Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zeebrook
()
Date: November 19, 2009 05:50PM
Thieme's Testimony
I only remember Thieme once speaking of his own salvation experience, and that was a long time ago. There was some opposition from his father but do not remember much of the rest of the details. What I do remember is that he did not like people giving a testimony of their salvation when it seemed to revolve around how bad they were and how lucky God was to save them.
Back on the Blood
Stibbs on page 1 in the Preface to the Second Edition states in the very first line "Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..". Believe Stibbs is clear as day on that one, remember first line of the preface to the book.
Stibbs full paragraph states:
Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death, has been contributed to A Theological Word Book of the Bible (edited by Alan Richardson, S.C.M. Press, 1950) by the Rev. F. J. Taylor in an article on the word 'blood'. A longer exposition, similar in character to this lecture, written by the Rev. L. L. Morris, Ph.D., and introducing several fresh points of scriptural exegesis in direct support of the same conclusion, appeared in The Journal of Theological Studies for October 1952 under the title The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood."
So Stibbs says no ongoing debate, conclusion "in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death". He says Taylor and Morris have the same conclusion. What was that again "in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death".
[www.theologicalstudies.org.uk]
Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32)
In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment of those who have said that the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'. 'It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial issues.'
Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear.
I only remember Thieme once speaking of his own salvation experience, and that was a long time ago. There was some opposition from his father but do not remember much of the rest of the details. What I do remember is that he did not like people giving a testimony of their salvation when it seemed to revolve around how bad they were and how lucky God was to save them.
Back on the Blood
Stibbs on page 1 in the Preface to the Second Edition states in the very first line "Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..". Believe Stibbs is clear as day on that one, remember first line of the preface to the book.
Stibbs full paragraph states:
Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death, has been contributed to A Theological Word Book of the Bible (edited by Alan Richardson, S.C.M. Press, 1950) by the Rev. F. J. Taylor in an article on the word 'blood'. A longer exposition, similar in character to this lecture, written by the Rev. L. L. Morris, Ph.D., and introducing several fresh points of scriptural exegesis in direct support of the same conclusion, appeared in The Journal of Theological Studies for October 1952 under the title The Biblical Use of the Term "Blood."
So Stibbs says no ongoing debate, conclusion "in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death". He says Taylor and Morris have the same conclusion. What was that again "in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death".
[www.theologicalstudies.org.uk]
Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32)
In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment of those who have said that the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'. 'It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial issues.'
Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 23, 2009 08:51AM
To the Forum:
zeebrook quote: Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear.
Truthtesty: No worries.
You doubt wrong. Clear to you, but not reality. I prefer the term debate, if you see it as an argument that is on you. However, I do mostly disagree, because Stibbs says it's "ongoing debate" in the document. How could you miss that? Stibbs was inconsistent so it seems he was in doubt. Conclusively towards what or whom? Reality? No Stibbs did not conclusively prove the point to reality. To himself? No one but Stibbs knows that if he felt confident, but he is not 100 percent correct.
zeebrook quote: "Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace."
Truthtesty: Mostly wrong.
I agree it is by grace, but not with Stibbs' definition of the term Blood. Stibbs is inconsistent. Like I said before "Stibbs produced supporting evidence for his view, but did not conclusively prove that blood means death. The paper(THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'BLOOD'IN SCRIPTURE by
THE REV. A. M. STIBBS, M.A. Vice-Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London THE TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT LECTURE, 1947) by Stibbs admits that it is an "ongoing debate": "The continuance of this debate makes it apparent how important it is to distinguish between some ideas, which may have been associated with blood in ancient, and indeed in modern times, and the ultimate and distinctive theological meaning given to the term in its use in the
inspired Word of God, and particularly in the apostolic testimony of the New Testament concerning the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross..."
Stibbs is inconsistent. Like I said before: "Truthtesty: You need to accurately represent the authors view. The paper is a view with supporting evidence. Stibbs did not "conclusively prove" blood means death.
To me it seems to be "metaphors on steroids" blown out of real proportion.
Jesus clearly spoke of his own literal body and literal blood for the remission of sins. And by body Jesus meant body and by blood Jesus meant blood. Matthew 26:26-28
Though it is figurative in the sense that it is literal blood and literal body sacrificed for the remission of sins. Jesus is definitely referencing His real blood sacrificed as "pour" and "drink"
Though figuratively drank(for literal salvation) it is still referencing the literal Blood(only liquid is drank) and Body of Jesus sacrificed.
You don't pour death out or drink death. This is the inconsistent application of the literal to figurative. Jesus poured Shed Blood out while the Blood touched the flesh and life sacrificed at the same time.
The reference is Jesus clearly relating salvation to literal blood characteristics. "Poured out" "drinketh". Literal liquid characteristics.
Similarly, as Dewar said: (paraphrasing)there is no antithesis between death and life in blood-theology. Both ideas are essential for a right understanding
of the biblical idea of sacrifice.
Stibbs' document quote: "First Edition - - January, 1948.
Second Edition - - December, 1954.
Reprinted - - December, 1958.
Third Edition - - November, 1962.
Prepared for the web by Michael Farmery and Robert I Bradshaw in February 2005.
Reproduced by kind permission of the copyright holder"
Truthtesty: that would seem to be an "ongoing debate" as well as Stibbs' own admission of an " ongoing debate". Have you heard the Catholic Church recant the literal Shed Blood of Jesus? I haven't. Reasonable minds would say there is an "ongoing debate". But there are also Protestant Churches who continue to believe in the literal Shed Blood Theology.
1 example was Dr.Lewis Sperry Chafer.Thieme's teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer was aware of this controversy, in 1947 about the same time as Stibbs' lecture.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1947, 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.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1947, 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
Stibbs' document quote: "Surely such metaphorical
phraseology, and not least the fact that it is only metaphorical, must be of some significance to
the Bible student in interpreting such New Testament statements as 'They washed their robes,
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb',6 or 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life'.7 Already we seem to see that in such phraseology 'blood' is a vivid
word-symbol for referring to someone's violent death, and for connecting other people with
the consequences resulting from it."
Truthtesty: Here I see that Stibbs is too simplistic and inconsistent, when he states in reference to the term blood "not least the fact that it is only metaphorical" usage.
The "only metaphorical" is a denial of literal aspects that go along with the metaphorical/literal analogy. Stibbs is inconsistent in application of the literal/metaphorical. This I think is because of predjudiced fear of what truths Catholics have to say aboutno antithesis between death and life in blood-theology. Both ideas are essential for a right understanding
of the biblical idea of sacrifice. For the record I have no use for prejudice Catholic, Protestant, or whatever predjudice view... that hides the truth. Thus one reason for my name Truthtesty. I was raised Catholic so I know what loving the blood of Jesus is in a Christian community is about. I have no built up prejudices towards Catholics which would unnecessarily blind me to truth that they do say nor do I fail to reject what is false. And as much I have no predjudice towards Protestants.
To me, It is clearly both metaphorical and literal. Blood can only be drank after it has been Shed(liquid). All sacrificial aspects are in view of death/life of the flesh and eternal Shed Blood of Jesus. Jesus' literal part of the metaphor was definitely a "liquid", when Jesus states "drink". Stibbs misses the figurative/literal meaning. Stibbs says incorrectly that "blood" is "only metaphorical" for death only. It is perfect literal Shed blood which can be "drank" for all time(metaphorical and literal at the same time). This seems to me to say "drink - he who becomes me in all aspects of my sacrifice" hath eternal life. So action to take up the persons own cross in faith in all the LITERAL aspects of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. By "drinking" and "eating", in one aspect metaphorically of what was literal from our view, described(s) the literal "becoming of Jesus", by acting of taking up your cross in faith. The drinking of blood (literal Shed blood/metaphorically drinking (Christians'action(s) faith) from our view) is a very rich and a CLOSEST application. By drinking it cannot be an any closer application of that perfect Shed blood of Jesus to the Christian life (known by all-knowing G-d at the time for all time). The literal perfect Shed blood aspect of Jesus is sacrificially powerful and applied in a G-d only known time/space/realm(s), to all Christians for mercy, queued by action in faith in Jesus, for all time. For all time dimensions and realms thus the Blood of Jesus is a personal "key" of G-d. Very personal to eternal Jesus and thus the eternal Christian, it cannot be closer.
This is also a drinking as opposed to the Jewish concept of not drinking the blood. It would appear? But now? It is ok to drink? and necessary? Why so? A mystery? Drinking "perfect messianic Shed blood of Jesus" applied by an all knowing G-d queued by action of faith of the Christian, gives eternal life messianically fufilling, finishing, and completing part the Jewish sacrifices. A mystery fufilled.
Along with the inconsistencies of the metaphorical/literal of the Stibbs document and the usage of Nazi Kittle and Nazi Behm opining as reference, I hold suspect "remedial issues" of Saumarez Smith. "It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial
issues."'2
2 W. Saumarez Smith quoted by N. Dimock, The Death of Christ, p. 63, footnote. I have not yet seen the book, but It might yet be that "remedial issues" are Shed Blood in part, maybe not. Dr. Wall referenced both Morris and Stibbs in his doctoral dissertation. Dr. Wall described the term "Blood of Christ" as a synecdoche.
Truthtesty: The Blood of Christ is a synecdoche only a heretic would deny Jesus bled, but only a detached academic would say Jesus did bleed, but then deny the efficacy of the Shed blood without 100 % proof, only following the corrupt 1 sided metaphorical only speculations of foolish academics inconsisently opining on the literal/metaphorical usages. There is no 100 % proof against the literal Shed Blood. There is no verse against the Shed Blood. The perfect Virgin birth Blood of Jesus is efficacious. If someone disagrees? Then tell this forum how the Virgin Mary was made pregnant, if not by G-d's intervention into the physical being of Mary?
The Blood of Jesus is a key of G-d. It is true at first, second, literal, metaphorical/literal...and eternal glances. It is true in the literal and the metaphorical senses, in all realms for all times.
In addition, when Morris stated:"Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death.". Dishonestly, neither Stibbs nor Morris speaks of the meaning of the term "blood" of circumcision.
'And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place that the Lord met
him (Moses) and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut
off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said: Surely
a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she
said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.'
Paraphrasing Dewar: The blood of circumcision is clearly an important clue to the meaning which primitive minds attach to blood. In some rituals, the blood of
circumcision is allowed to fall on to other members of the tribe, thereby signifying the union thus believed to be between the initiate and the rest of the tribe. It is, I think, remarkable that Mr. Morris makes no reference at all to circumcision, although it must have a close bearing on the meaning attached to the idea of "blood" among primitive minds.
Confirm it in the scriptures, not by academics.
1 John 2:27
To zeebrook:
Don't bunch your nickers mate.
Cheerio old boy.
Truthtesty
zeebrook quote: Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear.
Truthtesty: No worries.
You doubt wrong. Clear to you, but not reality. I prefer the term debate, if you see it as an argument that is on you. However, I do mostly disagree, because Stibbs says it's "ongoing debate" in the document. How could you miss that? Stibbs was inconsistent so it seems he was in doubt. Conclusively towards what or whom? Reality? No Stibbs did not conclusively prove the point to reality. To himself? No one but Stibbs knows that if he felt confident, but he is not 100 percent correct.
zeebrook quote: "Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace."
Truthtesty: Mostly wrong.
I agree it is by grace, but not with Stibbs' definition of the term Blood. Stibbs is inconsistent. Like I said before "Stibbs produced supporting evidence for his view, but did not conclusively prove that blood means death. The paper(THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'BLOOD'IN SCRIPTURE by
THE REV. A. M. STIBBS, M.A. Vice-Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London THE TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT LECTURE, 1947) by Stibbs admits that it is an "ongoing debate": "The continuance of this debate makes it apparent how important it is to distinguish between some ideas, which may have been associated with blood in ancient, and indeed in modern times, and the ultimate and distinctive theological meaning given to the term in its use in the
inspired Word of God, and particularly in the apostolic testimony of the New Testament concerning the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross..."
Stibbs is inconsistent. Like I said before: "Truthtesty: You need to accurately represent the authors view. The paper is a view with supporting evidence. Stibbs did not "conclusively prove" blood means death.
To me it seems to be "metaphors on steroids" blown out of real proportion.
Jesus clearly spoke of his own literal body and literal blood for the remission of sins. And by body Jesus meant body and by blood Jesus meant blood. Matthew 26:26-28
Though it is figurative in the sense that it is literal blood and literal body sacrificed for the remission of sins. Jesus is definitely referencing His real blood sacrificed as "pour" and "drink"
Though figuratively drank(for literal salvation) it is still referencing the literal Blood(only liquid is drank) and Body of Jesus sacrificed.
You don't pour death out or drink death. This is the inconsistent application of the literal to figurative. Jesus poured Shed Blood out while the Blood touched the flesh and life sacrificed at the same time.
The reference is Jesus clearly relating salvation to literal blood characteristics. "Poured out" "drinketh". Literal liquid characteristics.
Similarly, as Dewar said: (paraphrasing)there is no antithesis between death and life in blood-theology. Both ideas are essential for a right understanding
of the biblical idea of sacrifice.
Stibbs' document quote: "First Edition - - January, 1948.
Second Edition - - December, 1954.
Reprinted - - December, 1958.
Third Edition - - November, 1962.
Prepared for the web by Michael Farmery and Robert I Bradshaw in February 2005.
Reproduced by kind permission of the copyright holder"
Truthtesty: that would seem to be an "ongoing debate" as well as Stibbs' own admission of an " ongoing debate". Have you heard the Catholic Church recant the literal Shed Blood of Jesus? I haven't. Reasonable minds would say there is an "ongoing debate". But there are also Protestant Churches who continue to believe in the literal Shed Blood Theology.
1 example was Dr.Lewis Sperry Chafer.Thieme's teacher Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer was aware of this controversy, in 1947 about the same time as Stibbs' lecture.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1947, 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.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1947, 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
Stibbs' document quote: "Surely such metaphorical
phraseology, and not least the fact that it is only metaphorical, must be of some significance to
the Bible student in interpreting such New Testament statements as 'They washed their robes,
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb',6 or 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life'.7 Already we seem to see that in such phraseology 'blood' is a vivid
word-symbol for referring to someone's violent death, and for connecting other people with
the consequences resulting from it."
Truthtesty: Here I see that Stibbs is too simplistic and inconsistent, when he states in reference to the term blood "not least the fact that it is only metaphorical" usage.
The "only metaphorical" is a denial of literal aspects that go along with the metaphorical/literal analogy. Stibbs is inconsistent in application of the literal/metaphorical. This I think is because of predjudiced fear of what truths Catholics have to say aboutno antithesis between death and life in blood-theology. Both ideas are essential for a right understanding
of the biblical idea of sacrifice. For the record I have no use for prejudice Catholic, Protestant, or whatever predjudice view... that hides the truth. Thus one reason for my name Truthtesty. I was raised Catholic so I know what loving the blood of Jesus is in a Christian community is about. I have no built up prejudices towards Catholics which would unnecessarily blind me to truth that they do say nor do I fail to reject what is false. And as much I have no predjudice towards Protestants.
To me, It is clearly both metaphorical and literal. Blood can only be drank after it has been Shed(liquid). All sacrificial aspects are in view of death/life of the flesh and eternal Shed Blood of Jesus. Jesus' literal part of the metaphor was definitely a "liquid", when Jesus states "drink". Stibbs misses the figurative/literal meaning. Stibbs says incorrectly that "blood" is "only metaphorical" for death only. It is perfect literal Shed blood which can be "drank" for all time(metaphorical and literal at the same time). This seems to me to say "drink - he who becomes me in all aspects of my sacrifice" hath eternal life. So action to take up the persons own cross in faith in all the LITERAL aspects of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. By "drinking" and "eating", in one aspect metaphorically of what was literal from our view, described(s) the literal "becoming of Jesus", by acting of taking up your cross in faith. The drinking of blood (literal Shed blood/metaphorically drinking (Christians'action(s) faith) from our view) is a very rich and a CLOSEST application. By drinking it cannot be an any closer application of that perfect Shed blood of Jesus to the Christian life (known by all-knowing G-d at the time for all time). The literal perfect Shed blood aspect of Jesus is sacrificially powerful and applied in a G-d only known time/space/realm(s), to all Christians for mercy, queued by action in faith in Jesus, for all time. For all time dimensions and realms thus the Blood of Jesus is a personal "key" of G-d. Very personal to eternal Jesus and thus the eternal Christian, it cannot be closer.
This is also a drinking as opposed to the Jewish concept of not drinking the blood. It would appear? But now? It is ok to drink? and necessary? Why so? A mystery? Drinking "perfect messianic Shed blood of Jesus" applied by an all knowing G-d queued by action of faith of the Christian, gives eternal life messianically fufilling, finishing, and completing part the Jewish sacrifices. A mystery fufilled.
Along with the inconsistencies of the metaphorical/literal of the Stibbs document and the usage of Nazi Kittle and Nazi Behm opining as reference, I hold suspect "remedial issues" of Saumarez Smith. "It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial
issues."'2
2 W. Saumarez Smith quoted by N. Dimock, The Death of Christ, p. 63, footnote. I have not yet seen the book, but It might yet be that "remedial issues" are Shed Blood in part, maybe not. Dr. Wall referenced both Morris and Stibbs in his doctoral dissertation. Dr. Wall described the term "Blood of Christ" as a synecdoche.
Truthtesty: The Blood of Christ is a synecdoche only a heretic would deny Jesus bled, but only a detached academic would say Jesus did bleed, but then deny the efficacy of the Shed blood without 100 % proof, only following the corrupt 1 sided metaphorical only speculations of foolish academics inconsisently opining on the literal/metaphorical usages. There is no 100 % proof against the literal Shed Blood. There is no verse against the Shed Blood. The perfect Virgin birth Blood of Jesus is efficacious. If someone disagrees? Then tell this forum how the Virgin Mary was made pregnant, if not by G-d's intervention into the physical being of Mary?
The Blood of Jesus is a key of G-d. It is true at first, second, literal, metaphorical/literal...and eternal glances. It is true in the literal and the metaphorical senses, in all realms for all times.
In addition, when Morris stated:"Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death.". Dishonestly, neither Stibbs nor Morris speaks of the meaning of the term "blood" of circumcision.
'And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place that the Lord met
him (Moses) and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut
off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said: Surely
a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she
said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.'
Paraphrasing Dewar: The blood of circumcision is clearly an important clue to the meaning which primitive minds attach to blood. In some rituals, the blood of
circumcision is allowed to fall on to other members of the tribe, thereby signifying the union thus believed to be between the initiate and the rest of the tribe. It is, I think, remarkable that Mr. Morris makes no reference at all to circumcision, although it must have a close bearing on the meaning attached to the idea of "blood" among primitive minds.
Confirm it in the scriptures, not by academics.
1 John 2:27
To zeebrook:
Don't bunch your nickers mate.
Cheerio old boy.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 02, 2009 05:46AM
To the Forum:
zeebrook quote: Stibbs on page 1 in the Preface to the Second Edition states in the very first line
"Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..". Believe Stibbs is clear as day on that one, remember first line of the preface to the book.
end quote.
Truthtesty:
Again, Stibbs did not prove the point conclusively to reality or to me.
Check out the different emphasis:
"Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..".
Hello? a good brief summary. Although, I disagree in part with Stibbs and Morris, and neither states that "blood represents death only in every case" as you are trying to emphasize and as you would have people falsely believe. As a matter of fact that would be quite foolish, because Morris alone lists 203 examples of "Death with violence of some kind", but? There are 100 plus examples of other representations of how "blood" is used:
(i) Death with violence of some kind, 203 examples.
(a) Generally,
165 examples...
(b) In the phrase 'innocent blood', 21 examples... (c) One's blood being on oneself, 12 examples...
(d) Death of animals, 5 examples. (ii) Connecting life with blood, 7 examples...
(iii) Eating meat with blood, 17 examples. The practice prohibited,
12 examples...
(iv) Sacrificial blood, 103 examples.
(a) Generally, 94 examples. 'Thou shalt not offer
the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread' (Exod. 2318).
(b) The institution of the Passover, 6 examples.
(c) Heathen sacrifices, 3 examples, (v) Other uses, 32 examples.
(a) Turning the Nile into blood, 8 examples.
(b) Processes of birth, &c., 12 examples.
(c) Bleeding, 3 examples.
(d) Colour, 3 examples.
(e) Of grapes, 2 examples.
(f) 'A bridegroom of blood', 2 examples.
(g) Metaphorical, 2 examples, 'shall I drink the blood of the men
that went in jeopardy of their lives?' (2 Sam. 23*1).
It may well be that after examination it will appear that the meaning
of sacrificial blood is essentially that of one of the other groups, but for
the present it seems best to leave it as a separate group.
From thier limited view they state brief summary. Do you see that? Would you be so foolish to debate otherwise? I don't think so.
Also, it is a grossly oversimplified (poor, not good) statement of a summary, in it's comparison to reality.
1 specific example that I point to is "bridegroom of blood" in Exodus 4:24. This bloody bleeding flesh cutting action of circumcision keeps the Covenant of blood with Jehovah. It was very important to Jehovah. As a matter of fact if Zipporah had not performed the cutting bloody circumcision then somebody was going to die. And when Jehovah saw that the bloody bleeding circumcision had occurred, it SAVED A LIFE. It was not death. It saved a life. WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? IT SAVED A LIFE. IT WAS NOT DEATH. AND NO ONE HAD TO DIE TO SAVE A LIFE. BLOOD WAS BLEEDING TO SAVE A LIFE, BUT NO ONE HAD TO DIE. That is how important it was for this bloody flesh cutting circumcision was.
Cutting flesh and bleeding Blood saved a life. Would you care to be so foolish as to debate that "Blood represents death" in this case? I dont think so. Without the literal bleeding blood someone was going to die. To Jehovah this was so important that it saved a life.
Bleeding "Blood" saved a life, in this Old Testament case. It would not have been enough for them to just "believe" in the circumscion.
Someone would have died, without action of flesh cutting and bleeding.
This was the Covenant of "Blood" with Jehovah.
Now in comparison, I point to:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
In some cases "testament" is translated "covenant". This is a literal blood testament or literal blood covenant of Jesus.
Would you have been so foolish if you had been sitting to there to stop Jesus? and say? "No blood only means death?" I won't drink it? I dont think Jesus would have laughed you out of the room, but the Apostles would have tried to laugh you out of the room. How disrespectful of the blood of Jesus perpetrated in the guise of a metphor. I am not saying "blood" doesn't have other metaphorical meaning or representation, it does. But? to say that the literal bleeding blood was/is not efficacious is ignorant. There is no evidence stating that the literal blood was not efficacious, the evidence points to that it was efficacious(Virgin birth blood, drink a liquid, etc...). A metaphor can have further meaning than meaning on it's face, but it does not necessitate that it does not have literal facial meaning as well. Implying that it does not have literal meaning simply because there is further metaphorical meaning is stupid and there is no logical cause for doing so.
I think it is useful to compare the meaning of "Blood" covenants in Matthew 26:26 and Exodus 4:24
(KJV) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
(ERV)Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. 26 So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.
(KJV)Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
The Hebrew mind did not always think of death when they heard the word blood. Even Morris lists many other representations. Neither Morris nor Stibbs speaks of blood circumscion specifically.
There is no conflict between the efficacious cut flesh literal bleeding blood sacrificial aspect and the physcial and spiritual sacrificial aspects of Jesus' death.
There is no conflict between the efficacious cut flesh literal bleeding blood aspect and other metaphorical usages of blood.
Morris quote: "Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death." end quote.
My dictum says The term "blood" in Exodus 4:24 does not mean death. If the literal bleeding blood had not bled and the flesh was not cut then someone was going to die. When the literal blood flowed and the flesh was cut, it saved a life. No one had to die to save this life. Just the cutting and the bleeding saved the life from death by Jehovah. And? Jehovah was satisfied.
Would you care to debate otherwise?
Also, to the primitive mind blood obvious meant life or life giving. Just look at the literal blood of birth "giving life" to babies being born and bringing the babies into the world.
And also the well known Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Truthtesty
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2009 05:59AM by Truthtesty.
zeebrook quote: Stibbs on page 1 in the Preface to the Second Edition states in the very first line
"Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..". Believe Stibbs is clear as day on that one, remember first line of the preface to the book.
end quote.
Truthtesty:
Again, Stibbs did not prove the point conclusively to reality or to me.
Check out the different emphasis:
"Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..".
Hello? a good brief summary. Although, I disagree in part with Stibbs and Morris, and neither states that "blood represents death only in every case" as you are trying to emphasize and as you would have people falsely believe. As a matter of fact that would be quite foolish, because Morris alone lists 203 examples of "Death with violence of some kind", but? There are 100 plus examples of other representations of how "blood" is used:
(i) Death with violence of some kind, 203 examples.
(a) Generally,
165 examples...
(b) In the phrase 'innocent blood', 21 examples... (c) One's blood being on oneself, 12 examples...
(d) Death of animals, 5 examples. (ii) Connecting life with blood, 7 examples...
(iii) Eating meat with blood, 17 examples. The practice prohibited,
12 examples...
(iv) Sacrificial blood, 103 examples.
(a) Generally, 94 examples. 'Thou shalt not offer
the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread' (Exod. 2318).
(b) The institution of the Passover, 6 examples.
(c) Heathen sacrifices, 3 examples, (v) Other uses, 32 examples.
(a) Turning the Nile into blood, 8 examples.
(b) Processes of birth, &c., 12 examples.
(c) Bleeding, 3 examples.
(d) Colour, 3 examples.
(e) Of grapes, 2 examples.
(f) 'A bridegroom of blood', 2 examples.
(g) Metaphorical, 2 examples, 'shall I drink the blood of the men
that went in jeopardy of their lives?' (2 Sam. 23*1).
It may well be that after examination it will appear that the meaning
of sacrificial blood is essentially that of one of the other groups, but for
the present it seems best to leave it as a separate group.
From thier limited view they state brief summary. Do you see that? Would you be so foolish to debate otherwise? I don't think so.
Also, it is a grossly oversimplified (poor, not good) statement of a summary, in it's comparison to reality.
1 specific example that I point to is "bridegroom of blood" in Exodus 4:24. This bloody bleeding flesh cutting action of circumcision keeps the Covenant of blood with Jehovah. It was very important to Jehovah. As a matter of fact if Zipporah had not performed the cutting bloody circumcision then somebody was going to die. And when Jehovah saw that the bloody bleeding circumcision had occurred, it SAVED A LIFE. It was not death. It saved a life. WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? IT SAVED A LIFE. IT WAS NOT DEATH. AND NO ONE HAD TO DIE TO SAVE A LIFE. BLOOD WAS BLEEDING TO SAVE A LIFE, BUT NO ONE HAD TO DIE. That is how important it was for this bloody flesh cutting circumcision was.
Cutting flesh and bleeding Blood saved a life. Would you care to be so foolish as to debate that "Blood represents death" in this case? I dont think so. Without the literal bleeding blood someone was going to die. To Jehovah this was so important that it saved a life.
Bleeding "Blood" saved a life, in this Old Testament case. It would not have been enough for them to just "believe" in the circumscion.
Someone would have died, without action of flesh cutting and bleeding.
This was the Covenant of "Blood" with Jehovah.
Now in comparison, I point to:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
In some cases "testament" is translated "covenant". This is a literal blood testament or literal blood covenant of Jesus.
Would you have been so foolish if you had been sitting to there to stop Jesus? and say? "No blood only means death?" I won't drink it? I dont think Jesus would have laughed you out of the room, but the Apostles would have tried to laugh you out of the room. How disrespectful of the blood of Jesus perpetrated in the guise of a metphor. I am not saying "blood" doesn't have other metaphorical meaning or representation, it does. But? to say that the literal bleeding blood was/is not efficacious is ignorant. There is no evidence stating that the literal blood was not efficacious, the evidence points to that it was efficacious(Virgin birth blood, drink a liquid, etc...). A metaphor can have further meaning than meaning on it's face, but it does not necessitate that it does not have literal facial meaning as well. Implying that it does not have literal meaning simply because there is further metaphorical meaning is stupid and there is no logical cause for doing so.
I think it is useful to compare the meaning of "Blood" covenants in Matthew 26:26 and Exodus 4:24
(KJV) Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
(ERV)Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. 26 So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.
(KJV)Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
The Hebrew mind did not always think of death when they heard the word blood. Even Morris lists many other representations. Neither Morris nor Stibbs speaks of blood circumscion specifically.
There is no conflict between the efficacious cut flesh literal bleeding blood sacrificial aspect and the physcial and spiritual sacrificial aspects of Jesus' death.
There is no conflict between the efficacious cut flesh literal bleeding blood aspect and other metaphorical usages of blood.
Morris quote: "Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments the blood signifies essentially the death." end quote.
My dictum says The term "blood" in Exodus 4:24 does not mean death. If the literal bleeding blood had not bled and the flesh was not cut then someone was going to die. When the literal blood flowed and the flesh was cut, it saved a life. No one had to die to save this life. Just the cutting and the bleeding saved the life from death by Jehovah. And? Jehovah was satisfied.
Would you care to debate otherwise?
Also, to the primitive mind blood obvious meant life or life giving. Just look at the literal blood of birth "giving life" to babies being born and bringing the babies into the world.
And also the well known Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Truthtesty
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2009 05:59AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 02, 2009 06:52AM
Quote
zeebrook
Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Third edition 1965) says of Hebrews 12:24 “There can be no doubt that the blood of Abel is a metaphorical way of referring to the death of that patriarch, and it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” (page 125)
This is what J. Behm's conclusion was which Morris endorsed (p126) with the words
"In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning”
Then again Morris on Hebrews 13:11f says “Here the comparison is made between the sin offering and the blood of Jesus, but the point that is singled out for notice in the Levitical sacrifice is not the presentation of the blood (though that, too, is important to this writer as we see from his previous references to it), but the burning of the carcass outside the camp. This part of the sacrifice can point only to the death of the animal, and certainly not to any presentation of life. Once more we see that the sacrificial allusion indicates the death of Jesus. (Pages 125-126)
Morris is not saying the literal blood is the issue but that "the blood of Christ" is a metaphor for Christ's death. Note he talks specifically about the literal blood of the sacrifices as not being the issue. Even the verses which speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice, sacrifice of His blood is an allusion indicates the death of Jesus
Truthtesty: Wrong. The context that Morris is speaking of in Hebrews 13:11 and in most of his document is when blood is metaphorical life versus death, not blood versus death. It is misleading to assume the context of Morris' document is conflict between literal death and literal blood. Blood has it's place, as does death, but the you misunderstand the context. (see Morris "It is difficult to see how such a view can be substantiated. It goes beyond the words of the passages cited, for there is none which speaks of the blood as indicating life in distinction from death."
Also, clear as a clear day Morris says and z quotes: "not the presentation of the blood (though that, too, is important to this writer as we see from his previous references to it)
Morris did not say z quote:"Note he talks specifically about the literal blood of the sacrifices as not being the issue". end quote
To the contrary, hello? Morris says the presentation of blood is important "though that, too, is important to this writer as we see from his previous references to it"
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2009 06:55AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 05, 2009 10:39AM
Quote
zeebrook
...
[www.theologicalstudies.org.uk]
Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32)
In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment of those who have said that the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'. 'It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial issues.'
Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear.
Truthtesty: He was not stating conclusively the point.
(paraphrasing Dewar)
1) avoid the danger of reading
back later ideas into earlier writings.
2)Evidence must be appreciated in chronological order; and it needs to be remembered that some of it is extremely primitive.
3)Simply counting the number of times that the word dam occurs in the O.T. (as Morris does), and then to proceed to argue that because it is used (as Morris asserts) twice as often to denote death by violence as to denote the life-blood of sacrifice, then that death by violence is the only clue to its real meaning is simply false.(Truthtesty: That is a false simpleton conclusion of Morris' which surprisingly(for the world of scholars) has none/empty logic, which does not and cannot bear scrutiny)
Evidence must be weighed; not only in its immediate context, not only by the number of times (more or less) used, but also in relation to the development of Hebrew thought.
3) Thus, for example to quote the
author of the article 'Blood' in A Theological Word Book of the Bible it is anachronistic thinking to argue that Westcott must have been wrong in holding that blood could signify life released because 'early Hebrew thought had no adequate conception of a spiritual survival after death'. In the primitive mind blood is associated with elementary ideas of
mysterious power, of mana, or whatever it may be called; it is irrevelant to talk about personal survival in this context. These ideas of power, moreover, apply to the blood of animals as much as to that of human beings (see, for example, Frazer, Golden Bough, viii. 42; ix. 262).
4) A similar anachronism is found in Morris, when he writes:
Morris quote :' So far were the Hebrews from thinking of an immaterial principle of
life, that they associated life in the age to come not with the immortality of the soul, but with the resurrection of the body. If they found difficulty in thinking of human life persisting after the death of the body, it is
most unlikely that they would think of the life of an animal as persisting after slaughter.'
Dewar (paraphrasing): Here Morris confuses late post-exilic thinking among the Hebrews with primitive beliefs.
Truthtesty: Yes, I like to continue debating. The truth is always fruitful.
And?
No, the term "blood" in the Old Testament does not mean "death only".
There is no conflict between life-blood sacrificed of Jesus and the death of Jesus.
What was that again? Simply counting the number of times dam is used in "one majority basic context only" does not equal the totallity of dam of all meanings of dam used throughout many other different contexts. I am surprised at Morris' lack of logic and how so many have "bet their souls" on Morris' empty logic.
Truthtesty
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2009 11:05AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 06, 2009 05:59AM
To the Forum:
It is one thing for a "scholar" to make a statement, it is another to back it up with facts.
Morris quote: "Again, to speak of the life as in some way existent in the blood subsequent to the slaughter of the animal is to ignore the Hebrew stress on the connexion of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from
thinking of an immaterial principle of life that they associated hie in
the age to come not with the immortality of the soul, but with the resurrection of the body. If they found difficulty in thinking of human life persisting after the death of the body it is most unlikely that they would think of the life of an animal as persisting after slaughter, and indeed in the case of most of the sacrifices there is explicit mention of the animal being killed before the blood is referred to. To take an example at random, it is very difficult to believe that the writer had life in mind when he said, with reference to the cleansing of a leprous house, the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird' (Lev. 1451), for the bird is expressly said to be 'slain'. We seem far from the extremely practical Hebrew turn of mind when we read of 'soul substance' (with Oesterley and E. O. James) or of the term blood suggesting 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation'.1 It is much more likely that Stibbs is correct when he sums up with 'Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh. It is a witness to physical death,
not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Dewar (paraphrasing): as noted before, here Morris confuses late post-exilic thinking among the Hebrews with primitive beliefs. Also,
Leviticus 14:1-7 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds F21 alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
The Sufferings and Death ofChrist in Types by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology; Vol.III, Ch.V, Pgs.116-126:
3. THE TWO BIRDS (Lev. 14:1-7). As on the Day of Atonement when two goats were required to fulfill the entire picture of Christ's death, so two birds are required in the cleansing of leprosy - the type of sin. The first bird slain speaks of Christ "delivered for our offences," while the second bird, dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4:25). [www.e-grace.net]
Truthtesty: To prematurely conclude that the bird was slain therefore blood represents "death only" is to ignore all the rest of the clear type evidence. Continuing past the first slain bird(why does Morris ignore this?), the type evidence says the second bird was dipped in the blood(containing the life) of the first bird and the second bird is released(with the blood and life). The second bird's release representing, as Dr. Chafer said: "speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification.""
Morris is wrong here, the term blood naturally suggests itself, but also suggests 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation' and the like, when you take into consideration the blood being transfered to the second bird. And the second bird is released. Morris appears to only be considering the first bird. But the blood (with the life)(to the "pratical" Hebrew mind) continues to the second bird.
Morris quote: "It is a witness to physical death, not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Truthtesty: The last sentence is suspect to me of what Morris is thinking. How is it that blood could be a "live""witness" if there is no life in the blood? Clearly, from Morris' own words, Morris has not thought this through. In any case it is clear the Hebrews thought "practically" just as they wrote that "The life of the flesh is in the blood".
Also, Morris quote: "the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird'"
The [certain things] dipped in the blood of the slain bird' were: cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet. And as Darby said(about the heifer): "cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. "
Darby: The Heifer was completely burned without the camp, even its blood, except that which was sprinkled directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, that is, where the people were to meet God. There the blood was sprinkled seven times (because it was there that God met with His people), a perfect testimony in the eyes of God to the atonement made for sin. They had access there according to the value of this blood. the priest threw into the fire cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. Then, if anybody contracted defilement, though it were merely through neglect, in whatever way it might be, God took account of the defilement. And this is a solemn and important fact: God provides for cleansing, but in no case can tolerate anything in His presence unsuited to it. It might seem hard in an inevitable case, as one dying suddenly in the tent. But it was to shew that for His presence God judges of what is suited to His presence. The man was defiled and could not go into God's tabernacle. To cleanse the defiled person, they took some running water, into which they put the ashes of the heifer, and the man was sprinkled on the third and on the seventh days; then he was clean. - Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, new ed., I, 264-65
Truthtesty
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 06:24AM by Truthtesty.
It is one thing for a "scholar" to make a statement, it is another to back it up with facts.
Morris quote: "Again, to speak of the life as in some way existent in the blood subsequent to the slaughter of the animal is to ignore the Hebrew stress on the connexion of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from
thinking of an immaterial principle of life that they associated hie in
the age to come not with the immortality of the soul, but with the resurrection of the body. If they found difficulty in thinking of human life persisting after the death of the body it is most unlikely that they would think of the life of an animal as persisting after slaughter, and indeed in the case of most of the sacrifices there is explicit mention of the animal being killed before the blood is referred to. To take an example at random, it is very difficult to believe that the writer had life in mind when he said, with reference to the cleansing of a leprous house, the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird' (Lev. 1451), for the bird is expressly said to be 'slain'. We seem far from the extremely practical Hebrew turn of mind when we read of 'soul substance' (with Oesterley and E. O. James) or of the term blood suggesting 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation'.1 It is much more likely that Stibbs is correct when he sums up with 'Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh. It is a witness to physical death,
not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Dewar (paraphrasing): as noted before, here Morris confuses late post-exilic thinking among the Hebrews with primitive beliefs. Also,
Leviticus 14:1-7 14:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 14:3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds F21 alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.
The Sufferings and Death ofChrist in Types by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology; Vol.III, Ch.V, Pgs.116-126:
3. THE TWO BIRDS (Lev. 14:1-7). As on the Day of Atonement when two goats were required to fulfill the entire picture of Christ's death, so two birds are required in the cleansing of leprosy - the type of sin. The first bird slain speaks of Christ "delivered for our offences," while the second bird, dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4:25). [www.e-grace.net]
Truthtesty: To prematurely conclude that the bird was slain therefore blood represents "death only" is to ignore all the rest of the clear type evidence. Continuing past the first slain bird(why does Morris ignore this?), the type evidence says the second bird was dipped in the blood(containing the life) of the first bird and the second bird is released(with the blood and life). The second bird's release representing, as Dr. Chafer said: "speaks of Christ "raised again for our justification.""
Morris is wrong here, the term blood naturally suggests itself, but also suggests 'the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation' and the like, when you take into consideration the blood being transfered to the second bird. And the second bird is released. Morris appears to only be considering the first bird. But the blood (with the life)(to the "pratical" Hebrew mind) continues to the second bird.
Morris quote: "It is a witness to physical death, not an evidence of spiritual survival.'3"
Truthtesty: The last sentence is suspect to me of what Morris is thinking. How is it that blood could be a "live""witness" if there is no life in the blood? Clearly, from Morris' own words, Morris has not thought this through. In any case it is clear the Hebrews thought "practically" just as they wrote that "The life of the flesh is in the blood".
Also, Morris quote: "the priest 'shall . . . dip [certain things] in the blood of the slain bird'"
The [certain things] dipped in the blood of the slain bird' were: cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet. And as Darby said(about the heifer): "cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. "
Darby: The Heifer was completely burned without the camp, even its blood, except that which was sprinkled directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, that is, where the people were to meet God. There the blood was sprinkled seven times (because it was there that God met with His people), a perfect testimony in the eyes of God to the atonement made for sin. They had access there according to the value of this blood. the priest threw into the fire cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet (that is, all that was man, and his human glory in the world). "From the cedar down to the hyssop," is the expression of nature from her highest elevation to her lowest depth. Scarlet is external glory (the world, if you please). The whole was burned in the fire which consumed Christ, the sacrifice for sin. Then, if anybody contracted defilement, though it were merely through neglect, in whatever way it might be, God took account of the defilement. And this is a solemn and important fact: God provides for cleansing, but in no case can tolerate anything in His presence unsuited to it. It might seem hard in an inevitable case, as one dying suddenly in the tent. But it was to shew that for His presence God judges of what is suited to His presence. The man was defiled and could not go into God's tabernacle. To cleanse the defiled person, they took some running water, into which they put the ashes of the heifer, and the man was sprinkled on the third and on the seventh days; then he was clean. - Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, new ed., I, 264-65
Truthtesty
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 06:24AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 06, 2009 11:51AM
To the Forum:
Morris quote: Twenty-five times the word indicates violent death, this being the largest group, as we have already seen to be the case in the Old Testament.
A good example is the statement of St. Paul, 'when the blood of
Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by* (Acts 22"), for as that death was by stoning there is no emphasis on the literal outpouring of blood.The expression stands simply for violent death. "
Truthtesty: Morris appears to be creating his "evidence". I don't know if Morris ever witnessed a death by stoning. Death by stoning spills blood both externally and internally and LITERALLY.
Morris quote (con't) So
is it with the query of the martyrs in the Apocalypse, 'How long, O
Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?' (Rev. 610). It makes nonsense of this passage to insist that there is any emphasis on a literal shedding of blood. The people in question are those 'that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held' (Rev. 69) quite irrespective of how they met their death.
Truthtesty: Irrespective of how they met their death? Hah Well Morris, I thought you said "blood" was a witness. Would not a witness know it detail how someone was murdered?
lol, it makes nonsense of the phrase "violent death" to think that blood is not spilled in some way in violence either internally or externally.
In "violent death" the suggestion is that literal blood is spilled internally, externally, or both internally and externally. Figurative that.
Yes there was a bad reason the martyrs were murdered but that does not mean that there "blood" (in part) was not spilled literally, either or both internally or externally.
Morris quote (con't)Very important in this group are lie references to 'the blood of Abel' and 'the blood of Zachariah'
(Luke H51), for they form parallels to 'the blood of Christ', and both
of them plainly signify death and not any offering of life.
Did they all not have literal innocent blood spilled? The actual words "blood of" parallels, but that might be about it. No one can argue that the actual Blood of Abel and or blood of Zachariah could be paralled or less cowardly stated EQUALED to the Blood of Jesus who saved all mankind. I don't recall Abel or Zachariah saving all mankind.
But? If Morris, Stibbs and others insist on a pathetic word play game on the words "blood of" equals "death only"? Then let's step it up a knotch. I dare these fictionalists to tell me how "blood of" in Exodus 24:8 "So Moses took the BLOOD and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the BLOOD of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." means what? we should rewrite Exodus 24:8? To "So Moses took the DEATH ONLY and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the DEATH ONLY of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
RIDICULOUS! Would a fictionalist try to explain how one "sprinkles" death? Hah looney bin! Sodini logic!
Again "blood of": Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
So Morris Stibbs and other fictionalists would say rewrite "blood of" to "death only"? So? That would read like " 26:28 For this is my DEATH ONLY of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Even though, it doesn't work in reality. Because if you replace literal BLOOD with "death only", what will you replace literal BODY with? Lol you can't you don't because it would be fiction to do so. Literal body is spoken of as being eaten not drank and literal blood is spoken of here as being drank not eaten. Jesus is establishing the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant?
Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins.
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 12:17PM by Truthtesty.
Morris quote: Twenty-five times the word indicates violent death, this being the largest group, as we have already seen to be the case in the Old Testament.
A good example is the statement of St. Paul, 'when the blood of
Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by* (Acts 22"), for as that death was by stoning there is no emphasis on the literal outpouring of blood.The expression stands simply for violent death. "
Truthtesty: Morris appears to be creating his "evidence". I don't know if Morris ever witnessed a death by stoning. Death by stoning spills blood both externally and internally and LITERALLY.
Morris quote (con't) So
is it with the query of the martyrs in the Apocalypse, 'How long, O
Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?' (Rev. 610). It makes nonsense of this passage to insist that there is any emphasis on a literal shedding of blood. The people in question are those 'that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held' (Rev. 69) quite irrespective of how they met their death.
Truthtesty: Irrespective of how they met their death? Hah Well Morris, I thought you said "blood" was a witness. Would not a witness know it detail how someone was murdered?
lol, it makes nonsense of the phrase "violent death" to think that blood is not spilled in some way in violence either internally or externally.
In "violent death" the suggestion is that literal blood is spilled internally, externally, or both internally and externally. Figurative that.
Yes there was a bad reason the martyrs were murdered but that does not mean that there "blood" (in part) was not spilled literally, either or both internally or externally.
Morris quote (con't)Very important in this group are lie references to 'the blood of Abel' and 'the blood of Zachariah'
(Luke H51), for they form parallels to 'the blood of Christ', and both
of them plainly signify death and not any offering of life.
Did they all not have literal innocent blood spilled? The actual words "blood of" parallels, but that might be about it. No one can argue that the actual Blood of Abel and or blood of Zachariah could be paralled or less cowardly stated EQUALED to the Blood of Jesus who saved all mankind. I don't recall Abel or Zachariah saving all mankind.
But? If Morris, Stibbs and others insist on a pathetic word play game on the words "blood of" equals "death only"? Then let's step it up a knotch. I dare these fictionalists to tell me how "blood of" in Exodus 24:8 "So Moses took the BLOOD and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the BLOOD of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." means what? we should rewrite Exodus 24:8? To "So Moses took the DEATH ONLY and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the DEATH ONLY of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."
RIDICULOUS! Would a fictionalist try to explain how one "sprinkles" death? Hah looney bin! Sodini logic!
Again "blood of": Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
So Morris Stibbs and other fictionalists would say rewrite "blood of" to "death only"? So? That would read like " 26:28 For this is my DEATH ONLY of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Even though, it doesn't work in reality. Because if you replace literal BLOOD with "death only", what will you replace literal BODY with? Lol you can't you don't because it would be fiction to do so. Literal body is spoken of as being eaten not drank and literal blood is spoken of here as being drank not eaten. Jesus is establishing the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant?
Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins.
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2009 12:17PM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 07, 2009 01:48AM
To the Forum:
Above I made the mistake of adding a question mark instead of a period, at the end of sentence: "Jesus is establishing the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant?"
To me there is no question. Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus established the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant.
So for the fictitious followers of "blood equals death only", I challenge you to process your "blood of" equals "death only" theory through:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of sins.
Your "blood of" equals "death only" does not work.
Solid literal flesh is eaten and referred to by Jesus, (although bread is substitute for the body for the meal) and although the act of eating for the believer is literal acting of physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrificed body. The reference of bread is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus' body. The same with drinking the literal liquid blood. Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to). And, although the act of drinking for the believer is a physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrifice of Jesus' blood.
The symbolism is "spiritually consume me for spiritual life, in the reality of your physical daily life, as you would consume food to survive", but? The literal body sacrificed and literal blood of Jesus shed were real and necessary. And Jesus makes literal reference to both body and blood. So there is no illusion. Jesus' literal blood was shed for the remission of sins.
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2009 01:55AM by Truthtesty.
Above I made the mistake of adding a question mark instead of a period, at the end of sentence: "Jesus is establishing the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant?"
To me there is no question. Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus established the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant.
So for the fictitious followers of "blood equals death only", I challenge you to process your "blood of" equals "death only" theory through:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of sins.
Your "blood of" equals "death only" does not work.
Solid literal flesh is eaten and referred to by Jesus, (although bread is substitute for the body for the meal) and although the act of eating for the believer is literal acting of physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrificed body. The reference of bread is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus' body. The same with drinking the literal liquid blood. Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to). And, although the act of drinking for the believer is a physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrifice of Jesus' blood.
The symbolism is "spiritually consume me for spiritual life, in the reality of your physical daily life, as you would consume food to survive", but? The literal body sacrificed and literal blood of Jesus shed were real and necessary. And Jesus makes literal reference to both body and blood. So there is no illusion. Jesus' literal blood was shed for the remission of sins.
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2009 01:55AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zeebrook
()
Date: December 08, 2009 09:05AM
Just got back, away for a while.
Seems that everyone else is confused about the phrase “the blood of Christ” except Truthtesty (in his own opinion). Truthtesty (post of 1 December) states of Stibbs and Morris that “neither states that "blood represents death only in every case"". I would like to know who said they did? The only relevant comment in the context of this debate is the phrase “the blood of Christ”. So let’s check that:
Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32) “the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'.
So Stibbs says the phrase “the blood of Christ” is an expression for Christ’s death. Remember this is his conclusion so Stibbs is clear and resolved.
What about Morris? On page 125 he says “it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” So Morris says the phrase “blood of Jesus” signifies Jesus’ death. So he is clear. Furthermore Morris (p126) says “there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning”
Seems patently obvious to anyone that both Stibbs and Morris, like many others, conclude from their analysis of the scriptures that the phrase “the blood of Christ” denotes Christ’s death. Thus in 1 John 1:7 “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” we are to understand that he is saying the in the death of Christ upon the cross we have the cleansing of all sin. Thomas Constable says of this phrase in 1 John 1:7 that “The"blood of Jesus" is a metonymy for the death of Jesus. It is Christ's death that cleanses us, not that Jesus' blood cleanses us like a kind of spiritual soap.” (http://www.soniclight.org/constable/notes/pdf/1john.pdf).
Seems that everyone else is confused about the phrase “the blood of Christ” except Truthtesty (in his own opinion). Truthtesty (post of 1 December) states of Stibbs and Morris that “neither states that "blood represents death only in every case"". I would like to know who said they did? The only relevant comment in the context of this debate is the phrase “the blood of Christ”. So let’s check that:
Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32) “the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'.
So Stibbs says the phrase “the blood of Christ” is an expression for Christ’s death. Remember this is his conclusion so Stibbs is clear and resolved.
What about Morris? On page 125 he says “it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” So Morris says the phrase “blood of Jesus” signifies Jesus’ death. So he is clear. Furthermore Morris (p126) says “there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning”
Seems patently obvious to anyone that both Stibbs and Morris, like many others, conclude from their analysis of the scriptures that the phrase “the blood of Christ” denotes Christ’s death. Thus in 1 John 1:7 “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” we are to understand that he is saying the in the death of Christ upon the cross we have the cleansing of all sin. Thomas Constable says of this phrase in 1 John 1:7 that “The"blood of Jesus" is a metonymy for the death of Jesus. It is Christ's death that cleanses us, not that Jesus' blood cleanses us like a kind of spiritual soap.” (http://www.soniclight.org/constable/notes/pdf/1john.pdf).
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 08, 2009 10:24AM
To the Forum:
I guess you have some catching up to do, z.
Note above where I pointed out Morris' and Stibbs' basic simpleton errors.
I tell you what z, You take the words of Morris, Behm, Stibbs and "many others". I'll take the direct words of Jesus.
PROVE IT OTHERWISE. YOU CANT. MORRIS, BEHM, STIBBS AND "MANY OTHERS" IGNORE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE.
PROVE IT OTHERWISE Z. TRY TO RUN YOUR MORRIS', BEHMS', AND STIBBS' THEORY THROUGH MATTHEW 26:26-28. IT DOESN'T WORK.
Again, to me there is no question. Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins, as Jesus said.
Jesus established the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant.
So for the fictitious followers of "blood equals death only", I challenge you to process your "blood of" equals "death only" theory through:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.
Your "blood of" equals "death only" does not work. OR? IF YOU THINK I MISUNDERSTAND YOU? TAKE WHATEVER THEORY YOU THINK YOU HAVE AND RUN IT THROUGH MATTHEW 26:26-28.
Solid literal flesh is eaten and referred to by Jesus, (although bread is substitute for the body for the meal) and although the act of eating for the believer is literal acting of physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrificed body. The reference of bread is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus' body. The same with drinking the literal liquid blood. Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to). And, although the act of drinking for the believer is a physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrifice of Jesus' blood.
The symbolism is "spiritually consume me for spiritual life, in the reality of your physical daily life, as you would consume food to survive", but? The literal body sacrificed and literal blood of Jesus shed were real and necessary. And Jesus makes literal reference to both body and blood. So there is no illusion. Jesus' literal blood was shed for the remission of sins.
JESUS IS REFERRING TO HIS LIQUID DRINKABLE BLOOD. THAT IS PATENTLY CLEAR. CLEAR AS A CLEAR DAY.
Truthtesty
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2009 10:40AM by Truthtesty.
I guess you have some catching up to do, z.
Note above where I pointed out Morris' and Stibbs' basic simpleton errors.
I tell you what z, You take the words of Morris, Behm, Stibbs and "many others". I'll take the direct words of Jesus.
PROVE IT OTHERWISE. YOU CANT. MORRIS, BEHM, STIBBS AND "MANY OTHERS" IGNORE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE.
PROVE IT OTHERWISE Z. TRY TO RUN YOUR MORRIS', BEHMS', AND STIBBS' THEORY THROUGH MATTHEW 26:26-28. IT DOESN'T WORK.
Again, to me there is no question. Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins, as Jesus said.
Jesus established the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant.
So for the fictitious followers of "blood equals death only", I challenge you to process your "blood of" equals "death only" theory through:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.
Your "blood of" equals "death only" does not work. OR? IF YOU THINK I MISUNDERSTAND YOU? TAKE WHATEVER THEORY YOU THINK YOU HAVE AND RUN IT THROUGH MATTHEW 26:26-28.
Solid literal flesh is eaten and referred to by Jesus, (although bread is substitute for the body for the meal) and although the act of eating for the believer is literal acting of physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrificed body. The reference of bread is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus' body. The same with drinking the literal liquid blood. Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to). And, although the act of drinking for the believer is a physical/spiritual act of reverance and worship of the sacrifice of Jesus' blood.
The symbolism is "spiritually consume me for spiritual life, in the reality of your physical daily life, as you would consume food to survive", but? The literal body sacrificed and literal blood of Jesus shed were real and necessary. And Jesus makes literal reference to both body and blood. So there is no illusion. Jesus' literal blood was shed for the remission of sins.
JESUS IS REFERRING TO HIS LIQUID DRINKABLE BLOOD. THAT IS PATENTLY CLEAR. CLEAR AS A CLEAR DAY.
Truthtesty
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2009 10:40AM by Truthtesty.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.