[...] No surrender here. I quoted Spurgeon simply to note that he as a literalist no'ted that "When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. In the same way that you quote Joe Wall yet I disagree with a lot of his statements, likewise me and Spurgeon. Yes Spurgeon was a literalist, with which I disagree. The idea of drop by drop his blood drips on the mercy seat is not a scriptural statement. His blood was never presented in heaven that is a misreading of Hebrews 9:12.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2009 09:49PM by rrmoderator.

To the Forum:

Whatever your excuse, but I did not let you misrepresent Spurgeon, who you tried to make him appear as "fringe collegue of Mcarthur (Mcarthur copied Thieme in many ways while Mcarthur was at Be-reich-ah).

No surrender? But you sure BYPASS a lot of the real issues including my questions and the moderator's questions.

But? Ok go ahead and "argue" the parallel text in Matthew in my previous post or will you just BYPASS the real issue again? So you don't have to face your(Thieme's, McArthur's, Behm's falsehood and the reality that you should surrender to the truth.:

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

Quote
zeebrook
Well Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions.

Truthtesty: No it is you z, who should take your own advice. It is you like Thieme who would take Nazi Behm's "low information" speculation to wild extremes. Again, as I have said before you need to debate what the text says and not your substitutions.

Quote
zeebrook
Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my. blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates). The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.

Truthtesty: First, the synecdoche "Blood of Christ" does include the Shed literal Blood of Jesus, His broken Body, His physical and Spiritual death. Second, if Jesus, the theophany of G-d in the flesh prayed and blessed the bread and gave thanks for the wine, then it is most unwise to second guess G-d and say:

z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote

Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. But? there's more. Why do you think it wasn't his actual body/blood? Because it was not occuring at the moment. If you are going to go to insane literal extremes and say that because the wine does not equal exactly the literal Shed blood of Jesus, and the Shed blood of Jesus was not being Shed at the moment at the moment. And? the Bread was not the literal broken body, and the body of jesus was not being broken at the moment, then guess what z? THEN USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS! Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm?? If you are going to apply your failed logic to the obvious interpretation, then make sure you follow through and apply your failed logic to your own interpretation. You have distorted that obvious figurative to literal interpretation.

z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
z quote if he were honest and applied his failed logic to himself: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood AND NOT HIS ACTUAL DEATH ON THE CROSS, but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e." BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WERE OCCURING AT THE MOMENT, AND F-I-G-U-R-E-S ARE USED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL."unquote

Quote
zeebrook
You say “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).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words). This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.

Truthtesty: You are here to protect Nazi Behm and Thieme, and other fringe theologians. This is ridiculous and insane. I dont' WANT anything. IT IS THE OBVIOUS LOGICAL INTERPRETATION. The figurative to literal meaning is obvious. I don't think you realize how to "argue" apart from looking at what a theologican "you like", says.

Quote
zeebrook
So Matthew 26:26-28 has Jesus using physical items to symbolise His pending death, that He would die upon a cross to give His life for all mankind. Jesus is saying "This is my body/blood" is clearly showing His death as required for the remission of sins. "This My blood represents my death which is required for the remission of sins"..

Truthtesty: No as I said before

Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.

Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.

Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.

Matthew 26:26-28:
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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.

Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.

The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".

Truthtesty

There is no conflict with the aspect of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus and the physical aspect and spiritual aspect of the Death of Jesus.

Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.

You see? Blood does not equal death in this case. Blood equals literal Shed blood of Jesus. Both bread eaten and wine drank represent rememberance of the Death of Christ, but? neither the Shed literal Blood nor "life given up in Death" are contradictory, contrare, they compliement each other.

26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come"

For your false figurative to literal meanings to be true, it would have said:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's BLOOD till he come.

BUT? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. Do you see the difference? Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.

Your figurative to literal meaning, as well as Thieme's and Nazi Behm's "that blood equals death only", in the "Blood of Jesus" is false. The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.

Also, above you copied from somewhere "The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi." to sound as if you really know something, (you run to your greek lexicon touting"present active indicative" when your are in greatest doubt as if like Thieme(who said "present active indicative" thousands of times) you can just snowball people about the truth. It is so obvious and pathetic) but? try to argue the parallel text that I have just shown you:

Matthew 26:26-28:
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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I doubt you will because there is nothing to copy.

Truthtesty

Thank you Truthtesty and Orange:

These exasperated sighs from Ber-reich-ah babies that are now adults who can describe in detail the nature of the compound but still must pay lip service to Theime after twenty years is evidence in and of itself of the affects of Cult leaders like Theime. He spent so long ripping at all their natural defenses that an immediate reflexive, “He is a lunatic and stay away” is coddled with, ”He is a lunatic and probably destroyed thousands of people’s lives but he is responsible for leading many to the Lord and I have respect.” “The Soldier” can itemize all the heresy, from rewriting the Bible to absolute rule to abuse and yet feels he has to make this allowance. G-d leads you to G-d. Jesus is Light. Theime was a heretic. He led people to light only to throw the switch. False teachers reject the truth and light and do their darndest to smear it and turn as many people as they can away from it. Drawing people in by providing information, distorted as it is, when they reject it, it means much more than if they were never introduced. The rejection is just what Theime wanted so he can fight, war with his subjects who are in the compound and the them, and raise hell. And at the same time, because this rejection with all this “knowledge” would mean something more in a cataclysmic sense to his now “well informed cultists” an acute anxiety haunts them. Either keeping them there in the compound or a lasting personal demon once they leave. Rejection is easily extracted if the message, the practice, and the messenger is combatative, forceful, and does the opposite of what he says he believes. The messenger then says you are rejecting G-d when the person is rejecting him and yes, Theime’s definition of god, and god. This can play out a long time.

A wolf who only uses scriptures to ultimately ridicule and systematically destroy the message of Jesus, and superimpose himself as god is not “saving” a gosh darn thing. That is sabotage. He even goes so far as to rob G-d of his gift to mankind and any peace in the afterlife for being drawn to the light. G-d in Theime’s description is not a persona that people can ultimately have any affection for as try as humans may, someone who condemns you as a disaster from the onset, can have no love for you because of your imperfections, and whose perfection does not mix whatsoever with imperfection, is not a G-d that humans grow in strength, love, devotion, and faith for or want to believe in or follow, because ultimately, G-d is not perfect in this assessment. To associate Perfection with isolation or Perfection as sequestered from Imperfection is not the definition of Perfection. It is Purity in the chemical sense. Purity is not Perfection. Removing elements to isolate and purify uranium is purified uranium. It is not Perfect. (tongue in cheek)

Severing reality and belief, granted an old school maneuver, but needless, is where Theimers get tied up and attempt to tie up others. It is a textbook wearing them down ploy. They stay in the compound to argue with what they are learning they believe and what is in practice with their leader and they do this alternate reality deal with their opponents to try to wear them down. The old, “You are hitting me! No I am not, G-d is. We don’t believe in that.” The dualism becomes so pronounced that their actions are “not their own” because after all they have learned that they believe differently. They believe in the doctrine of privacy, not privacy, because they have learned the doctrine of privacy while simultaneously being plowed over by attrition. Obviously privacy is not something that is respected if there are cameras everywhere and a goon squad. And, privacy it is something they breach and invade constantly with others. Same goes for battles. They are taught the doctrine “The battle is the Lord’s” and say it as they are wreaking havoc and battling it out. He’s programmed them and they have been willing to let him noodle with their brains even with all the information that is out there and a Bible staring at them. Anxiety of rejecting god, means they stay within the compound to reject G-d on just about everything, is the sad reality.

Theime formulates his notion of G-d’s love from the ridicule and disdain he has for other Christians that feel G-d’s love. The more Scare Crow Christians I suppose. Their knowledge of doctrine can be limited sure, and they cause problems. But, they don’t often kill god and rob G-d of his Words or his Acts in their simple joy. Certainly, the overly romanticized human love version with all its quirks is not perfect love and we are blessed to have G-d love us supreme. But, at every inroad as Theime subjects G-d to his probing analysis to prove G-d has integrity (and demonstrate god does not…A very slippery slope. Megalomaniac god wannabes subject G-d to a lot)he removes G-d further and further and further away from the people He loved enough to create, walk among, aide and comfort, and save in the first place.

Where would G-d be if RB Theime had not put the Watchdog of G-d, his justice, over G-d? G-d needs a Watchdog? Perfection has an attribute that supersedes other attributes and is not a premium blend? To even go into the exercise of explaining the integrity of G-d assumes that G-d lacks integrity. To identify G-d’s justice as being a Watchdog for G-d to keep his righteousness in check is….Scary. If justice did not supersede all of the other attributes of G-d and he was free, not bound to his purity, why he might be a lunatic false teaching militant jerk?

G-d is not pleased whatsoever with what humans do, according to Theime in his Claude Manifesto. Theime enjoys removing pleasure from G-d and takes a red censor marker to all the scriptures that deal with G-d’s joy as a result. Let’s go ahead and cross out “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord” for starters because rejoicing, singing, and worship assumes G-d would be pleased. And that is a falsehood Theime claims and heckles in his Manifesto. G-d can’t hear you, is not pleased, and surely you can talk amongst yourself and impress one another but G-d does not care, to paraphrase. On just this notion, Theime has red censored and blocked out quite a bit. A Cult and Cult leader, with 30s years of "doctrine intake" which is not belief arrives at Don't worship G-d. Nice.... It is “demonic” in many respects Tneime’s antagonism towards humans and his formula for G-d in relation to humans, because in the nuances of Christian theology, “demons” are condemned, no re-entry . They are condemned from the onset and are supremely jealous of G-d’s love for mankind and His gift. Removing G-d’s choice of sacrifice gift to humans along with removing G-d’s unique love towards humans, removes G-d’s favor of humans over demons, reducing Him to having no choice but to prove he is fair and die….because “demons” are jilted. G-d must die. He had no choice. You stupid idiot humans with your choices and freedom did not get a gift from G-d and he did not sacrifice for you of all scum! G-d doesn’t love you at all. He can’t love imperfection. He merely tolerates you like us.

Sympathy for the Devil Theimers?

Ah well, people who reject the good shepherd and His love like the lights off.

thereporter

Quote,
Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer.
Unquote
So you are a Catholic transubstantiationist. They, as you argue, the prayer changed the bread and wine into literal flesh and blood. No way.

Sorry you are not able to handle a present active indicative of a verb designed to prove the point? The verb confirms Jesus’ words “This IS my body, this IS my blood”. You keep going back to metaphors/figures magical incantations that change elements into flesh and blood.

Rant and rave all you want about failed logic, it is in fact yours that is faulty. Long winded, waffling statements you make are a pretense of intellectualism, supposed logic and argument. Sorry they fail plus I cannot be bothered with the repetition of your tired rhetoric.

I have answered clearly in my posts my position on the phrase “the blood of Christ”. If I use theologians you assume no argument, if I use the Greek text you argue a pretense of learning. As much as you want to equate me as a Thiemite, Behm, Nazi etc in only shows that you can only argue ad hominem. I might as well argue that you are a Catholic transubstantiationist, Mel Gibson type anti-semite. It makes no sense.

The bread in the Lord's supper, the wine in the Lord's supper do not change by prayer, they are symbols of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus died upon the cross both spiritually and physically. His death is His shedding of blood. Yes, I quote Stibbs, Morris etc as a succinct way of showing that the phrase "the blood of Christ" is a metaphorical expression for His death upon the cross. Your disparaging remarks of low theologian only highlight your arrogance in these issues.

Truthtesty and (Zeebrook):

Notice the dualism in action in Zeebrook's feckless retort. In you demonstrating his failed logic by using his logic, he offers the conflictatory derivative of how he arrives at his failed logic. Christ died upon the cross 1. spiritually and 2. physically. This separation allows for him to match up his metaphors to self-propel.

"Jesus died upon the cross both spiritually and physically." is program language. This is Theimer mantra.

Again, this is the removal of choice from G-d in action and his power. It is,

Jesus said "This will be my body. This will be my blood." Jesus was just a kid from the wrong side of the tracks heading for trouble and he got what's coming. On this line backtracking from his death, it is clearly evident what he meant. god is not multilateral. He shed his blood one time and one time only! The Apostles, his closest friends and chosen messengers nailed him to the cross too and if they were drinking his blood to remember him as he instructed, they were remembering his crucifixion, not his message to them. You see, when we remember someone we remember how they died, not their message. The Apostles wrote way too long of a eulogy. I mean really Truthtesty, let's cut to the chase here! The good part in the story is he dies. That is the important part and where you start. Even though if you start with him living, then it proves the Christian faith. But, who cares about those details because my details are better.

The point is, Truthtesty, is you are not starting in the right section. If you did then you would not state what Jesus said but instead state what he meant to say. You don't make things make sense! This is where you must start and going backwards, everything that happened was a prelude to the cool part. You see, Jesus was just a guy over his head and did not say "This is MY body and this is MY blood." He said, "This will be my body. This will be my blood." And Truthtesty, you are a gross vampire for reminding that G-d can do more with blood than just shed it! Yucky blood drinker! The Apostles would have spit that out! G-d couldn't alter the flavor or...Gee Wiz...I guess I will have to come up with another metaphor so this will make sense to get what you are saying. He turned water into wine and I liked that parable. Maybe his blood is wine. Drinking wine will remind us of him. "Do in remembrance of me." He said that to the Apostles for them to remember him? I am not sure if that lines up. Forget his dinner guests. He really meant to say, "This will be my body. This will be my blood. And do this to remember that I am going to die and remember that part which has not happened yet. If you remember me before I am dead then that is way to long. In fact I don't know why I am having a last super and telling you to remember me. When we get to the crucifixion, then remember me. Don't get too long winded as you don't know yet but if you don't remember my crucifixion that hasn't happened yet then you will remember all the other stuff that just proves I was a fool. If you remember me being bled dry, shedding blood continuously bringing the truth and then remembering me dieing for this, then you will remember my sacrifice. I don't want you to remember any of that. Because if you do, then I have a message; I don't die and live for this message and qualify the message and sacrifice for you to have it, and the blood I shed is just to keep bleeding.

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's blood till he come. "

That works for me. How dare you say what Jesus said Truthtesty! I know what G-d meant to say! You see, in how this lines up, if G-d did not let me break it down and him have a dual crucifixion (I like things in twos and in conflict together), 1. spiritual and 2. physical, then his physical death would mean he is spiritually still around. And, if he just had a spiritual death then he would physically still be around. "Do in remembrance of me" really means we remember how we made sure he is dead dead and no chance of coming back. If we remember him saying "This is My blood and MY body" and "Do this in remembrance of me." your way, he is G-d, with us always. Even as his blood is being drank and body eaten, he is sitting right next to his people. He's physically still there! That is too G-dish! How could we forget him! And, even though his blood is shed on the cross and he dies physically he is spiritually still with us. His message is enduring. That is too G-dish. Then, when he comes back in perfect physical health and spirit, alive, ascending to heaven saying follow me because where I am going you can join, he defies what what communion is suppose to mean Truthtesty! He is suppose to be dead dead! As long as I take communion and preferably in battle fatigues, because Jesus did not win a darn thing, when I drink wine and eat bread, I am going to remember how he died on the cross, dead dead, not him. That way, remembering he is dead dead, there is hopefully no chance I have to follow his message or go where he went.

[...]

[Moderator: No insulting remarks please.]

thereporter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2009 09:44PM by rrmoderator.

To thereporter:

Your welcome and thanks for your posts.

Truthtesty

To z:

z quote: "Rant and rave all you want about failed logic, it is in fact yours that is faulty. Long winded, waffling statements you make are a pretense of intellectualism, supposed logic and argument. Sorry they fail plus I cannot be bothered with the repetition of your tired rhetoric."

Truthtesty: The Blood of Christ is a synecdoche, which includes the literal Shed Blood. Which is perfectly and logically consistent with Matthew 26. It is your failed logic which excludes the literal Shed blood of Christ, in your mentonym, for no logical biblical reason, which is inconsistent with Matthew 26.

Show me where my logic is faulty, not by your simply wishing it so. It is YOU who run from questions, not the other way around.

You "cannot be bothered with the repetition of your tired rhetoric."? Hah! Well the only reason I repeat my logical arguments which obviously defeat your facade, is because you continually bypass answering my questions. Because you can't handle the truth, outside the tired old arguments of Behm, Thieme, etc....

You can't confess the truth. You don't apologize, but expect others to treat you in your insolence with "common courtesy". Which? You have not earned. You only continually reference what old theologians say without being able to sift information for gems of truth. You retreat. You have not answered my questions.

Hah! Is it "magical" that Jesus fed the multitudes? Yes it was actually. It is your arrogance that blinds you to the truth.

Hah! Again you FAIL to answer my challenge - simply the challenge of the truth really. Then you falsely cry "foul" by the repetition of the argument, which you never answer the argument. Thus you try to give yourself an "out", without actually answering the question. You have to categorize me as a transubstitutionist, because you have no other way to argue against a (newly revealed truth to you) about the literal Shed Blood. Hah! You are behind the times. Hah! Do you think a transubstitutionist would say the Blood of Christ is a synecdoche? No. But you bypass that fact as you bypass so many of the facts that I have shown before. And? Again? You bypass answering my challenge to you. You and your dead-ender kind are in thier last throws of failed dead orthodoxy.

z quote "Sorry you are not able to handle a present active indicative of a verb designed to prove the point? The verb confirms Jesus’ words “This IS my body, this IS my blood”. You keep going back to metaphors/figures magical incantations that change elements into flesh and blood."Unquote

Truthtesty: Hah! I can handle your pathetic empty failed attempt to impress, you used to present an image of truth, but it is false. lol. I agree Jesus is figuratively referencing his real literal Shed blood on the cross. And? If the prophet of G-d Jesus? Said something it it unwise to second guess, what Jesus the magical "feeder of the multitudes" said.

I agree you are intentionally trying to confuse the figurative/literal usage. But again what about the blood, the bread and the death in 1 Corinthians which you conveniantly bypass because it would show your falsehood? As I said before "USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS![/b] Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm??"

You are unable to comprehend new facts. And? You can't argue the facts, because you are stuck in the old transubstitutionist argument. You fail to answer my questions. A transubstitutionist would not say the Blood of Christ is a synecdoche.

You are here to dictate an old failed argument of "blood equals death only in the Blood of Christ, Which? You will not dictate here. I have proven that your dead-ender ideology is false. It is the incorrect figurative/literal usage of blood in the Blood of Christ. You simply repeated your tired old defeated empty arguments against the transubstitutionists, but those do not apply here.

You disagree? Of course you are contrary, but you have no leg of truth to stand on. You have lost the "argument", whether you actually "surrender" or not.

You disagree? Of course you are contrary. So? Answer the challenge of the literal Shed Blood go ahead and "argue" the parallel text in Matthew in my previous post or will you just BYPASS the real issue again? And again? So you don't have to face your(Thieme's, McArthur's, Behm's falsehood and the reality that you should surrender to the truth.:

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

Quote
zeebrook
Well Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions.

Truthtesty: No it is you z, who should take your own advice. It is you like Thieme who would take Nazi Behm's "low information" speculation to wild extremes. Again, as I have said before you need to debate what the text says and not your substitutions.

Quote
zeebrook
Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my. blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates). The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.

Truthtesty: First, the synecdoche "Blood of Christ" does include the Shed literal Blood of Jesus, His broken Body, His physical and Spiritual death. Second, if Jesus, the theophany of G-d in the flesh prayed and blessed the bread and gave thanks for the wine, then it is most unwise to second guess G-d and say:

z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote

Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. But? there's more. Why do you think it wasn't his actual body/blood? Because it was not occuring at the moment. If you are going to go to insane literal extremes and say that because the wine does not equal exactly the literal Shed blood of Jesus, and the Shed blood of Jesus was not being Shed at the moment at the moment. And? the Bread was not the literal broken body, and the body of jesus was not being broken at the moment, then guess what z? THEN USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS! Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm?? If you are going to apply your failed logic to the obvious interpretation, then make sure you follow through and apply your failed logic to your own interpretation. You have distorted that obvious figurative to literal interpretation.

z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
z quote if he were honest and applied his failed logic to himself: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood AND NOT HIS ACTUAL DEATH ON THE CROSS, but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e." BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WERE OCCURING AT THE MOMENT, AND F-I-G-U-R-E-S ARE USED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL."unquote

Quote
zeebrook
You say “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).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words). This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.

Truthtesty: You are here to protect Nazi Behm and Thieme, and other fringe theologians. This is ridiculous and insane. I dont' WANT anything. IT IS THE OBVIOUS LOGICAL INTERPRETATION. The figurative to literal meaning is obvious. I don't think you realize how to "argue" apart from looking at what a theologican "you like", says.

Quote
zeebrook
So Matthew 26:26-28 has Jesus using physical items to symbolise His pending death, that He would die upon a cross to give His life for all mankind. Jesus is saying "This is my body/blood" is clearly showing His death as required for the remission of sins. "This My blood represents my death which is required for the remission of sins"..

Truthtesty: No as I said before

Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.

Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.

Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.

Matthew 26:26-28:
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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.

Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.

The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".

Truthtesty

There is no conflict with the aspect of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus and the physical aspect and spiritual aspect of the Death of Jesus.

Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.

You see? Blood does not equal death in this case. Blood equals literal Shed blood of Jesus. Both bread eaten and wine drank represent rememberance of the Death of Christ, but? neither the Shed literal Blood nor "life given up in Death" are contradictory, contrare, they compliement each other.

26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come"

For your false figurative to literal meanings to be true, it would have said:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's BLOOD till he come.

BUT? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. Do you see the difference? Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.

Your figurative to literal meaning, as well as Thieme's and Nazi Behm's "that blood equals death only", in the "Blood of Jesus" is false. The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.

Also, above you copied from somewhere "The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi." to sound as if you really know something, (you run to your greek lexicon touting"present active indicative" when your are in greatest doubt as if like Thieme(who said "present active indicative" thousands of times) you can just snowball people about the truth. It is so obvious and pathetic) but? try to argue the parallel text that I have just shown you:

Matthew 26:26-28:
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. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I doubt you will because there is nothing to copy.

Truthtesty

Here's another one z. Would you argue Jesus did not feed the multitudes? Hah! Jesus turned water in wine (a fine wine indeed), and 5 loaves and 2 fish were multiplied by the power of Jesus, to feed the multitudes. But? Suddenly according to your dead ender dead orthodoxy Jesus' prayers are powerless to "turn" wine and bread? Hah! Another proof of your failed ideology. It is you who is foolish to second guess G-d and say that Jesus is a liar and powerless. You do not know that a "spiritual/physical dna" property or something wasn't added. That is your academic arrogance which has no foundation.

The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.

Don't cowardly bypass this time z, answer my question.

Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.

Again you cowardly bypass the truth.

This forum is about the truth and looking at both sides of the "debate". This forum has not seen everything Dewar and Gayford said. But? You would like Thieme falsely declare your self a "winner" by bypassing my facts, questions and the other side of the debate. No you won't. Not here.

I think you do not understand the gravity of this. I have proven this anew right here. You and your kind are defeated and the truth will come out, as much as you hate the truth coming out.

Hah! Cheerio old boy.

Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2009 12:44PM by Truthtesty.

thereporter:

Please don't post the same post multiple times.

Okay moderator. Sorry. I posted it like yesterday and today just now seeing it. I am having browser issues and keyboard scrolling for some reason. I am not sure why you censored my last sentence. [...]...my zinger at least tie things up in a bow. [...] thank you for keeping me from being redundant.

I am turning this lap top off so my computer is not redundant.

thereporter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2009 11:29PM by rrmoderator.

To the Forum:


zeebrook quote: Good grief Mr Moderator. How can you make such an outlandish declaration. "So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs." Common courtesy would have you at least phrase it as a question, "are you zeebrook here to defend Thieme and his beliefs?" Simple answer, No. Long answer follows:

So where have I defended Thieme and his beliefs? unquote

Truthtesty: Where have you answered the moderators or my questions? Where have you stated Thieme made an error?

zeebrook quote: John Walvoord in correspondence with R.B. Thieme Jr as reproduced in Truthtesty's favourite work Joe Wall's "(Bob Thieme's Teaching on Christian Living " says "While I do not believe that the literal blood of Christ was carried into heaven and that He went to heaven through His blood rather than with His Blood as indicated in Hebrews 9:12, it is not true that I agree with your exposition of what was accomplished when Christ died on the cross. I believe Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually and died by an act of His will. While He did not bleed to death, I do believe that He literally shed His blood as part of the act of dying and that this was necessary to fulfill such scriptures as Hebrews 9:22; 1 Peter: 18-19; and similar passages." With this statement Zeebroo concurs.

Note that Wall (Bob Thieme's Teaching on Christian Living p20) on the issue of the Blood of Christ goes on to state "none of the Dallas Seminary professors shared Walter's alarm, and none classified Thieme outside of orthodox Christianity". Note that, not outside of orthodox Christianity. So even if one held Thieme’s view they would not be outside the bounds of orthodoxy according to Dallas. unquote

Truthtesty: Here your logic is in error as well as Dr. Wall. It is obvious Dr. Wall did not want to face Dr. Chafer here. The Dallas Seminary professors were silent. That's all So? Dr. Wall's second measuring rod for orthodoxy was "Second, the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a concise statement of Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology, will be used as a broader basis for determining orthodoxy."
However? Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's concise theology is "the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Christ." ie:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
Quote:
1 John 1:7 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.

Also Dr. Walvoord believed in the efficacy of the literal Shed blood and it's power:

Dr. Walvoord quote:

"The Power of the Blood of Christ
The Bible also speaks of the power of the blood of Christ that was shed upon the cross. The fact that the blood of Christ was shed assures us of the power of God to forgive sin. This is stated in Hebrews 9:22, “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” It is through the blood of Christ that we have redemption (Eph. 1:7; Rev. 5:9). Through the shed blood of Christ we receive propitiation, or satisfaction before God, so that our sins may be forgiven (Rom. 3:25). The blood of Christ has the power to cleanse us from sin.

This is the argument of Hebrews 9:13-14, “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”

Our cleansing is not through a redemption purchased with silver and gold but with the precious blood of Christ as stated in 1 Peter 1:18-19, “You know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” The power of the death of Christ, as stated in these many passages that refer to the blood of Christ shed for us, is one of the important aspects of God’s process of sanctification of a believer. As we contemplate the death of Christ and all He did for us, it serves to remind us of God’s holy purpose and His desire that we might be examples of His righteousness even in our daily lives."unquote
[www.walvoord.com]

Truthtesty: I see that you partially comply with truth when it suits you. But? You take a false hard line based purely on the words of the academic Dr. Wall, without discerning all truth when Dr. Wall is in error. The same errored process you again use with Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. So it is you who would obufiscate the truth of Dr. Walvoord and Dr. Wall's dissertation. How can you completely go around and ignore Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology of which there are 8 volumes which speak of the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Christ, and then? You would occurs others of obufiscation? hah!

There is nothing wrong with pursuing new theories, but when they do not pan out? And? they do not disprove the obvious truth of theologians such as Dr. Chafer and Dr. Chafer's orthodoxy? then? the false theory must be layed aside.

Time and time again you ignore Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and author of Systematic Theology as well as many other works, But? you haven't PROVEN him wrong.

Cheerio

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2009 10:49AM by Truthtesty.