Jesus' sacrifice on the cross

 Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is not what some atheists, anti-theists, unbelievers, and other assorted critics of Christianity make it out to be. They contend it had to have conveyed some sort of loss, or extended pain, or just makes no sense since Jesus knew he would come back from the dead. But those are all misunderstandings of what Jesus sacrifice was all about.

Christ’s atoning death must be seen against the background of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Before Christ’s atoning death it was necessary for sacrifices to be regularly offered to compensate for the sins that had been committed. These sacrifices were necessary, not to work a reformation in the sinner nor to deter the sinner or others from committing further sin, but to atone for the sin, which inherently deserved punishment. There had been offense against God’s law and hence against God himself, and this had to be set right.

The ‬Hebrew ‬word ‬most ‬commonly ‬used ‬in ‬the ‬Old ‬Testament ‬for ‬the ‬various ‬types ‬of ‬atonement literally means “‬to cover.‭” ‬One was delivered from punishment by the interposing of something between one’s sin and God. God then saw the atoning sacrifice rather than the sin. The covering of the sin meant that the penalty no longer had to be exacted from the sinner.

Simply put, a sacrifice was offered as a substitute for the sinner. It bore the sinner’s guilt. For the sacrifice to be effective, there had to be some connection, some point of commonality, between the victim and the sinner for whom it was offered.

The sacrificial animal had to be spotless, without blemish. The one for whom atonement was being made had to present the animal and lay his hands on it. This bringing of the animal and laying on of hands constituted a confession of guilt on the part of the sinner. The laying on of hands symbolized a transfer of the guilt from the sinner to the victim. Then the offering or sacrifice was accepted by the priest.

While the legal portions of the Old Testament typify with considerable clarity the sacrificial and substitutionary character of Christ’s death, the prophetic passages go even further. They establish the connection between the Old Testament sacrifices and Christ’s death. Isaiah 53 is the clearest of all. Having described the person of the Messiah and indicated the nature and extent of the iniquity of sinners, the prophet makes an allusion to Christ’s sacrifice: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (v. 6). The iniquity of sinners is transferred to the suffering servant, just as in the Old Testament rites the sins were transferred to the sacrificial animal. The laying on of hands was an anticipation of the believer’s active acceptance of Christ’s atoning work.

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT law his sacrifice must be understood in light of what those sacrifices were. Jesus Christ's sacrifice was that of standing in our stead, in our place, so God's wrath would be upon him and not us.

Mormon temples make no sense as a "restored" practice.

 The purpose of the biblical temple was to teach the need for atonement of sins as a precondition for authentic worship of the true and living God. The location of the altar of burnt offering immediately in front of the only entrance to the Jerusalem temple illustrates this. It emphasized that God’s love and acceptance can only be extended to the sinner whose transgressions have been borne by His lamb of sacrifice. Solomon expressed this singular purpose of the temple in 2 Chronicles 2:6, "who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?"

Mormon temples exist as places to perform rituals, such as baptism for the dead and eternal marriage. It claims that these rites were a part of early Christianity but were sabotaged by false teachers. However, these Mormon temple rituals are not supported by the Bible, ancient Jewish literature, or early Christian history.

Inside each Mormon temple there is an impressive baptismal font mounted on the backs of twelve life-size, sculpted oxen. However, the basin at the biblical temple was not used for baptisms, as the Mormon Church teaches (Christian baptism is a NT ordinance, not an OT one). Rather, the Scriptures plainly state that it was used by the priests to wash themselves after offering animal sacrifices in preparation for ministry in the sanctuary (Exodus 30:18-20; 2 Chronicles 4:2-6)

Jesus Christ predicted that the Jerusalem temple was about to be destroyed (Matthew 24:2). He told his disciples: “ … *verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another * … ”

This prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, when the Roman general Titus demolished the temple; it has never since been rebuilt. Elsewhere, Jesus said that temple worship was about to be replaced by a new form of worship without a temple building: “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father … *But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4:21,23).

A dramatic event at the time of Christ’s death on the cross signaled the end of temple worship. The Gospels record that at the very moment Jesus expired, “the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (Matthew 27:51; also Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). Before it’s rending at the time of Jesus death, the thick temple veil had served as a barrier to prevent the priests from seeing into the temple’s inner room, the Holy of Holies. This inner sanctum represented the place of God’s holy and glorious presence. Only the high priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, once a year on the Day of Atonement. This restriction signified that access into God’s presence was not truly provided by the Old Covenant. In the words of the New Testament book of Hebrews 9:8, “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.

The rending of the veil signified the end of the temple worship system. That system is now obsolete, and we no longer need a human priest or temple. Under the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ, He is the believer’s High Priest in the very sanctuary of Heaven itself. Thus, a “restored temple” such as the Mormon Church proposes, is a contradiction in terms.

The Great Apostasy and Amos 8

Mormons have long held that Amos 8:11-12 specifically predicted the “Great Apostasy” that the LDS Church teaches stretched from about AD 100 (when the New Testament apostles passed from the scene) to 1830

After centuries of spiritual darkness described by Amos and Jeremiah, we solemnly announce to all the world that the spiritual famine is ended, the spiritual drought is spent, the word of the Lord in its purity and totalness is available to all men. One needs not wander from sea to sea nor from the north to the east, seeking the true gospel as Amos predicted, for the everlasting truth is available. [Spencer W. Kimball, 12th of the LDS]

The LDS church still uses Amos 8 to teach this doctrine

If we look at Amos 8:11-12 in context, we find that it simply has nothing to do with the Christian church during or after the New Testament era. There is no connection between what Amos said and anything that happened following the passing of the New Testament apostles more than 800 years after the time of Amos.

After telling the northern kingdom of Israel that God was going to bring judgments on the neighboring nations (1:3-2:5), Amos told Israel that God was going to bring judgment on them as well (2:6-16). The rest of the book elaborates on the reasons for this judgment, what it will be like, and the results of the judgment. When we come to chapter 8, we can see this same theme continuing: “The end is come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them any more” (8:2). God will judge Israel because its people mistreated the poor (8:4-6). Because of these sins, God will bring mourning in the land (8:7-10). It is in this context that God tells Israel that he will send “a famine in the land...of hearing the words of the Lord” (v. 11). The people of the northern kingdom will look for God’s word but will not be able to find it (v. 12). Those who worship the false gods of Samaria, Dan, and Beersheba “shall fall, and never rise up again” (v. 14). All of this took place when, some forty years later, God allowed the Assyrians to conquer the northern kingdom of Israel (722 BC).

The precise wording of verse 12 describing the inability of the people to find a word from God makes it clear that Amos is referring specifically to the northern kingdom of Israel. He says that they will unsuccessfully seek divine revelation “from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east.” The wording “from the north even to the east” is surprising; one would normally have expected the expression “from north to south.” Scholars have offered a variety of explanations, but they generally agree that this wording reflects the local geography of the northern kingdom or of the Holy Land as a whole. The best explanation remains the view that the one direction the idolatrous Israelites in the northern kingdom would not look for God’s word was south—to the southern kingdom of Judah and its religious center in Jerusalem.

The description of ‘from sea to sea,’ that is, from west to east (or vice versa) will lead them from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea (or vice versa).” Amos then says “from north to east” instead of “from north to south” because the one place Israel would not look for the word of the Lord was to the south. The south is precisely where Judah is located, and this southern prophet [Amos] most surely believes that there in Judah, at least, one can surely find the words of the Lord.

That Amos is referring to the kingdom of Israel is confirmed in verse 14, where he speaks of Samaria, Dan, and Beersheba as places of idolatry:

“They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again” (Amos 8:14).

When we consider the focus of Amos as a whole, and Amos 8 in particular, on the northern kingdom of Israel, and the specific geographical language of verses 12 and 14, it becomes clear that Amos is referring to a spiritual “famine” for that northern kingdom.

There simply is no basis in the text for referring or applying the warning in Amos 8:11-12 to the supposed Great Apostasy of Christianity that Mormons think took place over eight centuries later.

Since the prophecy of Amos 8:11-12 in its own literary and historical context refers to a judgment that came on the northern kingdom of Israel. It simply does not and cannot refer to a period of apostasy that would come on the largely Gentile Christian church almost a millennium later. But could Amos’s description be illustrative of that apostasy as some LDS apologists suggest?

Two things, first fhe sins for which the people were judged with a famine of hearing from God, according to Amos, were sins of mistreating the poor (Amos 8:4-6) sins of which the church after the passing of the apostles was not guilty. In fact, the church in the second and third centuries was renowned for its charity.

Secondly, the withdrawal of hearing words from God was a judgment on Israel for its gross disobedience to God. Amos warns that the people would not only suffer, they would be in a state of mourning and bitter grief (Amos 8:7-10).

In this context, the “famine” was the lack of any comforting word from God, any hope of God lifting the judgment. The church after the passing of the apostles experienced suffering in the form of persecution but rejoiced in it, confident that God was with them and blessing them despite their suffering. The church’s experience during the second and third centuries was not an experience of judgment.

Can a religious group that so badly mishandles Biblical texts like this one really be a divinely authorized and uniquely inspired restoration of the truth?

Unique LDS doctrines and practices?

I always found these this interesting:

Unique LDS doctrines and practices - most of the Mormons I know would say that these are in line with LDS teachings:

1) Belief in an apostasy in the early church, which the Reformation did not adequately correct, necessitating a further Restoration

2) Belief in the necessity of believers’ baptism by immersion for salvation

3) Dependence on Acts 2:38 for the sequence of saving actions, which include faith, repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and appropriate good works to demonstrate persevering to the end, upon which eternal life can then be assured

4) A rejection of all the historic creeds and confessions of faith of the church

5) A desire to separate from all other existing forms of Christianity but to unite as the one true church of Jesus Christ

6) Using a name for one’s church that referred only to Christ and not to any human leaders

7) Strong anti-Calvinism; against all five points of the “TULIP”—total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the (guaranteed) perseverance of the saints

8) Preaching against “faith only,” especially in light of James 2:24

9) Ambiguity whether or not the Holy Ghost is a person

10) The necessity of weekly Communion, but avoidance of wine due to teetotalism

11) Against paid clergy, clerical titles, and the facetiousness caused by denominationalism

12) A spirit of self-reliance, a stress on tithing, and a strong concern to care for the genuinely needy in Christian circles and elsewhere

13) An emphasis on Sabbath-keeping and the restoration of morality to a church and culture widely perceived to have become antinomian

14) The generation of a new translation of the Scriptures

15) The ultimate harmony of science and religion

16) A sharp distinction between the dispensations of the patriarchs, the law, and the gospel

17) Belief in the establishment of God’s kingdom in America in a more complete form than in any previous era of church history, described as “building Zion”

18) a renewed missionary zeal

19) A charismatic, iconoclastic founder

Yet..... Every item was a central tenet of the preaching of Alexander Campbell, from which the Disciples of Christ movement was formed.

One of Campbell’s brightest followers, with whom he discoursed extensively, was Sidney Rigdon [this was in the early to late's 1820s], who later became Joseph Smith’s “right hand man.” George Arbaugh, who chronicled in detail Smith’s career-long doctrinal pilgrimage increasingly away from orthodox Christianity, was even able to say that at its inception, Mormonism was a “Campbellite sect.”

Of course, Campbell strictly limited his sources of authority to the Old and New Testaments. Joseph Smith had other influences for his revelations.

Sources:

LDS author Richard L. Bushman (Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism)

Lester G. McAllister, ed., An Alexander Campbell Reader 

Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, in Reference to the Union of Christians, and a Restoration of Primitive Christianity, as Plead in the Current Reformation

Walter Scott, The Gospel Restored: A Discourse

Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement 

George B. Arbaugh, Revelation in Mormonism

Beckwith, Moser, Owen The New Mormon Challenge.

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

 Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Josephus all attest to the existence of Jesus 

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian **Tacitus** wrote:

*Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....*

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of **Pliny the Younger** to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity. At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

*They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

*Lucian* of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

*The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.*

Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named **Mara Bar-Serapion**, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:

*What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.*

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from **Tacitus and Josephus**, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:

He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus.

*“If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point*,” 

Robert Van Voorst observes. 

And Tacitus was careful enough historian not to report real executions of a nonexistent people.

1) His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.

2) He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.

3) He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.

4) He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.

5) Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, Josephus records.

6) Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.

7) His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.

8) He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign

Note: Criticism like this doesn't prove Jesus was divine, or that He performed miracles, or fulfilled prophecies, etc are all irrelevant since those are not germane to my topic, which is: there is evidence for the existence of the man named Jesus in the 1st century who did some of the things attributed to him in the Bible.

Also, some dispute parts of the quotes of Tacitus and Josephus, not all of it. 

Question: How many ancient persons are attested to in 5 different ancient sources?

For more details, see here

Edit: The criticism that these sources/documents were "not contemporary" and therefore are not reliable is a non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow. The "it must be contemporary" rule is not used by any credentialed historian of today. 

Such sources are preferable, but most documents in the ancient world were **not** contemporary to the events recorded in them. Such people or events were the exceptions, not the rule. For example, the first written source attesting to the existence of king Archelaus of Cappadocia is Josephus in his book Jewish War, around 60 years after his death. 

Another example: only six sources attest to Spartacus within 150 years of his life, the earliest of which doesn't explicitly name Spartacus by name (Cicero), and another of which is lost (Varro), with the rest being short passages written decades or a century after the events. None of the sources to Spartacus were witnesses, nor were they written during Spartacus' life. Yet no historian questions the existence of  Archelaus or Spartacus .