I read those posts. You also said:
The answer to that question was given in the first of those links, in post #309. Have a look at that post again, and tell me what you don’t understand about it, and I will try and explain it further.I read those posts. You also said:
We think that nobody’s resurrected body has blood; and I thought I already answered your question above. Why do you repeat the same question over and over to which the answer has already been given?
What is your Scriptural proof that no resurrected body has blood. I know you say it is a popular LDS belief. Why?
. Have a look at that post again, and tell me what you don’t understand about it, and I will try and explain it further.The answer to that question was given in the first of those links, in post #309
As I said in that quote, there is no “scriptural proof”. It originates from the teachings of Joseph Smith. Here are some references:You said:
It is a common and popular belief among LDS that one of the differences between resurrected bodies and natural bodies is that they no longer have blood running through their veins, because blood is the agent that sustains natural life, not life as it is experienced by a resurrected being. It is not strictly speaking an “official” doctrine, in that there is nothing in LDS scripture that specifically teaches it; but it is a belief that is popularly held by LDS, and one that I happen to agree with.
Dan:
That gets closer but I had asked: What is your Scriptural proof that no resurrected body has blood. I know you say it is a popular LDS belief. Why?
What scriptural passages is this based upon? It is the bible or some other book?
Thanks, that helps considerably. I was looking to see if Joseph Smith was appealing to the flesh and blood in 1Co 15 (do you know if he did?) and stumbled upon this:As I said in that quote, there is no “scriptural proof”. It originates from the teachings of Joseph Smith. Here are some references:
In contrast to the view that the body when buried or cremated has no identifiable residue, Joseph Smith taught that “there is no fundamental principle belonging to a human system that ever goes into another in this world or the world to come” (HC 5:339). Chemical disintegration is not final destruction. The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is quickened by the Spirit there will be “spirit in their [veins] and not blood” (WJS, p. 270; see also TPJS, p. 367). Source: Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Emphasis added.
God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle. Some dwell in higher glory than others. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.367.) Emphasis added.
What is particularly noticeable from the last reference is that it is not a verbatim quote. Much of what is recorded in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are not verbatim quotes, but brief notes taken by people who were present when Joseph Smith preaches those sermons. So a lot of material is left out which means that we do not always have the full picture of what was said. But the quotes are reliable enough to give us a reasonable insight into what was said. In any case, that is the source of LDS belief that there is no blood running through the veins of resurrected bodies; although their bodies are still physical and tangible, and are of “flesh and bones” as we would understand it.
Would you mind explaining how the 144,000 are considered saviors?I am going on in my progress for eternal life. It is not only necessary that you should be baptized for your dead, but you will have to go through all the ordinances for them, the same as you have gone through to save yourselves. There will be 144,000 saviors on Mount Zion, and with them an innumerable host that no man can number. Oh! I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling and your election sure; and if any man preach any other Gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed; and some of you who now hear me shall see it, and know that I testify the truth concerning them.
The expression “saviors on mount Zion” originates from this Old Testament verse:Thanks, that helps considerably. I was looking to see if Joseph Smith was appealing to the flesh and blood in 1Co 15 (do you know if he did?) and stumbled upon this:
Would you mind explaining how the 144,000 are considered saviors?
Jesus is a living sacrifice. He is described as the “Lamb” 28 times in the book of Revelation. He is also described as the High priest. He stands at the Altar as our eternal priest forever offering Himself to the Father as the “Lamb” for our salvation. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity. That is exactly what is happening in Heb 8:1-3. He is mediating the covenant.I do. He is a High Priest forever, and in that capacity continues to act as the Savior, Redeemer, and Advocate with the Father for all mankind. But He obtained that appointment once through the shedding of His blood once here on earth. I don’t know what you mean by “currently … offering the same sacrifice [in heaven]”. He offered that sacrifice once on earth, by which He earned the right to became the Redeemer of all mankind forever. Don’t forget that this discussion started by your saying that Jesus has blood running through His veins in heaven because He is offering that blood as a sacrifice in heaven. That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t agree with that. But if you mean that by His one sacrifice on earth He became our Redeemer eternally in heaven, that I can agree with.
I agree with you except the last sentence.I agree that He had a mortal flesh, and His sacrifice took place in time. But we think that He also had an immortal spirit which was divine. His suffering was not just physical, but also spiritual. He suffered as God, not just as man; in the spirit, not just in the flesh. He suffered “the pains of all men”. He couldn’t have done that by just suffering in the flesh. His immortal and divine spirit suffered with an infinite capacity to suffer, and thus redeem all of mankind (in fact all of God’s creation) not just some of it. That is why His sacrifice was eternal here on earth, not in heaven.
Maybe; but I am not sure what you meant to prove with that one. It does not prove that Jesus had blood with Him in heaven.
I would have to get into the entire theology of the Eucharist to give a good answer.Again, I don’t know what you mean by “His body and blood eternally offered to the Father”. If you mean that by virtue of His one-time (but eternal) sacrifice on earth He has won the right to stand eternally as our Advocate with that Father, I agree. But if you mean that he is eternally “offering blood” in heaven, I don’t agree.
I can’t speak for the LDS.While I don’t agree with your view, you are more consistent than the LDS who can’t really articulate or consistently present the view that the body in heaven has flesh and bones but not blood. The fact remains that Paul teaches that the body of Christ, both flesh and blood, was sacrificed. In my previous post I showed that the words in Hebrews 10 refer to a whole body sacrifice. I should have included the following which presents Paul’s conclusion:
NJB Hebrews 10:10 And this will was for us to be made holy by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ made once and for all.
I am not sure if you agree with another poster who said the Passover Lamb was not a whole burnt offering. That may be true, but while that offering did prefigure the Christ’s sacrifice in some respects, it is evidently not in all respects, because Paul explicitly argues that the body was the sacrifice.
LDS does not have a consistent hermeneutic on this. Do you understand their position? I find it confusing, and the only person who could answer it appeals to be unwilling to expand on their position.
Where does it say that the altar was “in heaven”? and where does it say that there was a “high priest” attending to that altar? and where does it say that an altar is for blood sacrifices only, and nothing else? Looking at the wider context in which the verse occurs, we have the following:When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. (Rev 6:9)
Can anyone explain why there is a High Priest and an alter in heaven if nothing is being offered?
I don’t know what that means. It doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand it.Jesus is a living sacrifice.
Agreed.He is described as the “Lamb” 28 times in the book of Revelation.
Agreed.He is also described as the High priest.
That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you mean that He offered a sacrifice that was infinite and eternal, and has eternal consequence for all of us, and that He thereby earned the right to act eternally as our Advocate and Redeemer, I don’t have any problems with any of that. But the way you have expressed it in all honesty doesn’t make sense to me.He stands at the Altar as our eternal priest forever offering Himself to the Father as the “Lamb” for our salvation.
If by that you mean that He is acting eternally as our Advocate with the Father, I have no problem with that; but if you mean something else, then you have to explain. I don’t understand.When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.
Hebrews 8:That is exactly what is happening in Heb 8:1-3.
I agree that He is the “mediator of the new covenant”. But how is He “mediating the new covenant”? By eternally offering Himself on the altar? How? Where does it say that?He is mediating the covenant.
Again, I don’t fully understand. I agree that His priesthood is eternal. I agree that His sacrifice was eternal and makes Him our Advocate eternally with the Father. I agree that His sacrifice was eternal and reaches into the eternities in its consequence. But if you mean something else then I don’t understand.His sacrifice on earth happened once, It is eternal in heaven because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).
We have access to His sacrifice through faith and repentance, and our willingness to obey His commandments. The Eucharist is a memorial of that eternal sacrifice, and the covenant that we have entered into by baptism which makes us the beneficiaries of that sacrifice. By regularly (and worthily) partaking of the Eucharist we renew the covenant that we have entered into with Him, which makes us worthy to be continually in receipt of the grace and Spirit that He offers us through that sacrifice.We have access to His eternal sacrifice through the Eucharist.
I have discussed that subject with Catholics before, and our understanding of that sacrament is different from the Catholic one.I would have to get into the entire theology of the Eucharist to give a good answer.
I don’t think I answered that question completely. Joseph Smith was appealing to 1 Cor. 15:50 in the following quote I gave in Post #343:I was looking to see if Joseph Smith was appealing to the flesh and blood in 1Co 15 (do you know if he did?) …
The problem here is that the contrast that Paul makes in 1Co 15 is that of of a body of flesh and blood like **Adam **and a life-giving spirit like the resurrected Jesus.I don’t think I answered that question completely. Joseph Smith was appealing to 1 Cor. 15:50 in the following quote I gave in Post #343:
God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” [Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29.] When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle. Some dwell in higher glory than others. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.367.) Emphasis added.
But the context makes it clear that by “flesh” he understands mortal flesh, not flesh in the absolute sense of the term. The “flesh” will survive; but its constitution will be changed so that it will no longer be mortal, or subject to “corruption,” and will not be dependent on blood as its life giving agent. But it will nevertheless survive as “flesh” in a transformed state, and it will be tangible by us humans as Jesus’ body was after His resurrection.
Continuing from Chapter 5 we see the heavenly perspective of what is happening on earth. The were not literally sacrificed on the Temple alter but they are martyrs for Christ. Which is why their soul’s are under the heavenly alter in the throne room asking God for justice.Where does it say that the altar was “in heaven”?
and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest. (Rev 1:13)and where does it say that there was a “high priest” attending to that altar?
It doesn’t say that, which has been my point the entire time.and where does it say that an altar is for blood sacrifices only, and nothing else?
It shouldn’t be interpreted literally. It should be interpreted according to the use of apocalyptic imagery.So what kind of “beasts” do you think they were that could “talk;” and what could be the meaning of “I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say;” and what could be the meaning of the strange “horses” and where did they come from; and how did “Death and Hell” follow the horse—and ultimately, if you are not willing to interpret the “millennial” reign of Christ in the Revelation literally, what makes you so confident that all of the above should be interpreted literarily? Do you decided arbitrarily what to interpret literally and what figuratively, as it suits you; or is there some kind of method to all of this madness?
Jesus’ whole life was a sacrifice (Heb 10:5-10) including the central act of his death, but when he rose from the dead he did not stop “being” the lamb.I don’t know what that means. It doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand it.
Yes that is what I mean. We believe one way he mediates the covenant is through his participation of the Eucharist.That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you mean that He offered a sacrifice that was infinite and eternal, and has eternal consequence for all of us, and that He thereby earned the right to act eternally as our Advocate and Redeemer, I don’t have any problems with any of that. But the way you have expressed it in all honesty doesn’t make sense to me.
Hebrews 8:
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
I don’t see in those verses what you apparently are implying.
His mediation is celebrating the wedding feast of the Lamb at the alter. The Eucharist.I agree that He is the “mediator of the new covenant”. But how is He “mediating the new covenant”? By eternally offering Himself on the altar? How? Where does it say that?
Yes! It is a memorial sacrifice. It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time. It is the heavenly feast that actually touches earth. It not only makes us worthy to continually recieve the grace and Spirit, IT DELIVERS!We have access to His sacrifice through faith and repentance, and our willingness to obey His commandments. The Eucharist is a memorial of that eternal sacrifice, and the covenant that we have entered into by baptism which makes us the beneficiaries of that sacrifice. By regularly (and worthily) partaking of the Eucharist we renew the covenant that we have entered into with Him, which makes us worthy to be continually in receipt of the grace and Spirit that He offers us through that sacrifice.
No, I think you are mistaken about that. The contrast is between Adam and mortal Jesus, not resurrected Jesus. Compare with the following:The problem here is that the contrast that Paul makes in 1Co 15 is that of of a body of flesh and blood like Adam and a life-giving spirit like the resurrected Jesus.
You have asked me that question around twenty times I think, and each time I have answered No! However Joseph Smith was a great prophet, and had many revelations which he did not always write down, and we think that he obtained that information by revelation from the Lord rather than exclusively from biblical scripture (with the possible exception of 1 Cor. 15:50).Does Smith have some Scriptural reason why blood will not be in the resurrection body?
The contrast is not between Adam and mortal Jesus in 1Co 15.No, I think you are mistaken about that. The contrast is between Adam and mortal Jesus, not resurrected Jesus. Compare with the following:
John 3:
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
See my post #323.
You have asked me that question around twenty times I think, and each time I have answered No! However Joseph Smith was a great prophet, and had many revelations which he did not always write down, and we think that he obtained that information by revelation from the Lord rather than exclusively from biblical scripture (with the possible exception of 1 Cor. 15:50).
Paul’s language is not easy to understand. Peter recognized that in 2 Peter 3:15,16. In 1 Corinthians 15 the main theme of the chapter is the resurrection; but at the same time he talks about different things in different verses. Those two verses are not “linkable” in the way that you are trying to link them; and I disagree with your interpretation of the whole of 1 Cor 15.The contrast is not between Adam and mortal Jesus in 1Co 15.
NAB 1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is** raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit**.
The “So, too” links verse 44 to verse 45. The contrast is the natural body on earth to the spiritual body in heaven an SO TO the first man Adam becoming a living soul and the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
And where is the rulebook for that?It shouldn’t be interpreted literally. It should be interpreted according to the use of apocalyptic imagery.
And what conclusion do you intend to draw from that?Jesus said to them in reply, "See that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and they will deceive many. You will hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be famines and earthquakes from place to place. All these are the beginning of the labor pains. Then they will hand you over to persecution, and they will kill you. You will be hated by all nations because of my name. (Mat 24:4-9)
If you want to look at it in the broadest possible sense, the lives of all of us is, or should be, a sacrifice:Jesus’ whole life was a sacrifice …
Hebrews 10:5–10 reads as follows:… (Heb 10:5-10) including the central act of his death, …
No “lamb” that is sacrificed stops being a “lamb,” even after it is sacrificed. But its sacrifice is offered once, not perpetually.… but when he rose from the dead he did not stop “being” the lamb.