To the Forum:

Neither, I, nor zeebrook is another man's annointing. 1 John 2:27


zeebrook: It is misleading to think that Morris is holding to your view of Christ's literal blood being literally shed as our salvation. Whilst he, and I also, believe that Christ did die on the cross, that he shed his blood (= His death), and that He also bled some, it was his death that saves (and that both spiritual and physical death).
Contrary to what you state when you say "The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19". No sacrificial blood was just that Old Testament sacrificial literal blood. As Morris affirms Behm's statement "Blood of Christ" like "cross", only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning.. You need to accuratley represent view points.
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, no I do not hold to Thieme's view on the blood of Christ. I do believe Christ had to die physically upon the cross (as well as spiritually) for our salvation. His death upon the cross is what the the term "the blood of Christ" denotes. Refer to studies by Morris, Stibbs, Behm and many, many others.[/quote]

Truthtesty: I already do accurately represent viewpoints and you need to apologize for your false accusations. I said " Many things, but ONE of them specifically is..." This study is vast and I only have so much time to present information.

There are not many many others. I think the real Holy Author knew what imagination would be conjured up by modern people when they read the Bible. That blood equals blood.

Dr. Wall dissertation quote: "In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown
that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically but also impossible theologically."

Dr. Wall quote: See also Leon Morris's study of the blood in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955). And pp. 108-124 is titled: "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris.
[jts.oxfordjournals.org]

Truthtesty: I have already clearly proven that Thieme misrepresented the figurative to literal meaning of "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice" in Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich many times on this forum. Thieme completely misrepresents the figurative to literal meaning of Bauer, Ardnt and Giingrich p. 22, 23.

Also, I have clearly represented Dr. Chafer's blood Theology. Dr. Chafer understood that the "Blood of the Lamb" was figurative to endless literal meanings.

Thieme was a satanic denier of the literal Shed blood of Jesus, according to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology of the Blood. That is clear from Dr. Chafer's "Systematic Theology". One of Dr. Wall's measuring rods was Chafer theology.

It is significant to research that neither Thieme nor Dr. Wall mention the literal blood theology of Dr. Chafer. Dr. Wall for the purposes of his dissertation (on the blood theology only) must try prove DTS orthodoxy by it post-Chafer definition of orthodoxy.

And what did I say about Morris view of the Blood of Christ? I showed what I thought Morris meant in ONE case, NOT every case.

And what does Morris say about the Blood of Christ? Many things, but one of them specifically is

From "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM 'BLOOD" by Leon Morris

...The remaining passages seem to point to sacrificial blood. Six times there is reference to covenant blood, which calls for no comment to show the sacrificial reference; in Rom. 3:25 God is said to have set forth Christ as hilasterion ... en to autou haimati , where the word hilasterion points us to the sacrifices. In Heb. 9 the whole context with its mention of the blood of sacrificial victims shows that verses 12 and 14 carry a reference to the sacrificial system when they speak of the blood of Christ, and the same is true of 10:19. 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' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood, and the same is probably true of 'the blood of the Lamb' in Rev. 7:14, 12:11. Finally, the thought of cleansing associated with the blood in 1 John 17 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.

(Also note Morris' sub categorization and distinction of sacrificial action vs sacrificial blood)

And what does the KJV say about the Blood of Christ 1 Pet. 1:19 says?

1 Pet. 1:19 (KJV) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Leon Morris clearly states above: 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' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood,

The precious Blood of Christ is clearly sacrificial blood in 1 Pet 1:19, by Morris' relating the blood of the Blood of Christ to the literal shed blood of the lamb sacrifice,

while the blood 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood,

But? What is the "blood" in 1 Peter 1:19 that Morris mentions? It is the "precious Blood of Christ" that is the blood that is clearly related to the literal shed blood of sacrificed lamb.

Morris is clearly speaking of blood in 1 Peter 1:19. Which is what blood? Do you see any other mentioning of "blood" in 1 Peter 1:19 other than the Blood of Christ? I don't.

The only blood that I can see when Morris says " while the blood, 'as of a lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Pet. 1:19) is clearly sacrificial blood] " is directly related by Morris to the Blood of Christ. The ,Blood of Christ, is directly related in this particular case by Morris to the literal sacrificial blood of the literal lamb. Morris says it is clearly sacrificial blood (related to literal sacrificial blood NOT (i) Death with violence of some kind, but blood of Christ in this case is related to sacrificial blood). According to Morris, Blood of Christ equals sacrificial blood in this case. (Remember Morris did not group the 103 sacrificial blood examples with death by violence examples or any othr group.) How so? Because if you look at Morris' grouped classifications of passages, what are they?:


I.
'Blood' in the Old Testament
A.
Classification of Passages
The word W[ is used in the Hebrew Bible some 360 times with
various shades of meaning, and the occurrences may usefully be grouped
as follows:

(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.

Note this is consistent with Dr. Wall's description of the synecdoche of "The Blood of Christ": Thieme is correct in observing that the term blood of Christ is a pregnant term with figurative significance. The problem with
Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of
Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his
physical blood and the whole act of dying physically. Such a use of the term is a common literary device in the New Testament known as a “synecdoche,” that is “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole.”


The overall controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood actually,(summarizing) it is a Protestant blood equals death vs Catholic blood equals life controversy.

See "The Perpetuity of Christ's Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews" by Walter Edward Brooks
"The arguments put forth by L. Morris ("The Biblical Use of the Term 'Blood' ", JThS (1952, pp. 216-27) and J. Behm ("alps," ThDNT, 1, pp. 172-77) that blood
refers to life violently taken away and therefore that in Hebrews atonement is accomplished in the death of Jesus cannot be accepted. We are interested in the meaning of blood in the sacrificial ritual known to our author. Num 35 33, contrary to Morris (p. 221), sheds no light on Lev 17:11. Clearly Lev 1-7 (the postexilic code) denotes
no idea that atonement is accomplished by violent death. The killing of the victim was not done by the minister of the sacrifice, so hardly could it be considered central (cf. Lev 1 5, 3 2, 8, 13, 424, 29, 33).
'7 Bruce, pp. 200-01. " ...On this whole matter one should consult: A. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews; H. A. CITolfson,Philo;...S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews.
...must note that in the OT the priestly function in the sacrifice does not begin
until after the death of the victim. This function consists of bringing (npk or H'?;r)
the blood of the victim into contact with the altar. Thus the manipulation of the
blood, which contained life (Lev 17 ll), is the priestly work. Contrary to certain
opinions then, the death of the victim was not central and did not constitute the
essence of sacrifice. Central was the achieving at-one-ment with God, and this was done through the manipulation of blood. Cf. F. C. N.Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice,
esp. pp. 12-13.

So keep in mind the blood equals life vs the blood equals death controversy, when reading Morris and Nazi Behm.

By the way Bauer, Ardnt, and Gingrich removed Behm and kept Morris, in the later edition of their Greek lexicon.

Some deny that the Shed blood of Jesus was efficacious for salvation. Yet? They do not dare deny that Jesus bled. Why? Because if you did (as Thieme did) you'd be branded a heretic.

Also, I think academics can easily get disoriented here. Jesus in the flesh and blood(antitype) is salvatory, not the Old Testament sacrifices(types)


Truthtesty



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2009 01:23AM by Truthtesty.

While there is little light I can shed on Berachah as far as biblical ministries and so forth, my only experience there was as a child and indoctrination of children is the only thing I can remark on.

My father was attracted to the church because of the heavy emphasis on 'bible study'. My dad was a devout Christian and a very studious person in general and I think that's what attracted him to the church. When he died in 1994 like it would anyone's, it changed my life. I have recently had to come to terms with poor choices my mother made since his death and part of that was her decision, after leaving berachah, to join an ACTUALLY cult like group. I can't recall the name, but they had a bunch of land in CO. This group was very much into revelations and 'the end times' and we left after about a year or two there.

However, looking back on my personal church history, and finding that two of the places I was brought to could and probably are considered to be cults or sects, It scares me, and has brought the question: if both of my parents were this impressionable, am I?

No, I'm not, but my experience at Berachah does leave a few questions in my mind which never get answered, but to aid anyone else with their questions or suspicions, this is what I can remember.

I was in the 'primary dept.' for most of my days there. My dad went to bible study everyday it was offered. The tape room is clear in my memory. I remember knowing all the books of the bible and being able to recite them in order (though I have lost that). I remember 'the ballad of the green beret' being my favorite song to sing during assembly, and now, looking back on it, I don't see what that has to do with God. I don't ever remember seeing what I now consider to be a proper church hierarchy. There was simply Thieme and his bodyguards. I recall that he was really into obedience. Children were not to speak unless spoken to, and the best way of glorifying God was to do the will of our parents. If Thieme did stop to talk to my dad (certainly not my mom for she was female) we would hide behind his leg and would be silent.

There has been some talk in this forum about Thieme's lack of pastoral care with the sick and needy and so forth. While my father was sick, friends from the church came to see him, but Thieme never did. When my father died the funeral was held at Berachah and I vividly recall at the end, Thieme went down the front pew (which I remember thinking we were special since we got to sit there rather than the people it was usually reserved for) to shake my family members hands, he blatantly skipped over mine. Even though my earthly father had just died.

I remember that God the Father was a main talking point. God was your spiritual father and as such would not lead you astray if you did not stray from him. However, this idea of God has had to change in my mind, since quite frankly, my dad died and when you lose that at so young an age, a spiritual father is difficult to grasp when you're grieving the loss of your real, tangible dad.

I recall there being an idea of rebounding and if you had committed a sin, even if you did not know it, your prayers would bounce back to you off of the ceiling - God will not listen to you while you are not in an "unblemished state" The issue I saw with that even as a child, was that if God does not hear my prayers, How does he know I'm confessing?

For the children, there was the concept of the "yes-no button" this symbol was a V and had a plus on one stick and a minus on the other. I recall seeing this symbol as much as the cross. In fact, I have my dad's gold lapel pin of it. This symbol was supposed to remind us that we have good and bad choices, and if we choose the good side, blessings and grace will be given to us.

Like Donnie Darko, you can't just lump everything into two categories, but for children I can see how this learning aid was supposed to work.

I do remember Thieme being a bit of a celebrity, and I do remember the bodyguards and in later years, my mother commenting that "if the will of God be done, why does a pastor need people to take a bullet for him?". She also commented in later years that the church shunned ex-members and that she found that to be cult-like behavior, however, considering the source, I can only share her opinions, not back them.

I learned manners from Berachah, and was never spared the rod. I have a healthy respect for our armed forces, but no longer worship them.

Issues that have turned up in my life that I believe root from this church vary from gender roles, to concepts of prayer, right and wrong, and concepts of honoring God through worship.

I am now agnostic and am not a member of any church. My opinions of religion are my own.

After studying Jonestown and Waco carefully (sometimes sleeplessly), I will say that at Berachah I never experienced any sexual anomalies like were exhibited at Jonestown, nor any sort of weapons dealings like found in Waco. Thieme was known to condemn communism, so communal anything (including communion) was not found.

I do find that members are encouraged to join the military, as well as a notion that anyone with any service background is held in higher respect with God, and therefore the church held them as higher than the rest of the congregation. This sorting of the flock, Ive found to be condemned in other churches. Yes military personnel have rough jobs, and they do make the ultimate sacrifice for our country, but the stretches that thieme made to elect them to sainthood, I disagree with.

In conclusion, I can't say that Berachah is the most cult-ish place I've ever been, but I do think they have some basic fundamentals of God mixed up. I'm sorry there's not more light I can shed on this, but that's all I can remember. From the sounds of it, It's probably good that we left when we did.

To the Forum:

Thieme quote BOC 1979:
As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich .... Kittel's Theological Dictionary states that "the blood of Christ in the New Testament is simply a pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ."1 "Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!

Truthtesty: I have already clearly proven Thieme's deceptions in Ardnt and Gingrich.

Now the Nazi doktors:
Thieme points out Kittle/Behm's ""Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative", but Thieme leaves out of Nazi Doktor Kittle's TDNT (4) under "haima" "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."

That is SHED MATERIAL BLOOD as the life is violently taken. AND it's not "figurative only"because of (4)under "haima" "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken." . The only way a figurative to literal "pregnant" verbal symbol makes sense is if it is pregnant with the rich meanings of the Shed Blood of Jesus and all aspects(known and unknown) of the death of Jesus.

If Thieme had to contrast and compare Hitler's theologians Kittle and Behm should not he have taught what I just described? If he were to remain within Dr. Chafer's orthodoxy? This is as close to Dr. Chafer, as Nazi doktor Kittle and Nazi doktor Behm get.

Why? Because: Dr. Chafer also says (summarizing) Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 3, Page 42 - says that it was not the blood Jesus sweat in the garden that was efficacious, nor the blood of circumsicion, but the blood shed on the cross that was efficacious, while Jesus was obediant to the will of God. (basically literal blood Shed in connection with Jesus' obediant death)

Truthtesty: To me it makes no sense to believe that Jesus shed his blood AND then believe that that blood is not efficacious, what? merely to not be described as heretical? For what? To fight Catholics? Ridiculous. The truth is the truth regardless of Protestant or Catholic.

Some protestants are so worried about ascribing magical qualities to the blood of Jesus, within the flesh of G-d on earth? hah. That is clearly ignorant of reality.
Is it so ridiculous to believe that Jesus walked on water, raised people from the dead, turned water into wine And that is not magical? And then to not believe the literal Shed Blood had magical potential? Lol. What you can't connect the dots between magical qualities of the Blood of Jesus and Jesus "magically" raising people from the dead or "magically" walking on water, etc...? Hah Ridiculous.

Your dealing with G-d. Hello? The creator of life. Is that not magical?


Truthtesty



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2009 10:05AM by Truthtesty.

To awdiovisionary:

Welcome. As you can probably tell this place get's a bit "sporty" sometimes.

I do not judge you for your agnostic state. After what you went through(we all went through something similar) I am not surprised that you are agnostic. My suggestion is to give up on what people speak about G-d, but don't give up on G-d.

Sometimes I think people give up on G-d to "get rid of" what people have said about G-d.

Thanks for sharing.

Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Also,there may be some question as to what Nazi Johannes Behm's opinion actually was and his method of speech.And I believe in being thorough.I currently have the original document by Behm written in a really strange german font. I will try to get this professionally translated and present what it says. It may say the same thing as has been presented. In that case, which of course I disagree, with Nazi Behm. I have seen no concrete conclusive biblical evidence by Thieme, Behm, and others, that the blood of Christ is not literal as well as metaphorical.


Truthtesty

To audiovisionary: Welcome to the post, I too am new. I grew up in a home that listened to the tapes, and then later moved to Texas to attend a Thieme offshoot church. I feel like I have sorted out a lot of my spiritual beliefs ( through checking for myself in the Bible). And just plain prayer. But I still find myself wondering if random beliefs are from scripture or Thieme. It is so hard to explain to someone who grew up in a mainstream Church. But you can't assume that anything you know is the truth unless you have verified it for yourself in scripture. If Thiemes teachings were all just plain crazy it would be so much easier, but he has such a mix of truths, and things that are his own interpretations, it becomes difficult to sort those out. Especially when you experience it as a child as you and I did.

I am so sorry for the loss of your Dad at an early age. As Thruthtesty said,I certainly don't judge you for your agnostic stance. I do know for me, that after several years of searching, (and a lot of mistakes) I was able to figure out a way to have a personal relationship with God, without a " pastor teacher". It was only after that , that I was able to become a part of a healthy Church Body.

Good luck on your journey!!



To Truthtesty: Thank you for your diligence in research and taking the time to post these things. I have gone 20 years with no contact with anyone who was a part of a Thieme church. I must admit at first when I began quickly reading the posts between you and Zeebrook (thank you too zeebrook) I found them a bit daunting. But I have begun to look at them little by little, get out my Bible and research what you are talking about. Some of the things you reference I still am not sure what you are referring to but that is because of my age during my exposure to Thiemes teachings ( mainly quotes from sources unrelated to scripture ) However as time permits I will delve into those also.

Anyway, Thanks!

Did Christ pay the price for all sins by physical death or spiritual death?

To mvan6766:

You are welcome. The information and effective techniques for dealing with Thieme's falsehoods and other falsehoods are here to free people.

I suggest that if you do not understand something that you firstly do not assume that there is "something wrong" with your "age", "you", and/or etc... All men/women make mistakes.

I also submit that contrary to Thieme's "single bit" communication, that people learn more from multiple people than one single bit contributer such as Thieme. Though it is obvious zeebrook and I conflicted, the "information" was accurate. This forces a "check" on what is said. Versus Thieme's "no check" in which he went on infinidem into error dragging his followers with him.

I also suggest learning the "gentile cult" as described by Dr. Lifton and Steven Hassan. So that within 5 minutes of walking into any group you can determine if it is a cult.

Above ANY man or woman I suggest remembering 1 John 2;27.

Truthtesty

Quote
SynergyCon
Did Christ pay the price for all sins by physical death or spiritual death?

Truthtesty: If you have a theory then prove it. Bring your evidence.


It was 1 death. It should go without saying that orthodox Dr. Chafer said (paraphrasing) that there are physical ASPECTS and spiritual ASPECTS to the ONE death and life given up.

Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 313 The Death of Christ. The careful student of doctrine, when examining the Scriptures, soon becomes aware of the imperative need of discriminating between physical death and spiritual death, and in no aspect of this great theme is the human mind more impotent than when considering the death of Christ in the light of these distinctions. There could be no doubt about Christ`s physical death, even though He, in His humanity, being unfallen, was in no way subject to death; nor was He, in His death, to see corruption (Ps. 16:10); nor was a bone of His body to be broken (John 19:36). On the other hand, Christ`s death was a complete judgment of the sin nature for all who are regenerated, and He, as substitute, bore a condemnation which no mortal can comprehend, which penalty entered far into the realms of spiritual death?separation from God (cf. Matt. 27:46). In His death, He shrank back, not from physical pain, nor from the experience of quitting the physical body, but, when contemplating the place of a sin bearer and the anticipation of being made sin for us, He pleaded that the cup might pass. The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other.

That's "orthodox" Chafer theology. It is obvious to unperverted minds that the physical (aspect) of death was a result of the spiritual (aspect)(separation from G-d) of death. Therefore it was a necessary sacrifice for paying the price of sin as also was the shedding of the literal blood as foretold by types of the old testament. The perfect sacrifice (Jesus) to G-d did shed blood (as no non-heretic denies) as was necessary AND required otherwise? it would not have happened.


Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2009 09:50AM by Truthtesty.

Hi SynergyCon,

You may be interested in reading The Soteriological Significance of the Physical Sufferings and Death of Christ, by P.Mitchell, 1978.
Mitchell examines in detail Thieme Jr's teaching on the subject.