I will ask one more time..... You can not answer?


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


Yes, means "yes." No, means "no."


I did not request a diversionary move away from answering, by telling me it was a life 'violently taken."

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


Answer this time, please.


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty


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.

Nobody? Not the Holy Spirit who is to lead all Christians into Truth? The Truth that is to make the faithful believer free?

What you just claimed? Means it has not been settled.

Yet? At the same time? You act like it has been. And, you also act as if nobody can understand what is placed in the Bible to be understood.


2 Corinthians 1:13-14 (New International Version)
"For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.

And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Anyone who desires to faithfully be taught and to study God's Word, will gain beyond what he only knew in part in his early years. Its the Holy Spirit who unveils the meaning, as God intends in His timing.

You would have to be a Christian to believe what that just said. So? What good is debating you here on Christian theology?


In Christ, GeneZ

To gene:


I asked you first:

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

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?

Truthtesty:
I am not avoiding anything. It is you who has avoided my question. It is you who is avoiding any logical response to the evidence that I have shown with Arndt\Gingrich. Thieme referenced Arndt\Gingrich for his theory. Thieme borrowed the fact that Arndt\Gingrich said it was figurative, but abused the very figurative meaning that Arndt and Gingrich meant. I doubt few thiemites have even looked at the evidence within Arndt\Gingrich to see what it actually says. Thiemites merely culticly submitted to and accepted whatever Thieme said as if it were equal to scripture. This evidence should be a "shocker" to most Thiemites, but you have no reponse whatsoever.


Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
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.



Truthtesty

Quote:
Truthtesty


gene: 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: Truthtesty: You don't know that. Thieme doesn't know that. Nobody does.


gene: Nobody? Not the Holy Spirit who is to lead all Christians into Truth? The Truth that is to make the faithful believer free?

What you just claimed? Means it has not been settled.

Yet? At the same time? You act like it has been. And, you also act as if nobody can understand what is placed in the Bible to be understood.

Truthtesty:
You don't know that physical death was only for ressurection. We only know what has been revealed. It's on a "need to know" basis. And there are areas that Christians do not know.

Also, as I posted before: 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.



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
To gene:


I asked you first:

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

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?

I have answered you. For some reason it has not been cleared by the moderator yet.

Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty:
I am not avoiding anything. It is you who has avoided my question. It is you who is avoiding any logical response to the evidence that I have shown with Arndt\Gingrich. Thieme referenced Arndt\Gingrich for his theory. Thieme borrowed the fact that Arndt\Gingrich said it was figurative, but abused the very figurative meaning that Arndt and Gingrich meant.

I think you misunderstood. He showed by their commentary that the word could be used figuratively.

When it is to be figurative? That's a judgement call. In the context of comparing Scripture with Scripture, Robert Thieme made his call. I agreed on the basis of the evidence Scripture reveals. Others have, too. Others, did not. So what's new? Christianity consists of thousands of denominations because of such points of view. We all must choose for ourselves what we are going to believe.



I doubt few thiemites have even looked at the evidence within Arndt\Gingrich to see what it actually says. Thiemites merely culticly submitted to and accepted whatever Thieme said as if it were equal to scripture. This evidence should be a "shocker" to most Thiemites, but you have no reponse whatsoever.

You miss the point. Its the evidence for his conclusion that convinced those who choose to believe what we do. Besides, I do not agree 100% with all of Robert Thieme's thinking on the blood of Christ. I even mailed Berachah years ago (and may have a copy on file). It does not matter. What matters is that Robert Thieme made the Bible student think in areas that traditional status quo teaching never stirred up. He made me think. I did not listen to him to have him do my thinking for me. If you follow any of the pastors ordained by Berachah you will find that the teachings will not always line up with what was taught at berachah. Robert Thieme always desired original thinking. He always said he was supplying the data, and we are to do our own thinking with what he taught. Since you are not a Christian, it would not have that value to you. You would need to treat it as just another academic subject to be learned.


Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
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.

Again, since Dr. Wall appeals to your disdain for Robert Thieme, I hardly think you are willing to evaluate Dr. Wall's thinking. He does not have to be correct. Having a doctorate does not make one God. After all, the German scholars you attempt to discredit were Dr's! Why doesn't apply to Doctor Behm in this case?



As always.... In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
You don't know that physical death was only for ressurection. We only know what has been revealed. It's on a "need to know" basis. And there are areas that Christians do not know.

How do you know what I can not know? I did not say it was only for resurrection. Its one of the reasons.

Because you do not understand something? That automatically means others can not know? May I ask who made you the gold standard for what is to be known?


Romans 6:4-6 (New International Version)
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin."

That speaks of us being united with him in his physical death. We could not be united with him in his spiritual death. For we we are all born spiritually dead to begin with. That is why we need to be born again. Its because of his spiritual death that Jesus was forsaken by the Father while he hung on the cross.

We have never been forsaken by God. The penalty Jesus paid for our sins was to be forsaken by the Father. If we had been forsaken for our sins we would not even know the word "God." We would have no concept of their being a God. Being forsaken would mean we were born totally aloof from any concept of there being a God. God would not make himself known to man if we were born forsaken for our sins. The penalty was reserved for Christ alone.


I have been saying all along.... This is not the right kind of forum for a theological debate. But, you keep making it into one. I would rather debate this in a forum designed for Bible believing Christians. One where most never even heard of Robert Thieme. Unbeliever moderators here have no way to properly evaluate what is being said. Being controversial does not make someone automatically wrong. Being controversial means one disagrees with the accepted status quo.


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty

Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
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.

Robert Thieme has corrected mistranslation problems over the years. I have followed in various translations in print and have found what he corrected from the King James Version will often times show up in another translation.

I recall when I first begun listening to Robert Thieme on tape. He flat out said that the King James had wrongly translated an OT passage. He even went as far as to say that the translators refused to translate it correctly because they could not understand why it says what it does.

Being new to Thieme at the time I refused to take his word for it. I had various translations in my library to cross reference. I kept checking. Kept looking. None agreed with Robert Thieme.

I was just about to call it quits and not believe him. Then I took a look in my Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young's Literal Translation had it the same as Robert Thieme said it appears in the Hebrew. No other translation I had agreed. Young attempted not to interpret, but rather translate as literally as possible. That can lead to a choppy translation at times, so its not used to teach from, but for reference.. Thieme said that it was what the Hebrew said. Young agreed. Robert Thieme said the translators shunned away from the meaning because they could not reconcile what was said with God's character. Thieme showed how it could be so. I was won over another notch at that point.

And, anyone who translates from another language will have to use paraphrasing at times in order to reveal intent. Thieme's "corrected" translation was attempting to get closer to the original intent. No one is perfect. But his ability to do that was very helpful at times.


I once heard Professor Stan Ashby say he disagreed with Thieme on the interpretation of a passage. But, he could not disagree with his translation. If anyone could finagle the translation to disprove Thieme, it would have been done then. For, Stan Ashby did not like the conclusion Thieme presented. Meaning? ... Just because Thieme said it was a correction did not mean one is to automatically accept his conclusion as to what that corrected translation was telling us.


After about three long years of checking and verifying (which takes time and work) you learn just to begin to trust another's opinion after he is proven right many times, realizing also that no one person is correct all the time. His batting average was high enough to win my respect where I could begin to relax. Three years is a long time for that sort of thing.


I can categorically list areas where I not only disagreed with Robert Thieme, but I can confidently justify my correction of those errors. But, what those corrections are, are only for the ears of those who know what Robert Thieme truly stood for. Not for those looking for ways only to tear him down. Like you do.

Pastors I know who followed Thieme have not agreed with all he said. Yet, they respect his ability to teach.


I did not blindly believe all that Robert Thieme taught. And, having been brought up Jewish also made me realize that some of his Hebrew pronunciation was a bit skewed. But, it was not an issue. What was, was that he made me think about Biblical concepts that opened my mind to greater understanding. He taught on a level that one could develop the needed resources to be able to see his errors, and solutions to his errors when they occurred. That in itself is a sign of a good teacher. I did not say perfect. I said, "good." No man on this earth is a perfect teacher. Robert Thieme was not without error. Neither, am I.


In Christ, GeneZ

To gene:


gene: Nobody? Not the Holy Spirit who is to lead all Christians into Truth?


Truthtesty: I never suggested the Holy Spirit(God) is not capable of knowing "all". This is not an honest question. To most it would be clear that I was referring to regenerate or unregenerate mankind.


Truthtesty

To gene:


Quote:
Truthtesty
To gene:

I asked you first:

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

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?

gene: I have answered you. For some reason it has not been cleared by the moderator yet.


Truthtesty: With all the things that you have said and you have not backed up your statements with evidence in most cases, it is incumbent on me to ask you for proof. If you truly want truthful and honest discourse, then e-mail your answer to me or PM it to me. Truthtesty@hotmail.com


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: I will ask one more time..... You can not answer?
Did Jesus physically bleed to death on the cross? Yes? or... No?
Yes, means "yes." No, means "no."
I did not request a diversionary move away from answering, by telling me it was a life 'violently taken."
Did Jesus physically bleed to death on the cross? Yes? or... No?
Answer this time, please.
In Christ, GeneZ


Truthtesty: Since we didn't have a medical doctor "on the ground" or we didn't have a doctor to do an autopsy to determine C.O.D., then nobody (excluding God) actually knows. There was and is much speculation on this issue:


Cardiac rupture Physician Stroud 1847 (Ref 2)
Heart failure Physician Davis 1965 (Ref 15)
Hypovolaemic shock Forensic pathologist Zugibe 2005 (Ref 12)
Syncope Surgeon LeBec 1925 (Ref 16)
Acidosis Physician Wijffels 2000 (Ref 17)
Asphyxia Surgeon Barbet 1963 (Ref 18)
Arrhythmia plus asphyxia Pathologist Edwards 1986 (Ref 19)
Pulmonary embolism Haematologist Brenner 2005 (Ref 20)
Voluntary surrender of life Physician Wilkinson 1972 (Ref 21)
Didn’t actually die Physician Lloyd-Davies 1991 (Ref 22)

[www.rsm.ac.uk]

In any case if you try to honestly read what I have written then you can see that I have already answered you, anyhow.

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

Truthtesty: It is possible that Jesus bled out to death at the exact moment of (d) of finishe(d) when he gave up his spirit. You can't prove that it didn't happen that way. It is clear Jesus shed literal blood to his physical death, whatever the scientific name for the cause was. The cause may have been (so far): Heart failure, Hypovolaemic shock, Syncope, Acidosis, Asphyxia, Arrhythmia plus asphyxia, Pulmonary embolism, or Voluntary surrender of life. Even if the cause was Voluntary surrender of life, it is as I said before:

November 22, 2007 07:42PM
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.



Truthtesty