Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zeebrook
()
Date: November 15, 2009 08:30PM
Leon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Third edition 1965) says of Hebrews 12:24 “There can be no doubt that the blood of Abel is a metaphorical way of referring to the death of that patriarch, and it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” (page 125)
This is what J. Behm's conclusion was which Morris endorsed (p126) with the words
"In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning”
Then again Morris on Hebrews 13:11f says “Here the comparison is made between the sin offering and the blood of Jesus, but the point that is singled out for notice in the Levitical sacrifice is not the presentation of the blood (though that, too, is important to this writer as we see from his previous references to it), but the burning of the carcass outside the camp. This part of the sacrifice can point only to the death of the animal, and certainly not to any presentation of life. Once more we see that the sacrificial allusion indicates the death of Jesus. (Pages 125-126)
Morris is not saying the literal blood is the issue but that "the blood of Christ" is a metaphor for Christ's death. Note he talks specifically about the literal blood of the sacrifices as not being the issue. Even the verses which speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice, sacrifice of His blood is an allusion indicates the death of Jesus
Let's go further Morris in quoting another author , which he endorses, he says “To the Jewish mind “blood” was not merely-nor even chiefly-the life-current flowing in the veins of the living: it was especially the life poured out in death; and yet more particularly in its religious aspect it was the symbol of sacrificial death”. This plus another couple of quotes he confirms when he concludes with “J. Behm equates the death of Christ with `the Blood’. This confirming his earlier conclusion “In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm/; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning” (p126)
Now to me each of these quotations makes it clear that Morris was certainly saying the phrase "the blood of Christ" was a metaphor for His death, he is not saying it is the literal blood.
Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace.
This is what J. Behm's conclusion was which Morris endorsed (p126) with the words
"In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning”
Then again Morris on Hebrews 13:11f says “Here the comparison is made between the sin offering and the blood of Jesus, but the point that is singled out for notice in the Levitical sacrifice is not the presentation of the blood (though that, too, is important to this writer as we see from his previous references to it), but the burning of the carcass outside the camp. This part of the sacrifice can point only to the death of the animal, and certainly not to any presentation of life. Once more we see that the sacrificial allusion indicates the death of Jesus. (Pages 125-126)
Morris is not saying the literal blood is the issue but that "the blood of Christ" is a metaphor for Christ's death. Note he talks specifically about the literal blood of the sacrifices as not being the issue. Even the verses which speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice, sacrifice of His blood is an allusion indicates the death of Jesus
Let's go further Morris in quoting another author , which he endorses, he says “To the Jewish mind “blood” was not merely-nor even chiefly-the life-current flowing in the veins of the living: it was especially the life poured out in death; and yet more particularly in its religious aspect it was the symbol of sacrificial death”. This plus another couple of quotes he confirms when he concludes with “J. Behm equates the death of Christ with `the Blood’. This confirming his earlier conclusion “In particular, there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm/; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning” (p126)
Now to me each of these quotations makes it clear that Morris was certainly saying the phrase "the blood of Christ" was a metaphor for His death, he is not saying it is the literal blood.
Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 16, 2009 01:38AM
To the Forum:
Again, the Morris controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood per se. It is actually, a Protestant the "" term "blood" equals death"" vs Catholic the ""term "blood" equals blood equals life"" controversy.
zeebrook is taking Morris' SUMMARIZATIONS to SPECIFIC extremes. Morris: "Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments
the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that
there are some passages in which it is possible to interpret the blood
as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is
consistent with the wider biblical usage) if understood to mean 'life
given up in death'
Morris SUMMARIZES and states "tolerably certain" not "intolerably certain". Morris also states ESSENTIALLY indicating a TOLERABLE VARIATION of the meaning of the term blood.
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. Anyone can order this right off the internet here and read for themselves:
[jts.oxfordjournals.org]
Morris clearly states in this SPECIFIC case (and there is really no way around it):
...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 1:7 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.
(Also note Morris' sub categorization and distinction of sacrificial action vs sacrificial blood. Note this is not in the violent death category but in the sacrificial blood category)
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 the literal 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. And? It is related to the literal sacrificial blood of the lamb.
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.
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 Catholic blood equals life vs the Protestant blood equals death controversy.
I think playing with metaphorical meanings serves distraction, danger, and division. At what point does it stop? The "son of G-d"? Is that just figurative "son" only? The "body of Christ" is that just figurative "body"?, so that Jesus' physical body did not exist? and had no soteriological significance? (See The Soteriological Significance of the Physical Sufferings and Death of Christ, by P.Mitchell, 1978.)
Truthtesty
Again, the Morris controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood per se. It is actually, a Protestant the "" term "blood" equals death"" vs Catholic the ""term "blood" equals blood equals life"" controversy.
zeebrook is taking Morris' SUMMARIZATIONS to SPECIFIC extremes. Morris: "Thus it seems tolerably certain that in both the Old and New Testaments
the blood signifies essentially the death. It is freely admitted that
there are some passages in which it is possible to interpret the blood
as signifying life, but even these yield a better sense (and one which is
consistent with the wider biblical usage) if understood to mean 'life
given up in death'
Morris SUMMARIZES and states "tolerably certain" not "intolerably certain". Morris also states ESSENTIALLY indicating a TOLERABLE VARIATION of the meaning of the term blood.
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. Anyone can order this right off the internet here and read for themselves:
[jts.oxfordjournals.org]
Morris clearly states in this SPECIFIC case (and there is really no way around it):
...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 1:7 seems to be an allusion to sacrifice.
(Also note Morris' sub categorization and distinction of sacrificial action vs sacrificial blood. Note this is not in the violent death category but in the sacrificial blood category)
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 the literal 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. And? It is related to the literal sacrificial blood of the lamb.
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.
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 Catholic blood equals life vs the Protestant blood equals death controversy.
I think playing with metaphorical meanings serves distraction, danger, and division. At what point does it stop? The "son of G-d"? Is that just figurative "son" only? The "body of Christ" is that just figurative "body"?, so that Jesus' physical body did not exist? and had no soteriological significance? (See The Soteriological Significance of the Physical Sufferings and Death of Christ, by P.Mitchell, 1978.)
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 16, 2009 01:51AM
To the Forum (in reference to what zeebrook said):
1st there are not many many others.
Here is one example of "others" who disagree with Thieme, when Thieme ignorantly tried to point to these "others" as supporting his (Blood of Christ equals figurative only) argument. Thieme was just ignorant and wrong. But Thieme still delivered this false poisoned kool-aid "quote" as "absolute truth".
Thieme quote BOC: "As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich, the latest Greek lexicographers. Under the word haima, “blood,” they devote an entire paragraph to the figurative uses of the word. They describe it as “the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation.”
True quote from Ardnt and Gingrich: "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25"
Thieme's false kool-aid "quote" as false "proof": “the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation.”
Why leave out 1 Cl 55:1? Gee would someone start to think for themselves? And say? Why not compare 1 Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25? And see the real figurative to literal meaning? Deception by omission.
Truthtesty: Not only is Thieme's proof wrong regarding Ardnt and Gingrich, but also Thieme's quote is wrong. Thieme doesn't quote Ardnt and Gingrich. Thieme falsely paraphrases Ardnt and Gingrich and leaves out 1 Cl 55.
Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc... hemorrhage (cf. Lev 15:25, 20:18)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc... It's use as food is forbidden (cf. Lev 3:17, 7:26f, 17:10)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
Truthtesty:
Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...
So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25.
1 Clement 55:1 says
1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.
[www.earlychristianwritings.com]
Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.
Arndt and Gingrich goes on:
Arndt and Gingrich:
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only" and in doing so is unjustly attacking the Blood of Christ. Ardnt and Gingrich do not understand or agree with Thieme's false "figurative" teaching.
You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used with different people.
Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only" and Thieme's false theory that "haima" is ABSOLUTELY figurative and does not refer to literal Shed Blood of Jesus, is not substantiated by the evidence of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.
So that is one "other" who disagrees with "figurative only" usage of the "Blood of Christ".
Another "other" who disagreed with Thieme's figurative only usage, is Thieme's own teacher(who Thieme "REVERSION"ED away from), Dr. Chafer.
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 blood connected with Jesus' obediant death)
However, since Thieme claimed he followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ? Instead? Thieme attacked "bleeding heart" liberal CHRISTIANS, for Thieme's own incompetent neocon political agenda.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood
Truthtesty: As stated before one of Dr. Wall's measuring rods of orthodoxy was Dr. Chafer's theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer refered to cults no less than 14 times in his 8 volumes of Systematic Theology(1952).
Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110
Chafer
Chafer believed that the literal Blood of Christ as efficacious (Thieme "REVERSION"ED Dr. Chafer.). Chafer also recognized the Blood of Christ; was also a metaphor (therefore with endless meaning). Thieme does not believe the literal Blood of Christ is efficacious. According to the measeuring rod of Chafer's litmus test, Chafer would consider Thieme a cult, because without faith in pure shed blood of Jesus, there is no salvation. Disagreement on the Blood of Christ is not just as minor theological difference, Chafer would consider Thieme's teaching on the Blood of Christ as satanic and yes an unorthodox cult.
As I said Thieme's hermenutics are pathetic. One such example is Thieme says you should insert in place of "the Blood", “the SPIRITUAL DEATH” of Christ. This is a violation of the basic hermeneutical principles of Scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. Type and anti-type are Old Testament "Type" to New Testament "Anti-Type". This is BASIC hermenuetics and NOT ADVANCED hermenuetics AND Thieme fumbles the ball. Again this "private interpretation" of Thieme's is to support his false fascist politically extreme ideology.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Blood Vol. VII, Page 52
1. Sacrificial. The all-inclusive declaration on this point which sums up the Old Testament order and the New avers that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). It is shed blood which has always been required for deliverance, and thus it was in the type and the antitype, Christ in His crucifixion. The mystery of all that enters into the required blood sacrifice for sin cannot be traced through to its end. It traverses more of unknown realms than it does this realm. The truth of God’s requiring a blood sacrifice as the righteous ground for the remission of sin was established beyond all dispute in Old Testament times. Though the many offerings sustained no efficacy in themselves to take away sin, they did speak of the immutable necessity of a ransom or redemption by blood as a cure for sin. To challenge this fact is not only to overlook the teaching set forth in the types and the New Testament’s direct explanation of Christ’s death, but it is to assume that the human valuation of sin may be equivalent to the divine evaluation. What authority, indeed, has a mortal—a mere creature—to arrogate to himself the right to sit in judgment upon God and declare unnecessary the principle which God has established and to which He at infinite cost unto Himself has conformed in all ages? The glorious message is, indeed, that efficacious blood has been shed and that men are invited to receive the value of it, that Christ’s blood was shed as a sacrifice which God Himself provided to meet His demands against sin, and that this way of dealing with sin, from Abel’s lamb to the day of Christ’s death, is the only interpretation which fully and rightly construes all that the Bible presents on this its central theme of salvation.
Another "other" who disagrees with figurative only description of the Blood of Christ is Dr. Wall. 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.”
And there are many "others" more...
Truthtesty
1st there are not many many others.
Here is one example of "others" who disagree with Thieme, when Thieme ignorantly tried to point to these "others" as supporting his (Blood of Christ equals figurative only) argument. Thieme was just ignorant and wrong. But Thieme still delivered this false poisoned kool-aid "quote" as "absolute truth".
Thieme quote BOC: "As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich, the latest Greek lexicographers. Under the word haima, “blood,” they devote an entire paragraph to the figurative uses of the word. They describe it as “the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation.”
True quote from Ardnt and Gingrich: "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25"
Thieme's false kool-aid "quote" as false "proof": “the blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice, especially the blood of Christ as the means of expiation.”
Why leave out 1 Cl 55:1? Gee would someone start to think for themselves? And say? Why not compare 1 Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25? And see the real figurative to literal meaning? Deception by omission.
Truthtesty: Not only is Thieme's proof wrong regarding Ardnt and Gingrich, but also Thieme's quote is wrong. Thieme doesn't quote Ardnt and Gingrich. Thieme falsely paraphrases Ardnt and Gingrich and leaves out 1 Cl 55.
Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc... hemorrhage (cf. Lev 15:25, 20:18)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc... It's use as food is forbidden (cf. Lev 3:17, 7:26f, 17:10)
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
2. fig--- a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc... shed blood = kill (Aeschyl.; Gen 9:6, 37:22, Lev 17:4,13, 1Km 25:31 al.;... Luke 11: 50, Acts 22:20, Rom. 3:15 (Ps 13:3, Is 59:7) Rv 16:6, Luke 11:51, Mt 23:20, Rv 16:6, 18:24, 17:6, 19:2, (1Km 9:7), 6:10, Pol 2:1, Mt 27: 4,24, Heb 12:4, (cf Heliod 7,8,2 ...) ...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
Truthtesty:
Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...
So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with Rom. 3:25.
1 Clement 55:1 says
1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.
[www.earlychristianwritings.com]
Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.
Arndt and Gingrich goes on:
Arndt and Gingrich:
b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only" and in doing so is unjustly attacking the Blood of Christ. Ardnt and Gingrich do not understand or agree with Thieme's false "figurative" teaching.
You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used with different people.
Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only" and Thieme's false theory that "haima" is ABSOLUTELY figurative and does not refer to literal Shed Blood of Jesus, is not substantiated by the evidence of Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.
So that is one "other" who disagrees with "figurative only" usage of the "Blood of Christ".
Another "other" who disagreed with Thieme's figurative only usage, is Thieme's own teacher(who Thieme "REVERSION"ED away from), Dr. Chafer.
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 blood connected with Jesus' obediant death)
However, since Thieme claimed he followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ? Instead? Thieme attacked "bleeding heart" liberal CHRISTIANS, for Thieme's own incompetent neocon political agenda.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood
Truthtesty: As stated before one of Dr. Wall's measuring rods of orthodoxy was Dr. Chafer's theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer refered to cults no less than 14 times in his 8 volumes of Systematic Theology(1952).
Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110
Chafer
Quote
As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ?
Chafer believed that the literal Blood of Christ as efficacious (Thieme "REVERSION"ED Dr. Chafer.). Chafer also recognized the Blood of Christ; was also a metaphor (therefore with endless meaning). Thieme does not believe the literal Blood of Christ is efficacious. According to the measeuring rod of Chafer's litmus test, Chafer would consider Thieme a cult, because without faith in pure shed blood of Jesus, there is no salvation. Disagreement on the Blood of Christ is not just as minor theological difference, Chafer would consider Thieme's teaching on the Blood of Christ as satanic and yes an unorthodox cult.
As I said Thieme's hermenutics are pathetic. One such example is Thieme says you should insert in place of "the Blood", “the SPIRITUAL DEATH” of Christ. This is a violation of the basic hermeneutical principles of Scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. Type and anti-type are Old Testament "Type" to New Testament "Anti-Type". This is BASIC hermenuetics and NOT ADVANCED hermenuetics AND Thieme fumbles the ball. Again this "private interpretation" of Thieme's is to support his false fascist politically extreme ideology.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Blood Vol. VII, Page 52
1. Sacrificial. The all-inclusive declaration on this point which sums up the Old Testament order and the New avers that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). It is shed blood which has always been required for deliverance, and thus it was in the type and the antitype, Christ in His crucifixion. The mystery of all that enters into the required blood sacrifice for sin cannot be traced through to its end. It traverses more of unknown realms than it does this realm. The truth of God’s requiring a blood sacrifice as the righteous ground for the remission of sin was established beyond all dispute in Old Testament times. Though the many offerings sustained no efficacy in themselves to take away sin, they did speak of the immutable necessity of a ransom or redemption by blood as a cure for sin. To challenge this fact is not only to overlook the teaching set forth in the types and the New Testament’s direct explanation of Christ’s death, but it is to assume that the human valuation of sin may be equivalent to the divine evaluation. What authority, indeed, has a mortal—a mere creature—to arrogate to himself the right to sit in judgment upon God and declare unnecessary the principle which God has established and to which He at infinite cost unto Himself has conformed in all ages? The glorious message is, indeed, that efficacious blood has been shed and that men are invited to receive the value of it, that Christ’s blood was shed as a sacrifice which God Himself provided to meet His demands against sin, and that this way of dealing with sin, from Abel’s lamb to the day of Christ’s death, is the only interpretation which fully and rightly construes all that the Bible presents on this its central theme of salvation.
Another "other" who disagrees with figurative only description of the Blood of Christ is Dr. Wall. 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.”
And there are many "others" more...
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 16, 2009 04:55AM
To the Forum:
Academics are one thing and as we have seen academics are usually part of institutions and are not always honest nor always necessarily in touch with reality.
The real question is what does the annointing's truth teach you? 1 John 2:27.
I'd like to further point to a reference Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters ("others" who disagree with "figurative only" meaning of the term "blood".) made about Thieme, 1 Peter 1:19, and the literal precious blood of Jesus.
Thieme in his commentary on First John 1:7, says:
Thieme quote: "But the fact remains that the greatest area of misunderstanding is the fact that the Blood of Christ is literal blood and yet the BLOOD OF CHRIST on the cross does not refer to his literal blood. He had literal physical blood just as you have. But wherever the BLOOD OF CHRIST is mentioned in connection with the cross, it is referring to something else, outside of the fact that when He was nailed to the cross there was bleeding from his hands and from His feet. (Thieme tape on 1 John 1:7)
Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters (paraphrased) comment: 1) Jesus' literal blood was NOT "literal physical blood just as you have", it was the PRECIOUS blood of Jesus. 2) Thieme says the Blood was LITERAL Blood at the cross, and yet at the same time he says it does NOT refer to HIS LITERAL BLOOD.
Truthtesty: For part 1 above the virgin birth comes to mind, gee would that have some effect on literal blood DNA? Would G-d's dna make the literal Shed blood of Jesus, precious? If not why not? If so are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so.
Also if you deny the virgin birth then who was the Father of Jesus, if it wasn't Joseph?
So these cowards who disrespect the literal Shed blood of Jesus by saying he "bled a little but it doesn't save you" are doing so disrespectfully and anti-scripturally of the PRECIOUS literal Shed blood 1 Peter 1:19, without truthful cause.
I have already mentioned the hermeneutical types violation that Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters called Thieme on.
Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters go on in thier book, but I will just mention "thanatos" [www.antioch.com.sg] If "spiritual death" is meant there is a greek word for it. It is "thanatos". Vines expository: thanatos: (b) the separation of man from God; Adam died on the day he disobeyed God, Gen_2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition, Rom_5:12,14,17,21, from which, however, those who believe in Christ are delivered, John_5:24; 1_John_3:14. "Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence. As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."
So if the Author meant "spiritual death", then the Author could have used the clear, easily accessable, non-confusing greek word "thanatos". Which? The Author did use "thanatos" on several occasions.
Truthtesty
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2009 05:22AM by Truthtesty.
Academics are one thing and as we have seen academics are usually part of institutions and are not always honest nor always necessarily in touch with reality.
The real question is what does the annointing's truth teach you? 1 John 2:27.
I'd like to further point to a reference Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters ("others" who disagree with "figurative only" meaning of the term "blood".) made about Thieme, 1 Peter 1:19, and the literal precious blood of Jesus.
Thieme in his commentary on First John 1:7, says:
Thieme quote: "But the fact remains that the greatest area of misunderstanding is the fact that the Blood of Christ is literal blood and yet the BLOOD OF CHRIST on the cross does not refer to his literal blood. He had literal physical blood just as you have. But wherever the BLOOD OF CHRIST is mentioned in connection with the cross, it is referring to something else, outside of the fact that when He was nailed to the cross there was bleeding from his hands and from His feet. (Thieme tape on 1 John 1:7)
Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters (paraphrased) comment: 1) Jesus' literal blood was NOT "literal physical blood just as you have", it was the PRECIOUS blood of Jesus. 2) Thieme says the Blood was LITERAL Blood at the cross, and yet at the same time he says it does NOT refer to HIS LITERAL BLOOD.
Truthtesty: For part 1 above the virgin birth comes to mind, gee would that have some effect on literal blood DNA? Would G-d's dna make the literal Shed blood of Jesus, precious? If not why not? If so are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so.
Also if you deny the virgin birth then who was the Father of Jesus, if it wasn't Joseph?
So these cowards who disrespect the literal Shed blood of Jesus by saying he "bled a little but it doesn't save you" are doing so disrespectfully and anti-scripturally of the PRECIOUS literal Shed blood 1 Peter 1:19, without truthful cause.
I have already mentioned the hermeneutical types violation that Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters called Thieme on.
Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters go on in thier book, but I will just mention "thanatos" [www.antioch.com.sg] If "spiritual death" is meant there is a greek word for it. It is "thanatos". Vines expository: thanatos: (b) the separation of man from God; Adam died on the day he disobeyed God, Gen_2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition, Rom_5:12,14,17,21, from which, however, those who believe in Christ are delivered, John_5:24; 1_John_3:14. "Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence. As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."
So if the Author meant "spiritual death", then the Author could have used the clear, easily accessable, non-confusing greek word "thanatos". Which? The Author did use "thanatos" on several occasions.
Truthtesty
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2009 05:22AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 16, 2009 05:35AM
To the Forum:
My mistake above I should have said above: "If not why not? If NOT (instead of if so) are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so."
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2009 05:39AM by Truthtesty.
My mistake above I should have said above: "If not why not? If NOT (instead of if so) are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so."
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2009 05:39AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
zeebrook
()
Date: November 16, 2009 08:57AM
Truthtesty is making a common mistake of assuming every reference in a lexicon is applicable to every text. Yes Arndt and Gingrich do list a number of meanings to the term haima but it is always the context that determines the meaning of word at that point. Thus Ardnt and Gingrich are saying that when you see the mention of blood with reference to Jesus it is “blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation”. Now the reference to 1 Clement demonstrates that point note
“But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.”
The emphasised section shows it is metaphorical. They were delivered by the death not by literally through their own physical blood but by their death. Thieme most probably elided the reference given that it is not a canonical reference. Scholars do it all the time and even Truthtesty has dropped parts of quotes that are not entirely relevant to the discussion so you cannot hang Thieme on that one.
Truthtesty said quote: For part 1 above the virgin birth comes to mind, gee would that have some effect on literal blood DNA? Would G-d's dna make the literal Shed blood of Jesus, precious? If not why not? If so are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so. Also if you deny the virgin birth then who was the Father of Jesus, if it wasn't Joseph? unquote
God’s DNA? What is that? God is not a man etc He does not have DNA what we have in our Lord Jesus Christ is true humanity, pure human blood not some sort of quasi God/human mix. One can take the Chalcedonian Creed which defines the kenosis of Christ as
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
Our Lord Jesus had true human blood the shedding of which defines His death.
How can you equate the acceptance of Jesus have pure human blood with a denial of the virgin birth? Of course Jesus is born of Mary, a virgin birth, but that does not prove His blood was a God/man mix which is what you seem to be implying in your use of the term “precious blood”. His blood was precious because only His death is the acceptable one to God for the sins of mankind.
“But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.”
The emphasised section shows it is metaphorical. They were delivered by the death not by literally through their own physical blood but by their death. Thieme most probably elided the reference given that it is not a canonical reference. Scholars do it all the time and even Truthtesty has dropped parts of quotes that are not entirely relevant to the discussion so you cannot hang Thieme on that one.
Truthtesty said quote: For part 1 above the virgin birth comes to mind, gee would that have some effect on literal blood DNA? Would G-d's dna make the literal Shed blood of Jesus, precious? If not why not? If so are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so. Also if you deny the virgin birth then who was the Father of Jesus, if it wasn't Joseph? unquote
God’s DNA? What is that? God is not a man etc He does not have DNA what we have in our Lord Jesus Christ is true humanity, pure human blood not some sort of quasi God/human mix. One can take the Chalcedonian Creed which defines the kenosis of Christ as
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
Our Lord Jesus had true human blood the shedding of which defines His death.
How can you equate the acceptance of Jesus have pure human blood with a denial of the virgin birth? Of course Jesus is born of Mary, a virgin birth, but that does not prove His blood was a God/man mix which is what you seem to be implying in your use of the term “precious blood”. His blood was precious because only His death is the acceptable one to God for the sins of mankind.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 16, 2009 06:50PM
Quote
zeebrook
Truthtesty is making a common mistake of assuming every reference in a lexicon is applicable to every text. Yes Arndt and Gingrich do list a number of meanings to the term haima but it is always the context that determines the meaning of word at that point. Thus Ardnt and Gingrich are saying that when you see the mention of blood with reference to Jesus it is “blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation”. Now the reference to 1 Clement demonstrates that point note
“But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.”
The emphasised section shows it is metaphorical. They were delivered by the death not by literally through their own physical blood but by their death.
Truthtesty: lol wrong. You are confusing me with James Barr's reprimand of nazi doktor Gerhard Kittle. I am using the definitions AND categorizations and specific contexts(if you care to actually read all of Ardnt and Gingrich)according to Ardnt and Gingrich. They describe the brief context in each verse, but all in that category say "b) figurative" have a consistent meaning. So for "b) figurative" the consistent meaning is “blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation” in each brief description of the verse and it's context. Ardnt and Gingrich are saying BLOOD IS FIGURATIVE BECAUSE IT IS BOTH LITERAL BLOOD AND LITERAL LIFE which are an expiatory sacrifice NOT JUST LITERAL BLOOD ALONE in the contexts of 1 Cl 55:1, Rom 3:25 etc... And? Try fitting "spiritual death only" in 1 Cl 55:1. Lol it won't work and that's one reason why Thieme probably did not include 1 Cl 55:1. Obvious hypocrasy. It doesn't work and it would be a comparison which people could compare and contrast with Rom. 3:25 and see Thieme's falsehood on every reference to Jesus' blood as being "spiritual death only". It's Thieme taking every mentioning of Blood of Christ out of context and falsely replacing it with "spiritual death only", not me. I look at the contex try to prove otherwise you false accuser. But? Thieme said AS PROOF let me QUOTE. Thieme did NOT QUOTE. Thieme falsely paraphrased and still got it wrong. Sure I have left information out because of space and time, but never in a QUOTE in my proofs! Again you are completely falsifying when you say "They were delivered by the death not by literally through their own physical blood but by their death." Hello? Here is a thiemites who will lie cheat deceive and use any means false to defend his her cult leader Thieme. What does it say z? “blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation”. Ardnt and Gingrich are saying BLOOD IS FIGURATIVE BECAUSE IT IS BOTH LITERAL BLOOD AND LITERAL LIFE which are an expiatory sacrifice NOT JUST LITERAL BLOOD ALONE in 1 Cl 55:1, Rom 3:25 etc...
Hello? Do you understand? I think you do and just enjoy sadistically irritating beyond reason, as I have seen thiemites do this before in their broken down sodini-like imploded skeleton disrespect for logic state of personality. Broken down by the "possesion" of Thieme in their reptilian fight or flight response because they have an imploded skeleton personality they "copy" what the personality of what possesses them - Thieme - and other gentile authority figures to survive.
z quote: Thieme most probably elided the reference given that it is not a canonical reference. Scholars do it all the time and even Truthtesty has dropped parts of quotes that are not entirely relevant to the discussion so you cannot hang Thieme on that one.
Truthtesty: Sure I can. As I already explained, Thieme "hung" himself when he deceived. Thieme(paraphrasing) said as proof let me quote. Now either he is incompetent or a liar or both so take your pick.
z quote: Truthtesty said quote: For part 1 above the virgin birth comes to mind, gee would that have some effect on literal blood DNA? Would G-d's dna make the literal Shed blood of Jesus, precious? If not why not? If so are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so. Also if you deny the virgin birth then who was the Father of Jesus, if it wasn't Joseph? unquote
God’s DNA? What is that? God is not a man etc He does not have DNA what we have in our Lord Jesus Christ is true humanity, pure human blood not some sort of quasi God/human mix. One can take the Chalcedonian Creed which defines the kenosis of Christ as
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
Truthtesty: Completely off the wall. You can see the two natures as a G-d man/mix but not the physical blood as a G-d man/mix? Answer my question, how did the Virgin Mary get pregnant by G-d if there wasn't something "PHYSICAL"! to get her pregnant?! CRAZY! Did she impregnate herself?! Gee no that would not work because the Virgin Mary was not a WORM! only worms can do that. The virgin birth was necessary to avoid Adamic spiritual seperation from G-d and its inevitable eventual effects ofand on the physical body/blood/DNA. To describe G-d as limited to the spiritual realm and to deny G-d the ability to "be" in the "physical" realm is just a crazy sodini-like denial of reality. G-d created the physical realm! If he said Mary is to be pregnant with my son, then she was and it was G-d's intervention into the physical.
z quote: Our Lord Jesus had true human blood the shedding of which defines His death.
Truthtesty: hah "true human blood" where's your theory on that? Minus the Adamic, Jesus had the "original" G-d/human blood body spirit and soul ALL of which had their original creation characteristics ALL in contact in every perfect relation(physical/spiritual/and realms we cannot fathom) with G-d, as by design, And? IT WAS GOOD, even the eternal physical blood. But? It was not like our corrupt blood. Now? If you want to deny the theophany of Jesus was G-d? That is up to you.
z quote: How can you equate the acceptance of Jesus have pure human blood with a denial of the virgin birth? Of course Jesus is born of Mary, a virgin birth, but that does not prove His blood was a God/man mix which is what you seem to be implying in your use of the term “precious blood”. His blood was precious because only His death is the acceptable one to God for the sins of mankind.
Truthtesty: That is a limited false theory, and it is not supported by the blood types requirements of the Old Testament, nor Jesus' G-d/man physical blood of reality of the virgin birth. According to the "literal blood" types of the Old Testament to their "literal blood" anti-types of the New Testament,
G-d required literal blood and it had to be SHOWN. It was not good enough to bleed the passover lamb in private the literal blood had to be SHOWN. That's how important the literal blood is to G-d.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
kcjones
()
Date: November 18, 2009 04:13AM
Quick question:
Does anyone know or remember what Bob Thieme's testimony was, how he got "saved"? Did he ever share it?
KCjones
Does anyone know or remember what Bob Thieme's testimony was, how he got "saved"? Did he ever share it?
KCjones
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2009 12:34PM
To Kcjones:
The best I can remember is Thieme spitting some prejudiced venom about others having an "experience" of being saved.
I don't remember him ever saying something like "I was saved while..."
Truthtesty
The best I can remember is Thieme spitting some prejudiced venom about others having an "experience" of being saved.
I don't remember him ever saying something like "I was saved while..."
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2009 01:14PM
To the Forum:
zeebrook quote: "Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace."
Truthtesty: Stibbs produced supporting evidence for his view, but did not conclusively prove that blood means death. The paper(THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'BLOOD'IN SCRIPTURE by
THE REV. A. M. STIBBS, M.A. Vice-Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London THE TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT LECTURE, 1947) by Stibbs admits that it is an "ongoing debate": "The continuance of this debate makes it apparent how important it is to distinguish between some ideas, which may have been associated with blood in ancient, and indeed in modern times, and the ultimate and distinctive theological meaning given to the term in its use in the
inspired Word of God, and particularly in the apostolic testimony of the New Testament concerning the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross..."
Truthtesty: You need to accurately represent the authors view. The paper is a view with supporting evidence. Stibbs did not "conclusively prove" blood means death.
To me it seems to be "metaphors on steroids" blown out of real proportion.
Jesus clearly spoke of his own literal body and literal blood for the remission of sins. And by body Jesus meant body and by blood Jesus meant blood. Matthew 26:26-28
Though it is figurative in the sense that it is literal blood and literal body sacrificed for the remission of sins. Jesus is definitely referencing His real blood sacrificed as "poured out" and "drink"
Though figuratively drank(for literal salvation) it is still referencing the literal Blood and Body of Jesus sacrificed.
You don't pour death out or drink death.
The reference is Jesus clearly relating salvation to literal blood characteristics. "Poured out" "drinketh"
Truthtesty
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2009 01:35PM by Truthtesty.
zeebrook quote: "Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in our behalf that we may have approach unto the Throne of Grace."
Truthtesty: Stibbs produced supporting evidence for his view, but did not conclusively prove that blood means death. The paper(THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'BLOOD'IN SCRIPTURE by
THE REV. A. M. STIBBS, M.A. Vice-Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London THE TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT LECTURE, 1947) by Stibbs admits that it is an "ongoing debate": "The continuance of this debate makes it apparent how important it is to distinguish between some ideas, which may have been associated with blood in ancient, and indeed in modern times, and the ultimate and distinctive theological meaning given to the term in its use in the
inspired Word of God, and particularly in the apostolic testimony of the New Testament concerning the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross..."
Truthtesty: You need to accurately represent the authors view. The paper is a view with supporting evidence. Stibbs did not "conclusively prove" blood means death.
To me it seems to be "metaphors on steroids" blown out of real proportion.
Jesus clearly spoke of his own literal body and literal blood for the remission of sins. And by body Jesus meant body and by blood Jesus meant blood. Matthew 26:26-28
Though it is figurative in the sense that it is literal blood and literal body sacrificed for the remission of sins. Jesus is definitely referencing His real blood sacrificed as "poured out" and "drink"
Though figuratively drank(for literal salvation) it is still referencing the literal Blood and Body of Jesus sacrificed.
You don't pour death out or drink death.
The reference is Jesus clearly relating salvation to literal blood characteristics. "Poured out" "drinketh"
Truthtesty
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2009 01:35PM by Truthtesty.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.