There is no need for anyone to be banned if you stay within the rules.

This thread has had its share of "Internet trolls," which have come on here and posted as essentially Thieme apologists.

Some seemingly hoped to subvert this thread.

But regardless whatever past posts have appeared here historically, there is always an opportunity to have a discussion here.

Post your views and stop debating the tactics of personal attacks.

No name calling, flaming etc.

Please post about the actual subject, which is "R.B. Thieme Jr." -- per the topic heading.

If you have something to say on topic post it, otherwise move on.

To the Forum:


I welcome intelligent debate or dialog. If you someone disagrees with me about Thieme, that's fine, but again bring the evidence or a logical question so we can research the information together. I welcome correct contradictory information. For example orange pointed out where I had made a mistake about Thieme's military service. I did not attack orange. I apologized to the Forum where I had made a mistake.

Truthtesty Posted: 08-18-2007 11:11 PM
To the Forum: I previously stated that Thieme did not serve any active duty time during any other wars other than WII. Apparently I was mistaken. As I was so kindly informed, Thieme did serve several active duty tours post Korean War and up to the 1st year of the Vietnam Conflict.


Look - Orange pointed out that I had made a mistake. I did not attack orange. I publicly admitted that I made a mistake.

I am not scared of anyone's contradictory information. People so often consider honest contradictory information as an attack. In this case, orange's contradictory information corrected my mistake and led to a very intresting discovery about Thieme's possible involvement with the Air Force Survival school training (SERE program), which I have not had the time to research yet.

Honest contradictory information should be reviewed in it's proper light - as a new challenge. Honest contradictory information is very constructive and I welcome it.

It matter's to me that people stick around, but what is necessary for accurate research are the comparison and contrasting of the honest facts.




Truthtesty

To the Fourm:


Thieme quote BOC 1979 As proof that there are others who understand that the blood of Christ is figurative, permit me to quote Arndt and Gingrich, 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."17

Thieme quote BOC 1979 "When the Scripture states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:10—14), it refers to animal flesh only. The Hebrew word nephesh sometimes means "life" and sometimes "soul," but when used of animals it obviously refers to animal life — not to human life."


Truthtesty:
In Arndt and Gingrich, no where are the words "spiritual death" used in Arndt and Gingrich's definition of "haima" on page 22 or 23. Also, be clear Arndt and Gingrich do use the words "spiritual death" on page 351 under the term "thanatos", but not on pgs 22 or 23. So Arndt and Gingrich are familiar with the term "spiritual death", but they do not use it or conclude with it under the term "haima" on pgs 22 or 23.


What I'd like people to note also is Lev. 7:11 in Arndt and Gingrich.

If someone mistakenly assumes Thieme's twisted interpretation of figurative usage used by Ardnt and Gingrich is correct, then how can they justify Arndt and Gingrich's figurative use of Lev. 17:11? Lev. 17:11 is not classified as under "b. of blood of animals"(Note Thieme does not mention this). Lev 17:11 is classified by Arndt and Gingrich as "2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2" Fig means figurative. Thieme says Lev. 17:11 is only referring to animals, but Ardnt and Gingrich classify Lev 17:11 blood usage as figurative. It is not classified under "b. of blood of animals" AT ALL.

By Arnt and Gingrich, if one is to say that the blood of Christ in Rom 3:25 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood then they'd be incorrect, just as if they'd be incorrect to say that the blood mentioned in Lev. 17:11 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood. Both are listed as figurative.

For correct figurative usage of blood used for "seat of life" in Lev. 17:11 contrast WSD 7:2 [www.biblicalproportions.com]

Correct figurative usage of "seat of life" by Arndt and Gingrich in WSD 7:2 is literal human life compacted with literal human blood in a literal human womb.

Undoubtedly the readings in levitcus 17:10-14 refer to eating animals, but also the summarized plain reading of the text in Lev. 17:14 says "life of all flesh is in the blood". Humans are a manner of flesh and are classified as part of "all flesh".

Leviticus 17:14
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.

Pg 799 Arndt and Gingrich "body":

body

1. body of man or animal —

a. dead body etc...

b. the living body (Hes. +; inscr., pap., LXX) of animals h 3: 3.— Mostly of human beings Mt 5: 29f; 6: 22f; 26: 12; Mk 5: 29; 14: 8; Lk 11 : 34a, b, c; J 2: 21; Ro 1: 24; 1 Cor 6: 18a, b; IRo 5: 3. etc...
... ---The body as the seat of mortal life ; be in the body=alive, subject to mortal ills (Poryphr., Abst. 1, 38 ) Hb 13: 3.

Arndt and Gingrich clearly state that "The body as the seat of mortal life".



Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc...

(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...

(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...

(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...

(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...

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.


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[/u] 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...

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". Ardnt and Gingrich are not saying what Thieme is falsely stating.

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 in different contexts.

Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only", is not substantiated by the evidence of Arndt and Gingrich.





Truthtesty

To the Forum:


I added the rest of the Leviticus references to Arndt and Gingrich's "haima".


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...
(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)


Also note Dr. Wall's description of the synecdoche "blood of Christ", correspond's almost exactly with Arndt and Gingrich's shed blood=kill reference.

Dr. Wall: 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.... 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. In the New Testament the term refers to the total event of death by violent means. In Matthew 23:3 5, Jesus speaks of the "blood of righteous Abel" and "the blood of Zechariah." Obviously death by violent means is in view not spiritual death. Blood is used because the normal violent taking of life in those days was by blood-letting with the sword, spear or other weapon. As such, blood is used as a synecdoche that includes physical blood, not a "representative analogy" that excludes it. 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. Nevertheless, the use of blood in other contexts demonstrates that the use of synecdoche was prevalent with at least the word blood and that any use of the term would automatically arouse a picture of physical death by violent means in the mind of the reader. Other uses of blood as synecdoches for the total event of death by violent means include Matthew 23:30; Luke II: 50, 5 1; 13: 1; Acts 18:6; 22:20; Romans 3:15; Hebrews 12:4; Revelation 6: 1 0; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; and 19:2.

Truthtesty:
And to be fair to Rev. Walters and Dr. Waite, they never say that Jesus bled to death and they don't know of any fundamentalist church that ever did. That was Thieme's strawman attack on Walter's and Dr. Waite. Also, Walters and Dr. Waite believe in all the aspects of the death of Jesus from the actual literal shed blood of Christ at Calvary, to the physical death to the separation from the Father. Walter's and Dr. Waite teach specifically on pg 23 that both spiritual death and physical death were necessary. Walter's and Dr. Waite said (summarizing) That just saying physical death only is a false teaching or just saying that spiritual death only is a false teaching, as well. search False Teaching of R. B. Thieme ( [www.biblefortoday.org] )
Rev. Walters and Dr. Waite wrote 1 book on this issue on 31DEC72. Thieme has had to retreat from various positions and rewrite 5 different versions of the blood of Christ from 1972 - 1989.

Thieme had no justification whatsoever to attack the shed blood of Jesus or the physical death of Jesus. I say to limit any aspect of God is the heighth of arrogant ignorance. We cannot even describe accurately how to create human life from dust nor do we know the full aspects and details of corrupt human death, let alone all the details and aspects of the birth, life, and death of the Lamb without spot. We only have what has been partially revealed.





Truthtesty

Truthtesty:

In your research on Thieme's theory of "spiritual death only" did you find any other Bible teacher who held these same views before Thieme espoused them, or was the teaching unique with him?

Mile2

To the Forum:


Thieme's claim of "following Dr. Chafer closely" was false and misleading. Dr. Chafer did not teach spiritual death only.


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


Thieme's false methods of "proof" are unique to Thieme, as I have shown.

Even Thieme's selective misuse of Johanne Behm's statement in Kittle's TNDT, of "mere pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ, is false. in Kittle's TNDT (Dr. Kittle being the editor; Johanne Behm(1686-1753) being the author), 1st you see in (1.) 1 John 19:34 literal "blood and water" being included by Behm in the blood of Christ. Thieme "left out" were Behm specifically states in (4.) under "haima" "The intrest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken." That is SHED MATERIAL BLOOD as the life is violently taken.

Both the "pregnant verbal symbol" statement and the shed (material) blood are within a few sentences of each other, under Kittle's (4.) of haima.

J. Behm's "pregnant" phrase itself is questionable. I spoke to MIT's linguistics department about the phrase "pregnant verbal symbol". At first just mentioning those 3 words. The department had no idea what that meant. Then I said "pregnant verbal symbol in reference to the blood of Christ". The department replied "In that context (blood of Christ) "pregnant verbal symbol would mean a verbal symbol with rich connotations"".

A verbal symbol for example, is the word "stop" spoken or written, while a non-verbal symbol would be someone holding thier hand in front of them for "stop".

So the blood of Christ from J. Behm is basically saying a "mere verbal symbol with rich connotations, for the saving work of Christ"

So why did Behm use "mere"? "Mere" and "rich connotations" are contradictory. That's like saying "I made just a mere billion dollars last year."

Looking at J Behm saying that the "blood of Christ was "mere" pregnant verbal symbol of the saving work of Christ"" is an illogical contradictory phrase. That is like saying The bible is just a "mere book" of the writings of God or Jesus was a "mere saviour". The use of the word "mere" detracts from the meaning "pregnant verbal symbol". Certainly the "blood of Christ" is more than a "mere" "phrase" of the saving work of Christ, according to Dr. Chafer "there is limitless reality in it." The "blood of Christ" is just a phrase on paper, but not in reality.


Also:
Dr. Kittle (Nazi party member) is the editor who quotes Johannes Behm's (1686-1753) article of the mere "pregnant verbal symbol" phrase. Dr. Kittle was one of "Hitler's theologians" who were charged by "the Fuerher" to research a "moral christian" reason to expulse(get rid of) the Jews from Germany. Dr. Kittle was also imprisoned by the Allies after WWII. Kittle's writings about the Jews pre-Hitler versus during Hitler's reign differ and were obviously influenced. Dr. Kittle praised Hitler and thought Hitler was chosen by God to lead Germany. Poor judgement.

More info see JSTOR articles "Theologian in the Third Reich: The Case of Gerhard Kittel" [0-www.jstor.org.catalog.houstonlibrary.org]

and

"Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanuel Hirsch by Robert P. Eriksen" [0-www.jstor.org.catalog.houstonlibrary.org]

In contrast to Dr. Kittle was Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann was a member of the confessing church which resisted Hitler. Bultmann was considered a theological giant.

Bultmann (b) Christology. -- I will not allow that the New Testament language about Christ’s dereliction and his heavenly intercession contains no mythology. Nor is it true to say that the "blood" of Christ is just a striking metaphor for the surrender of his life. I would agree that it is in ordinary secular use -- e.g. of the soldier’s death on the field of battle -- but in the case of Christ it means something entirely different. It is sacrificial blood in a cultic sense, and moreover it is the blood of the pre-existent Son of God. Of course it was the blood of his human body, but that gives his self-surrender quite a different meaning from what it has in an ordinary secular context.

[72.14.209.104]





Truthtesty

To the Forum:


I made a mistake in identifying Johann Behm (1686-1753) professor at Königsberg, with Johannes Behm (1883–1948) professor at Königsberg 1920, Göttingen 1923, Berlin 1935.

Behm, Johannes
(1883–1948). Prot. theol.; b. Doberan, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Ger.; prof. Königsberg 1920, Göttingen 1923, Berlin 1935. Coed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Other works include Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum; Der Begriff Diatheke in Neuen Testament; Die Bekehrung des Paulus; Die mandäische Religion und das Christenturn.
[216.88.180.29] .

Kittle makes many references to Behm. I identified the correct Behm from Kittle's TDNT page 124 Vol VI references Behm Apk. (NT Deutsch I) (Das Neue Testament Deutsch). Kittle's TDNT page 500 Vol IV references J. Behm, NT Deutsch III 1935 (Das Neue Testament Deutsch). It might be possible, however, I have not had the time to research to see if Kittle makes any references Johann Behm (1686-1753).



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Theologians Under Hitler
64 minutes 
Source: Vital Visuals
This film introduces viewers to Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, three Christian scholars who were also outspoken supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1933 Althaus spoke of Hitler’s rise as “a gift and miracle of God.” Hirsch saw 1933 as a “sunrise of divine goodness.” Kittel began working for the Nazis to find a “moral” rationale for the destruction of European Jewry. The film asks: how could Christian theologians justify the Nazi ideology and how does the scholarship of this period affect Christian theology today? [www.facinghistory.org]




Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Truthtesty:
Do you really trust the words of Hitler's theologians?

The following is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [www.ushmm.org]


German eliminationist antisemitism was multi-potential. The pre-existing genocidal potential that
inhered in Germans’ eliminationist antisemitism, and therefore in Germans themselves, can be seen from a
public lecture given on June 1, 1933, by the leading Protestant theologian and biblical scholar, Gerhard
Kittel, entitled “Die Judenfrage” (“The Jewish Problem”), which was subsequently published. In it, he
etches clearly the fundamentals of the German cultural cognitive model of Jews that had developed in the
nineteenth century and that had not come to power with the Nazis. The Jews, he states as a well-known
matter of common sense, are a racially constituted, alien body within Germany. Emancipation and
assimilation rather than having rendered the Jews more fit for German society, allowed the Jews to infect the
German people with their blood and spirit, with calamitous consequences. What might be the solution to the
“Jewish Problem?” Kittel considers four. He rejects Zionism, the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, as
impractical. He rejects assimilation, because assimilation itself is a great evil that, by constitution, promotes
the pollution of the racial stock. Most significantly, he explicitly considers extermination as a possible
solution: “One can try to exterminate (auszurotten) the Jews (pogroms).” Having not yet been able to
conceive of a state organized systematic extermination, Kittel considers an exterminationist solution in the
light of the model of the pogrom, which leads him to reject extermination as impractical, as a policy that has
not and could not work. Kittel therefore settles on the eliminationist solution of “guest status”
Fremdlingschaft), namely the separation of Jews from their host peoples. That this eminent theologian
would publicly contemplate the extermination of the Jews already in June 1933, almost in passing, without
any great elaboration or justification, and as a normal, easily discussed option when trying to fashion a
solution to the “Jewish Problem,” reveals the lethality of the regnant eliminationist antisemitism, and how
ordinary its discussion must have seemed to ordinary Germans in the Germany of the early 1930s.

[www.ushmm.org]




Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Paul Althaus and Johannes Behm co-authored at least 1 book together. [www.frankfurter-antiquariate.de]



Truthtesty