should be 2002 website.

Hello:

Anyone on this site who replies to Truthtestys posts is wasting their time. I have copied and pasted a post made by Truthtesty from the History Channel .com forum. All you have to do is read the following:



Truthtesty: Then why aren't you laughing. And why are my posts here? Becuase people know what I am saying is true.

There is no hope in christianity becuase it does not exist. It was a virgin-saviour bedtime story that went from Egypt to Persia and throughout the regions of that time. The Gnostic christians were persecuted in the 1st century becuase the knew christianity was a myth. The Literalist christians - Roman orthodox christians were stupid enough to take it literally. The Romans caught on that it was a religious way to subjugate and persecute people by getting them to do it to themselves - self-persecution - through thier own faith. Wow what a slick way to control people! The Romans were the 1st fanatics of christianity. Just look at the blood lust of the Coliseum. And now the modern day fanatics easily slip in and control.

Christianity is for people afraid of going to hell. PERIOD! Look at the History Channel special on Hell. hell has existed since before Judaism let alone chrisitianty.

Satan is not evil in Judaism only in chrisitianity. christians made satan evil. One christian sect Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, born again take your pick
YOU HAVE NO CHRISTIANITY THAT ALL CHRISTIANS CAN AGREE ON! LET ALONE CONVINCE NON-CHRISTIANS. YOU BROUGHT YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC CHRISTIAN PROBLEMS TO US NORMAL SUPERIOR HUMANS. DON'T BLAME US IF WE DON'T LIKE YOU. YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE CHRISTIAN PSYCO PROBLEM.

Quote from other History Channel memeber: >"I'm invincible" smirk on their face, that will one day >be slapped off by God's wrath during the Judgement.

THE ABOVE SENTENCE IS TRUE TO FORM OF CHRISTIANTY -BITTER REVENGE. BITTER REVENGE BECAUSE NORMAL HUMANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY. WHERE IS THE CHRISTIAN LOVE YOU TALK SO MUCH ABOUT? WHERE IS CHRISTIAN REALISM? IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!


Here is the link if anyone wants to check it out. [tinyurl.com]

It is pretty alarming what Truthtesty is saying about Christians. Again, don’t waste your time replying to this evil lunatic.

Thanks
Synergycon

To syngercon:

That's all you have you have synergy? no facts? lol I never said I was Jesus. I can explain what happened that night, but I am not going to. The point is - don't trust me. Think for yourself. Test all things. Use what little critical abilities you allow yourself to test what Thieme has to say. If your going to judge me, then judge Thieme too.

Believe what you want. Call me an evil lunatic. Call me the worst thing in the book, but you cannot get around [b:2fb0c8dfdf][u:2fb0c8dfdf]the facts[/u:2fb0c8dfdf][/b:2fb0c8dfdf] of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer.

My last question to you was:

Quote

Since your being so openly judgemental about beliefs, will you state your own position on the "efficacy of the literal Blood of Christ"?

I don't you see stating your position, evidence or information on the blood of Christ. What's the matter synergy? scared? Why the hesistation? Why don't you just state your position?

My [u:2fb0c8dfdf][b:2fb0c8dfdf]facts[/b:2fb0c8dfdf][/u:2fb0c8dfdf] on the blood of Christ are directly from Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology. I have clearly posted quotes and page numbers for people to check the facts for themselves.


Thieme's landmark quote was:

Quote

"The Blood from His veins [Christ's veins] was a little bleeding from his hands and a little bleeding from his feet, and it doesn't save you and never will.

Another Thieme quote:

Quote

"when Jesus died physically, He ... died for himself".

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110

Quote

As has been observed, [b:2fb0c8dfdf]cults [/b:2fb0c8dfdf]are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These [b:2fb0c8dfdf]cults[/b:2fb0c8dfdf] 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.[b:2fb0c8dfdf][u:2fb0c8dfdf] 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[/u:2fb0c8dfdf][/b:2fb0c8dfdf]?

[u:2fb0c8dfdf][b:2fb0c8dfdf]The facts are[/b:2fb0c8dfdf][/u:2fb0c8dfdf] that Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer would consider Thieme a cult and Thieme's teachings on the blood of Christ as satanic.

Enough of your tantrums, state your position on the blood of Christ.


Truthtesty

Truthtesty,

First, I am a Christian. Second, I am a rational human being, and as this kind of person I continue to ask questions regarding Thieme and his teachings. I am not "his cheerleader". I consider myself in an ongoing state of learning, and feel I have no right to speak about certain doctrines in any kind of dogmatic fashion until I mature a little more. However, certain things to me are very clear.

The Thieme quote about Jesus dying for himself was recanted by Thieme at a later date. Most of us learn as we mature, and this includes having the maturity to admit that things we once thought are no longer true, which Thieme did in this instance.

Dr. Chafer's emphasis in the quote you posted was on those sects that empasize anything other than faith in Christ's work on the cross as being necessary for salvation i.e. "faith plus consecration" Although Chafer may have thought the literal plasma and platelets blood of Christ saved (I don't really know), it is clear that the word "cult", in his statement, is identified with faith + plus works type salvation that some espouse, not what you are trying to imply.

What you seem to do is take any and every person that disagrees with Thieme and assert their statements as "fact" that Thieme is wrong, or Satanic, or whatever. Looking back over previous posts, I see that you also used Spiros Zodhiates quotes as evidence that Thieme was wrong. As one poster pointed out, Dr. Zodhiates believes that any kind of spiritual death of Christ concept is heresy.

Would this not make Zodhiates disagree vehemently with both Chafer and Wall? Would not Zodhiates consider them both "cultish"?

This does not seem to matter to you. In your eyes anyone who disagrees with Thieme is right, even if they don't agree with each other. This is ludicrous. This kind of thinking would not even get you a passing grade in Logic 101 at your local community college.

Furthermore, as a non-Christian you don't even believe what the Bible says regarding the matter (since you don't accept Paul's authority, and he was the one who really spoke on the blood), nor do you really believe what anyone should say, including Chafer since you aren't a Christian, and you apparently don't believe any of it.

What matters to you is that you consider any authority figure with a degree higher than a Masters who disagrees with Thieme as being "factual".

If you cannot, at this point, see the unbelievable lapses in logic you are presenting to the forum, then you are either severely deluded, or you are so bent on revenge that you just don't care.

In Christ,
Zams

Zam

Quote

The Thieme quote about Jesus dying for himself was recanted by Thieme at a later date. Most of us learn as we mature, and this includes having the maturity to admit that things we once thought are no longer true, which Thieme did in this instance.

Thieme recanted to Wall in private, the truth wasn't good enough for the whole congregation to hear. Thieme never made a public annoucement.


zams

Quote

Dr. Chafer's emphasis in the quote you posted was on those sects that empasize anything other than faith in Christ's work on the cross as being necessary for salvation i.e. "faith plus consecration" Although Chafer may have thought the literal plasma and platelets blood of Christ saved (I don't really know), it is clear that the word "cult", in his statement, is identified with faith + plus works type salvation that some espouse, not what you are trying to imply.

Don't try to pervert what Chafer said, because your trying to defend Thieme's error. You've already said you don't know. Why don't you try to find out why? and why you don't know. Attacking me may make you "feel" like "the thieme team" winning, but you are not getting to the solid truth of difference between Chafer and Thieme. Why don't you say "hmm this is intresting. No one ever pointed out that Thieme taught the direct opposite of Chafer". Even though Thieme used Chafer to gain credibility, he taught the direct opposite.

Chafer says [u:9ec1c1ce64][b:9ec1c1ce64]shed blood[/b:9ec1c1ce64][/u:9ec1c1ce64]

Quote

What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and [b:9ec1c1ce64][u:9ec1c1ce64]shed blood[/u:9ec1c1ce64][/b:9ec1c1ce64]of Christ?

Thieme Quote:
1 John 1:7 "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199 Quote:
1 John 1:7 "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 [u:9ec1c1ce64]directly by that blood[/u:9ec1c1ce64]

zam

Quote

What you seem to do is take any and every person that disagrees with Thieme and assert their statements as "fact" that Thieme is wrong, or Satanic, or whatever. Looking back over previous posts, I see that you also used Spiros Zodhiates quotes as evidence that Thieme was wrong. As one poster pointed out, Dr. Zodhiates believes that any kind of spiritual death of Christ concept is heresy.

You say "you seem to do". That's an observation. It's not correct because I have pointed to [u:be6408af17]both[/u:be6408af17] positive and negative statements. The point is what [b:be6408af17][u:be6408af17]do you do[/u:be6408af17][/b:be6408af17]? You say "In Christ zam", but do you deny the efficacy of the literal blood of Christ? In christ zam? because of Thieme? Because if you do then Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said that is satanic. SO why don't you try to find out why, instead of trying to imply "something wrong" about my method of approach?



Truthtesty

zam

Quote

If you cannot, at this point, see the unbelievable lapses in logic you are presenting to the forum, then you are either severely deluded, or you are so bent on revenge that you just don't care

This is just a smear. Show specific facts as to my lapses in logic. Look at the facts. I could just as easily say that you are defending Thieme "at all costs", with your own "unbelievable lapses in logic". I could just as easily say that you are "severly delusional" in your defense of Thieme.


The point being is to find out the truth, regardless of how much you are subjectively predjudiced in you love for Thieme. Love the truth of the literal shed blood of Christ, don't deny the truth of the efficacy of the blood, just because you are in love with Thieme and he satanicly denies the effiacy of the literal shed blood of Christ.


Truthtesty

Truthtesty,

Quote

Thieme recanted to Wall in private, the truth wasn't good enough for the whole congregation to hear. Thieme never made a public annoucement.

How would you know? Didn't you stop attending before the time of Wall's interview?

Quote

Don't try to pervert what Chafer said, because your trying to defend Thieme's error. You've already said you don't know. Why don't you try to find out why? and why you don't know. Attacking me may make you "feel" like "the thieme team" winning, but you are not getting to the solid truth of difference between Chafer and Thieme. Why don't you say "hmm this is intresting. No one ever pointed out that Thieme taught the direct opposite of Chafer". Even though Thieme used Chafer to gain credibility, he taught the direct opposite.

What I was trying to convey to you completely flew over your head, apparently. Yes, it does appear there is a difference between the teaching of Thieme and Chafer on the literalness of the blood of Christ, but the empasis on Chafer's quote of your last post was on cults. Chafer considered it a cultish belief that anyone should add works to faith in Christ's atonement. That is clear from the context of the paragraph. However, you deceptively attempt to try to convey that Chafer meant that it is cultish to deny the literalness of the blood of Christ. It is clear that that was not Chafer's point in that statement.

Quote

You say "In Christ zam", but do you deny the efficacy of the literal blood of Christ? In christ zam?

Personally, I have a hard time believing that the literal platelets and plasma and red and white blood cells of Jesus Christ did anything regarding our salvation. I lean towards Wall's analysis, personally. Though he also disagreed with Thieme on what encompassed spiritual death, I think Wall made it pretty clear that he believed Christ's spiritual death accomplished our salvation, not his literal, physical blood. This doesn't mean I am not open to changing my mind in the future. I honestly don't know, and there's nothing wrong with saying I don't know. The Bible is filled with metaphor and symbolism. I think it's pretty hard to say whether anyone can know if the blood of Christ is metaphoric or literal.

I would think the important thing is not whether we assign some mystical property to literal, physical blood, but that we believe Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that by believing this, we are saved.

Quote

Because if you do then Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said that is satanic.

No, Chafer identified those that deny the saving power of Christ alone as accomplishing salvation Satanic. Please provide the quote that Chafer said that you must believe in the [i:27b92f51ce][b:27b92f51ce]literal[/b:27b92f51ce][/i:27b92f51ce] blood of Christ as accomplishing savlation, or you are satanic.

Quote

You say "you seem to do". That's an observation. It's not correct because I have pointed to both positive and negative statements

Why are you not seeing what I am so plainly stating? Zodhiates and Chafer/Wall do not agree with each other on the blood of Christ? But you freely use any of these three men to show how Thieme is wrong. [i:27b92f51ce][b:27b92f51ce]Yet, these three men do not agree with each other.[/b:27b92f51ce][/i:27b92f51ce] Hello! Earth to Truthtesty!

By the way, Truthtesty, what is your postion on the blood of Christ? Not Chafer's, but yours. Can you please explain how the literal, physical blood of Christ accomplished salvation, and what the exact mechanics of this operation are, in detail?

And more importantly, are you a Christian, Truthtesty?

In Christ,
Zams

zam

Quote

The Thieme quote about Jesus dying for himself was recanted by Thieme at a later date. Most of us learn as we mature, and this includes having the maturity to admit that things we once thought are no longer true, which Thieme did in this instance.

Thieme never admitted to it in the 7 years I was forced to attend. How much maturity or better a "learning curve" do you want? Thieme was out of seminary school 20 years when he made the heretical incompetent error and 28 years by the time he fessed up to Dr. Wall. In light of Thieme's groce incompetence on such a basic scripture, why should anyone doubt thier own ability to learn the bible for themselves? 8 years is long enough for any christian to go get thier own bachelors, masters, and doctorate from Dallas Theological Seminary.

If you notice the private interview was in '77, when Wall was writing his dissertation. Chances are it was an ultimatum to Thieme, something which he was not accustomed to. It was probably - "recant it or it goes in my dissertation". That's probably the only reason.

Now if any Thiemite would love to jump in here and say he did recant it in public, I'm all ears. I doubt any ever will. I doubt Thieme ever admitted to it in public, but if he did, then I would ask the person to specify the date of the tape.



Truthtesty

zam

Quote

What I was trying to convey to you completely flew over your head, apparently. Yes, it does appear there is a difference between the teaching of Thieme and Chafer on the literalness of the blood of Christ, but the empasis on Chafer's quote of your last post was on cults. Chafer considered it a cultish belief that anyone should add works to faith in Christ's atonement. That is clear from the context of the paragraph. However, you deceptively attempt to try to convey that Chafer meant that it is cultish to deny the literalness of the blood of Christ. It is clear that that was not Chafer's point in that statement.

Not hardly. Wake up! Hello? Did you happen to notice this in the context of the paragraph?

Quote

The latter as completely ignores [b:65366ef64c][u:65366ef64c]the blood redemption of Christ [/u:65366ef64c][/b:65366ef64c]as the former

I understand the context of the paragraph, you don't. You accuse me of being deceptive out of your ignorance. Quit trying accuse me and make excuses for Thieme. Chafer does talk about faith plus consecration as a cult AND Chafer also talks about "[u:65366ef64c]ignoring the blood[/u:65366ef64c] redemption" as a cult(which Thieme does deny and ignore the literal shed blood in redemption).

As I also have posted before(since you have been here therefore no excuses) "[b:65366ef64c][u:65366ef64c]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood[/u:65366ef64c][/b:65366ef64c] This I posted in comparison of the Chafer 1 John 1:7 quote to Thieme's 1 John 1:7 quote. Clearly anyone can see Chafer taught that the literal shed blood was efficacious in salvation and in cleansing sin.

Chafer did realize that the blood of Christ was a metaphor with endless meaning, with more meaning than just the [b:65366ef64c]real literal shed efficacious blood.[/b:65366ef64c] But the real literal shed efficacios blood was still real, still literal, and still efficacious.


You have been here since 31 Aug 2007 I posted this on 09-29-2007 09:58 AM

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110

Quote

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. [b:65366ef64c]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 [u:65366ef64c]there is but one acid test[/u:65366ef64c], namely, [u:65366ef64c]What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ [/u:65366ef64c]?[/b:65366ef64c]

Thieme

Quote

[u:65366ef64c][b:65366ef64c]1 John 1:7[/b:65366ef64c][/u:65366ef64c] "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
[b:65366ef64c][u:65366ef64c]1 John 1:7[/u:65366ef64c][/b:65366ef64c]

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 [u:65366ef64c]blood of the Lamb[/u:65366ef64c]. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a [u:65366ef64c]figure of speech[/u:65366ef64c], but it is [u:65366ef64c]not meaningless on that account[/u:65366ef64c]; and [u:65366ef64c]so there is limitless reality in it[/u:65366ef64c]. 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. [b:65366ef64c][u:65366ef64c]Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ [/u:65366ef64c]that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that [u:65366ef64c]blood[/u:65366ef64c] [/b:65366ef64c]

Truthtesty