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

Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates).

The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.

You say “Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words).

This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.

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

To the Forum:

z quote: "The only relevant comment in the context of this debate is the phrase “the blood of Christ”. So let’s check that: unquote.

Truthtesty: Let's ole boy. Shall we? Ok what did I say? (Hint compare whatever your theory with BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.)

z quote: Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32) “the phrase 'the blood of Christ' is, like the word 'Cross', 'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'.
So Stibbs says the phrase “the blood of Christ” is an expression for Christ’s death. Remember this is his conclusion so Stibbs is clear and resolved. unquote.

Truthtesty: Jesus DID NOT SAY "'only a more vivid expression for the death of Christ in its redemptive significance'."
But?
Jesus SAID:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.

Your "blood of Christ" equals "death only of Christ" does not work.

z quote: What about Morris?

Truthtesty: What about him?

z quote: On page 125 he says “it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” So Morris says the phrase “blood of Jesus” signifies Jesus’ death. So he is clear. Furthermore Morris (p126) says “there seems no reason for disputing the dictum of J. Behm; `”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning” unquote.

Truthtesty: but? JESUS DID NOT SAY: " ”Blood of Christ” is like “cross”, only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning” NOR DID JESUS SAY: “it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death. NOR DID JESUS SAY:“blood of Jesus” signifies Jesus’ death. NOR DID JESUS SAY:“The"blood of Jesus" is a metonymy for the death of Jesus. NOR DID JESUS SAY: It is Christ's death that cleanses us, not that Jesus' blood cleanses us like a kind of spiritual soap.
But?
Jesus DID SAY:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, EAT; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, DRINK ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.

28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.

Who is saying "my"? Jesus is saying "my". "My" what? Blood. Jesus is saying "My Blood" that means "Blood of Jesus". Jesus is saying my literal Blood, Shed for the remission of sins.

You and your "many others" "blood of Christ" equals "death only of Christ" does not work.

Cheerio old boy.

Truthtesty



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2009 01:21PM by Truthtesty.

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

Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates).

The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.

You say “Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words).

This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.

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

TruthtestY: It's have your cake and eat it too. No I am stating the clear text. There are no substitutions. That is ridiculous. It is clear the bread and wine are metaphorical. The drinking and the eating are spiritual, but the wine and the blood and the bread and the body are distinct, but clearly referring to literal blood and body, as you have agreed. You are substituting your false speculations by extreme "over-metaphoring". You use one "figure" to make up whatever you want. No where does it say death, (show me the text that says death) Follow your own rules, argue the text as you would have me do. The beginning of the metaphorical usage is literal. Jesus is referring to his literal Shed blood and sacrificfed body. Even you would agree? But? Jesus is not on the cross yet. Jesus is metaphorically referring to his literal shed blood and body THAT WILL BE sacrificed on the cross. That's it. No need for your extreme "over-metaphoring" out of context which destroys the clear meaning. To continue follow your illogic would lead to greater error because you are denying the need for the flesh and blood of Jesus. Which means the theophany of the Angel of Jehovah could have died "spiritually only" without the theophany of Jesus' flesh being "made sin". Which is false.

The "Blood of Christ" stands for the literal Shed Blood of Jesus, just like Jesus said in Matthew. "My blood" "Shed for the remission of sins."

There is no conflict of the different aspects of Jesus' works. Neither the Shed blood nor the aspects spiritual or physical of the death.

Truthtesty



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2009 11:06PM by Truthtesty.

Truthtesty:

Is zeebrook defending a doctrine once espoused by Thieme?

Good try Truthtesty. Brand me as espousing a Thieme doctrine, maybe that will deflect people for a while.

No zeebrook is stating the fact of research by at least two prominent theologians and linguists that the phrase "the blood of Christ" is an expression denoting the death of Christ.

You argue on Matthew 26:26-28 even you take as being metaphorical. When Jesus said "This IS my body/blood" he was either saying it is literally My body/blood (with which I do not agree) or He was saying "This is figuratively my body/blood" (with which I would agree). Now comparing scripture with Scripture ala Stibbs, Morris et.all the figuratively use of body/blood denotes Christ's death. In your (Truthtesty) comments you want to have it as figurative but literal. No it is not. Jesus is not saying His disciples can literally eat His flesh or drink His blood, He is saying you figuratively are sharing in these emblems that denote my death. He "shed His blood" as proven by Stibbs and Morris denotes death as when today if someone is murdered it is said that his blood was shed (not that he literally bled to death etc).

So far we have argued back and forth using scripture and theologians without having to resort to pejorative labelling. Why now do you want to label me as espousing a Thieme doctrine? Is it because you feel youself going down in the argument?

zeebrook:

No.

The point is either it's a Thieme doctrine, which is the focus of this thread, or it is off topic.

Is your interpretation of this similar and/or identical to Thieme?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2009 12:46AM by rrmoderator.

To moderator: He is denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus. Yes Thieme denied the Shed Blood of Jesus too. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer(Thieme's teacher) considered that satanic.

Truthtesty

Truthtesty:

Thanks.

So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs.

Quote
zeebrook
Good try Truthtesty. Brand me as espousing a Thieme doctrine, maybe that will deflect people for a while.

Truthtesty: I am not trying to deflect people from anything except lies, that are stumbling blocks. I am not branding you anything. Your doing it yourself. The moderator asked me a question. I answered it. Thieme denied the efficacy of the Literal Shed Blood Of Jesus and you do too. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary(Dr. Chafer was Thieme's teacher) considered denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus as satanic and cultic. That"s the facts. I have proven that on this forum.

Quote
zeebrook
No zeebrook is stating the fact of research by at least two prominent theologians and linguists that the phrase "the blood of Christ" is an expression denoting the death of Christ.

Truthtesty: What "fact"? Flawed and limited research. Refer to previous page for some of there errors. [forum.culteducation.com] For ex: "Simply counting the number of times that the word dam occurs in the O.T. (as Morris does), and then to proceed to argue that because it is used (as Morris asserts) twice as often to denote death by violence as to denote the life-blood of sacrifice, then that death by violence is the only clue to its real meaning is simply false."

You haven't even looked at the other side of the debate. But you want to declare Morris correct? When I have proven him a "low information" theologian?

Morris is pathetic on types and anti-types see [forum.culteducation.com] He stops short of the meaning of the blood with the first bird. Morris notes the first bird is slain, but does not continue the meaning as the blood does continue and is apllied to the second bird which is realeased. Pathetic! You claim that as prominent theology? hah. Morris' judgement is more likely from a prejudice against the literal blood than evidence.

Quote
zeebrook
You argue on Matthew 26:26-28 even you take as being metaphorical. When Jesus said "This IS my body/blood" he was either saying it is literally My body/blood (with which I do not agree) or He was saying "This is figuratively my body/blood" (with which I would agree). Now comparing scripture with Scripture ala Stibbs, Morris et.all the figuratively use of body/blood denotes Christ's death. In your (Truthtesty) comments you want to have it as figurative but literal. No it is not. Jesus is not saying His disciples can literally eat His flesh or drink His blood, He is saying you figuratively are sharing in these emblems that denote my death. He "shed His blood" as proven by Stibbs and Morris denotes death as when today if someone is murdered it is said that his blood was shed (not that he literally bled to death etc).

Truthtesty: No it is figurative, literal, distinct, and inter-related at the same time. The body and blood are literal real and referenced figuratively by the bread and wine. That is clear to most non-predjudiced people. Both elements(body and blood) are real but figuratively referenced by bread and wine for the near future reality of the sacrifice of the body and blood on the cross. That is clear to most non-predjudiced people. The wine is a liquid and is drinkable and directly points to the literal (potentially drinakable)blood. The blood is a liquid and could as a liquid be drank. Thus the clear indication of the literal wine figuratively representing what is literally liquid (potentially could be drank) near future Shed liquid Blood of the sacrifice on the cross. That is clear to most non-predjudiced people. I am not making any of that up. It's right there.


What did the first blood covenant in Exodus 24:8 say? And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

What does Jesus say in the second blood covenant?:Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Do you see the parallel sentence structures? Those are indicating two separate distinct elements. They are not combined at this point. Jesus is definitely pointing to his literal shed blood(figuratively wine)as Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Jesus is pointing only to his literal blood as being Shed for the remission of sins, not his body at this point. Check the sentence structure.

Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

What did the first blood covenant in Exodus 24:8 say? And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Also, if Jesus were referring to "death only" then why didn't Jesus just use "thanatos"? Or the Aramaic equivalent? [www.atour.com] [www.biblestudytools.com]

But Jesus didn't just use "thanatos" or the Aramaic equivalent of death.

Quote
zeebrook
So far we have argued back and forth using scripture and theologians without having to resort to pejorative labelling. Why now do you want to label me as espousing a Thieme doctrine? Is it because you feel youself going down in the argument?

Truthtesty: What! lol not at all. I rise above you z. It is you who cannot answer my questions z. The moderator asked me a question. I answered it. Thieme denied the efficacy of the Literal Shed Blood Of Jesus and you do too. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary(Dr. Chafer was Thieme's teacher) considered denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus as satanic and cultic. That"s the facts. I have proven that on this forum.

I tell you what z, why dont you take some time and read "The Sufferings and Death of Christ in Types" by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology; [www.e-grace.net]

That will give you, Morris, Stibbs, and Behm ( and/or the "blood equals death only" crowd) some background on types and anti-types.

Also z, try to be forthcoming with the facts. Why don't you tell this forum where you think Thieme is wrong?

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2009 07:34AM by Truthtesty.

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

So where have I defended Thieme and his beliefs? We have entered a debate on the meaning of the phrase "the blood of Christ". Once we nail that down we can address how Thieme addressed the term. To date I have quoted Stibbs, Morris, Behm etc to show that theologians, linguists etc research in the scriptures prove that the phrase "the blood of Christ" denotes His death. While Truthtesty resorts to name calling such as Morris a low theologian) etc which is laughable. Morris was a much respected theologian and expositor. His Gospel of John was hailed at it time as one of the best treatises on the Gospel. His "Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" when first produced was a leading light. Likewise Stibbs. Just because Truthtesty disagrees with them he labels them as poor expositors etc. I have made it patently clear that I agree wtih Stibbs, Morris etc that the phrase "the blood of Christ" denotes Christ's death. I even pulled in a comment from Thomas Constable on 1 John 1:7. "The "blood of Jesus" is a metonymy for the death of Jesus. It is Christ's death that cleanses us, not that Jesus' blood cleanses us like a kind of spiritual soap" [www.soniclight.org]) with which I agree. So how can any of that be interpreted as defending Thieme and his beliefs.

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

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

Wall (p22) then goes on to say "it is not contrary to either the nine fundamentals listed above or the Dallas Seminary Doctrinal Statement to define the term blood of Christ as Thieme does, so long as he acknowledges that Christ physically bled and died in the process of providing salvation -- which Thieme does teach." Note also Wall's analysis is that Thieme teaches that Christ physically bled and died in the process of providing salvation.

Wall (p23) "it should be observed that blood of Christ cannot be used solely of the fluid that once flowed in Jesus veins". Zeebrook agrees.

Wall (p23) "On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the term blood of Christ is used solely of Christ's spiritual death as Thieme suggests; since New Testament figurative usage of blood includes physical death." Zeebrook agrees.

Wall (p23) "To be fair with Thieme's position, it should be pointed out that Thieme sees only the phrase blood of Christ as a representative analogy, not the other uses of blood". So when Truthtesty goes off quoting other passages he is not understanding we are dealing with one phrase only, “the blood of Christ”.

Wall (p30) "Nevertheless, it must be concluded that when measured by the standard of the nine fundamentals and the doctrinal statement of Dallas Seminary, his doctrine of the blood of Christ as well as his stand on other basic doctrines rests clearly within the sphere of orthodoxy." As much as you rant and rave as Wall attests Thieme is still within the bounds of orthodoxy. In fact Wall goes on to critique Walter’s almost magical view of the blood.

So I am not defending Thieme and his beliefs. When you misdirect and deliberately obfuscate I challenge.

Let’s go further, Charles Spurgeon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 32 p123 says
“When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin"; we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"; and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God,"

Even Spurgeon knew full well that the phrase “the blood of Christ” did not solely relate to literal fluid but speaks of His death. Yes I believe Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually and both were necessary for our salvation. Yes I can say that I believe that Christ “shed His blood” as I understand that, along with many, many others to denote His death. But the scriptural accounts of His crucifixion no where say that He shed literal blood on the cross apart from the spear impress on His side. An impress that occurred after He had died (He voluntarily gave up His life).

John MacArthur in a work entitled I Believe in the Precious Blood said,
“It is important to note also that though Christ shed His blood, Scripture does not say He bled to death; it teaches rather that He voluntarily yielded up His spirit (John 10:18). Yet even that physical death could not have bought redemption apart from His spiritual death, whereby He was separated from the Father (cf. Mat. 27:46)”. (John MacArthur, I Believe in the Precious Blood.

In what way am I defending Thieme and his beliefs when my position is similar Morris, Stibbs, and the following:

Charles Bigg commenting on 1 Peter 1:2 says:
Throughout this Epistle the writer dwells so constantly upon the sacrifice of the Cross that the Blood of Christ can mean nothing else than His Death and Passion. (A Critical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, The International Critical Commentary (2nd ed.; Edinburgh, 1902, p. 93)

Similarly F. J. Taylor noted that :
The phrase "the blood of Christ" is used much more frequently in the NT than either the death of Christ or the Cross of Christ, ... especially in Pauline Epp., Heb. and 1 John. It is a pictorial way of referring to the violent death upon the cross of shame voluntarily enduring for men by Christ (Rom. 325; 5:9). (F. J. Taylor, "Blood," A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. by Alan Richardson (London, 1950, p. 34.)

Philip Edgecumbe Hughes says that
Quote:
An accurate summary of the doctrine of Scripture is given by Johannes Behm as follows:
To shed blood is to destroy the bearer of life and therefore life itself. Hence haima ["blood"] signifies "outpoured blood," "violently destroyed life," "death" or "murder." In this sense it is used of the slaying of Jesus in Mt. 27:4,24; Ac. 5:28, and of the prophets, saints and witnesses of Jesus in Mt. 23:30,35; Lk. 11:50 f.; Rev. 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2.... The interest of the NT is not in the material blood of Christ, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken from Him. Like the cross, the "blood of Christ" is simply another and even more graphic phrase for the death of Christ in its soteriological significance.
Unquote
“The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews. Part I: The Significance of the Blood of Jesus” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (April, 1973) 99-109

So Mr Moderator your declaration that Zeebrook is defending Thieme and his beliefs is an egregious error. Just because Truthtesty says so does not make it so.