A Theological Question:

[Cal]

Perhaps there is an easy answer to this question, but I haven't heard it.

I believe it is Mormon doctrine that Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world--which act gave him the power to forgive OUR sins, having paid the price of them---Justice vs Mercy--the BoM talks a lot about it.

Since that is so, how is it that Jesus could forgive sins before Gethsemane? The NT recounts instances of Jesus saying, "...arize, thy sins are forgiven thee".

Any comments?

[Setheus]

I think the best way to compare this is as follows....

You're walking across a field when suddenly you notice a sniper has you in his cross hairs. You turn to run away...but you only die tired.

My point. You weren't dead before he pulled the trigger, but you were just as good as dead!

So, since Jesus was the savior of the world and since He was to pay the price. It was well with in his authority to say "thy sins are forgiven thee" before the garden.

If you still don't understand, think of it as forgiveness on credit.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Apr 4 2004, 12:20 PM

Perhaps there is an easy answer to this question, but I haven't heard it.

I believe it is Mormon doctrine that Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world--which act gave him the power to forgive OUR sins, having paid the price of them---Justice vs Mercy--the BoM talks a lot about it.

Since that is so, how is it that Jesus could forgive sins before Gethsemane? The NT recounts instances of Jesus saying, "...arize, thy sins are forgiven thee".

Any comments?

gospel ordinances (and forgiving of sin, I suppose) before Christ's Atonement were in anticipation of the event.

[Jenda]

srm, you and Setheus said just what I was thinking.

Thanks.

[Behunin]

I think this may help:

"therefore, his course is one eternal round." Alma 7:20, and:

"all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men." Alma 40:8.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Setheus@Apr 4 2004, 01:10 PM

I think the best way to compare this is as follows....

You're walking across a field when suddenly you notice a sniper has you in his cross hairs. You turn to run away...but you only die tired.

My point. You weren't dead before he pulled the trigger, but you were just as good as dead!

So, since Jesus was the savior of the world and since He was to pay the price. It was well with in his authority to say "thy sins are forgiven thee" before the garden.

If you still don't understand, think of it as forgiveness on credit.

Now, Jesus said, something like, "Father let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not my will but thine...". That sounds like Jesus was not aware, exactly, what he was going to do or what was going to happen. Or at least, that he wasn't crazy about the idea of doing it.

Yet, he must have understood it well enough to go around forgiving sins.

I can't quite buy the "one eternal round thing" applied here since that implies that Jesus already knew what lay ahead, which doesn't really square with the "....let this cup pass from me..." thing.

comment?

[Guest Starsky]

Why do you understand the statement of 'let this cup pass by' as a not knowing what was to come...

He had to have known full well. He told his disciples several times about what was about to happen. He ven stated things like....destroy this temple and in three days .....

I would say that his request to have 'this cup' pass was indication that he knew what he must endure....his statement only showed that he was given to suffer and over come.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 4 2004, 04:47 PM

Why do you understand the statement of 'let this cup pass by' as a not knowing what was to come...

He had to have known full well. He told his disciples several times about what was about to happen. He ven stated things like....destroy this temple and in three days .....

I would say that his request to have 'this cup' pass was indication that he knew what he must endure....his statement only showed that he was given to suffer and over come.

Exactly, Starsky.

Jesus knew exactly what was coming, but being fully human as well as fully divine, I am sure He was terrified of what He knew he would have to endure, otherwise the "let this cup pass by" would make no sense.

[Tr2]

You're walking across a field when suddenly you notice a sniper has you in his cross hairs. You turn to run away...but you only die tired.

My point. You weren't dead before he pulled the trigger, but you were just as good as dead!

Ok, that's just one bad analogy.

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 04:59 PM

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Jesus committed himself long before He ever came to earth.

You are comparing us (mere humans) to Jesus, and that does not even come close to conceivable. Jesus is God and we aren't. Sure, you are right when you talk in terms of us having to go through with our promises before something that we promised is valid because man is not trustworthy. But God is. And because God knows Himself, He knew He would go through with the crucifixion because it was His plan. That is why He is able to make the promises He does.

Thanks for the great scripture, Behunin. :)

Because everything is one eternal round with God, even if He didn't know if He could hold Himself as trustworthy, all He had to do was to look down the timeline and see Himself fulfill His destiny, and he would know the answer.

[Tr2]

That doesn't change the fact that Jesus did not save mankind in the garden. According to what you just said, in the garden he did nothing different than he did his entire life, and even before that.

Intentions don't pay the bills, and intentions didn't save mankind. Jesus' work on the cross saved mankind.

[Guest curvette]

Weren't the Jews granted forgiveness of their sins through the laws of Moses? They made sin offerings among other things. Jesus forgave people because of their faith and the love in their hearts. As I understand LDS doctrine, all people who had died before the atonement went to the spirit prison after death. The atonement freed them to go to "paradise" after the atonement, so I guess the atonement was 'retroactive" to anyone who had received God's forgiveness for the sins they committed on earth.

[srm]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 04:59 PM

You're walking across a field when suddenly you notice a sniper has you in his cross hairs. You turn to run away...but you only die tired.

My point. You weren't dead before he pulled the trigger, but you were just as good as dead!

Ok, that's just one bad analogy.

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

Luke 22:44

[Snow]

What's the basic argument about the atonement and the cross?

I hear people get all bent if you believe that the atonement was limited just to the time spent on the cross. At the other end of the spectrum I have heard people say that Christ's entire mortal existence was part of the atonement. Whenever, whatever was involved in the atonement, what's the reason that people get bent if you believe one way or the other?

Kordially,

Kurious in Kalifornia

[Cal]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 4 2004, 04:47 PM

Why do you understand the statement of 'let this cup pass by' as a not knowing what was to come...

He had to have known full well. He told his disciples several times about what was about to happen. He ven stated things like....destroy this temple and in three days .....

I would say that his request to have 'this cup' pass was indication that he knew what he must endure....his statement only showed that he was given to suffer and over come.

Starsky--I think you are ignoring the plain meaning of the statement "let this cup pass".......if Jesus knew so well what the meaning of his mission was, why would he suggest that the "cup pass" from him?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Apr 4 2004, 06:09 PM

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Jesus committed himself long before He ever came to earth.

You are comparing us (mere humans) to Jesus, and that does not even come close to conceivable. Jesus is God and we aren't. Sure, you are right when you talk in terms of us having to go through with our promises before something that we promised is valid because man is not trustworthy. But God is. And because God knows Himself, He knew He would go through with the crucifixion because it was His plan. That is why He is able to make the promises He does.

Thanks for the great scripture, Behunin. :)

Because everything is one eternal round with God, even if He didn't know if He could hold Himself as trustworthy, all He had to do was to look down the timeline and see Himself fulfill His destiny, and he would know the answer.

Jenda--your position also ignores the meaning of "let this cup pass"...this is not the statement of one who fully understanding the meaning of his mission. You don't ask to have the "cup pass" when you know what the meaning of the "cup" is, otherwise it is a statement of weakness. It is more understandable that Jesus didn't completely comprehend the totality of his mission than that he did, and would suggest to his father that He not have him complete it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Apr 4 2004, 08:28 PM

Weren't the Jews granted forgiveness of their sins through the laws of Moses? They made sin offerings among other things. Jesus forgave people because of their faith and the love in their hearts. As I understand LDS doctrine, all people who had died before the atonement went to the spirit prison after death. The atonement freed them to go to "paradise" after the atonement, so I guess the atonement was 'retroactive" to anyone who had received God's forgiveness for the sins they committed on earth.

curvette--yes, and if what you say is true, that the spirits of people who had died before Jesus took sins upon himself, were "trapped" in spirit prison UNTIL Jesus' mission was complete, then TIME IS a factor. And therefore the "eternal round" explanation does not apply, because under the eternal round theory, it would not matter that Jesus' hadn't completed his mission---the spirits would not have had to be in spirit prison since the atonement, as an "eternal round" was already complete as to these "trapped" spirits in prison. So, if what you say is true about the spirits being "liberated" AFTER Jesus' mission was complete, then, Jesus didn't have power to forgive sins BEFORE his mission was complete, since it was the act of suffering for the sins of the world that gave Him that very power.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 4 2004, 09:22 PM

What's the basic argument about the atonement and the cross?

I hear people get all bent if you believe that the atonement was limited just to the time spent on the cross. At the other end of the spectrum I have heard people say that Christ's entire mortal existence was part of the atonement. Whenever, whatever was involved in the atonement, what's the reason that people get bent if you believe one way or the other?

Kordially,

Kurious in Kalifornia

Snow--I agree with you. Why does it matter that we know whether the atonement was acheieved in Gethsemane, on the cross or both. We scarcely understand the whole concept anyway, why get bend about exactly the physical time and location.

My point was that there seems to be some incongruity in the idea that the atonement empowered Jesus to forgive sins, having taken them upon him, and his exercise of this power BEFORE the fact. It has been suggested that because time is an eternal round to God, that WHEN Jesus chose to exercize the power makes little difference. However, I do believe that Curvette brings up a point--- that the atonement "liberated" souls from the spirit prison. If that is so, then TIME IS a factor, and it did matter WHEN the atonement took place.

Any other thoughts?

[Guest Starsky]

There is proof that He forgave sins before Gethsemene...but of course the atonement was His whole life's mission. Maybe we shouldn't limit it to just the cross and the garden.

Matt 9

1 AND he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus aknowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to cforgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Apr 4 2004, 11:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Apr 4 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Apr 4 2004, 06:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 04:59 PM

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Jesus committed himself long before He ever came to earth.

You are comparing us (mere humans) to Jesus, and that does not even come close to conceivable. Jesus is God and we aren't. Sure, you are right when you talk in terms of us having to go through with our promises before something that we promised is valid because man is not trustworthy. But God is. And because God knows Himself, He knew He would go through with the crucifixion because it was His plan. That is why He is able to make the promises He does.

Thanks for the great scripture, Behunin. :)

Because everything is one eternal round with God, even if He didn't know if He could hold Himself as trustworthy, all He had to do was to look down the timeline and see Himself fulfill His destiny, and he would know the answer.

Jenda--your position also ignores the meaning of "let this cup pass"...this is not the statement of one who fully understanding the meaning of his mission. You don't ask to have the "cup pass" when you know what the meaning of the "cup" is, otherwise it is a statement of weakness. It is more understandable that Jesus didn't completely comprehend the totality of his mission than that he did, and would suggest to his father that He not have him complete it.

I disagree, Cal.

I think Christ knew exactly what was going to happen and was terrified. I mean, he was human. He was going to feel every strike of the whip and feel his skin rip and tear with every flail of the cat-o-nine tails, and experience more pain than most people could imagine. That is enough to terrify anyone. But, that doesn't mean it is a weakness. He had no intention on turning back. He was willing to lay down His life for us because it was the Father's will, but in his humanness, he was asking the Father to change his will. IMO.

Weak? No.

Terrified? Yes.

[Guest Starsky]

I agree with you Jenda...to think otherwise would mean we thought Christ was clueless as to what was being asked of Him. He had to volunteer you know....

[Tr2]

Luke 22:44

I am very well aware of this scipture. Read is carefully. Jesus sweat "as it were blood". Jesus never bled. Look up the original text and you'll see that "profuse sweating" is a term that is often used to describe it.

Jesus is often referred to as a safricificial lamb. Have you ever seen a sacrificial lamb that was not killed? The sacrificial lamb was nothing special until it was actually killed. The cross is the single most important thing in Christianity and mormonism takes away from it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Apr 5 2004, 09:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Apr 5 2004, 09:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Apr 4 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Apr 4 2004, 06:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Apr 4 2004, 04:59 PM

Back to the topic. Jesus did nothing but commit himself to the cross in Gethsemane. He shed no blood, suffered nothing, and paid for no sins.

Let's make this practical: When you decide that you are going to do something, is that enough or do you actuall have to go ahead and do it?

Jesus made a decision in Gethsemane, but He didn't do anything.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Jesus committed himself long before He ever came to earth.

You are comparing us (mere humans) to Jesus, and that does not even come close to conceivable. Jesus is God and we aren't. Sure, you are right when you talk in terms of us having to go through with our promises before something that we promised is valid because man is not trustworthy. But God is. And because God knows Himself, He knew He would go through with the crucifixion because it was His plan. That is why He is able to make the promises He does.

Thanks for the great scripture, Behunin. :)

Because everything is one eternal round with God, even if He didn't know if He could hold Himself as trustworthy, all He had to do was to look down the timeline and see Himself fulfill His destiny, and he would know the answer.

Jenda--your position also ignores the meaning of "let this cup pass"...this is not the statement of one who fully understanding the meaning of his mission. You don't ask to have the "cup pass" when you know what the meaning of the "cup" is, otherwise it is a statement of weakness. It is more understandable that Jesus didn't completely comprehend the totality of his mission than that he did, and would suggest to his father that He not have him complete it.

I disagree, Cal.

I think Christ knew exactly what was going to happen and was terrified. I mean, he was human. He was going to feel every strike of the whip and feel his skin rip and tear with every flail of the cat-o-nine tails, and experience more pain than most people could imagine. That is enough to terrify anyone. But, that doesn't mean it is a weakness. He had no intention on turning back. He was willing to lay down His life for us because it was the Father's will, but in his humanness, he was asking the Father to change his will. IMO.

Weak? No.

Terrified? Yes.

Jenda--if he was asking the Father to change his mind, knowing full well what that would mean for all mankind, that was more than fear, it was a yielding to that fear. What if the Father had granted his wish, or taken into consideration His request. In any case, it was a "less than perfect" thing to ask. It showed a willingness to yield to the weaknesses of the flesh. Sure it is understandable, what human WOULDN'T yield to the temptation to ask God to change his mind. But in this case, Jesus was not supposed to yield to such temptations, was he?

I have no final answer to this conundrum, but logic dictates the need for some further clarity here.

[Guest Starsky]

Maybe it was for us....as an example. That though times will come when hard things come our way and we ask to have it pass by us....that ultimately we submit to the Father's will, and great things will come of it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Tr2@Apr 5 2004, 02:54 PM

Luke 22:44

I am very well aware of this scipture. Read is carefully. Jesus sweat "as it were blood". Jesus never bled. Look up the original text and you'll see that "profuse sweating" is a term that is often used to describe it.

Jesus is often referred to as a safricificial lamb. Have you ever seen a sacrificial lamb that was not killed? The sacrificial lamb was nothing special until it was actually killed. The cross is the single most important thing in Christianity and mormonism takes away from it.

You are off the topic, but that's ok, it's happens all the time, and I am usually the most guilty one.

As to the meaning of the Cross vs. Gethsemane; No one really knows when, where, and how Jesus accomplished the atonement, and does it matter much one way or the other. That you chose to adopt the cross as the symbol YOU chose to elevate to importance is really quite trivial, isn't it? The cross was a piece of WOOD, for heaven sake. The real symbol of Jesus' sacrifice would be the SACRIFICE ITSELF, not some piece of wood. He could have been stoned to death, or whatever, and the sacrifice would have been complete.

Mormons chose to focus on the essence of the sacrifice itself and not on the physical means employed. The physical means employed (the Cross) was the choice of his persecutors; Jesus' choice was the simple act of laying down his life. Which one should be elevated, the part that Jesus played (his voluntary act) or the part that his persecutors played (chosing to kill him on a cross) ?

Bottom line: The cross is a symbol of Jesus' killers, his very life was Jesus' gift to us. Which should be worshiped?