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

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

Where is your evidence?

I said I welcome debate and correction, not predjudiced blather against Catholics. Catholics have faith in Jesus as saviour.

Your just trying to justify a false antihuman view of christianity for politics and profit.

People can read the debate for themselves and make up thier own mind.

Thieme's corporate politically motivated anti-human view of the Blood of Christ as "spiritual death only" IS AGREED UPON BY NONE OF THE SERIOUS SCHOLARS OF THE MORRIS/STIBBS vs GAYFORD/MILLIGAN debate.

And, I think your falsely impressed from Thieme's overphasis.

Dr. Joe Layton Wall:
"... However, at times he tends to overstate the relevance of etymology28 and the significance of Greek grammar.29 Also, as has already been noted, Thieme frequently allows his "categories" to govern his exegesis -- a point that has been illustrated in his exegesis of passages containing the term, blood of Christ. Another difficulty with Thieme's exegesis comes from the way he frequently communicates his conclusions. His normal way of teaching his exegesis includes retranslating each passage so as to include his interpretation. Such retranslations should be called "interpretive paraphrases" or “expanded translations.” However, he repeatedly labels these paraphrases “corrected translations.”30 This is a serious misrepresentation, for it leaves one with the impression that Thieme's interpretation is on a par with Scripture itself..."

28 For example, he presses the meaning of the Hebrew words for faith beyond their contextual
meaning; see his book, The Faith-rest Life, pp. 53, 54.
29 For example, frequently Thieme emphasizes that the aorist tense always means "once-for-all"
action. See article by Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aorist," The Journal of Biblical Literature 91
(June 1972): 222-31, for documentation that the aktionsart of the aorist tense is simple past action
and does not necessarily demand "momentary, singular, or once and for all" significance. Stagg
supported his conclusions with both specific scriptural examples and quotations from grammars
by Ernest De Witt Burton and A. T. Robertson.
30 See examples in Thieme's book, Blood of Christ, 1977, pp. 5, 13, 14.
[withchrist.org]

Thieme's neoconservative extreme predjudices poisoned true interpretations of the Bible for an equally incorrect and unsubstantiated extremist neconservative view of the US Constitution.

Is it no wonder Thieme created "political tapes" for worldwide distribution? Thieme was involved with creating political tapes for worldwide distribution with Fred Schwartz's Christian Anti Communist Crusade:
ANTI-COMMUNISM SCHOOLS
The schools to train anti-Communists continue to be amazingly fruitful. Their potentials are limitless. I believe they
are the most hopeful development in America today. They are providing informed and effective servants in the cause
of Christ and freedom. In addition to the week long schools we have held, and those we are planning to hold, our
secretary and Texas director, Bill Strube, conducted a school in Houston on each Saturday in March. The mayor of
Houston, Louis Cartora, proclaimed the final Saturday, March 26, as Anti-Communism Day.
Here is Bill’s report on this outstanding anti-Communism school:
"Houston Anti-Communism School Attended By Over 1000
"The Third Annual Christian Anti-Communism Crusade School was held the four Saturdays in
March at the S.P. Martel Auditorium with some of the outstanding speakers in the country participating.
This school is held in a little different manner from our other schools in that it is conducted on four
consecutive Saturdays in March every year.
"The speakers this year included Clifton Ganus, Vice President of Harding College in Searcy,
Arkansas; Capt. Richard Gregory, Commandant NROTC unit, Tulane University, New Orleans,
Louisiana; Col. R. B. Thieme, Jr., Commandant Training Guidance Staff, 2697 Air Reserve Center,
Ellington Field, Texas; Edward Hunter, author of "Brainwashing and the New Who Defied It," "Story
of Mary Lui," and many other books, from Moultrie, Georgia; Fu Sung Chu, Minister Plenopotentiary
from the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C.; Rev. Bob Ingram, Rector of St. Thomas Episcopalian
Church, Belliare, Texas; Fred Schafley, Attorney from Alton, Illinois, who was one of the co-authors
on the 1958 American Bar Association report that has had such widespread distribution; Rev. C. S.
Dunker, the Spiritual Leader of the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation in St. Louis, Missouri, telling of
his experiences in China; Constantin Boldyreff, who has worked in the underground behind the iron
curtain and now serves as lecturer and author from Arlington, Virginia, gave some new insights on
what can be done behind the iron curtain in this battle for freedom.
"Dr. Fred C. Schwarz topped off the school with seven talks on Saturday, March the 26th.
"The average attendance at each session was over 300. Some session shaving almost 500 present.
"Between 20 and 30 tape recorders were going as each speaker presented his facts. These tapes will
be duplicated and sent all over the world in the next few weeks. Tape recordings of speeches are
available to anyone on our mailing list, should they desire them. These are recorded on 1800 ft. tapes
and two messages are on any one tape for $5 per tape. Delivery at this time, because of a back log of
tapes, will be about four to six weeks. Two additional Ampex Recorders have been purchased and
should be operative by April 1st, which will relieve some of the pressure on duplication."
The Fourth Annual school is already scheduled and plans are under way to make it even bigger and better this next
year.
Mr. Strube has conducted Saturday Seminars throughout the country. We will be happy to plan one for your area.
Weminars scheduled and held April 7, in Dallas, Texas; April 23, in Miami, Florida; April 30, Estes Park, Colorado;
May 7, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania; May 14, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; May 21, St. Louis, Missouri; May 28, Artesia,
New Mexico. Write for a Saturday Seminar Manual telling you how to plan one for your area.
Coming Schools
We are presently planning to conduct anti-Communism schools in San Diego, California, in August; Los Angeles,
California, in September; Dallas, Texas, in October; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in November. Details concerning the
precise dates and locations of these schools will be available soon. There is great interest in many other cities in
securing a school for their area. If you are interested in a school for your city and desire to know what is necessary to
secure one, write for information.
Study Circles
The outstanding development resulting from the schools is the study circle movement which is spreading like a fire across the nation. The credit for this development belongs in great measure to Bill Strube. At the very first school we held in St. Louis he was most insistent that priority should be given to tape recordings of the messages and that these tapes should be given the widest circulation. I tended to regard the tapes as a secondary feature of the school. I confess sincerely, Bill was right and I was wrong. These tapes have provided the mechanism by which any individual can most effectively inform his own friends and acquaintances of the nature of the Communist threat and the program needed to combat it. From these schools about a thousand study circles have been formed under various auspices and using various names across the country. This movement is developing with tremendous rapidity. A young man from Chicago was able to attend only the Saturday program of the Milwaukee Anti-Communism School. He secured the tape recordings of all the speakers. Two months later I returned to Chicago. I was astonished and delighted to find that he had established 13 study circles.Reprint is a cope of the original promotion of the study circle prepared by Bill Strube. It is equally pertinent today.
Our plan is to double the number of study circles in existence by the end of the year."

Thieme promoted "tape study groups" remotely.

Thieme did not stop communism with his political tapes. A false sense of security was created. As everyone knows US corporations have moved US manufacturing overseas. US corporations create subsidiaries of thier own corporations in communist China for cheap labor and reimport the finished products back to America with no Tariffs. US corporations have empowered communist China to super power status. So? If Thieme Schwarz and others want to get rid of communist china they should by regulate US corporations business behaviour.

Generall Wedemeyer in"THE COMMUNIST PROGRAM FOR WORLD CONQUEST" (who Thieme claimed he seminared with) said "...I would not vote one penny to any country unless I had evidence of their good faith and of their unswerving loyalty in the cooperative effort with us toward the attainment of common objectives ; one important one, of course, is protecting the Free World against the scourge of communism . I am not suggesting that each one of these countries to whom we give military and economic aid should have exactly the same objectives in the international field, but I would insist that their objectives must be compatible with our own . In other words, if the British insist on trading with Red China and thus strengthening the Communists who present a grave danger to United States interests, then I would discontinue military or economic aid to the British. When I make a statement like that, Britishers and American "one worlders" will say that they are not trading in strategic items. When they use the term "strategic items," they mean, of course, airplanes, tanks, ammunition, I presume. But I insist that any item of trade-a spool of thread, wheat, automobiles, or coffee-assists the economy of Red China. I believe in denying those areas under Communist rule any economic or military assistance. Furthermore I would break off diplomatic relations with them. In suggesting these ideas to the committee, I wish to emphasize that I am not an isolationist. No country can isolate itself from the world today. If this be a fact, the United States should participate in international developments and relations with intelligence always mindful of the fact that we must be actuated by sel'-respect. In other words, every step that we take should protect our security and our economy. Let us be realistic and understand that all other countries conduct their foreign policies
in that manner."

General Wedemeyer is credited with the original idea of the D-Day invasion.

Today one could include not just the British, but ANY US or international CORPORATION doing business with Red China, should be regulated or sanctioned.

Truthtesty



Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2011 06:34AM by Truthtesty.

Again Truthtesty goes off on tangent. Where on earth was anyone discussing anticommunism tapes, US Constitutions etc

Get back to the point. Your love of Gayford is disturbing, but let's run with it anyway. Your mentor says

"Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transaction, the "pouring" or "putting" or "sprinkling" of the Blood.

This is the catholic perception of Christ perpetually offering his blood in heaven. A position so vile as to have been refuted centuries ago. Contra Gayford/Truthtesty ongoing sacrfice in heaven position Walvoord says "While the blood was brought into the holy of holies, it was not in a sacrificial sense . .The high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies on the ground of a completed sin offering on the altar ." cited Wall p25). So no way is the blood, even in the Old Testament sense, is a reference to something particularly after the victim's death as Gayford Truthtesty contend. The blood gave evidence of death.

Furthemore mentor Gayford you quote says

Also the blood itself was the symbol of the life that had been through death, i.e. the risen life. So, the "Blood of Christ" refers us to a sacrificial work belonging to the Resurrection-life.

Morris/Stibbs conclusively proved that the meaning of the blood was not life released through death. Gayford and his pupil Truthtesty seem to be coming along the line that the literal Blood of Christ was gathered at the cross and literally presented in heaven. This is based on a total misunderstanding of Hebrews 9:12
12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but hrough His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

The preposition "through" used here, clearly expained by John Walvoord in his response to Walter's word, means "by means of". In other words it was because of His blood, mentonymy for death, that he entered the heavely places. He did not carry his physical blood with Him to an altar. Walvoord also wrote "...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,.." (in Wall's thesis page 19). Wlalvoord further notes that "a number of
facts help to demonstrate that Christ never offered His blood in heaven, the sacrifice being complete on the cross." (cited Wall p25)

Stibbs further elaborates on this conclusion in his explanation of Hebrews 9 and 10: "Christ did not enter 'with blood;' or taking blood at all. He entered ‘through His own blood;' that is, by way of death…”

Walvoord (cited by Wall p25) concludes by saying
The uniform manner of references in Hebrews is that Christ entered through His blood, rather than with His blood . . . The thought is that Christ entered, not as one bringing blood to complete a sacrifice, but as One who is clothed in blood, entering by virtue of the sacrifice . . . It must be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all; that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now; that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary; that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when He died There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death.

The concept of "sacrificial work belonging the Resurrection-life" appears to look to the catholic idea of perpetual sacrfice which Hebrews 9:12 clearly says does not happen as the event occured "once for all". That event was His death upon the cross.

As Stibbs says,
In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment of those who have said that 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'. 'It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial issues.'

zeebrook: Again Truthtesty goes off on tangent. Where on earth was anyone discussing anticommunism tapes, US Constitutions etc Get back to the point.

Truthtesty: Get this - You are not the only person I am speaking to and I decide when that happens. The parallel of CACC's political taping, world-wide distribution, and study circles is near identical to Thieme's. That's probably where Thieme got the idea. A lot of research is going on behind the scenes.

The cult of Thieme is centered on Thieme's false doctrine of Right Pastor. However Dr. Chafer (Thieme's teacher) would have considered Thieme's teachings on the blood of Christ as satanic and cultic.

zeebrook: Your love of Gayford is disturbing, but let's run with it anyway.

Truthtesty: I don't love Gayford. How could you possibly draw such errored imagining, from anything that was written? Ridiculous.

zeebrook: Your mentor says

Truthtesty: Run with this: I don't have a mentor. Try to understand that. I am analyzing a debate on the blood of Christ.

zeebrook: "Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transaction, the "pouring" or "putting" or "sprinkling" of the Blood.
This is the catholic perception of Christ perpetually offering his blood in heaven. A position so vile as to have been refuted centuries ago. Contra Gayford/Truthtesty ongoing sacrfice in heaven position Walvoord says "While the blood was brought into the holy of holies, it was not in a sacrificial sense. .The high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies on the ground of a completed sin offering on the altar ." cited Wall p25). So no way is the blood, even in the Old Testament sense, is a reference to something particularly after the victim's death as Gayford Truthtesty contend. The blood gave evidence of death.

Truthtesty: What vileness? What refutation? Not just Catholic, Protestant as well. Blood is evidence of sacrifice but also blood is also evidence of life and death. Jesus conquers death in the end but not yet. "last enemy is death". But Jesus defeated his own death to live. The necessity of the resurrection and eventually all christians ressurrection (being woken).

"Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transaction, the "pouring" or "putting" or "sprinkling" of the Blood.

That makes sense to me. Since they believed life was in the literal blood then, real blood is spilled result then someone dies. The blood (life of Christ) is sprinkled on the altar, but Jesus also spilt his own eternal literal blood (which is still exists in one form or another).

zeebrook: Furthemore mentor Gayford you quote says
Also the blood itself was the symbol of the life that had been through death, i.e. the risen life. So, the "Blood of Christ" refers us to a sacrificial work belonging to the Resurrection-life.
Morris/Stibbs conclusively proved that the meaning of the blood was not life released through death.

Truthtesty: I respect Morris/Stibbs arguement but I disagree. I do not think it is conclusive because the Hebrews really believed: "Life is in the blood", not just a symbol. That is simple.

The ressurrecting work of Jesus is not over even now. Proof being? The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV Has not occured yet. That is simple.

The Blood of Jesus continues today in both literal blood of Jesus and life of Jesus who conquered his own death and will conquer all death in the end.

(con't later)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2011 10:48AM by Truthtesty.

Quote
zeebrook
Again Truthtesty goes off on tangent. Where on earth was anyone discussing anticommunism tapes, US Constitutions etc

Get back to the point. Your love of Gayford is disturbing, but let's run with it anyway. Your mentor says

"Blood", in its sacrificial associations, refers particularly to something which took place after the victim's death, i.e. To the altar-transaction, the "pouring" or "putting" or "sprinkling" of the Blood.

This is the catholic perception of Christ perpetually offering his blood in heaven. A position so vile as to have been refuted centuries ago. Contra Gayford/Truthtesty ongoing sacrfice in heaven position Walvoord says "While the blood was brought into the holy of holies, it was not in a sacrificial sense . .The high priest was allowed to enter the holy of holies on the ground of a completed sin offering on the altar ." cited Wall p25). So no way is the blood, even in the Old Testament sense, is a reference to something particularly after the victim's death as Gayford Truthtesty contend. The blood gave evidence of death.

Furthemore mentor Gayford you quote says

Also the blood itself was the symbol of the life that had been through death, i.e. the risen life. So, the "Blood of Christ" refers us to a sacrificial work belonging to the Resurrection-life.

Morris/Stibbs conclusively proved that the meaning of the blood was not life released through death. Gayford and his pupil Truthtesty seem to be coming along the line that the literal Blood of Christ was gathered at the cross and literally presented in heaven. This is based on a total misunderstanding of Hebrews 9:12
12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but hrough His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

The preposition "through" used here, clearly expained by John Walvoord in his response to Walter's word, means "by means of". In other words it was because of His blood, mentonymy for death, that he entered the heavely places. He did not carry his physical blood with Him to an altar. Walvoord also wrote "...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,.." (in Wall's thesis page 19). Wlalvoord further notes that "a number of
facts help to demonstrate that Christ never offered His blood in heaven, the sacrifice being complete on the cross." (cited Wall p25)

Stibbs further elaborates on this conclusion in his explanation of Hebrews 9 and 10: "Christ did not enter 'with blood;' or taking blood at all. He entered ‘through His own blood;' that is, by way of death…”

Walvoord (cited by Wall p25) concludes by saying
The uniform manner of references in Hebrews is that Christ entered through His blood, rather than with His blood . . . The thought is that Christ entered, not as one bringing blood to complete a sacrifice, but as One who is clothed in blood, entering by virtue of the sacrifice . . . It must be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all; that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now; that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary; that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when He died There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death.

The concept of "sacrificial work belonging the Resurrection-life" appears to look to the catholic idea of perpetual sacrfice which Hebrews 9:12 clearly says does not happen as the event occured "once for all". That event was His death upon the cross.

As Stibbs says,
In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment of those who have said that 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'. 'It connotes the sacrificial death of Christ and all its remedial issues.'

To the Forum:

Dr. Wall did not see the word Blood as a "mentonymy" for death. "... 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.28 Acts 27:37 (A.V.) furnishes an example: "We were in all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls." Here souls is a synecdoche for the whole person. The "blood of Christ" is a synecdoche for the entire event of the crucifixion of Christ on Golgotha, which included the nailing of His hands and feet, His bleeding, His blood, all of His physical suffering of the cross, His separation from the Father as
He bore the sins of the world, His physical death, and the piercing of His side. Similar synecdoches are the terms cross, stripes and Calvary..."


I think part of the misunderstanding on the Blood of Christ is that the Hebrews really believed the "life is in the blood". THAT there was no difference between the soul and the literal blood, they were equivalent to the Hebrew mind(one in the same). Part of the the blood of Jesus went into the ground. Since G_d created man from dust, then it's quite possible that the Hebrew mind perceived that literal blood of Jesus (the perfect speaking life of Jesus) was collected from the dust and sprinkled on the mercy seat. It's quite possible that the Hebrew mind perceived that literal blood of Jesus (the perfect speaking life of Jesus) offered as the perfect sacrifice, defeated his own death then risen up and they life which is the blood thereof will defeat all death in the end.

Leviticus 17:14 KJV For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the
children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof:
whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 4:10 KJV And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground
Hebrews 12:24 KJV And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 7, p.19 "The other type which Christ fulfilled in connection with His first ascension was that of the high priest presenting the blood in the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. Thus Christ the true High Priest presented His own blood and the acceptance of that sacrifice for sinners answers every need of the sinner forever. The importance of the presentation in heaven of the emblem of His finished work in redemption, reconciliation, and propitiation cannot be estimated nor should it be slighted."

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 1, Page xxxv Ignoring almost wholly the forty-day postresurrection ministry of Christ with its demonstration of the fact that the resurrection body of Christ is adapted to life upon the earth as He will yet live here during a millennium of earth’s peace, and with the briefest reference to the ascension without recognition of Christ’s two entrances into heaven, and the riches of truth thus disclosed in His antitypical work as Fulfiller of the redemption type wherein the high priest presents blood in the Holy of holies and wherein the representative wave-sheaf is waved before Jehovah as prophetic of the first-fruits in the resurrection, these authors move directly on to a slight recognition of the fact that Christ is now seated upon His father’s throne in heaven. The far-reaching distinction between Christ’s own throne—the throne of David which is the throne of His glory, which throne He will occupy here on the earth—and the throne of His Father, on which He is now seated, is not generally observed by these authors.

Dr. Chafer deals with this issue specifically Vol. 5, Page 265 Dr. Chafer presents Mr. Grants argument :"The virtue of the blood revealed itself all the way, even as the typical veil of the sanctuary had been rent at the Cross already, before a step had been taken on the triumphant journey. All is as consistent as possible, and as plain as need be. And if it be said, Have we, then, nothing that answers more closely to this priestly action at the Throne? the answer is abundant, that the reality far transcends the type; for not only has the Throne been acting in power thus all along the road, but the Great High Priest, “having made by Himself purification of sins, He seated Himself” upon the Throne, “at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” No blood is needed further to assure us that the Throne whereon He sits who shed it is a Throne of triumphant, glorious grace. Christ there is, as we are told in the epistle to the Romans (chap. 3:25), “set forth a propitiatory” (or mercy-seat) “through faith, by His blood.” Christ is Himself, in heaven, the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. The New Testament, while confirming and interpreting the Old, goes yet far beyond it; and this is an important principle for its interpretation. Where should we find this more than in the light which thus streams out through these opened heavens?—Heb. to Rev., 2nd ed., pp. 50–52"
Then Dr. Chafer replies to Mr. Grant Vol. 5, Page 266 :" Mr. Grant, it would seem, has hardly considered all that is
implied in the problem respecting the taking of Christ’s blood into heaven, for the terminology—heavenly things purified by a better sacrifice—indicates a cleansing by blood. Is it only the historical fact that Christ’s blood was shed which is accepted as the ground of heaven’s cleansing, or is it the actual blood taken into heaven? It is probable that not enough is revealed to help one to a clear understanding and solution of the problem. The two types involved are specific enough: (a) that of the two birds, the second of which is dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, all of this a type of Christ rising and ascending into heaven and taking His blood with Him; (b) the high priest on the Day of Atonement going into the holiest and there applying the blood to the mercy seat. The blood, it is true, becomes the ground of propitiation; but that is hardly the issue here. The fact remains that in both types the blood is carried either into the sky by the bird or into the typical earthly sanctuary by the high priest. In the latter instance, it is plain how an awful throne of judgment becomes a throne of grace."

I respect Dr. Wall and Dr. Walvoord. And I agree with most of the things they say, however in this case are they not ignoring the fact that in the two types "...the blood is carried either into the sky by the bird or into the typical earthly sanctuary by the high priest..." and thus the resulting the anti-types on the basis of a limited interpretion of äéὰ?

To me, the word "through", then "His Blood", makes an indication that the Blood was brought through to the other side into the Holy of Holies. Also, the 2 Types indicate that blood was brought into heaven. And the Blood through certainly touched the Holy of Holies as a means of successfully going through to the other side.

Truthtesty

Quote
zeebrook

Walvoord (cited by Wall p25) concludes by saying
The uniform manner of references in Hebrews is that Christ entered through His blood, rather than with His blood . . . The thought is that Christ entered, not as one bringing blood to complete a sacrifice, but as One who is clothed in blood, entering by virtue of the sacrifice . . . It must be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all; that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now; that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary; that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when He died There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death.

The concept of "sacrificial work belonging the Resurrection-life" appears to look to the catholic idea of perpetual sacrfice which Hebrews 9:12 clearly says does not happen as the event occured "once for all". That event was His death upon the cross.[/b]

Well Hebrews 9:23 puts a bit of a problem with the one sacrifice theory:

Hebrews 9:22 KJV And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 9:23 KJV - It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

THAT is plural sacrifices, not just one sacrifice.

Again I respect Dr. Wall and Dr. Walvoord. I agree with most everything they say, but I think this has been overlooked.

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2011 06:24AM by Truthtesty.

Quote
zeebrook
...Walvoord (cited by Wall p25) concludes by saying
The uniform manner of references in Hebrews is that Christ entered through His blood, rather than with His blood . . . The thought is that Christ entered, not as one bringing blood to complete a sacrifice, but as One who is clothed in blood, entering by virtue of the sacrifice . . . It must be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all; that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now; that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary; that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when He died There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death.

The concept of "sacrificial work belonging the Resurrection-life" appears to look to the catholic idea of perpetual sacrfice which Hebrews 9:12 clearly says does not happen as the event occured "once for all". That event was His death upon the cross.

Also Hebrews 9:12 doesn't say Jesus entered "once and for all", it says He entered "once for all".

[strongsnumbers.com]

once for all, ephapax 2178 once for all from epi and hapax

[biblelexicon.org]

Also again, Hebrews 9:23 "sacrifices" (plural) indicate more than one sacrifice to purify "heavenly things themselves."

Hebrews 9:22 KJV And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 9:23 KJV - It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Truthtesty



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2011 09:45AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

Technical note:

zeebrook's false quote of Dr. Walvoord:

It must be concluded that the sacrifice of Christ was completed on the cross once and for all; that Christ did not present literal blood in heaven any more than His literal blood is applied to the believer now; that all cleansing in earth and heaven is on the basis of the blood shed on Calvary; that the work of Christ in sacrifice was finished when He died There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death.



The last part "There is no sacrificial work for the Blood of Christ beyond His death." zeebrook wrote, not Dr. Walvoord. Maybe you made a typo? Didn't hit return?

Also as I already submitted for debate, I disagree with your statement, and it is arguable that the Blood of Christ (according to the Hebrew mind "literal blood being the literal life(soul))" of Jesus is still needed for the sacrificial work of defeating the last enemy - death.

All death is not defeated, therefore a certain power has not been executed yet. Therefore the sacrificial work still continues.

And with all due respect for the aforementioned scholars, I disagree with thier concept of the "Blood of Jesus". I think they miss the clear meaning attributed to the Blood of Jesus by the Hebrew mind.

I think one of the funniest things I have heard in this discussion goes something like this (paraphrasing): "G-d cannot be magical... He's an objective realist..."

As advanced as human science is we cannot do what G-d can do. So in that sense it would appear that G-d is "magical" to us.


Truthtesty



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 06:40AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

What do the Pauline epistles say in I Corinthians 15:17?:

13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:  14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.  15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.  16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:  17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

That if Jesus was not raised after the death on the Cross then you are yet in your sins. That Jesus' Blood is a continually needed continuous process. That indicates that what was done by Jesus on the Cross was the beginning of the powerful and continuing process of defeating sin. That is obvious.

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 01:40AM by Truthtesty.

Walvoord (cited Wall p24-25)
The false interpretation of the typology of Hebrews 9:7 lends itself to the theory of perpetual offering. According to this interpretation, which is embraced by Catholic and Protestant theologians alike, Christ took His blood into heaven when he entered it by ascension (Heb. 9:7 compared with Heb. 9:24). Based on the work of the high priest on the day of atonement, who offered sacrifices and then brought the blood in the holy of holies, it is assumed that Christ also brought His blood into heaven itself, and therefore made an offering in heaven sacrificial in nature.

Definitively states there is no such perpetual offering. Christ's blood is not continually being offered.

Walvoord (cited Wall p25) goes on to state
The problem is exceedingly complicated, but a number of facts help to demonstrate that Christ never offered His blood in heaven, the sacrifice being complete on the cross.

Hebrews 9:12 says "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."
Having obtained eternal redemption means He is does not have to repeat the sacrifice, as per the Old Testament priests, for He has obtained eternal redemption, no more sacrifice, none of this perpetual offering to which Truthtesty keeps referring.

Hebrews 9:28 says "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."
Christ offered once, no more offering of Himself or His blood in heaven. There is no such thing as plural sacrifices of Christ in heaven.

Wall (p28) makes the following statement
After a careful examination of Thieme's teaching on the blood as it related to Christ's spiritual and physical deaths, one must conclude that he is definitely within the sphere of orthodox Christianity.

Wall (p30) makes the following concluding statement
...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.

Wall does, correctly, highlight a number of points where Thieme is vague, unclear, or where there is disagreement on his opinion. However, as may be seen by Wall's statements, Thieme sits within the sphere of orthodox Christianity. Hence we may need to shift focus off the Blood of Christ onto other areas.

By the way I think Stibbs, Behm, Morris et.al understood the term Blood of Christ, Hebrew mindset etc far better than some modern day interpreters.

To the Forum:

I Corinthians 15:17 says that the death of Jesus on the Cross is not sufficient without the ressurection. Therefore clearly something more (the ressurection) defeated sin. Could that be "the Life"? That would mean that Stibbs, Morris etc... will need to revise their theory of the "Blood of Christ".

Truthtesty