Truthtesty and The Forum,

The irony that a raging debate on theology would be happening on a Cult website has not escaped me. But, when it comes to aspects of Christian theology I am not surprised. Thank you Truthtesty for “winning” this debate and bringing us back into the era of electricity and out of the Dark Ages. We’re moving on indeed as momentum is what happens when people quit killing things with so called “knowns” based on falsehoods for the sake of rogue agendas and get to an “unknown”…. a potential gemstone. Once you can sift and find those, you can make jewelry. (I like this analogy.) The difference in exploiting resources or acquisitioning their potential for sustainability is vast.

Well..., we can see from these exchanges another impotent thrust of Theime/Dead-Heads, and that is the “solely objective” approach to the bible. Characters and even events in the bible are variables that may be moved around like in a Sudoku puzzle for the optimal predetermined solve. A variable becomes a variant? Isolate deviations, back to a variable and moved back to either /or side of the equation over and over. Rather, than an accurate look at the "variable(s)" before an equal sign is imposed rendering them motionless hanging in the "balance". Jesus is merely the King on a chess board. The metaphorical blood and body of Jesus represents the metaphorical (???!!!!!) death in their linear algebra problem when you solve their problem, using their logic for them. (Which deserves a Thank You because no one should be forced to warp themselves backwards and sideways like this.) And still? (Who knows Theimers, if RBT had passed geometry once he passed linear algebra, might the world be round? Or would it be a circle you could walk around if you followed the line? Think of all the possibilities when you fill in lines…..pop-up doctrine manuals. Maybe even dioramas! Who am I to stand in the way of progress but something might still be amiss? ) Objectivity askew is how we get the disciples at the “Last Supper” all getting up and moving to one side of the table for that famous painting. But, at least the disciples were there. Remind Theimers and “solely objective” persons of the subject and? (No Theimers, Jesus did not look into the camera while Paul hit play and speak to you while you took notes.) Discussion then, is strictly for an anticipated checkmate. Passive learners are dictated to and then fight for the “sole objective” attempting to dictate to an object.

Aside: The “solely objective” application of the bible is a mind bending disaster much less, how it feels if you are the subject. Warning if you become an “object” of interest to Theimer Dead-Heads as you are in for a very unpleasant surprise regarding what “The Holy Spirit” is….”The Holy Spirit” has quite a rap sheet.

The nuances of understanding and momentum created by doubt, inquiry, and new information is flat and goes nowhere. Belief for Dead-Heads is merely anticipated denial of their “sole objective” from an “opponent”. The “solely objective” view is a deliberate side-swipe of the subject matter completely. Variables are “knowns” and evolvement is prevented based on false “knowns” for the sake of their predetermined solve, only to be exacerbated further by required limitations on the subject matter and characters because they solely represent values or variables, rendering the very subject matter inconsequential. And yet furiously debated into the ground… Jesus essentially acquired his surname and that is it. Refusing to even be recipients of their own script for “their fight” over “their Lord" it is Jesus who calls attention to the many necessary doubts which will linger upon his exit, saying it is necessary in order for the Holy Spirit to work his “magic”.

Therefore,

What have you done when you are working from your pre-determined solve? Can simply the matter of arriving at the right or wrong choice be a substitute for the momentum and journey there, in truly glorifying G-d? Does “condemnation proceed salvation” (Theimer rhetoric) because limitations placed on the subject matter require both and are dependent on one another, if you are condemned then you must be saved and if you are saved then you must be condemned so you must be saved so you must be condemned ad nauseum, OR you don’t know? But, since now that you know what good is the Holy Spirit for?

No leg left to stand on Z and others? Try something besides:

ATTEMPT TO “FEMINIZE“ THE OPPONENT IN ORDER TO EVADE THE ARGUMENT - “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.”

ATTEMPT TO REMIND OPPONENT WHO THEY ARE AND TURN THEM ON THEMSELVES THROUGH CLASSIFICATION TO EVADE AND DODGE THE ARGUMENT - (Unable to see Anti-Semitism can be argued against you in your rejection of the true nature of the Shed Blood argument because if you truly had a learned understanding of Anti-Semitism and its Medieval apparitions pre-Luther ((and this dead argument)) you would not be using it for flashiness. )- “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.”

ATTEMPT TIRED RHETORIC AND RE-EMPHASIS LOYALTY TO FURTHER EVADE ARGUMENT – “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.”

TRY “I DON’T KNOW.”

thereporter

To thereporter:

I always enjoy reading your posts!

Your posts are accurate, hilariously funny, and truthful at the same time.

Truthtesty

Truthtesty and The Forum:

Well, I believe it may in part be due to more complex DNA as far as my inability to approach anything in a solely singular fashion. Thank you, though.

It is like I can appreciate the later explanations of Theime’s root biblical textual calamities, proving in formal text his parting with Orthodoxy and his maladjusted, ludicrous, and malicious interpretations after I have already highlighted the warped methodology at play as a possible pit fall for others who attempt to influence like him, like his influence, or like the influence of like-minded low theologians, but I do not have to see it in root textual calamities before I see it. My role in this matter when I choose, limited as it is, is still too engrossing in trying to neutralize them that I leave it to the judges to nail them on technicalities in the compulsory round, assuming they can stick a landing once I am done with them. Their arrogance is so head-first and full throttle that they absolutely must put down on paper their pathology, like the books Theime was compelled to write and/or keep record of their daily dissent into fury and bellicose straying and criminality, in such grandiose detail just in case anyone might dare forget that the need for a Jarworski LLP to subpoena the tapes or evidence is moot because after all, those ankle biting rule ninnies can’t stop them from distributing the tapes and material to everyone free of charge. Take that! Ha Ha Ha! It is no longer worrying that scientists will not have enough to go on regarding the arch-prototype for throw-backs of the Third Reich, as scientists like Daniel Jonah Goldhagen offer the quintessential case-study of the “good German” among us, the ordinary citizen. We have a profile. When the composite is a lock and the analytical model says all things are go, we know with these people that they will save us the trouble of chronicling their complicity. It is a matter of being skilled enough like a matador to move out of the way once the bull charges you, taking all his spectators with him, into the inferno pit just beyond their bleachers.

What makes it easy and frustrating at the same time is “the bull” has a cow udder for a brain. They are so stupid. The inconceivable stupidity gives such grand pause one looses their footing. Then, just when you dilute your response for them to “metabolize” why, the amoral inhumanity of their position grabs you. That is after all what the full-bore rejection was about at first impression, but now through reductionism the response is as diluted as their reception. One knows that the required “doctrine” is there to lend support but the fact that one is scurrying around for text when the whole book is an unmitigated offense to their position, weighs one down because throwing the whole book at them is quite an undertaking. Then, their demure is so unabashedly caustic that lights of reprieve acquiessed in a world where conflict is easy and natural with “thank you” or “sorry” trips one because after all we still live in this world.

Their pseudotheology in part is the product of what “new believers” did to the Protestant work ethic and capitalism….eliminating Calvin, ethics, morals, and productive capitalism. I do not mind whatsoever (I rather enjoy it.) using Be-reich-ah’s “chief adversary’s” prediction, as poetic justice is close enough to perfect (and they would not know communism from a crouton or socialism from a sausage anyways) and just happens to be right on the money (Marx roles over in his grave with my play on words) when he assails capitalism’s “cash nexus” mixed with religion. “The most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor…in the icy water of egotistical calculation…for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions……naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”

There you are.

These “new believers” are consumers after all. They want a pill they can “metabolize”. Pirates like Theime and his followers have replaced a powerful and ethical orthodoxy with a trivialized patima of faux spiritualism and instrumental ethics to rationalize the solipsistic psychology of the new relationship between consumers and commodities intermingled with their heinous immoral agendas. They want a direct pipeline to grace and “Get Thee To A Mall” is gospel. They have got “escrow blessings” to cash in on later and are guaranteed “eternal security” and cannot be bothered by the rest…. Their politics is made contentious, argumentative, and simplistic; the ideology focused on privatization, narcissism, and interest; their info-mercial religion and commercialized revivalism, construed more and more is a theodegradable commodity offering shallow solutions to deep problems. It is easily “metabolized.”

Unable to sell the poor what they need (because it doesn’t pay), they desperately try to sell the prosperous what they don’t need as the wealthy “need” a shrink-wrap Jesus too right???... without the head-aches, and of course more “intellectual”. Bingo. Theime found his schtick in robbing the rich but not in the obvious Robin Hood way through fanning class warfare and avoiding the messy nuances of something he rejected anyhow. Stealing money directly from the wealthy is not the “unfair distribution of wealth like those communists believe in” because it is much more direct and honest. (lol) Abandoning Western Civilization was/is merely a road block for RBT and Ber-reich-ah,

So let’s blow that up too, maybe take out some of those long winded theologians, social science wimps, foreigners…flexing brute strength is fun and the cold war had two sides so much easier plus retro is in vogue, and this bible does not work for me either… You wouldn’t miss it would you? I did not think so, so let’s get to the goods! I’m not paid to waste your time and all this work I have done proves that those pompous windbags at the Seminary could not make the killing I am making with the Wonder Bible Blade! Idiots! It is sharper than a double edge sword, able to cut through cans, I’ll throw in a free manual on dating, and there is a money back guarantee as your blessings remain in escrow waiting for you and even if you put in just a little bit you still have prime real-estate, granted this is after you are face to face with the Lord and I am merely your broker and deal in the tangibles of the intangibles but your money never is given begrudgingly or for a good cause so what more do you want? , you want to invest in the stock market you are more than welcome to throw your money away with those wussie gamblers if that is your yin but what I have for you is not as sketchy as a savings and loan scandal but even more sketchy and for really big risk takers like yourself, you commando you, i knew you were Army, it’s a onetime offer, and we are totally legit, we even have you bring your notebooks and go through this book line by line to prove it and provide tapes, we are totally legit or I am not a Cum Laude graduate of the Dallas Seminary School!

Their belief like their fiscal philosophy is one of joyless compulsiveness. The infantile ethos in play is how they get their apple after all and is discussed at the end of my “rant”. Choice without consequences is of course a synonym for disempowerment but in their infantile ethos they want choice without consequences so bad that they remove choice altogether. Choice is the ruinous construct of man which brings consequences remember, so how can we guarantee we get what we want? This is Theime’s choice “choice” pivot. This is the key to diabolical. What guarantees I can have what I want and suffer no consequences? Remove choice. Eliminate it! I’m in!!! Now flunkies, you are really free in “the word.” And I am free from it. Unfortunately kids, when the boundary separating one from what they want, in this case the boundary is “human volition”, vanishes, what one wants or does not want is no longer an option as instruments of other ends. One instead becomes the want.

Let me be so bold as to sum up Theime and Ber-reich-ah's pathology for you, all his “work” independent of all that “doctrine”,

“Age without dignity. Dress without true formality, as in wear whatever you want as occasion need not be a barrier. Sex without reproduction. Work without discipline. Play without spontaneity. Acquisition without purpose. Certainty without doubt. Life without responsibility. Narcissism into old age and unto death without a hint of wisdom or humility.”

Theime refused to become a civilian. He refused to be civilized.

I get questions about “escrow blessings” from “disillusioned” Theime fans who read what I have written commenting on how they like my descriptions of the “crazy compound” but are still confused about what they are going to get. WIIFM!!! What Is In It For Me!!! He was my broker and I have escrow blessing coming don’t I?!!! Am I going to be fighting for Heaven in Heaven?!!! I have to laugh that “no works lest any man should boast but by grace alone” translates to unmeritorious demands for the goods they have earned by the barrel of a gun. I could have done yet another “reporter” type illustration to demonstrate how Theime purposely has G-d break his own morays and laws letting “demons” back into “Heaven” for a good fight but I won’t. How many more militant pirates of faith spending all their time concentrating on the after-life, making G-d break his own rules and instructions for this life, in their high design of the ever-after does one need? If child abuse, militant thuggery, blasphemy, cult behavior, re-writing the bible, absolute power, demagoguery, licentiousness, pin-pointing Gnostic heresy if you need that pin-pointed in your bible, and testimonials from former members does not tell you to let it all go, then anything else I say is not going to really matter. You should feel disillusioned among many negative feelings if you still have any warm blood circulating. It is allusions of anything else that I would worry about. If you must have a bible to tell you child abuse is wrong, that a militant cult is wrong, that absolute power is wrong, that unrighteous behavior is wrong which is redundant, that jump squad ranger drills in the baptismal is wrong and military communions is blasphemy, or that John, Jesus’ cousin wrote an entire book which is dedicated to warning of heresy like Ber-reich-ah, go ahead and pick fly dung out of pepper. You are complicit to all the above every time you lend any weight to anything RBT wrote and you give air time to a heretic every time you push play on your tape or cd. (I will be so bold as to clear things up and make things real easy for you.) Whether or not G-d will buy “But I stayed with this system to help the system, and raised hell to be a better soldier and train better soldiers for you.” is not my call.

As one of the “them” Truthtesty, I give these cowards the only sporting chance they will have before I disarm them and send them flying back to the Ber-reich-ah Barracks so they do not miss their turn at skiing on Lake Napalm with their savior, the dejected renegade soldier Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. If for one minute I believed they did not enjoy hell, then I would be guilty of “judging them” and instead send them flying to a peace rally hosted by Afro-Jesus. In 2010, it is not my problem that the only thing that this group took from the moral relativism that gripped a nation after the fall of Saigon, was not to err on the side of caution, better judgment, and the message of the good book but instead, champion a gluttons’ appetite for carnage and destruction through a church. Condemning and judging millions to die weekly in their custom hymns , and then dare to resurrect the Shoah beyond the confines of their Mausoleum because misery on the baited breath of flame licked wounds loves company. My time is limited to zero for fools who believe for one instant that they can or will bring this to my doorstep and as devotees if they want to discuss “doctrine” it is not under the guise that because they are skilled at dissection that they have fooled anyone because they are “believers.” They say they are “believers” and I say okay, SO?

They truly are a “brutal egotistical calculated” sham from “The Word” A-Z.

A few men will drive you all the way to hell before they pull over and ask for directions. It certainly may be my nature when “lost or confused” but I tend to insist that these men pull over and ask a “stranger”, who as it turns out just happens to be a good looking and charming gentleman at a corner fruit stand, “just the kind of guy you would like”, where “we” are headed so that “we” know ahead of time where “we” are going. I always insist it is so that I will know what to wear as manipulation certainly may be in my nature. If these men insist on driving straight to hell anyways, with their newfound clarity, corroborated certainty, and skillfully program the destination into their GPS, why it is not my fault of course and relief in this familiar parable with a twist, when I wave them off while I enjoy good fruit with a charming “stranger” in our beautiful orchard. The sweet labor of love and delicious knowledge, our bountiful, is simply too precious for bad apple dinner guests with no manners.

They are “prebound” anyways.

Cheerio Hell-Bent Dead-Heads! Who am I to stop such determination that is so determined it is pre-determined? Eliminating choice of the bad apple certainly does guarantee you are bound to it. You are absolutely right and I could not agree more. It is all yours. It is you.

thereporter

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all,

Like many of you, I've just returned from a few relaxing days visiting family.

I'm now done with this subject on a public level and will not be posting again here.

Thankyou to all for contributing; both pro and con.

There remains a couple of items from the distant past which if found to be suitable will be added to 4shared in the future.

Below is my parting gift (A handful will have previously seen this).
Nothing startling, just one more weave to the tapestry.

[www.4shared.com]

All the best.

To the Forum:

Thieme's mind game parlor trick of "being in charge" of the thiemites belief system can be boiled down to:"Thieme was in charge of the thiemite's sense of what was "right" and "wrong"(and Thieme perverted even that)." But? The ex-thiemite needs to give him or herself permission to accept that Thieme was wrong(and quite often he was). Why? Because Thieme never gave you "permission" to acknowledge he was wrong. Nor? Did Thieme ever admit he was wrong. Hence? If Thieme never admitted he was wrong and never gave anyone permission to say he was wrong(publicly or privately) Then? The psycological warfare of the lie that "Thieme was never wrong" was "anchored", without ever being questioned, to the thiemite mind. Hence, Thieme could run whatever falsehood, political or otherwise directly into the very soul of the thiemite. And? It was "accepted". Rarely was it ever questioned. Why to question Thieme to a thiemite would mean you are well on the way to reversionistic hell on earth.(Never mind Thieme hypocritically "reversioned" Dr. Chafer first). To a thiemite "reversionism" only "counts" if you question the Thieme political cult, not Thieme's hypocritical "reversioning" of Dr. Chafer or questioning Dr. Chafer.


The Morris/Stibbs(and others) vs the Hicks/Gayford(and others) debate, is worth comparison and contrast, for any recovering ex-thiemite. (Especially ex-thiemite's who were Catholic prior to Thieme.)

Sacrifice and Priesthood(1924) by S.C.Gayford p. 72 quote: "...There was one Sacrifice, and one only, to which the act of "sprinkling" the blood properly belonged, i.e. The Sin Offering on the day of Atonement. It would follow that in the New Testament wherever the reference is made to "sprinkling" of the Blood of Jesus (e.g. Heb.xii. 24; I Pet. i. 2), the allusion is not to the old Sacrifices in general, but to this particular one..."

Truthtesty: The particular one being The Sin Offering on the day of Atonement. Morris misses this relation of sprinkling and The Sin Offering on the day of Atonement.

Truthtesty: Contrast this with Morris who misses the point between sprinkling and sin offering(proof is 1 Pet.1:2):
Morris quote: "The unusual phrase 'blood of sprinkling' (Heb. 12:24) points to a sacrificial action, and the context shows that in Heb. 13:12 the sin offering is in mind. The sprinkling of the blood in 1 Pet. 1:2 again indicates a sacrificial action, while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (I Pet.1:19 is clearly sacrificial blood, ..."

Morris again: "...If anything the connexion between blood and death is even plainer in Heb. 12:24, where we read of coming 'to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than (that of) Abel'. Whether we include the words in parentheses or not, the contrast is between the blood of Abel and the blood of Jesus.1

Truthtesty:
Why is this an important distinction? Sprinkling is not the "thought of sacrifice" pointing to death only, but it is "after-death action" and is a anti-type relation to the type of Sin offering on the Day of Atonement. And? It took place after death. Morris misses the type/anti-type relation of the Sin offering on the day of Atonement and "sprinkling" in general, as proven by his not mentioning it in I Pet. 1:2. He is correct when he relates the Sin offering with sprinkling in Heb. 12:24 with proof of the context being Heb. 13:12.

Why is this an important distinction?

Morris quote: "...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. Yet the
reference to sprinkling shows that the thought of sacrifice is in the
writer's mind, so that for him the blood of sacrifice seems to have
pointed to death."

Truthtesty: Even the Blood of Abel is said to have "spoken" "after-death". Unnatural? Certainly not an after death action witnessed by most mortals.(Exception at the tomb POST-resurrection) But? Did not Jesus defeat death and resurrect? The anti-type reference sprinkling to the type Sin offering on the Day of Atonement is POST DEATH, not just the thought of sacrifice in general, not just the thought of sacrifice pointing to death alone.


Also, ultimately, everyone should make up their own mind about the Blood of Christ or for anything biblical.

Sacrifice and Priesthood(1924) by S.C.Gayford p. 144 quote: The Resurrection. From the analogy of the Old Covenant, in which the offering of the Blood was so vital a feature in Sacrifice, we should expect that the Christian Sacrifice would not close with the Crucifixion but be continued in the Risen Life of the Saviour. This expectation is justified when we examine the New Testament teaching. Professor W. Milligan has collected and examined the passages treating of the Blood of Jesus Christ, its meaning and efficacy, and compared them with the corresponding sayings in reference to His Death. The conclusion which he draws is that when the Apostolic writers wished to describe the full effects of the atoning work of Christ they almost envariably speak of His Blood, rather than His Death, as the means by which he won Salvation for us. We need not remind our readers that the word "Blood" in itself involves the idea of Sacrifice. It was by a Sin Offering that Atonement was made under the New Covenant as under the Old. But further, "Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transaction, the "pouring" or "putting" or "sprinkling" of the Blood. Also the blood itself was the symbol of the life that had been through death, i.e. the risen life. So, the "Blood of Christ" refers us to a sacrificial work belonging to the Resurrection-life. His offering of the blood is fufilled by something which he does in his Ressurection-state and with His Risen Life...Meanwhile, it is enough to have established this very significant fact that the "Blood of Jesus" implies a reference to His Risen Life and a place for the Resurrection in the Sacrifice which He offered for the sins of the world. This explains St. Paul's insistence on the Ressurection as an integral part of the atonement(e.g. Romans iv. 25, v. 10; I Cor. xv. 17)..."

Truthtesty: To me it makes sense to include in the synecdoche the " Blood of Christ", the power of Jesus to die and rise again. "The power to lay it down...take...". That would be an after death action only possible by the "Blood of Jesus", not the "Blood of Abel".

Also, for those thiemites are compulsively and neurotically addicted to "rebounding"but it doesn't quite ever to seem to work or feel "the forgiveness"? And who just can't seem to quit being neurotically "reminded" of their sin consciousness, I found this intresting while reading Gayford (p.129): "The Sacrifices of the Old Covenant continually reminded the worshippers of sins: in them was "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year" (Heb. x. 3), because they never really made atonement for them. But when we share in the Sacrifice of the Covenant we are reminded ("... this do in remembrance of me."-- I Cor. xi. 24, 25) of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. So, in common with the Covenant to which they belonged, the old Sacrifices suggested needs and aroused desires which they could not fufil or satisfy, and by that very fact they pointed forward to the better Sacrifice of the "Lamb of God"."

So if "rebounding" isn't working for you and your are constantly caught up in sin conciousness, perhaps you should reevaluate what is in your faith.


Truthtesty



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2009 08:11AM by Truthtesty.

To thereporter:

Thier "horror". I get it.The first time I saw "Apocalyse Now", I was shocked by the parallels with Colonel Kurtz and Lt. Col.Thieme-even down to the cult followers. The only difference being the followers wear modern garb, not jungle animal skin(as far as we know).

Truthtesty

Quote

Below is my parting gift (A handful will have previously seen this).
Nothing startling, just one more weave to the tapestry.

[www.4shared.com]

Hi Orange,

Thanks. I had never seen that before. She was definitely a well coached politician's wife. She gave it away in the last sentence though---answered more than asked when she referred to being unaware that Thieme had publicly "espoused" opinions about social issues.

take care,
prebound

To the Forum:

I apologize, this statement in the above post needs to be reviewed: "He is correct when he relates the Sin offering with sprinkling in Heb. 12:24 with proof of the context being Heb. 13:12.

"This is a very involved study. As before, I request that everyone do thier own study and double-check what I have said. I welcome debate and correction. 

It appears to me that a basic difference any different version of Christianity within Christianity, is based on the interpretation of types of the Hebrew sacrifices and thier corresponding antitypes in the New Testament. 

I recommend reading Sacrifice and priesthood: Jewish and Christian By Sydney Charles Gayford and compare it with the Stibbs and Morris documents "the meaning of the word 'Blood' in scripture" and "The biblical use of the term 'blood', respectively".

This book is a very detailed study of Jewish sacrifices and it's exegetical relation to the Sacrifice of Jesus. I cannot properly represent it in all it's entire scientific study today. But I can see quickly that one major difference between SC Gayford and Morris/Stibbs is on the "Heavenly Offering"-the Work of Jesus after his human death on Calvary. Stibbs makes one mention of Ascension and Morris makes no mention at all that I could tell.

Gayford in quick summary states that "the Blood of Christ" refers us to a sacrificial work belonging to the ressurection-life.            

In the introduction of "Sacrifice and priesthood: Jewish and Christian" By Sydney Charles Gayford

Gayford says that "I hope and believe it may serve as an eirenicon between the Catholic and Evangelical schools of thought not only within the Anglican Communion but also in other Christian bodies...What I have tried to do is justify this conception of Sacrifice by a detailed study of the Jewish Sacrifices and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ(chiefly as treated in the Epistle to the Hebrews), and then to show that it leads to a view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which includes all that a faithful Catholic would demand as essential, and at the same time nothing which the Evangelical is bound by his principles to reject...Needless controversy is created by using words in different senses...In any case, it would be a great step in the right direction of peace if we could speak of the "Eucharistic Offering" rather than the "Eucharistic Sacrifice."..."

Gayford p.145 "...The Priestly work in the Ascended life is confined to pleading by a Sacrifice finished "once and for all" on Calvary. This is the ordinary "Evangelical" or "Protestant" view of the Sacrifice of Christ, but may also be fairly called the ordinary "Roman" view as well, in so far as it is implied in the common expression(as old as St. Ambrose)," the altar of the Cross."..."

Gayford speaks of the paralelling verses in Hebrews 9:1-8 (Old Testament-Aaronic High Priest on the Day of Atonement) and Hebrews 9:11,12,24,25 (New Testament-Jesus as High Priest in Heaven)

Gayford p.151: "It will be seen that in both cases the Death of the Victim is presupposed as an already accomplished fact before the Priestly work is begun. The Heavenly Shechinah (verse 24) is the scene of the of the Priestly Ministry; the entry into that Sanctuary marks the time of His Ascension into Heaven, where He will abide until His Second Coming(verse 25-28; cf. Acts I. II).
It will be noticed that Our Lord is said outright in verse 25 to "offer Himself" in the Heavenly Sanctuary,... In verse 24 this offering of Himself is called "to appear before the Face of God...He is said to appear before the Face of God for us...It is a mediatorial Offering of Himself. The words link this Sacrificial Offering with the Heavenly intercession of Heb. vii. 25; Rom. viii 34, and in turn we are reminded that the word "intercession" is wide enough to include the thought of a sacrificial Offering for others...(I) Our Lord has but one Priesthood-after the order of Melchizeedek. (2) He entered upon the exercise of that Priesthood(if not upon the office itself, as Heb. v. 5 and 10 seems to imply)after His Death. (3) The scene of His Ministry is the Heavenly Temple. (4) He offers Himself, His Blood; and this Priestly Offering is the anti-type to the offering of the Blood in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement...The Sacrifice of Christ is One in so far as He is Sacrificer and Victim, as a completed act of past time, accomplished at the moment of His Death. That is the significance of the saying from the Cross, "It is finished." The source of the atoning power of His Sacrifice is the Cross, and the Cross alone. He "made there by His One Oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world...It is...One Sacrifice ... He is the Priest...entered "once and for all"(Heb. ix. 12) into the Holy of Holies...to offer Himself for us...One final point...to the Heavenly Offering...a completed act of past time or as a continued action...as is implied in the phrase, "the perpetual offering"? The answer really turns on the meaning of the passages, Heb. i 3, vii. 27, x. 12-14..."

Continuing with Gayford p.156 "Christ "is a Priest for ever, not by a perpetual series of acts of memory, not by multiplied and ever-remoter acts of commemoration of a death that is past, but by the eternal presentation of a life which is eternally the 'life that died'1." 1.Moberly, "Ministerial Priesthood," p.246 [books.google.com]

To me the evidence is obvious that Jesus continued to "Work" after death. Every Christian agrees he was ressurected and offered his life to God in sacrifice (that is a continuing ongoing perfect eternal life-giving sacrifice of the "Blood of Christ")

Another basic concept that appears to be in agreement with Gayford is the "Blood of Abel" spoke "after apparent (to us) human death action" and so the "Blood of Christ" "speaketh better things" this also would be after-death action, in one synecdochial sense. 

I could not find a full view of "Sacrifice and priesthood: Jewish and Christian?" By Sydney Charles Gayford [books.google.com]

However Gayford does reference:Milligan's view of the Blood of Christ on this page, see: [books.google.com]


Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2010 04:31AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

To me it makes perfect sense that the Hebrew mind really believed "the blood is the life".

Rev. 5:6 (KJV)- And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.  

Is that not evidence of the "Blood of the Lamb"? The life that had passed through/conquered/overcame death? A life which exists today?

[www.searchgodsword.org]

"Blood" obviously had many different meanings, depending on context. People should read for themselves and make up their own minds. To me, Morris and Stibbs speak many words but completly bypass the concept of the perpetual offering of the perfect "Blood of Christ" after Jesus' human death on the Cross (life which had passed through death), as spoken of by Gayford/Milligan.

Afterall Jesus had the "power to lay it down" and the "power to take it up again".


Truthtesty

Morris and Stibbs understand the "concept" of the blood. It's you truthtesty who does not. Your "Perpetual offering of the perfect Blood of Christ" is not a biblical concept. It is more Catholicism than anything else. The "blood of Christ" was offered once for all time, no such perpetual offering.

Morris/Stibbs understand the Blood of Christ, correctly, that it denotes the death of Christ.