To the Forum:

Kittle\Behm and Arndt\Gingrich are in agreement.

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)

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...

So to determine the figurative usage of "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice compare 1Cl 55:1 with 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.

[www.earlychristianwritings.com]

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" and in doing so is attacking the blood of Christ. 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, either.

Thieme "borrows" the fact that blood is used figuratively, but deviates from the figurative meaning shown by both Kittel\Behm and Ardnt\Gingrich.

The word blood "haima" used figuratively for both blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice. Haima is figurative these cases, because literal life sacrificed is included with literal shed blood.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

gene: Which goes to prove that you do not really have a grip on what you wish to prove.

Truthtesty: You prove nothing. I'm solid. You don't understand me. Someone who doesn't have a cult member's bias would have no problems understanding what I said is logical, and realize I just proved Thieme wrong on the blood of Christ.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: Fear tactic? We were in big trouble with the Soviet potentially. You see that as fear tactics? He was telling the truth that many already knew about. If you ever attended a Bible Conference in D.C.? A very large percentage of listeners were in uniform. Ranking officers. I attended at least two in D.C. It was very military oriented. He preached that message to a large group of military types. They could handle it without being seen as a scare tactic.


Truthtesty: Yes another fear tactic. It was unreasonable. The Berlin wall fell down in 1986. The Cold War was effectively over. And Knowing Thieme that wasn't the only place he said it. George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace.

It wasn't in DC it was in Arlington, Va. Did you even read the article before you decided to defend Thieme?

During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.

Thieme was always about war. Even Thieme's Masters thesis was about war.

Armageddon : an investigation of the campaign of the great day of God the Almighty
Thieme, R. B.
Pub date: 1949


In any case, Thieme's prophecy was wrong - again.


Truthtesty

Quote
ORTHODOX
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

ORTHODOX:

I learned about Bobby's failed marriages from reading the new biography "Robert B. Thieme, Jr.; His Ancestry; His Life" by C.G. Hunt. Since Col. Thieme performed all 3 marriages I would assume those at Berachah would know about them. The book also said Bobby has no children.

You mentioned a "house keeper" who was pretty much Bobby's caretaker during adolescence. Do you know why he needed a caretaker? Why would his mother not be filling that role?

The book lists as a reference for this info www.cclerk.hctx.net under Marriage Licenses.

mile2

To the Forum:


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

Truthtesty: Although gene misunderstands the meaning of the whole sentence, gene did get this part right -

gene: "That is one reason he would be viewed as a "cult figure" to the Baptists.


Truthtesty: Thieme misrepresented the meaning and figurative usage of blood of Christ by Ardnt and Gingrich and Kittel TDNT. gene also misrepresents the statement I quoted from kittel.


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


gene just wants to use the first part of the sentence "not in His material blood". gene wants to forget the true meaning and value of "His shed blood as the life violently taken".


gene: Still avoiding dealing with what you quoted.

Truthtesty: Not at all gene. Not at all, but I think your avoiding what I quoted and my last few posts.




Truthtesty

To gene:


I tell you what gene, I can see how someone would read it the way you are saying. So, I ILL'd RGG "Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart". I will get the article written by Johannes Behm then translate it from German, so we can all see what Johannes Behm actually meant.


Truthtesty

I was about ready to leave this place, but a few things first.

Quote
Truthtesty

It wasn't in DC it was in Arlington, Va. Did you even read the article before you decided to defend Thieme?

Yes, Truthtesy. I read the article. Here it is again....

Quote
Truthtesty
During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.

I am shaking my head at how quick you are to find fault trying make it appear to be such a grievous error on my part.

Now, some background..

The East Coast Bible Conferences (which became known to many of us as the DC conference) was almost all the time held in DC. Both locations are close to the Pentagon (which I drove by one night after leaving a conference).

All the conferences I attended were in D.C.. I stayed in a hotel in Arlington just minutes away. Matter of fact, I only recall one conference being held in Arlington. One I did not attend.


Now? I have a simple question for you.

Did Jesus physically bleed to death on the cross? Yes? No?


GeneZ

To the Forum:


If Behm meant "not his material blood" entirely throughout the NT in saying ""The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken", then apparently Kittle\Behm and Arndt\Gingrich disagree. Compare the different categories of figurative usage of "haima", between Kittle\Behm and Ardnt\Gingrich:


Kittle\Behm:

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

Arndt\Gingrich:

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... Eph 1:7, (Col 1:14 v.1.). Of the high priestly sacrifice of Jesus Heb 9:12,14; 10:19, 1 J 1:7, Rev 1:5, 5:9 etc... (then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

Rom 3:25 has a different figurative/literal meaning of "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice". Rom 3:25 is not included in the figurative/literal meaning of "shed blood = kill." by Arndt\Gingrich. Following that, obviously, there are other verses of "haima" that do not have the "shed blood = kill" figurative literal meaning.

By Arndt\Gingrich, the 1 word blood is used figuratively for both literal blood and literal life as an expiatory sacrifice, in 1Cl 55:1, Rom 3:25, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

No Thiemite has ever answered this question.


_{Truthtesty
Posted: 07-22-2007 10:42 AM Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To brainout and all Thiemites:
Among all the other evidence, if spiritual death was the only requirement, then why didn't Jesus just die spiritually and resurrect as the Angel of the Lord?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 16, 2007 07:52PM
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.To the Forum and synergy:
Truthtesty:
It's logical to me(Truthtesty) that if what Jesus was as physical sinless man(including sinless blood) were not necessary for salvation and spiritural death were the only thing necessary for salvation, as Thieme suggests, then Jesus could have simply spiritually died (separated from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah.}


Truthtesty:
Even Thieme said that the Angel of Jehovah was Jesus, so if spiritual death was the only aspect of Jesus' death that was necessary, then why did Jesus become "flesh and blood"? Jesus could have simply spiritually died(separation from the Father) as the angel of Jehovah.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: I was about ready to leave this place, but a few things first.

Quote:
Truthtesty
It wasn't in DC it was in Arlington, Va. Did you even read the article before you decided to defend Thieme?

gene:
Yes, Truthtesy. I read the article. Here it is again....

Quote:
During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.

gene: I am shaking my head at how quick you are to find fault trying make it appear to be such a grievous error on my part.

Truthtesty: Make it appear? People aren't mindreaders gene. Don't try to blame me for your mistake. I just pointed out an error. It is Thieme who is trying to make it appear as if peace loving liberals who love the blood are making a grievous error. They aren't. They are christians, who have faith in Jesus and in his efficacious work. Why are thiemites such enemies of the literal shed blood of Christ? Be realistic. Would you not even offer Jesus and bandaid? Again, it is Thieme's political agenda at play.

gene:
Now, some background..
The East Coast Bible Conferences (which became known to many of us as the DC conference) was almost all the time held in DC. Both locations are close to the Pentagon (which I drove by one night after leaving a conference).
All the conferences I attended were in D.C.. I stayed in a hotel in Arlington just minutes away. Matter of fact, I only recall one conference being held in Arlington. One I did not attend.

Now? I have a simple question for you.
Did Jesus physically bleed to death on the cross? Yes? No?
GeneZ


Truthtesty:
Even Jesus' physical death albeit Jesus was obedient and willing, was not a natural physical death for God/Man. It was a violent physical death in that it is not natural for God/Man to die. Even Jesus' literal blood was shed violently. Even Jesus' spiritual life was violently taken. God's exact processes we do not know.

Dr. Chafer Vol. 3, Page 53 (summarizing) said that it is a paradox to corrupt men's minds that while Jesus cried “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:1; Matt. 27:46), but it was God he cried to that was “in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). This emphasizes a deeper truth that there is only one essence.

Dr. Chafer Vol II pgs 313-314:
1. 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 unfalien, 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. Chafer Vol. 7, Page 80 (summarizing) Evidence in John 19:28 Jesus bore the judgments of sin upon Christ in hours of suffering which terminated in death. Jesus said "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." I thirst then It is finished. What Jesus experienced Jesus in six hours cannot be known in this world. But those who believe receive the value of it.

John 19:28 says "all things" not just one thing (not just spiritual death aspect). Also, Jesus did not immediately physically die after spiritual death, He said I "thirst". THEN "It is finished." Spiritual death only was not the only requirement.

As I already posted:

<sub>November 17, 2007 03:25PMTruthtesty
Date Added: 01/13/2007
Posts: 384 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.To the Forum:


gene: 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?


Truthtesty: You don't know that. Thieme doesn't know that. Nobody does. It is theoretical at best. You don't know death. You don't know the exact process of corrupt humans death, let alone perfect man's death. And all that was involved in it. Jesus could have timed it perfectly to physically die at the exact moment that the (d) of finshe(d) was uttered. Or it could have been just like in combat when someone is gunshot, and they know they have bought it. You don't know what the "gunblast of sin" does to perfect human flesh. Perfect human flesh that in and of itself is one with God. Jesus was alive physcially but sin was also imputed into perfect flesh of Jesus, along with spiritual separation. But those are God's processes which we cannot not describe accurately, and we only know what is limitedly revealed. We do know life or death as God does. We cannot breath life into dirt and we don't know all the processes of death and life with corrupt man let alone with death and life of theanthropic man.

Dr. Chafer said no one can know what happened in those 6 hours. Thieme inserts an extreme theory here and he can't prove it, all the while attacking peace loving liberals via the shed blood of Christ.

Simply, if spiritual death were the only aspect requirement, then why didn't Jesus just spiritually die (separate from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah and resurrect? Thieme's theory is wrong.

Truthtesty</sub>

I think you know Thieme is a cult gene. I think you just don't care that it is. And by the way Not all, but most cults allow you physically leave or stay ie Jehovah's witness.

Thieme was a cult leader of a very very subtle political cult indeed. Very difficult to discern for most.

Jesus was/is God/Man of whom perfect flesh characteristics and of whom perfect spirituality characteristics and thier inter and intra relations, we do not know. We only have what is revealed



Truthtesty