Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Date: April 30, 2008 10:32AM
Ps,
Let me straighten you out...
Thieme brought this upon himself. If Thieme had not misrepresented the facts and the Word, then this thread would not exist. Christians have a right to gather and correct the errors of any elder. The Word of God is more important than the words of Thieme.
Take for example Thieme's misrepresentation for the "Blood of Christ". Since Thieme claimed followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ?
Thieme
Quote:
1 John 1:7 "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"
Truthtesty:
This is clearly NOT what Thieme learned at Dallas Theological Seminary. What Thieme should have learned at Dallas Theological Seminary was:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood
Either Thieme was a poor student and missed this statement of Dr. Chafer or Thieme was intentionally misleading people about Dr. Chafer, for Thieme's own ends.
Another of Thieme's misrepresentations:
Thieme quote BOC 1979:
As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich
Truthtesty:
Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc... hemorrhage (cf. Lev 15:25, 20:18)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc... It's use as food is forbidden (cf. Lev 3:17, 7:26f, 17:10)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
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 ...) ...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
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... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
Truthtesty:
Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...
So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25.
1 Clement 55:1 says
1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.
[www.earlychristianwritings.com]
Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.
Arndt and Gingrich goes on:
Arndt and Gingrich:
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... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only" and in doing so is unjustly attacking the Blood of Christ. Ardnt and Gingrich do not understand or agree with Thieme's false "figurative" teaching.
You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used with different people.
Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only" and Thieme's false theory that "haima" is ABSOLUTELY figurative and does not refer to literal blood, is not substantiated by the evidence of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.
Truthtesty
Ps,
You have much to learn. It is you who is being subjective. Stick to the facts. What part of the above do you not understand? Thieme falsified his evidentiary support for his false theory of "spiritual death only". PERIOD. Thieme does not have the lexicongraphical support of Ardnt and Gingrich. Yet? Thieme claimed he did have thier support for his false theory. That is a intentional deception on Thieme's part. If you are unwilling to question Thieme and are unwilling to objectively look at the obvious facts and admit the truth, then it is you who has a problem with discernment of truth.
You say Christ was a "figurative lamb"? Prove it. Then why did Jesus appear in the flesh? the real flesh? It wasn't figurative flesh. It was real flesh. Do you think God is stupid? Do you think God just does dumb things like sending Jesus in the Flesh and Blood for no reason whatsoever? None zero zilch?
That leads me to my next exercise I give to poor, non-discerning, "unwilling to question Thieme" thiemites.
Here is how it went with one of your predecessors:
November 17, 2007 03:25PMTruthtesty
Date Added: 01/13/2007
Posts: 384 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.To the Forum:
Simply, if spiritual death were the only aspect requirement, then why didn't Jesus just spiritually die (separate from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah and resurrect?
Truthtesty: I asked gene this question many times. gene was evasive. Finally gene PM'd this to me in a "private message"
gene "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."
Truthtesty:
That is not an answer to people who use common sense. That is not an answer which thinks through and applies logic to the theory as a whole.
So thiemites, what would that "different substance" be?
Could that "different substance" be "flesh and blood"?
gene COULD have said " "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 not "flesh and blood".
gene tries to put as much distance between "flesh and blood" as possible, by using "other" words "different substance"
So logically gene, tell this forum how our sins of the flesh could only be IMPUTED into the "flesh and blood" of Jesus. Answer this gene if sins could only be imputed through Jesus' "flesh and blood" Would not that make "flesh and blood" efficacious? Efficacious and necessary for salvation? Yes. It would.
Yes! The flesh and blood of Jesus WERE/ARE necessary and efficacious and they performed thier part in God's process(s).
Thus the reverse is proven to be true. "It" in "it is finished" does not refer only to "spiritual death only".
Thieme's "spiritual death only" theory, is proven incorrect.
Also, gene gave the standard false half-arguement that Thieme gave. I know because I heard Thieme say it.
Thieme's logic is flawed and lacking according to biblical evidence, on the "spiritual death only" issue and on many many many other issues.
Truthtesty