Replies

My own beliefs are even more removed from the violence. After all, tens of thousands of people suffered death by crucifixion; hundreds of thousands have been scourged and tortured cruelly. I don't believe that the manner of Jesus' death had anything to do with either the atonement or the resurrection. That's why we Mormons don't use the symbol of the cross on our churches -- to us, crucifixion was merely the method that the Romans used to execute those of whom they wanted to make a public example. Had the death been by lethal injection, the effect on our salvation would have been the same.

I had a feeling that he was a Mormon from his distance from "blood" in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. Mormons as well as some other "denominations" strive to take away the importance of the BLOOD in the sacrifice made. You see, The Old Testament sets the example for what is to come - the Law stated that BLOOD had to be spilled. Jesus represents the Perfect Lamb of sacrifice. For the remission (forgivenenss/attonement) of sins, blood must be shed.

Therefore the contention that the manner of Jesus' death was not important is quite wrong. He had to shed His blood. Why else is His blood mentioned so many times?

I will agree that the majority of this editorial is quite accurate.

"Therefore the contention that the manner of Jesus' death was not important is quite wrong. He had to shed His blood. Why else is His blood mentioned so many times?"

You're correct of course. I considered noting that OSC was a Mormon in my initial post comment. But, given all the anti-Mormon stuff I've seen here, though its meant well, I didn't want to detract from OSC's overall insights.

Too often, sectarianism serves the Enemy's purpose all too well.

gobucks, thank you for this post and for pinging me to it. Thank you also for the FReepmail. You have been the better man in continuing to extend the hand of friendship to me through this forum, despite our differences, and I thank you.

I enjoyed this real review and yet agree with TheBattman that one point struck me as inaccurate as I read through the article. I agree that lethal injection would not have sufficed for the death of our Savior. I am convinced of this because I believe every word of Scripture. Yes, the essentials of our faith are that Christ died for my sins and rose again for my justification. Yet it must not be overlooked that those essentials are replete with significant and necessary details as the gospel accounts unfold, and these details are the very real fulfillment of prophecy, ref. Psalm 22.

1) Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, see Hebrews 12, specifically verses 7, 11-15, and 19-22. Christ's blood was the fulfillment of the New Covenant, the implementation of which was foreshadowed and given structure through Moses in the Old, seen in this one verse: Exodus 24:8.

2) Christ's death on the cross was a prophecy that had to be fulfilled, as He fulfilled all prophecies concerning the Messiah. As you will see in Galatians 3:13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deuteronomy 21:23)

I wish I had more time for this discussion. Thank you for the invitation to fellowship.

I had a feeling that he was a Mormon from his distance from "blood" in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. Mormons as well as some other "denominations" strive to take away the importance of the BLOOD in the sacrifice made. You see, The Old Testament sets the example for what is to come - the Law stated that BLOOD had to be spilled. Jesus represents the Perfect Lamb of sacrifice. For the remission (forgivenenss/attonement) of sins, blood must be shed. Therefore the contention that the manner of Jesus' death was not important is quite wrong. He had to shed His blood. Why else is His blood mentioned so many times?

I have no intention of turning this thread into a debate on Mormon theology, but as a Mormon I feel I must correct some of what you said about our faith.

We DO believe in the importance of the blood of Christ in the atonement and you will find passages in the Book of Mormon that confirm this. The difference lies in that to us it is the blood that was forced out of every pore of his body while he was alone in the garden that redeems us. It was in the garden that he suffered the pain of ALL the sins of EVERY person, past, present and future, and that pain was far beyond any pain man could inflict.

I had a feeling that he was a Mormon from his distance from "blood" in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. Mormons as well as some other "denominations" strive to take away the importance of the BLOOD in the sacrifice made. You see, The Old Testament sets the example for what is to come - the Law stated that BLOOD had to be spilled. Jesus represents the Perfect Lamb of sacrifice. For the remission (forgivenenss/attonement) of sins, blood must be shed.

You are correct Battman, the BLOOD is a very important part of the redemption. Also, the suffering from flogging is crticial as well, if only because it fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 53. This "lethal injection" nonsense was the only part of the article where I had some disagreement with the author. Otherwise, his analysis is supurb.

Back when their was a temple in Jerusalem, each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur?) the priest had to sprinkle BLOOD on the ark in the Holy of Holies. It was the blood that was payment for the sins, along with the sacrifice of the animal. Both were, and still are necessary.

But, as Abraham prophesied so long ago: "God will provide the sacrifice." Thank you Jesus! He is the one final, perfect sacrifice. And just to make sure we get the point that his blood was sufficient, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and never rebuilt, about 40 years after the crucifixion. God destroys his own temple (using the Roman army) to make sure we get the message.