Eternal Damnation

[percho]

it is taught that the penalty for rejecting salvation through Jesus Christ is eternal damnation. Since Jesus bore the sins of the world on the cross at Calvary, how is it that Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father? Shouldn't the Son be in everlasting torment?

No because of the righteousness of God and the grace of God.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 cor 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 2:14,15,17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

 

[percho]

It is not Christ that rejected anything. Through his death, burial and resurrection, he conquered sin, death, and Satan. Had He not rose from the dead He may still be in everlasting torment (only a conjectural possibility). But it is the resurrection that defeats all those arguments. Through the resurrection he becomes the Conqueror, and lives today. Having defeated death he is the only one through whom one can go to for salvation.

I believe you hit the nail on the head. I do not think that is a conjectural possibility at all but the very truth of God.

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead Gal 1:1
Jesus is the first cause (author) of eternal salvation Heb 5:9 by resurrection from the dead 5:5 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 5:10.
For by grace are ye saved through the faith; and that not of yourselves: the gift of God: Eph 2:8
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;

 

[percho]

It is an interesting question to ponder, and it takes some thought to ask it. However, Christ is a different Being than sinful man. Since the wages of sin is death, and Christ knew no sin, the purpose of His death could not have been His sin, with all its eternal consequences, but to atone for our sins. There is nothing we can do to wipe away the sins we commit everyday of our life. Only Jesus Christ has that ability. This can be seen in the Ressurection. Without faith in Christ, none of us will rise to eternal life. As Scripture says, David's bones are still there.

I believe he, Jesus died in Adam. He was sinless, however where there is no law sin is not imputated and those between Adam and Moses died. Christ died for us. That was the faith that brought about grace, the gift of God, eternal life.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin death; but the gift of God eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Revmitchell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement




Execution by firing squad of John D. Lee for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre. Lee's blood was shed on the ground where the massacre had taken place 20 years earlier; nevertheless, Brigham Young said that Lee "has not half atoned for his great crime" (Young 1877, p. 242).
In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine that taught that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion on the previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine is no longer accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

The doctrine originated during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Young and the other members of his First Presidency taught that the doctrine was ideally to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, carried out with love and compassion. Young considered it charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, blood atonement practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.

The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws in the territory and state of Utah allowing capital punishment by firing squad or decapitation. Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy or non-capital crimes like miscegenation.[1] There is, however, some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure.[2] The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.[3]

Blood atonement remains an important doctrine within Mormon fundamentalism.[4] Within mainstream Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has informally opined, since 1978, that the doctrine is no longer in force. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, claiming to reflect the view of church leadership, wrote in 1978 that while he still believed that certain sins are beyond the atoning power of the blood of Christ, the doctrine of blood atonement is only applicable in a theocracy.[5] Nevertheless, given its long history, the doctrine still plays a role in some Utah death penalty trials.[6]

Within Mormon fundamentalism, the concept of blood atonenment is still recognized. In contrast, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has stated that "the so-called "blood atonement", by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of [the LDS Church]".[7]

Does anyone know why heretical non Christian doctrine is pertinent to this thread?

 

[DHK]

Does anyone know why heretical non Christian doctrine is pertinent to this thread?

It is not, and he won't post it anymore.

 

[Yeshua1]

No because of the righteousness of God and the grace of God.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 cor 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 2:14,15,17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

jesus paid the Sin debt owed to the father in full upon the Cross, as he experienced "hell"being seperated from the father, he said it is finished right before he died, so he would NOT need to suffer any more, and God raising Him proved that truth!