Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 24, 2007 02:42PM
Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
I'll correct my own mistake openly.
Truthtesty: It is possible that Jesus bled out to death at the exact moment of (d) of finishe(d) when he gave up his spirit.
Truthtesty: I correct this to better clarify "It is possible that Jesus bled out to death at the exact moment of his last breath when he gave up his spirit"
Truthtesty
Let's say for the moment that Robert Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ is incorrect.
In what way would it negatively effect Christians who learn from him?
What negative effect have you noticed it producing in believers?
In Christ, GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 24, 2007 08:57PM
To the Forum:
gene: That speaks of us being united with him in his physical death. We could not be united with him in his spiritual death. For we we are all born spiritually dead to begin with.
Truthtesty: Wrong again.
It is not that we have any spiritual death or physical death deserving, capable, or "equal to" Jesus' death (all aspects) in ourselves. It is the Holy Spirit who conjoins us in the likeness of Jesus' death (all aspects), in baptism.
See Dr. Chafer Vol. 6, Page 277 "The Believer’s Share in Christ’s Death"
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 284 (summarizing) Physical death relates to imputed sin. Spiritual death relates to transmitted sin nature.
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 157 (summarizing) "body of sin" used in Romans 6:6 describes the “old man,” or "nature to sin"
Dr. Chafer Vol. 3, Page 98 (summarizing) Christ died "for sins" and "unto sin"
For those intrested in reading what Dr. Chafer said in Rom. 6:4-6, here are most of the references:
Vol. 2, Page 157, Vol. 6, Page 194, Vol. 4, Page 403, Vol. 4, Page 32, Vol. 4, Page 393, Vol. 2, Page 348, Vol. 6, Page 269, Vol. 1, Page xvii, Vol. 5, Page 256, Vol. 6, Page 123, Vol. 2, Page 189, Vol. 2, Page 353, Vol. 3, Page 96, Vol. 2, Page 349, Vol. 6, Page 290, Vol. 3, Page 359, Vol. 3, Page 6, Vol. 4, Page 86, Vol. 3, Page 250, Vol. 6, Page 277, Vol. 3, Page 74, Vol. 5, Page 210, Vol. 4, Page 87, Vol. 3, Page 231, Vol. 2, Page 367, Vol. 5, Page 180, Vol. 4, Page 96,Vol. 4, Page 109, Vol. 6, Page 288, Vol. 7, Page 287, Vol. 7, Page 267, Vol. 7, Page 188, Vol. 7, Page 56, Vol. 7, Page 148, Vol. 7, Page 63,
Truthtesty:
gene Pm'd me this: "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is a different substance."
I replied back (something to this effect) So what's the problem? If spiritual death only were the only criteria Jesus would not have needed to become "flesh and blood".
Therefore literal flesh and literal blood were necessary.
I have yet to receive a Pm back from gene.
Truthtesty
gene: That speaks of us being united with him in his physical death. We could not be united with him in his spiritual death. For we we are all born spiritually dead to begin with.
Truthtesty: Wrong again.
It is not that we have any spiritual death or physical death deserving, capable, or "equal to" Jesus' death (all aspects) in ourselves. It is the Holy Spirit who conjoins us in the likeness of Jesus' death (all aspects), in baptism.
See Dr. Chafer Vol. 6, Page 277 "The Believer’s Share in Christ’s Death"
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 284 (summarizing) Physical death relates to imputed sin. Spiritual death relates to transmitted sin nature.
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 157 (summarizing) "body of sin" used in Romans 6:6 describes the “old man,” or "nature to sin"
Dr. Chafer Vol. 3, Page 98 (summarizing) Christ died "for sins" and "unto sin"
For those intrested in reading what Dr. Chafer said in Rom. 6:4-6, here are most of the references:
Vol. 2, Page 157, Vol. 6, Page 194, Vol. 4, Page 403, Vol. 4, Page 32, Vol. 4, Page 393, Vol. 2, Page 348, Vol. 6, Page 269, Vol. 1, Page xvii, Vol. 5, Page 256, Vol. 6, Page 123, Vol. 2, Page 189, Vol. 2, Page 353, Vol. 3, Page 96, Vol. 2, Page 349, Vol. 6, Page 290, Vol. 3, Page 359, Vol. 3, Page 6, Vol. 4, Page 86, Vol. 3, Page 250, Vol. 6, Page 277, Vol. 3, Page 74, Vol. 5, Page 210, Vol. 4, Page 87, Vol. 3, Page 231, Vol. 2, Page 367, Vol. 5, Page 180, Vol. 4, Page 96,Vol. 4, Page 109, Vol. 6, Page 288, Vol. 7, Page 287, Vol. 7, Page 267, Vol. 7, Page 188, Vol. 7, Page 56, Vol. 7, Page 148, Vol. 7, Page 63,
Truthtesty:
gene Pm'd me this: "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is a different substance."
I replied back (something to this effect) So what's the problem? If spiritual death only were the only criteria Jesus would not have needed to become "flesh and blood".
Therefore literal flesh and literal blood were necessary.
I have yet to receive a Pm back from gene.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 24, 2007 11:17PM
To the Forum:
gene: Let's say for the moment that Robert Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ is incorrect.
In what way would it negatively effect Christians who learn from him?
What negative effect have you noticed it producing in believers?
Truthtesty:
Alot of the negative effects have already been explained on this forum. But one major one is that denial of the literal shed blood of Christ is satanic sin. Submitting to a satanic authority, which in turn would stop the Holy Spirit(preclude the power of the Holy Spirit over the believers' sin nature (see Chafer vol III pg 97). With the Holy Spirit's power out of the way, who's authority are believers submitting to? Thieme's false sin authority(Caeser). The believers sin nature is "out of control" of the believer. So who is controlling the sin nature of thiemites? Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
The "false born-again" "literal shed blood denying" "cult of Thieme".
That is the reason when people visited Bereichah on any given day(in the 70's and probably until 2002), they saw crew-cut Hitler youth(and adults) running to and fro, copying Thieme's identity, lack of conscience, mannerisms, speech, behaviour etc..., etc..., etc...
Truthtesty
gene: Let's say for the moment that Robert Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ is incorrect.
In what way would it negatively effect Christians who learn from him?
What negative effect have you noticed it producing in believers?
Truthtesty:
Alot of the negative effects have already been explained on this forum. But one major one is that denial of the literal shed blood of Christ is satanic sin. Submitting to a satanic authority, which in turn would stop the Holy Spirit(preclude the power of the Holy Spirit over the believers' sin nature (see Chafer vol III pg 97). With the Holy Spirit's power out of the way, who's authority are believers submitting to? Thieme's false sin authority(Caeser). The believers sin nature is "out of control" of the believer. So who is controlling the sin nature of thiemites? Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
The "false born-again" "literal shed blood denying" "cult of Thieme".
That is the reason when people visited Bereichah on any given day(in the 70's and probably until 2002), they saw crew-cut Hitler youth(and adults) running to and fro, copying Thieme's identity, lack of conscience, mannerisms, speech, behaviour etc..., etc..., etc...
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 24, 2007 11:36PM
To the Forum:
Dr. Lifton on Thought Reform (Harvard University)
MILIEU CONTROL
The most basic feature is the control of human communication within an environment If the control is extremely intense, it becomes internalized control -- an attempt to manage an individual's inner communication
Control over all a person sees, hears, reads, writes (information control) creates conflicts in respect to individual autonomy
Groups express this in several ways: Group process, isolation from other people, psychological pressure, geographical distance or unavailable transportation, sometimes physical pressure
Often a sequence of events, such as seminars, lectures, group encounters, which become increasingly intense and increasingly isolated, making it extremely difficult-- both physically and psychologically--for one to leave
Sets up a sense of antagonism with the outside world; it's "us against them"
Closely connected to the process of individual change (of personality)
[www.ex-cult.org]
Truthtesty
Dr. Lifton on Thought Reform (Harvard University)
MILIEU CONTROL
The most basic feature is the control of human communication within an environment If the control is extremely intense, it becomes internalized control -- an attempt to manage an individual's inner communication
Control over all a person sees, hears, reads, writes (information control) creates conflicts in respect to individual autonomy
Groups express this in several ways: Group process, isolation from other people, psychological pressure, geographical distance or unavailable transportation, sometimes physical pressure
Often a sequence of events, such as seminars, lectures, group encounters, which become increasingly intense and increasingly isolated, making it extremely difficult-- both physically and psychologically--for one to leave
Sets up a sense of antagonism with the outside world; it's "us against them"
Closely connected to the process of individual change (of personality)
[www.ex-cult.org]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 25, 2007 09:11AM
Quote
Truthtesty
Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
The "false born-again" "literal shed blood denying" "cult of Thieme".
That is the reason when people visited Bereichah on any given day(in the 70's and probably until 2002), they saw crew-cut Hitler youth(and adults) running to and fro, copying Thieme's identity, lack of conscience, mannerisms, speech, behaviour etc..., etc..., etc...
Truthtesty
Well, I for one never had a crew cut. Don't like em.
Others I know did not have crew cuts, either.
I think that may have been a result of his anti-hippy days teaching on long hair.
Which at that time in history was taught in many Bible believing churches.
Why was that?
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."
Its in the Bible.
I have heard others teaching against long hair during that time. Unlike you, I have been in a good number of different churches.
As far as copying another? There was a string of preachers who tried to copy the mannerisms of Billy Graham at one time. Such is life. There are other churches that resembled the pastor during those years. I know I could pick out a Baptist most of the time. They had mannerisms and common thinking as well. At least, many of them did.
When people loved the Beatles many began to look like them in dress. Does that make a cult? Robert Thieme was loved by many in his congregation. That does not automatically indicate a cult in itself. The fact you did not like the church is understandable. Since you yourself have said Christianity is a myth. Your response is not coming as a surprise.
Question: If you hated the church so much? Why did you keep attending?
That does not make sense if one hated being there so much.
Just the same, your hostility in your approach is noted.
In Christ, GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 25, 2007 09:41AM
Quote
Truthtesty
So who is controlling the sin nature of thiemites? Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
The "false born-again" "literal shed blood denying" "cult of Thieme".
That is the reason when people visited Bereichah on any given day(in the 70's and probably until 2002), they saw crew-cut Hitler youth(and adults) running to and fro, copying Thieme's identity, lack of conscience, mannerisms, speech, behaviour etc..., etc..., etc...
Truthtesty
Point I missed the first time.
Were you forced to get a crew cut like everyone else?
Did everyone have one? Or, was it a matter of personal choice?
In Christ, GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 25, 2007 04:51PM
OK.....
Here we be.
I thank you, Truthtesy, for motivating me to research out something that I should have done long before.
And..here it is. For all to witness to...
Charles Wesley
Charles Wesley (18 December 1707 - 29 March 1788) was a leader of the Methodist movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wesley
What did Charles Wesley say in reference to the blood of Christ?
III. The Blood of Christ:
Charles' application of the Biblical word "blood" and its accompanying imagery is an important example of his methodology. "Blood" is the most numerically predominant soteriological term in the hymnological corpus; it appears nearly 800 times in the later hymns alone, which is roughly twice the number of occurrences in the Authorized Version of Wesley's day.26 But this sort of language is a shock to modern sensibilities and as John Rattenbury observed, "Today the term 'blood' to some minds obscures what it symbolizes rather than illuminates it."27
Charles' basic application of "blood" was to use it as a graphic synonym for "death." generally against the larger context of sacrifice or reconciliation.28 This usage finds support in NT phraseology as Behm points out: "Like the cross, 'the blood of Christ' is simply another, and even more graphic phrase for the death of Christ in its soteriological significance."
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:uVhd_OHFUDkJ:wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theolog
Note of interest! Dr. Behm? He is also referenced in that paragraph. He lived many years after Charles Wesley died. Dr. Behm apparently did not think of this concept of the blood of Christ first. ... (and, neither did Robert B. Thieme).
Let's move on.....
E.W. Bullinger.
E.W. Bullinger was noted broadly for three works: A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1877) ISBN 0-8254-2096-2; for his ground-breaking and exhaustive work on Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898) ISBN 0-8010-0559-0; and as the primary editor of The Companion Bible (published in 6 parts, beginning in 1909 ; the entire annotated Bible was published posthumously in 1922) ISBN 0-8254-2177-2. These works and many others remain in print (2007).
In 1881, four years after the publication of the Lexicon and Concordance, Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury conferred upon Bullinger a Doctor of Divinity degree, citing Bullinger's "eminent service in the Church in the department of Biblical criticism."
Bullinger's friends included well-known Zionist Dr. Theodore Herzl. This was a personal friendship, but accorded with Bullinger's belief in a Biblical distinction between the Church and the Jewish People.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger
Now? What did E.W. Bullinger have to say in regards to the Blood of Christ?
"by His blood] Certainly not "in" His blood. Such a thing was never heard of in the Old Testament. It was not "in" blood that sins were purged away, but "by" blood, for blood itself was a cause of defilement. It was by the precious atoning merits of Him of whose death the blood speaks.*
* It is the figure Metalepsis (see Figures of Speech, page 611), by which "blood" is first put for death, and then death put for Christ's atoning merits.
http://philologos.org/__eb-ta/06Intro.htm
Some may ask? What does "Metalepsis" mean?
Metalepsis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Metalepsis (from Greek) is a figure of speech in which one thing is referenced by something else which is only remotely associated with it. Often the association works through a different figure of speech, or through a chain of cause and effect. Often metalepsis refers to the combination of several figures of speech into an altogether new one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalepsis
As you all can see for yourselves. Robert B. Thieme was not the originator of his chosen interpretation of the "blood of Christ." He may have amplified some details for his given generation, and he did. But, by far... he was not the first to realize what the Bible teaches on this subject when one has the capacity for delving into the details.
In Christ, GeneZ
Here we be.
I thank you, Truthtesy, for motivating me to research out something that I should have done long before.
And..here it is. For all to witness to...
Charles Wesley (18 December 1707 - 29 March 1788) was a leader of the Methodist movement.
What did Charles Wesley say in reference to the blood of Christ?
Charles' application of the Biblical word "blood" and its accompanying imagery is an important example of his methodology. "Blood" is the most numerically predominant soteriological term in the hymnological corpus; it appears nearly 800 times in the later hymns alone, which is roughly twice the number of occurrences in the Authorized Version of Wesley's day.26 But this sort of language is a shock to modern sensibilities and as John Rattenbury observed, "Today the term 'blood' to some minds obscures what it symbolizes rather than illuminates it."27
Charles' basic application of "blood" was to use it as a graphic synonym for "death." generally against the larger context of sacrifice or reconciliation.28 This usage finds support in NT phraseology as Behm points out: "Like the cross, 'the blood of Christ' is simply another, and even more graphic phrase for the death of Christ in its soteriological significance."
Note of interest! Dr. Behm? He is also referenced in that paragraph. He lived many years after Charles Wesley died. Dr. Behm apparently did not think of this concept of the blood of Christ first. ... (and, neither did Robert B. Thieme).
Let's move on.....
In 1881, four years after the publication of the Lexicon and Concordance, Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury conferred upon Bullinger a Doctor of Divinity degree, citing Bullinger's "eminent service in the Church in the department of Biblical criticism."
Bullinger's friends included well-known Zionist Dr. Theodore Herzl. This was a personal friendship, but accorded with Bullinger's belief in a Biblical distinction between the Church and the Jewish People.
Now? What did E.W. Bullinger have to say in regards to the Blood of Christ?
* It is the figure Metalepsis (see Figures of Speech, page 611), by which "blood" is first put for death, and then death put for Christ's atoning merits.
Some may ask? What does "Metalepsis" mean?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Metalepsis (from Greek) is a figure of speech in which one thing is referenced by something else which is only remotely associated with it. Often the association works through a different figure of speech, or through a chain of cause and effect. Often metalepsis refers to the combination of several figures of speech into an altogether new one.
As you all can see for yourselves. Robert B. Thieme was not the originator of his chosen interpretation of the "blood of Christ." He may have amplified some details for his given generation, and he did. But, by far... he was not the first to realize what the Bible teaches on this subject when one has the capacity for delving into the details.
In Christ, GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 25, 2007 11:36PM
To the Forum:
Truthtesty: gene, take a closer look. Charles Wesley also believed in the literal shed blood.
7 6
1 Oh, the depth of love divine, Th' unfathomable grace! Who shall sway how bread and wine God into man conveys! How the bread His flesh imparts, How the wine transmits His blood, Gills His faithful people's hearts With all the life of God!
[wesley.nnu.edu]
It is obvious that Wesley is speaking of the literal flesh of Jesus and the literal blood of Jesus, albeit it is God's process(s) to the Christians' hearts(plus the Christian's faith).
Also, no one is arguing that "haima" is not figurative for shed blood = kill, in a lot of cases:
Bauer\Ardnt\Gingrich p.22,23
2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
,BUT
there are a lot of cases were "literal shed blood and literal life sacrificed" is the figurative/literal meaning:
Bauer\Ardnt\Gingrich p.22,23
2. fig--- b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc...
Spiritual death alone could not resolve salvation for mankind, because spiritually the same personhood of Christ existed in theophany of the Angel of Jehovah as in the theophany of Jesus. (Thieme did say that Angel of Jehovah was Jesus)
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: gene, take a closer look. Charles Wesley also believed in the literal shed blood.
7 6
1 Oh, the depth of love divine, Th' unfathomable grace! Who shall sway how bread and wine God into man conveys! How the bread His flesh imparts, How the wine transmits His blood, Gills His faithful people's hearts With all the life of God!
[wesley.nnu.edu]
It is obvious that Wesley is speaking of the literal flesh of Jesus and the literal blood of Jesus, albeit it is God's process(s) to the Christians' hearts(plus the Christian's faith).
Also, no one is arguing that "haima" is not figurative for shed blood = kill, in a lot of cases:
Bauer\Ardnt\Gingrich p.22,23
2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
,BUT
there are a lot of cases were "literal shed blood and literal life sacrificed" is the figurative/literal meaning:
Bauer\Ardnt\Gingrich p.22,23
2. fig--- b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc...
Spiritual death alone could not resolve salvation for mankind, because spiritually the same personhood of Christ existed in theophany of the Angel of Jehovah as in the theophany of Jesus. (Thieme did say that Angel of Jehovah was Jesus)
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 26, 2007 12:59AM
To the Forum:
gene: Let's say for the moment that Robert Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ is incorrect.
In what way would it negatively effect Christians who learn from him?
What negative effect have you noticed it producing in believers?
Truthtesty:
Alot of the negative effects have already been explained on this forum. But one major one is that denial of the literal shed blood of Christ is satanic sin. Submitting to a satanic authority, which in turn would stop the Holy Spirit(preclude the power of the Holy Spirit over the believers' sin nature (see Chafer vol III pg 97). With the Holy Spirit's power out of the way, who's authority are believers submitting to? Thieme's false sin authority(Caeser). The believers sin nature is "out of control" of the believer. So who is controlling the sin nature of thiemites? Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
Truthtesty: The underlined is the part gene missed in both replies. There is a real simple test for thiemites to know in thier hearts: While passively submitting to Thieme's authority, DOES your sin nature go beserk and you are not able to control it? DO you, regardless of the rebound mantra end up becoming perverted and incompetent anyhow? and just in a higly trained, disciplined, repetitive thiemite fashion just hiding your perversions from public and hiding "all truth" from your own self? And in the place of "all truth" Do you just accept what Thieme said? DO you give more credibility to what Thieme says than even your own thinking and judgement? SO when there is a conflict between what you think and what Thieme said, you just invalidate your own thinking, pervert, adopt and copy Thieme?
That is no way for someone to live. It is not an honest Christian walk.
Also, can you honestly look Jesus in the eye and tell him that his literal shed blood is not efficacious? Can you? Can you look Jesus in the eye and say that as far as salvation is concerned his shed blood is no better then animal shed blood? Because in the soteriological sense that is the effect of what Thieme teaches. Thieme invalidates the shed blood of Christ to be no better than animal blood.
This is just a suggestion: you should try not invalidating the shed blood of Christ, remember your authority is Jesus, not Thieme, and realize God gave you your own brain to use.
Truthtesty
gene: Let's say for the moment that Robert Thieme's teaching on the blood of Christ is incorrect.
In what way would it negatively effect Christians who learn from him?
What negative effect have you noticed it producing in believers?
Truthtesty:
Alot of the negative effects have already been explained on this forum. But one major one is that denial of the literal shed blood of Christ is satanic sin. Submitting to a satanic authority, which in turn would stop the Holy Spirit(preclude the power of the Holy Spirit over the believers' sin nature (see Chafer vol III pg 97). With the Holy Spirit's power out of the way, who's authority are believers submitting to? Thieme's false sin authority(Caeser). The believers sin nature is "out of control" of the believer. So who is controlling the sin nature of thiemites? Well who are thiemites completely and totally submissive to? Thieme. Who controls thiemites identity? Thieme. Who controls thiemites conscience (or lack there of)? Thieme. Who controls Thiemites mannerisms and speech? Thieme. Who controls thiemites lives? Thieme. Who controls thiemites political views? Thieme.
Truthtesty: The underlined is the part gene missed in both replies. There is a real simple test for thiemites to know in thier hearts: While passively submitting to Thieme's authority, DOES your sin nature go beserk and you are not able to control it? DO you, regardless of the rebound mantra end up becoming perverted and incompetent anyhow? and just in a higly trained, disciplined, repetitive thiemite fashion just hiding your perversions from public and hiding "all truth" from your own self? And in the place of "all truth" Do you just accept what Thieme said? DO you give more credibility to what Thieme says than even your own thinking and judgement? SO when there is a conflict between what you think and what Thieme said, you just invalidate your own thinking, pervert, adopt and copy Thieme?
That is no way for someone to live. It is not an honest Christian walk.
Also, can you honestly look Jesus in the eye and tell him that his literal shed blood is not efficacious? Can you? Can you look Jesus in the eye and say that as far as salvation is concerned his shed blood is no better then animal shed blood? Because in the soteriological sense that is the effect of what Thieme teaches. Thieme invalidates the shed blood of Christ to be no better than animal blood.
This is just a suggestion: you should try not invalidating the shed blood of Christ, remember your authority is Jesus, not Thieme, and realize God gave you your own brain to use.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 26, 2007 01:12AM
Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
Truthtesty: gene, take a closer look. Charles Wesley also believed in the literal shed blood.
7 6
1 Oh, the depth of love divine, Th' unfathomable grace! Who shall sway how bread and wine God into man conveys! How the bread His flesh imparts, How the wine transmits His blood, Gills His faithful people's hearts With all the life of God!
[wesley.nnu.edu]
I thought you would resort to this. Go back. Look at the links I gave. That was written as official commentary from the Wesleyan University! In the song he does not give the meaning of the word usage.
And? I notice to steered clear of E.W. Bullinger. He spoke several languages and was sought after as a preeminent scholar in England.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2007 09:05PM by rrmoderator.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.