To moderator:


The Ross Institute has not stated that Thieme led a "cult."

See [forum.culteducation.com]

This is a false or "straw man" argument.


Woud you explain the logic behind your statement?


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


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 .... Kittel's Theological Dictionary states that "the blood of Christ in the New Testament is simply a pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ."1 "Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!

Note Thieme points out ""Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!", but Thieme leaves out of Doktor Kittle's TDNT (4) under "haima" "The interest 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.

Also, (summarizing) Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 3, Page 42 - says that it was not the blood Jesus sweat in the garden that was efficacious, nor the blood of circumsicion, but the blood shed on the cross that was efficacious, while Jesus was obediant to the will of God. (basically blood connected with Jesus' obediant death)

However, since Thieme claimed followed Dr. Chafer so closely, then why didn't Thieme point out Dr. Chafer's own example of the figurative usage of the blood of Christ?

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood

Either Thieme was a poor student and missed this statement of Dr. Chafer or Thieme was intentionally misleading people about Dr. Chafer, for Thieme's own ends.

Even "Ardnt and Gingrich" and Doktor Kittel (TDNT), where Thieme says "As proof that there are others who understand..." disagree with Thieme. Even Thieme's own sources clearly disagree, with Thieme's theory.


Truthtesty

To moderator:


Would you explain/show us Rick Ross' definitions of and the differences between "cult" and "cult-like"?

Also, if you are stating that Thieme was "cult-like", would you show us a list of other groups that are categorized as "cult-like"?



Truthtesty

Quote
rrmoderator
Thieme also had critics that disagreed with his teachings and he was controversial.

That is correct.

Quote
rrmoderator
His teachings were not generally accepted by Christians, and some apparently felt he taught falsely, was wrong biblically and often ego driven.

I'm sorry. That is not quite right. It was not his teachings. It was only certain teachings. They hit nerves where it hurts in fundamentalist Christianity.


One was on the blood of Christ. This area of theology is the pupil of the eye for many fundamentalist churches. You just do not touch it. Thieme taught that traditional thought never questioned its meaning. I did attempt to post a response to the many posts Truthtesty has supplied of the critics. But, the post appears to have not made it to the board. It would have helped to balance out TT's accusations.


Another one of his teachings which understandably upset a good many church organizations:


He taught tithing was implimented as a national income tax for ancient Israel only. That churches today are not to use that concept to tell their congregations that they are obliged to give ten percent (tithe) of their income to the church. Thieme taught that tithing was meant to be a flat tax of ancient Israel. It was income tax. Not, spiritual giving.


That teaching on tithing hit a nerve with certain church organizations. It did not make him popular with certain mainstream churches.


Otherwise... many of his foundational teachings were traditionally accepted by much of mainstream American church orthodoxy. He had some other teachings that some criticized. But, those were over matters of interpretation only. Not major in importance. But the two I mentioned, made feathers fly.


GeneZ

Moderators... I know you do not want preaching here. But, this is a counter for what Truthtesty is repeatedly posting here with your permission. If he keeps wanting to bring up this theological issue in this forum? I ask for the other side to be presented, so those reading can form an opinion based upon having both sides of the argument.

Thank you, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:


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 .... Kittel's Theological Dictionary states that "the blood of Christ in the New Testament is simply a pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ."1 "Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!

Note Thieme points out ""Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!", but Thieme leaves out of Doktor Kittle's TDNT (4) under "haima" "The interest 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.

You are not reading what he said. He said it was not his material blood. But, it was to mean a life that was violently taken.

The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.


Robert Thieme wanted to determine how the word was being used. Your quote reveals that. But, you did not read it correctly.

Here it is again.


"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."

It says flat out, the interest is not in the material blood. But, it was meaning the life violently taken.

Murder to the ancients could be said in reference to a man's blood. Even if the person was strangled to death. "Who is responsible for this man's blood?" (the man was strangled)






Truthtesty? Roman crucifixions? How they worked? Men did not bleed to death.

They ended up being asphyxiated when they could no longer support themselves and would stop breathing. That is why the two thieves had their legs broken, so they no longer could push themselves upward as to keep breathing. That is the point that Robert Thieme brought out.

And? Pontias Pilate did not believe Jesus was dead. He was surprised to hear Jesus died so soon.



Mark 15:44 (New International Version)
"Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died."




If Jesus bled to death? It would have been very unusual for a crucifixian. It would have been noted by the scrutiny of the Roman soldier testing to see if Jesus was really dead.

Also, as Robert Thieme pointed out from the Scripture.


John 19:28-30 (New International Version)
"Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."


Jesus declared salvation to be completed while he was yet physically alive. He did not bleed to death. Jesus said that no man took his life. He voluntarily stopped breathing.

A physically dead man can not shout out..."It is finished." The Greek tense speaks of a past event that remains in status quo.

If you do not believe Thieme on that one? Check out Kenneth Wuest work on the meaning of "It is Finished."

The death Jesus experienced on the cross was being cut off from the Father because our sins were imputed to Christ as he was nailed to the cross. It is not his physical death that saves us from sin.


Sorry, if this seems like preaching. But TT has posted many times his position using scripture and quotes theologians. This is the only way to show that what he is saying does not line up. I could simply say that he is wrong. But? How does that reveal he is? Again, sorry if you see that as preaching. Yet, its the only way one can counter what TT keeps being allowed to present here in many posts.



GeneZ

mile2

I just finished reading your most recent post concerning RBT's son Bobby. You mentioned he has had 3 failed marriages. How are you able to come by this information? Is this something that is common knowledge within Berachah by the rank and file members?

I would be most interested in knowing about the reasons and any repercussions resulting from these divorces. Does he have any children by any of these marriages? I remember during the late 70's there was a big deal made about Bobby's wedding and how their "house keeper" was given such a place of honor at the affair since she was pretty much Bobby's caretaker during his adolescence.

Any information you are able to share would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Orthodox

To the Forum:


Truthtesty: Note Thieme points out ""Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!", but Thieme leaves out of Doktor Kittle's TDNT (4) under "haima":Kittel/(JohanNES)Behm:"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."

Truthtesty: That is SHED MATERIAL BLOOD as the life is violently taken

gene: You are not reading what he said. He said it was not his material blood. But, it was to mean a life that was violently taken.
The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.

Truthtesty: That is a false accusation. I did read everything he said. Where does it say "life violently taken" alone? It is you who are leaving out "shed blood". It clearly states "His shed blood as the life violently taken." If "it was to mean a life that was violently taken" alone then they would have said so, but they didn't, they included "shed blood".

Kittle and JohanNES Behm are not "ancients" they are "moderns". And they said "SHED BLOOD as life was violently taken" just like Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.

Does anyone else see from the context of Kittel/Behm see how shed blood could mean anything other than shed material blood? Remember these are "moderns" saying this, not "ancients"

Does everyone see how gene is intentionally leaving out "His shed blood"? Where does "His shed blood" go? lala land? I guess so. bye bye just pick and choose words/whatever/interpretation that fit your extreme political agenda.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

gene: Jesus declared salvation to be completed while he was yet physically alive. He did not bleed to death. Jesus said that no man took his life. He voluntarily stopped breathing.


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.


gene: A physically dead man can not shout out..."It is finished." The Greek tense speaks of a past event that remains in status quo.


Truthtesty: Jesus was physically alive while separated from the Father, which meant Jesus suffered physically and spiritually and suffered in the flesh, while separated from the Father. Jesus suffered as "flesh and blood" in place of the christian.

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.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. 7 page 80 (summarizing) Dr. Chafer said in reference to "John 19:28 “It is finished”" No man in this world can know exactly what Christ went through.

Again notice Thieme(with chip on shoulder) is intentionally causing controversial division with "bleeding heart liberals". It seems Thieme sought-out the areas where Dr. Chafer specifically said: "it is not given to man", "cannot be known", "not fully revealed", "not enough is revealed", etc... These are the areas where Thieme created his extreme predjudiced theories or where Thieme jumps to an extreme anti-human theory.

Note Chafer says Vol 2 page 313-314

Quote:
"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.


Vol. 7 page 80 (summarizing) Dr. Chafer said in reference to "John 19:28 “It is finished”" No man in this world can know exactly what Christ went through.

More examples:

Vol. 5, Page 264 sprinkling the mercy seat Dr. Chafer "not fully revealed"

Vol. 5, Page 266 In reference to the controversy of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary with blood. Dr. Chafer "not enough is revealed"



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:


Truthtesty: Note Thieme points out ""Pregnant verbal symbol" means figurative!", but Thieme leaves out of Doktor Kittle's TDNT (4) under "haima":Kittel/(JohanNES)Behm:"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."

Truthtesty: That is SHED MATERIAL BLOOD as the life is violently taken

gene: You are not reading what he said. He said it was not his material blood. But, it was to mean a life that was violently taken.
The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.

Truthtesty: That is a false accusation. I did read everything he said. Where does it say "life violently taken" alone? It is you who are leaving out "shed blood". It clearly states "His shed blood as the life violently taken." If "it was to mean a life that was violently taken" alone then they would have said so, but they didn't, they included "shed blood".

Kittle and JohanNES Behm are not "ancients" they are "moderns". And they said "SHED BLOOD as life was violently taken" just like Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.

Does anyone else see from the context of Kittel/Behm see how shed blood could mean anything other than shed material blood? Remember these are "moderns" saying this, not "ancients"

Does everyone see how gene is intentionally leaving out "His shed blood"? Where does "His shed blood" go? lala land? I guess so. bye bye just pick and choose words/whatever/interpretation that fit your extreme political agenda.



Truthtesty

Look.... I am not going to argue with you. The first half of your direct quote says the following:


"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood."


What does that say? Not in what?

I am not going to argue with you as if what it says is up for interpretation.

I tried to explain to you what the second part of your direct quote refers to. But, you decided to ignore the first part, and to say just the opposite concerning the second part.

And, that's exactly how some of Thieme's critics would argue with him. That's why he would not bother with most of them.




GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

gene: Jesus declared salvation to be completed while he was yet physically alive. He did not bleed to death. Jesus said that no man took his life. He voluntarily stopped breathing.


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.

The physical death was necessary. But, he did not bleed to death. That was the point. Jesus said...


John 10:17-18 (New International Version)
"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

If he bled to death? Then man took his life from him.

He gave up his life willingly.

Men did not bleed to death on crosses. They died from asphyxiation. If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken. The legs were broken so they could not longer push upwards to breath as to hasten the asphyxiation.

Yes, Jesus had to die physically in order to guarantee our resurrection *which followed* our salvation from sin. Jesus said "It is Finished." When was that said? Before he died physically? Or, after?

The animal could not die spiritually. So blood was used to illustrate the taking of a life. The killing of the animal was a type. A training tool used as an illustration for the true atonement. There was no way an animal could portray spiritual death. It was simply a training tool to prepare the minds of believers for the true atonement which was yet to come.


GeneZ