Replies

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.

You're quite welcome. It's neat our thoughts are mirrored in this way .... did you see my post number 86 above?

I agree that lethal injection would not have sufficed for the death of our Savior.

You are absolutely correct. Very good comment.

The scourging and crucifixion were required for the fulfillment of prophesy, as well as the blood sacrifice for our atonement. Thanks for those insights.

In Mormon theology, animal sacrifice was instituted to provide a symbolic reminder of the sacrifice of Christ, who was to come (Mormons believe the knowledge of Christ and His mission was taught from the time of Adam onward, but was frequently lost or perverted through apostacy and rejection of the prophets). The blood is symbolic of the death of Christ. The blood in and of itself has no intrinsic power or effect. This is why Christ replaced the shedding of blood with the ordinance of the eucharist, where wine was to be symbolic of Christ's blood.

This is consistent with all the scriptures you cited. It all comes down to a matter of how they are interpreted. A Mormon would simply maintain that by declaring that it was blood that was the operative agent, and therefore Christ had to shed his blood, you are putting the horse before the cart. The Mormon will maintain that it was Christ who was the operative agent by (though sinless) being punished for the sins of all mankind PAST, present, and future, and thereby satisfying the requirements of divine justice and offering redemption from spiritual death (separation from God). His death and resurrection then offered redemption from physical death, thus providing full redemption from the Fall. Blood, and the intricate ritual animal sacrifices of the old testament were simply a symbolic representation of this. Again, the blood itself is meaningless. Old Testament believers were saved through faith on Christ who was to come. Modern believers are saved by faith on Christ who has come.

The Mormon position is a biblically valid position. Like nearly every theological difference between Mormon Christianity and Protestant Christianity, it is simply a different way of reading the same passages.