To the Forum:


I'll correct my own mistake openly.

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.

Truthtesty: I correct this to better clarify "It is possible that Jesus bled out to death at the exact moment of his last breath when he gave up his spirit"


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Quote:
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.

gene: 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.


Truthtesty: And in those choices for our beliefs WE SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL THE FACTS!. It was dishonest and deceitful of Thieme to directly contradict the figurative meaning of literal blood and literal life in "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25" in Arndt and Gingrich. For over 30 years Thieme used the fact that Arndt and Ginrgich said blood was used figuratively. For over 30 years Thieme never let people know the difference between Thieme's figurative meaning and Arndt and Gingrich's figurative literal meaning.

And I didn't misunderstand.


gene: I agreed on the basis of the evidence Scripture reveals.

Really?, because it seems you verbally back Thieme up (with little or no evidence) or make excuses for Thieme in every case.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Truthtesty: 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.


gene: You miss the point. Its the evidence for his conclusion that convinced those who choose to believe what we do. .

Truthtesty: I didn't miss the point. Your keep trying to help Thieme sweep his deceit under the rug. What Thieme did was deceptive. People deserve all the facts BEFOREHAND to make decisions, not just Thieme's "selective facts". People don't deserve to have to wait 30 years to get all the facts, when they were on hand 30 years ago and could have been explained in a minute or less.


gene: 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.

Truthtesty: Really? I think it does matter. As a matter of fact it is germane to this subject on this cult forum and this particular conversation. Would you show this forum where you disagreed with Thieme on the blood of Christ?



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty

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:

Again, you want it both ways. One can not voluntarily stop living, and bleed to death at the same time.


John 10:16-18 (New International Version)
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 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."




Besides? In the animal sacrifices? The animal had to have all blood removed. Kosher meat required all blood to be drained off. It was symbolic of all the life being removed from the creature.

Yet? Jesus had blood remaining in him at the point of physical death. When the Roman soldier pierced his side, blood serum and clots came out of his side. That was from blood that had been circulating above his heart's location. All blood below still remained in his body as he hung on the cross. The physical blood of Jesus did not fulfill the requirement of the Levitical Law, if he was to be an exact parallel in function.


The animal's life was in his blood. Their sacrifice was designed to pierce and drain off all blood at an altar. The Life of Jesus? His life was in God, in his soul. Crosses were not a place of bleeding to death. I have already explained that several times. Pontias Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus died so quickly. It would have been noted if any unusual means to death pertained. It would have been noted that he bled to death. Instead, the soldier pierced the Lord's side to make sure Jesus was simply not faking death.

Trouble with literalists is that they view the sacrifice of Jesus as being on the same level of the sacrifice of a dumb animal. The animal could not take away our sins. If it could? Jesus did not have to die in our place.

Animal sacrifices were a training tool to teach principles of atonement. Jesus was not an animal. Those who make the physical blood of Jesus the issue in salvation are not seeing the true significance of the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. His spiritual life which made Jesus one with the Father was violently taken from Him as our sins were poured on him through judicial imputation by the Father.


Now? God told Adam on the day he ate of the tree that he would surely die. He did not die physically when he ate. Did he? Physically dead men do not run around and sew on fig leaves as Adam and Eve had. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they ate. It was an invisible death to the eye.

That is why we need to be born again. Not born again physically. But, born again to regain the human spiritual function. The death on the Cross which saved us from sin was the Spiritual Death of Christ. His physical death relates to our resurrection, and Jesus no longer had to live as a man after dying for man's sins. He died to having to live as a man. As Thieme revealed from the original languages, there were times that the word death appears in the plural. The "deaths of Christ."

Christ no longer functions as a man as he did before the Cross. He died to that function when his physical body died. For he no longer needed to live as a man after he had spiritually died as man's substitute. That is one reason he died physically. To put an end to his old function.

Again, this is not the format in this forum for such debate. I am surprised how the moderators are allowing for preaching here when in the past it was not allowed in other threads.


In Christ, GeneZ

PM, me. We can take this into a Christian forum.

[edited for length and to avoid endless repetition]

Note: This may be a good idea rrmoderator



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2007 06:28AM by rrmoderator.

To the Forum:


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.

gene: 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!

Truthtesty: Say what? I simply laid out the all the facts. Dr. Wall is more of an apologist for Thieme, than for Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters. I have shown where Dr. Wall made mistakes.

gene: Why doesn't apply to Doctor Behm in this case?

Why? It should be apparent. The fact that Dr. Kittel (Kittel TDNT) was a nazi theogian for Hitler(undisputed Hitler theologian) should be another "shocker" for Thiemites.

As I said before:
Dr. Kittle praised Hitler and thought Hitler was chosen by God to lead Germany. Poor judgement.
Dr. Kittel should be questioned intensively because of his poor judgement. Also, people deserve to know all the facts, and Johannes Behm confessed allegiance to Hitler. You are attempting to defend Thieme despite Thieme's lexicon references to nazis Kittel\Behm. To be clear, Thieme did support the Jews.

I support the Jews.

However, we don't need a bunch of "confused" christians running around immorally submitting to "earthly" nazi-like authority (despite thier beliefs or sympathies), in the present or future.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: 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.


gene: He made me think

Truthtesty: Intresting choice of words gene. "he made" you? would you describe that to us?

Thieme requests you to have an open mind, but did Thieme have one?

Thieme BOC 1972:
Now, whenever anyone's tradition is shattered, you're going to hear a lot of flak! Emotion usually takes over instead of thoughtful consideration, and the first thing people say is, "If Dr. So and So didn't say it that way, it can't be right!" It never occurs to them that Dr. So and So may have given little study to that particular subject and simply took the traditional view, or that he may not have had the benefit of the original languages of the Bible. However, the blood is mentioned in the Bible, and it is significant; and that is the whole purpose of this analysis - to establish its true meaning. In so doing, I am going to cut into one of the greatest areas of prejudice and traditionalism in Christianity today! My objective in this study is to continue on the foundation which Dr. Walvoord has laid and to define some of the still unexplained terminology, such as "the blood shed on Calvary." I trust you will approach this subject with an open mind

Truthtesty:

It is true Thieme said FOR YOU to keep an open mind.

But does Thieme teach with an open mind? No. The example is Thieme's deceptive "leaving out" of all the facts as I recently described of the figurative meaning of Arndt\Gingrich "literal blood and literal life", although Thieme uses Arndt\Gingrich to support his deceptive meaning. Where's Thieme's open mind in this deception?

Truthtesty post: And in those choices for our beliefs WE SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL THE FACTS!. It was dishonest and deceitful of Thieme to directly contradict the figurative meaning of literal blood and literal life in "blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25" in Arndt and Gingrich. For over 30 years Thieme used the fact that Arndt and Ginrgich said blood was used figuratively. For over 30 years Thieme never let people know the difference between Thieme's figurative meaning and Arndt and Gingrich's figurative literal meaning.

AN OPEN MIND LIKE A BEAR-TRAP! That open mind is only for Thieme's opinions to deviate from some standard teachings on historic christianity, then it snaps shut. Thieme goes on to blast anyone who disagrees with his teachings. That open mind snaps shut after Thieme boasts his predjudice. The token of Thieme's concept of open mind was only cashable at Bereichah. Thieme never allowed other speakers to speak at Bereichah, unless it was one of his puppet deacons.

I can see why Thieme quit allowing people to ask questions. He certainly didn't want any questions about Arndt\Gingrich.

Also, ironically Thieme was wrong about what Dr. Walvoord's foundation (as I have also shown on this forum).

Thieme's clone churches and tape groups were/are near exact copies of what Thieme said, including the loaded language ie: rebound, super grace, ultra super grace, ultra ultra super grace etc...



Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: Again, you want it both ways. One can not voluntarily stop living, and bleed to death at the same time.


Truthtesty: I am not wanting it both ways. It's a fact, you can breath your last breath and bleed to death at the same time.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


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."


gene: 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.


Truthtesty:
Dr. Chafer disagrees.


Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:


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."


gene: 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.


Truthtesty:
Dr. Chafer disagrees.


Truthtesty

I am not quite sure what the problem is here.

Dr. Chafer neither agrees, nor disagrees.

He covered one aspect, I another.


In Christ, GeneZ