]

Twice? What? 

He speaks the truth. Boil once at the beginning of the Liturgy so that it's already warm, allowing you to time the second boil just before the Our Father with much greater precision. It's a science.

Alternatively (good in small churches where people might be able to hear the kettle boiling), boil pre-liturgy and put the water in a thermos flask, then pour it into the Zeon from there.

[Punch]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

If I started boiling at teh homily, communion would already be over.

[Punch]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

Amateurs. Everyone knows you boil it two times. The second one - with the beginnings of Our Father.

Twice? What? 

If you have the right equipment, you only need to do it once.  However, it does not always work that way.

[celticfan1888]

Twice? What? 

He speaks the truth. Boil once at the beginning of the Liturgy so that it's already warm, allowing you to time the second boil just before the Our Father with much greater precision. It's a science.

Alternatively (good in small churches where people might be able to hear the kettle boiling), boil pre-liturgy and put the water in a thermos flask, then pour it into the Zeon from there.

I have been doing it wrong this whole time.

[PeterTheAleut]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

[LBK]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

[PeterTheAleut]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

Yes, I am very familiar with the passage, LBK, and I am also familiar with the fact that most interpretations of the passage recognize it as an historic example of hematidrosis. Have you forgotten that St. Luke was also a practicing physician, a fact that often manifests itself in his unparalleled attention to physiological detail in his writings?

[choy]

I remember last week I boiled the water for the first time.  I boiled it too early (during Homily) that by the Lord's prayer, it wasn't hot, just warm.  So I had to start the pot again but it wasn't boiling by the time the priest needs it, but at least it was much hotter than it was. 

Amateurs. Everyone knows you boil it two times. The second one - with the beginnings of Our Father.

LOL, it was my first time.  And we go through Liturgy rather quite quickly.

[rakovsky]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

Yes, I am very familiar with the passage, LBK, and I am also familiar with the fact that most interpretations of the passage recognize it as an historic example of hematidrosis. Have you forgotten that St. Luke was also a practicing physician, a fact that often manifests itself in his unparalleled attention to physiological detail in his writings?

Hmm... I think this is an interesting topic. It may be pointed out that in Psalm 22 David prophesies that he spilled "like" water (apparently referring to the piercing), which is similar to your pointing out that his sweat was "like" blood. Perhaps there was blood and water mixed in both cases, which explains why he says "like" water an blood.

As for the explanation of this phenomenon, one of the articles I remember reading said that Christ was fasting before His passion, and pointed for example to His experience in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition. Do you happen to remember anything saying Christ was fasting before His passion on Good Friday?

[LBK]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

Yes, I am very familiar with the passage, LBK, and I am also familiar with the fact that most interpretations of the passage recognize it as an historic example of hematidrosis. Have you forgotten that St. Luke was also a practicing physician, a fact that often manifests itself in his unparalleled attention to physiological detail in his writings?

Nonsense. The word you are ignoring is like, ὡσεὶ. If St Luke wanted to say "He sweated blood", physician that he was, he would have said so.

[PeterTheAleut]

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

Yes, I am very familiar with the passage, LBK, and I am also familiar with the fact that most interpretations of the passage recognize it as an historic example of hematidrosis. Have you forgotten that St. Luke was also a practicing physician, a fact that often manifests itself in his unparalleled attention to physiological detail in his writings?

Nonsense. The word you are ignoring is like, ὡσεὶ. If St Luke wanted to say "He sweated blood", physician that he was, he would have said so.

He did say so. To say that His sweat became like great drops of blood also means that His sweat looked like blood--IOW, Jesus' sweat became bloody in appearance. Now, with a proper understanding of hematidrosis and its causes, what else would make sweat look like blood outside of blood itself? The extreme distress Jesus experienced in the garden was certainly a perfect scenario for the development of the otherwise rare phenomenon. You seem to be focused solely on the size of the drops of sweat as described by the word "great", but there are more definitions of the word "like" than you are permitting here.

physician that he was, he would have said so.

BTW, arguments from silence, such as the one you made here, are rarely ever convincing. This particular argument I'd call a failure.

[LBK]

A well-regarded patristic source, from Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid:

“The praying in Gethsemane was from His human nature, which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of life. It was not from His divine nature, as the accursed Arians say, and this is made clear by His sweat and by His agony, which was so great that, as the saying goes, drops of blood fell from Him. It is a saying that those who labor extremely hard ‘sweat blood’, and that those in bitter sorrow ‘weep blood’. This is why the Evangelist uses the image of sweating drops of blood, to show that the Lord was not merely damp with perspiration as a token of His humanity, but was completely drenched with sweat. This makes it clear that the nature, which sweated and agonized, was the Lord's human nature, not His divine. His human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did suffer them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in appearance only”.

St Luke is using the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, and not as a literal description of what exuded from His pores. This is in complete accord with the scripture's use of like/ὡσεὶ.

St Luke was also a fluent Greek speaker, and it is beyond question he wrote his Gospel in Greek.

[PeterTheAleut]

A well-regarded patristic source, from Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid:

“The praying in Gethsemane was from His human nature, which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of life. It was not from His divine nature, as the accursed Arians say, and this is made clear by His sweat and by His agony, which was so great that, as the saying goes, drops of blood fell from Him. It is a saying that those who labor extremely hard ‘sweat blood’, and that those in bitter sorrow ‘weep blood’. This is why the Evangelist uses the image of sweating drops of blood, to show that the Lord was not merely damp with perspiration as a token of His humanity, but was completely drenched with sweat. This makes it clear that the nature, which sweated and agonized, was the Lord's human nature, not His divine. His human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did suffer them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in appearance only”.

St Luke is using the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, and not as a literal description of what exuded from His pores. This is in complete accord with the scripture's use of like/ὡσεὶ.

St Luke was also a fluent Greek speaker, and it is beyond question he wrote his Gospel in Greek.

Nothing in what you wrote above proves you right. Just because St. Luke used the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol does not rule out the possibility that St. Luke was also reporting the fact that Jesus did indeed sweat blood. A material fact can also be used as a symbol of a deeper spiritual truth without becoming any less factual. Besides, as I have so described hematidrosis, even the literal sweating of blood itself is testament to the magnitude of Christ's suffering.

[LBK]

A well-regarded patristic source, from Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid:

“The praying in Gethsemane was from His human nature, which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of life. It was not from His divine nature, as the accursed Arians say, and this is made clear by His sweat and by His agony, which was so great that, as the saying goes, drops of blood fell from Him. It is a saying that those who labor extremely hard ‘sweat blood’, and that those in bitter sorrow ‘weep blood’. This is why the Evangelist uses the image of sweating drops of blood, to show that the Lord was not merely damp with perspiration as a token of His humanity, but was completely drenched with sweat. This makes it clear that the nature, which sweated and agonized, was the Lord's human nature, not His divine. His human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did suffer them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in appearance only”.

St Luke is using the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, and not as a literal description of what exuded from His pores. This is in complete accord with the scripture's use of like/ὡσεὶ.

St Luke was also a fluent Greek speaker, and it is beyond question he wrote his Gospel in Greek.

Nothing in what you wrote above proves you right. Just because St. Luke used the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol does not rule out the possibility that St. Luke was also reporting the fact that Jesus did indeed sweat blood. A material fact can also be used as a symbol of a deeper spiritual truth without becoming any less factual. Besides, as I have so described hematidrosis, even the literal sweating of blood itself is testament to the magnitude of Christ's suffering.

You are still ignoring St Luke's use of the word like/ὡσεὶ. St Theophylact has obviously taken this word into account in his exegesis, unlike you, who refuses to consider this word as significant to the meaning of this passage.

[PeterTheAleut]

A well-regarded patristic source, from Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid:

“The praying in Gethsemane was from His human nature, which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of life. It was not from His divine nature, as the accursed Arians say, and this is made clear by His sweat and by His agony, which was so great that, as the saying goes, drops of blood fell from Him. It is a saying that those who labor extremely hard ‘sweat blood’, and that those in bitter sorrow ‘weep blood’. This is why the Evangelist uses the image of sweating drops of blood, to show that the Lord was not merely damp with perspiration as a token of His humanity, but was completely drenched with sweat. This makes it clear that the nature, which sweated and agonized, was the Lord's human nature, not His divine. His human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did suffer them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in appearance only”.

St Luke is using the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, and not as a literal description of what exuded from His pores. This is in complete accord with the scripture's use of like/ὡσεὶ.

St Luke was also a fluent Greek speaker, and it is beyond question he wrote his Gospel in Greek.

Nothing in what you wrote above proves you right. Just because St. Luke used the idea of "sweating blood" as a symbol does not rule out the possibility that St. Luke was also reporting the fact that Jesus did indeed sweat blood. A material fact can also be used as a symbol of a deeper spiritual truth without becoming any less factual. Besides, as I have so described hematidrosis, even the literal sweating of blood itself is testament to the magnitude of Christ's suffering.

You are still ignoring St Luke's use of the word like/ὡσεὶ. St Theophylact has obviously taken this word into account in his exegesis, unlike you, who refuses to consider this word as significant to the meaning of this passage.

I have taken St. Luke's use of the word like into account, I have shown you how the passage you quoted from St. Theophylact does not prove you right (and, by extension, me wrong), and I have shown you how this word like is significant to the meaning of this passage from Luke's Gospel. You just don't like the fact that I won't let you determine which one definition of the word like will be used in this debate.

Now I recognize that this is the Convert Issues board and that our debate has probably gone on a bit too long for a board where such debate is not particularly welcome, so I think it best I bow out and not push this debate any further. I've already made my point for the sake of the outside observer. I therefore need to say nothing more.

[Alpo]

I have been doing it wrong this whole time.

"Orthodoxy is not for Scandinavians!"

[mabsoota]

about our Saviour Jesus' fasting;
He had eaten the evening before; then He spent the first part of the night in prayer (not eating and drinking) and the second part of the night being arrested.
the next morning, He was being judged (no indication that there was a break for sleep, and they also did not give condemned prisoners a nice breakfast) and by the middle of the day was hanging on a cross.

so, yes, He was fasting; also exhausted, also exsanguinated; also fighting death and hades; it was more than a usual fast!

as for the warm eucharist, i think it's nice that there are different ways of doing it.

[celticfan1888]

I have been doing it wrong this whole time.

"Orthodoxy is not for Scandinavians!"

I guess the Greeks were right!

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

and pointed for example to the blood He was sweating in Gethsemane to show he was in an already weakened condition.

Christ did not sweat blood at Gethsemane. He sweated sweat, and profusely. Here is the passage from Luke 22:

Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And, in the original Greek:

44 καὶ γενόμενος ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ ἐκτενέστερον προσηύχετο. ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρὼς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

Have you not heard of hematidrosis? This is an extremely rare condition where one actually sweats blood, often during a time of extreme distress such as what Jesus suffered in Gethsemane.

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

But that is not what affected Christ. Read the passage again, PtA.

Yes, I am very familiar with the passage, LBK, and I am also familiar with the fact that most interpretations of the passage recognize it as an historic example of hematidrosis. Have you forgotten that St. Luke was also a practicing physician, a fact that often manifests itself in his unparalleled attention to physiological detail in his writings?

Nonsense. The word you are ignoring is like, ὡσεὶ. If St Luke wanted to say "He sweated blood", physician that he was, he would have said so.

I agree, we shouldn't necessarily take this figurative instance literally, even if there are certain rare conditions which accommodate the scenario.  I always read this passage as "like Blood" to imply a feverish sweat which is uncontrollable and overwhelming much like a bleeding wound.

stay blessed,
habte selassie