To the Forum: QuotezeebrookGood grief Mr Moderator. How can you make such an outlandish declaration. "So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs." Common courtesy would have you at least phrase it as a question, "are you zeebrook here to defend Thieme and his beliefs?" Simple answer, No. Long answer follows: ... So I am not defending Thieme a
Forum: Destructive Churches

To thereporter: Excellent! Hah I always enjoy reading your posts. You capture and expose the essence of the sick spirit of Be-Reich-ah, in the many different facets, in raw detail. Truthtesty
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Take another look, z. Blood in this case is not referring to "blood equals death". Take, eat; this is my BODY Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Do you see the parallel sentence structures? Eat is referring to body. Drink is referring to blood. Those are indicating two separate dist
Forum: Destructive Churches

QuotezeebrookGood try Truthtesty. Brand me as espousing a Thieme doctrine, maybe that will deflect people for a while. Truthtesty: I am not trying to deflect people from anything except lies, that are stumbling blocks. I am not branding you anything. Your doing it yourself. The moderator asked me a question. I answered it. Thieme denied the efficacy of the Literal Shed Blood Of Jesus and you
Forum: Destructive Churches

To moderator: He is denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus. Yes Thieme denied the Shed Blood of Jesus too. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer(Thieme's teacher) considered that satanic. Truthtesty
Forum: Destructive Churches

QuotezeebrookWell Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions. Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: z quote: "The only relevant comment in the context of this debate is the phrase “the blood of Christ”. So let’s check that: unquote. Truthtesty: Let's ole boy. Shall we? Ok what did I say? (Hint compare whatever your theory with BLOOD OF the new testament, which is SHED for many for the remission of SINS.) z quote: Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32) “the phrase &#
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: I guess you have some catching up to do, z. Note above where I pointed out Morris' and Stibbs' basic simpleton errors. I tell you what z, You take the words of Morris, Behm, Stibbs and "many others". I'll take the direct words of Jesus. PROVE IT OTHERWISE. YOU CANT. MORRIS, BEHM, STIBBS AND "MANY OTHERS" IGNORE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE.
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Above I made the mistake of adding a question mark instead of a period, at the end of sentence: "Jesus is establishing the literalness of the literal Body and the literal Blood, in His Blood of the new covenant?" To me there is no question. Jesus' LITERAL BLOOD was shed for the remission of sins. Jesus established the literalness of the literal Body and the
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Morris quote: Twenty-five times the word indicates violent death, this being the largest group, as we have already seen to be the case in the Old Testament. A good example is the statement of St. Paul, 'when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by* (Acts 22"), for as that death was by stoning there is no emphasis on the literal outpouring o
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: It is one thing for a "scholar" to make a statement, it is another to back it up with facts. Morris quote: "Again, to speak of the life as in some way existent in the blood subsequent to the slaughter of the animal is to ignore the Hebrew stress on the connexion of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from thinking of an immaterial principle of life that
Forum: Destructive Churches

Quotezeebrook... Stibbs concluding paragraph (p32) In conclusion, therefore, we regretfully disagree with Bishop Westcott (to whose exposition of Scripture we owe so much) and with his many modern disciples, when they say that 'the blood of Christ' signifies His life released through death and thus made available for new uses; and we endorse as right the exegesis and the judgment
Forum: Destructive Churches

QuotezeebrookLeon Morris in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Third edition 1965) says of Hebrews 12:24 “There can be no doubt that the blood of Abel is a metaphorical way of referring to the death of that patriarch, and it is unnatural accordingly to interpret the blood of Jesus as signifying anything other than His death.” (page 125) This is what J. Behm's conclusion was which Morri
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: zeebrook quote: Stibbs on page 1 in the Preface to the Second Edition states in the very first line "Since this Lecture was delivered in 1947, a good brief summary of the same findings, namely that in Scripture the word 'blood' represents death,..". Believe Stibbs is clear as day on that one, remember first line of the preface to the book. end quote.
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: zeebrook quote: Still want to argue that Stibbs says its ongoing or that he was in any doubt about the issue or that he was not stating conclusively the point? I doubt it. He is patently clear. Truthtesty: No worries. You doubt wrong. Clear to you, but not reality. I prefer the term debate, if you see it as an argument that is on you. However, I do mostly disagree, because
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: zeebrook quote: "Again let us be plain, when the scriptures speak of "the blood of Christ" it is a reference to His death upon the cross. The shedding of blood means death as Stibbs conclusively proved in his word. The death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, the blood of Christ all point to His death as the substitute for mankind, that death accepted by God in
Forum: Destructive Churches

To Kcjones: The best I can remember is Thieme spitting some prejudiced venom about others having an "experience" of being saved. I don't remember him ever saying something like "I was saved while..." Truthtesty
Forum: Destructive Churches

QuotezeebrookTruthtesty is making a common mistake of assuming every reference in a lexicon is applicable to every text. Yes Arndt and Gingrich do list a number of meanings to the term haima but it is always the context that determines the meaning of word at that point. Thus Ardnt and Gingrich are saying that when you see the mention of blood with reference to Jesus it is “blood and life as an
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: My mistake above I should have said above: "If not why not? If NOT (instead of if so) are you denying the virgin birth to say the literal Shed Precious Blood is not Precious? Unlike ours? I think so." Truthtesty
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Academics are one thing and as we have seen academics are usually part of institutions and are not always honest nor always necessarily in touch with reality. The real question is what does the annointing's truth teach you? 1 John 2:27. I'd like to further point to a reference Dr. Waite and Rev. Walters ("others" who disagree with "figurative only&
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum (in reference to what zeebrook said): 1st there are not many many others. Here is one example of "others" who disagree with Thieme, when Thieme ignorantly tried to point to these "others" as supporting his (Blood of Christ equals figurative only) argument. Thieme was just ignorant and wrong. But Thieme still delivered this false poisoned kool-aid "quo
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Again, the Morris controversy here is not about literal or figurative to literal blood per se. It is actually, a Protestant the "" term "blood" equals death"" vs Catholic the ""term "blood" equals blood equals life"" controversy. zeebrook is taking Morris' SUMMARIZATIONS to SPECIFIC extremes. Morris: "Thus
Forum: Destructive Churches

QuoteSynergyConDid Christ pay the price for all sins by physical death or spiritual death? Truthtesty: If you have a theory then prove it. Bring your evidence. It was 1 death. It should go without saying that orthodox Dr. Chafer said (paraphrasing) that there are physical ASPECTS and spiritual ASPECTS to the ONE death and life given up. Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 313 The Death of Christ
Forum: Destructive Churches

To mvan6766: You are welcome. The information and effective techniques for dealing with Thieme's falsehoods and other falsehoods are here to free people. I suggest that if you do not understand something that you firstly do not assume that there is "something wrong" with your "age", "you", and/or etc... All men/women make mistakes. I also submit that co
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Also,there may be some question as to what Nazi Johannes Behm's opinion actually was and his method of speech.And I believe in being thorough.I currently have the original document by Behm written in a really strange german font. I will try to get this professionally translated and present what it says. It may say the same thing as has been presented. In that case, which of
Forum: Destructive Churches

To awdiovisionary: Welcome. As you can probably tell this place get's a bit "sporty" sometimes. I do not judge you for your agnostic state. After what you went through(we all went through something similar) I am not surprised that you are agnostic. My suggestion is to give up on what people speak about G-d, but don't give up on G-d. Sometimes I think people give up
Forum: Destructive Churches

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!
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Neither, I, nor zeebrook is another man's annointing. 1 John 2:27 zeebrook: It is misleading to think that Morris is holding to your view of Christ's literal blood being literally shed as our salvation. Whilst he, and I also, believe that Christ did die on the cross, that he shed his blood (= His death), and that He also bled some, it was his death that saves (and
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Dr. Wall dissertation quote: "In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically but also impossible theologically." Dr. Wall quote: See also Leon Morris's study of the
Forum: Destructive Churches

To the Forum: Thieme continued his attack on the literal Shed Blood of Christ. But? Thieme's attack false and he sited "evidence" which did not exist: 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 Truthtesty: Arndt and Gingrich "haima": haima 1. l
Forum: Destructive Churches