Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 101

Thread: I Thank God for Col. R.B. Thieme Jr.

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainout View Post
    Isaiah 53:10-11 says He paid for our sins with His THINKING, not His Physical blood. Hebrew keywords are me amal naphesho and bedato yatsdiq . The Chapter started off (really in 52:13) by saying through the mastery of knowledge He will do these things. Then you also have Matt4:4. As for the dual deaths on the Cross, that is also in Isaiah, baldly connecting the dots from Genesis 2:7's plural lives (hayyim), to Gen2:17's plural deaths (muth-tamoth), to 53:8's plural lives again (hayyim), an appositive the translators missed; then to 53:9's plural deaths (bemotayw). I'm transliterating roughly as BHT does, so you should be able to see these things in BibleWorks if you look up the verses. I did videos on them also (using BibleWorks), but presume you can see it more quickly from BibleWorks.

    In short, the support to say He paid spiritually by THINKING is Biblical. Souls sin, and therefore thought must be paid by thought while still living, tetelestai. Hope this short explanation helps.
    Your explanation reads like the teaching of a guy who bought the lexicon but forgot the grammar. For example, "by His knowledge" does not have to be the act of justification (i.e., saved by knowledge), but the ground upon which the Servant performs His act of justification (He knows, therefore He sheds His blood on the cross).

    The Genesis 2:7 thing is taken out of context: "breath of lives"..."living soul." Adam didn't have multiple lives; the breath allowed (and allows) multiple lives to come forth through reproduction; he was only one living soul. "Plural deaths" in Genesis 2:17 ("muth-tamoth") is listed as singular in BW.

    The same ideas hold in 53:8-9--"land of the lives," as you would translate it, does not refer to multiple lives in each person, but to the aggregate of individual lives in the land; and, again, verse nine's "bemotayw" is singular in BW.

    If I've got any facts backwards, somebody let me know. However, this whole thing smells like week-old tuna.
    Last edited by bobvenem; 08-30-2009 at 09:05 AM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobvenem View Post
    Your explanation reads like the teaching of a guy who bought the lexicon but forgot the grammar. For example, "by His knowledge" does not have to be the act of justification (i.e., saved by knowledge), but the ground upon which the Servant performs His act of justification (He knows, therefore He sheds His blood on the cross).

    The Genesis 2:7 thing is taken out of context: "breath of lives"..."living soul." Adam didn't have multiple lives; the breath allowed (and allows) multiple lives to come forth through reproduction; he was only one living soul. "Plural deaths" in Genesis 2:17 ("muth-tamoth") is listed as singular in BW.

    The same ideas hold in 53:8-9--"land of the lives," as you would translate it, does not refer to multiple lives in each person, but to the aggregate of individual lives in the land; and, again, verse nine's "bemotayw" is singular in BW.

    If I've got any facts backwards, somebody let me know. However, this whole thing smells like week-old tuna.
    In a short forum, one must succinctly state the sources. I see you didn't think over the fact that many other verses tie to those cited. I cover those verses in the roughly 3 hours of videos I did tracing all of the above terms to show how Bible uses them -- which is not as you state here. Sadly, people engage in soundbyte exegesis, and thus overlook the importance of the plurals here.

    The plurals resolve centuries-old theological conundra about body, soul, spirit, how sins got paid on the cross, the nature of physical death, the spiritual maturation process post-salvation, and how you can actually become Christlike in your soul, yet remain a fallible human at the same time. Over the next 10 years, others who notice the importance of these plurals will be able to reconcile the conundra. As for the hoi polloi who reject anything new, well.. for them, it will take longer.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    "...AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD..." Revelation 5:9

    "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19

    "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION." Hebrews 9:22

    "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

    "Unto him that loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD." Revelation 1:5

    Those Scriptures (and many more) thoroughly refute the blashphemy of Thieme.

    And only those who are ignorant of history think that Thieme's doctrine is new.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    "...AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD..." Revelation 5:9

    "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19

    "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION." Hebrews 9:22

    "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

    "Unto him that loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD." Revelation 1:5

    Those Scriptures (and many more) thoroughly refute the blashphemy of Thieme.

    And only those who are ignorant of history think that Thieme's doctrine is new.
    I notice you didn't research the Isaiah 53 connections either, to understand the metaphorical meaning of Blood as CIRCULATING TRUTH, a theme in the Bible from Genesis forward. He can't say tetelestai and be dead at the same time, and mindless corpuscles can't pay God Who Has No Body for sins made by thought while alive in a body. Thought sins. Thought of Truth Pays for Sins.

    This is Bible, not Thieme. Thieme just happened to be one (now a group) of pastors who recognized what the Bible means by 'blood' with reference to the Cross. But even if there were no one, the Bible is plain when it talks about the 'heart' circulating thought. Thought is the 'blood' of the soul, and me amal naphesho, Isaiah 53:11, not me amal ha damah.

    So the one blaspheming, is not the Bible, surely.

    Time for soundbyte theology to end, and now that we have fabulous software like BibleWorks, for deep theology to begin. We can now prove in minutes what took past scholars months to even collate. So let's stop standing pat on kindergarten answers which in past times were necessary due to limited research capability. And above all, let us go back to the Bible, rather than what A versus B human said. Bible has its own way of phrasing things. If one pastor gets some things right, that's nice, but not to be deified, as Calvinism does Calvin. Nor as some Thieme people do Thieme.

    It's about God and only about Him. And Bible says Christ paid for sins with His Thinking Word, which He lived on, Matt4:4. Not, mindless corpuscles.
    Last edited by brainout; 08-30-2009 at 12:06 PM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainout View Post
    I notice you didn't research the Isaiah 53 connections either...
    What I notice -- and what everyone else will notice -- is that you didn't research the PLAIN statements of the Scripture references that I just quoted.

    All you've just done is demonstrated the mind of a cultist in technicolor.

    I quoted a host of actual PLAIN Scriptures dealing with the blood of Jesus Christ.

    Instead of dealing with the PLAIN Scriptures on the blood of Jesus Christ, you attempt to divert the truth with a halluncinogenic parlor trick by focusing on a GENERAL attribution of Scripture made hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah and which only fortifies the SPECIFIC statements that were made by the Holy Spirit AFTER the Messiah came.

    Let me clue you in on something...

    Isaiah 53 doesn't NEGATE the Scriptures I've quoted.

    Go and learn what that meaneth.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    What I notice -- and what everyone else will notice -- is that you didn't research the PLAIN statements of the Scripture references that I just quoted.

    All you've just done is demonstrated the mind of a cultist in technicolor.

    I quoted a host of actual PLAIN Scriptures dealing with the blood of Jesus Christ.

    Instead of dealing with the PLAIN Scriptures on the blood of Jesus Christ, you attempt to divert the truth with a halluncinogenic parlor trick by focusing on a GENERAL attribution of Scripture made hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah and which only fortifies the SPECIFIC statements that were made by the Holy Spirit AFTER the Messiah came.

    Let me clue you in on something...

    Isaiah 53 doesn't NEGATE the Scriptures I've quoted.

    Go and learn what that meaneth.
    No, I researched this issue years ago, and wrote a webpage on it, tracing 'blood' throughout the Bible to prove it's a metaphor for thinking. You don't understand Biblical metaphors. Alas, in a short forum, I don't have time to explain it.

    This is about God. How He got paid for sins. It is not a topic for sniping. And with that, I will not reply to you further. Good bye.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainout View Post
    This is about God. How He got paid for sins.
    Actually, your statement is telling yet again, for it's more about Jesus Christ and how HE paid for our sins, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:25-26

    Enough said for all who are actually loyal to Jesus Christ, and not to a mere man, and who can sing with those who are truly redeemed...

    "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." Revelation 5:9-10
    Last edited by Adelphos; 08-30-2009 at 12:44 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Brainout,

    I don't know. A straightforward reading of Scripture in context strikes me as more profitable than multi-hour audio and video word studies proving a theory.

    Thanks for the quick reply, though.

  9. #49

    Default

    So, Brainout, the communion cup ("is my blood") is a metaphor for a metaphor?

    There is a simpler, more grammatico-historical explanation.
    Dan Phillips
    Books:Web presence:
    tfo+[]l;w> hw"hy> tr:AT-ta, vArd>li Abb'l. !ykihe ar"z>[, yKi

    s `jP'(v.miW qxo laer"f.yIB. dMel;l.W

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    There is one thing that Thieme and his followers and I agree on...

    I have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Thieme and his followers, by their own admission, have not been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

    On that we TOTALLY agree.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •