Quote
Truthtesty
brainout quote

Quote

I wanted pm rights so I could get away from you. You didn't know me, you jumped on me for initially posting to Galiban and GeneZ. But when you actually asked me a question, I thought -- ok, I'll try to reply in a manner befitting this forum's purpose. This you rebuffed, and your vitriol continues.

Bye, testy. I didn't come here to defend Thieme or debate you.

Bye and pardon me if I don't believe you or don't pardon me. You have done nothing but defend Thieme since you arrived. You said you wanted pm rights but after the 10 necessary you kept going on defending Thieme and speaking directly at the Thieme cult issue. Thieme chose the method of not answering his critics, because his doctrinal positions were untenable and it would bring down his house of cards. I merely answered your question about "Paul" the abortion. (Which you didn't know) I also replied with definitions of your quote

Quote

"Galiban, look up how Paul uses "haphe" in Eph4:11-16 in context; that will cinch the "right pastor" idea you were looking for, I'm sure. It was clear to me in the Greek, anyway. Also look up the etymology of sumbibazw and sunarmologew."

I logically gave you the definitions of haphe, sumbibazw, and sunarmologew.

I said it did not explain Thieme's false doctrine of right pastor that one pastor has sole authority overs his own congregation.

Like I said if you speak at the Thieme cult issue on this CULT FORUM I am going to comment. You said you would not reply, but you do you reply to me. You just won't reply logically answering a question that I have asked you. Maybe you won't reply this time.

I will finish commenting on what you have stated, when I have more time.

Truthtesty

One more time, sir.

What are your qualifications to be able to state that what Dr. Wall wrote is correct and accurate? You, who despise Christians (History Channel Forum) are here to lecture Christians on what is to be correct doctrinal teaching?

You do not qualify. Yet, you do qualify to bash. Which is what you do with the skill of a school yard bully.

How are you qualified to know if what Dr. Wall states is truth?


You are not qualified.

In Christ, GeneZ

Thank you for your comments. The only "qualification" idea I could maybe add, is the fact that 1978 was a long time ago for both Dr. Wall and Col. Thieme. One matures over the ensuing 30 years even more than one had been.

Example: could you or I look back on the development of the theology back then in the late 70's, and find it now but barely recognizable? Not that it was wrong, but it was soo much simpler in scope.

Remember when Thieme said he wanted to throw out all of what he taught prior to 1985, when he started teaching Ephesians then? It was only with great effort that he was dissuaded from throwing the pre-85 stuff out, which frankly is exegesis-heavy (thank you DAD I have it all on tape). I personally can't understand what Thieme (who is my own right pastor, never mind he's dying now) -- I can't understand what he means UNTIL I hear the exegesis. Dunno why that is.

I was there in Houston those four years (taper before and after), and in the seven-year-long series of daily classes, you'll hear him start OVER three times, mad at himself for not getting the teaching right enough. That self-criticism made him keep upgrading what he taught, so far as I can tell in the tapes. The amount of theological advance beats anything I can find on the internet. I didn't appreciate all that, back then.

Odd thing is, from my perspective he was only REFINING what he said prior. Guy was hard on himself.

So I'm sure Dr. Wall also has matured greatly in his teaching as well. If we students are made to mature so much, how much more, whomever are our haphes?

What was it the Lord said? "A student is not above his teacher. It is enough for a student to be like his teacher." Guess the Lord was a cult leader, huh. Mathetes must be morons, huh.

Thanks again for your posts.

GeneZ, the charges made against Thieme both here and elsewhere are very narrowly restricted to old material which is construed as pejorative. So the accusers are open to the charge of not using current data, of sleighting the facts. Ok, but what if they had current data? Then they could not be accused of at least the lacunae in their factline.

So I'll try here to categorize the major doctrinal advances made since 1979 which I've been able to 'see' in BibleWorks Hebrew and Greek Bible texts, since that's the only way I know to test any teaching or tenet from anyone. But I've got to resort to 'our' vocabulary so you can identify what doctrines under Thieme, I mean. If your church uses a different vocabulary, this experiment won't work. So I'll just list one thing for now, to test whether I should use 'our' vocabulary.

[b:faa6ab9688]All this matters for the forum, as one of the charges against Thieme is that he developed a vocabulary for teaching.[/b:faa6ab9688] How can one avoid developing a vocabulary when one is charged with extended exposition, is beyond me. (Socrates talked a lot, so invented words to make his previous references simpler to recall, for example.) Every teacher must develop a teaching vocabulary to avoid detours, to advance the exposition. Vocabulary is to logic, what math symbols are to math formulas. You can't see the 'flow' without them.

[b:faa6ab9688]I figure that the test of a cult is that it teaches falsely[/b:faa6ab9688], never mind all the gossip about it. [b:faa6ab9688]So test the teaching, itself.[/b:faa6ab9688]

So let's start with THE foundational advance in Thieme since 1979 (I have all his classes through 2001). The verses I post here I didn't necessarily get from Thieme, but I DID get from searching the Bible on the keywords. So I'm not sure what verses Thieme uses, would have to dig out the tapes. In short I can back up the doctrine, but not necessarily using the same verses. They say the true test of a thing is that one can find independent routes yet derive the same answer (i.e., the ARM64 method in IRS business valuation).

1. [b:faa6ab9688]"Divine Dynasphere" as the Power Structure for the spiritual life, thus accounting for the stress on MECHANICS of thought-skill training.[/b:faa6ab9688] That's just a fancy term from the Greek for the Filling Ministry of the Spirit, 1Jn1:9, John 4:23-24, Eph 5:18, John 14:26, 1Cor2, Eph4:23, Eph4:11-16, 1Thess 5:19 (in context), all of James (especially his sarcasm in Jas 2:22, 26, lol), etc. In short, it's Spirit's Filling, Spirit's Power to enable one to perceive and live on Bible. This is what made me move to Houston. Greek verb katharizw is used for purifying the OT Temple so the Spirit could fill it, all over the LXX (94 occurrences, search on the root). So 1Jn1:7 uses katharizw and parallels that to the Cross, as does Isa53:10 in the LXX; so 1Jn1:9 demonstrates filling in the Temple of the Believer (so to speak) using the same keyword. So a Greek reader couldn't mistake that Filling comes from what the Col. termed 'rebound', which of course ties back to Ps32:5 and 66:18.

That's why Thieme did an about-face in 1985, coming up with the "Ten Problem-Solving Devices" (doctrinal thinking skills), etc. So if people were critical of him for being different back in 1978, they would be even more astounded at the development of those 'mechanics', culminating in 1992 Spiritual Dynamics (which spends about 11 years of daily classes, going in order on each of the Ten "PSDs" to show how Bible explains them).

[b:faa6ab9688]That the spiritual life IS a matter of thought-skills 'fired' every second you breathe, is illustrated in [/b:faa6ab9688]Psalm 119 (death march to Babylon, how they survived it based on thinking), Matt4:4, 1Cor2 (really all of 1Cor is on that topic of Head and Body so get His Head in yours, very witty; but you can't see it in translation), and all Ephesians is on this; Hebrews goes on to show why it's a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD function, and 1Jn (which I'm currently retranslating, not finished) is on the daily plodding. "Bringing every thought into captivity to Christ" is Paul's shorthand moniker for the process, 2Cor10:5.

What amazes me, is that Isaiah graphically illustrates how His Thinking paid for sins [b:faa6ab9688]on the Cross[/b:faa6ab9688], stressing the fact 21 times (either using naphesh directly, or by showing soul function and synonyms of it, like sakal). The Chapter opens with that stress (Isa52:13) using Ya-skil (hiphil of sakal, witty way to say God-Caused-Thinking-Skill). The Isaiah stress is something I'm currently working on (retranslating it over and over, trying to get a poem in English which works like his Hebrew). I haven't heard Thieme exegete Isaiah yet, have the tapes tho. So you decide what you think about it. I live and study alone, so am not in contact with Berachah people except occasionally through forums, my websites, or sometimes #apologetics on undernet.

Ok, that was a foray into the experiment. Idea to inform those wishing to criticize, what have been some main theological advances since.. golly, 1978! So if they criticise, it can be done more competently if they KNOW what has been taught. Kinda hard to criticize science, if one has an old textbook. Harder still, to criticize any teacher, not knowing what was taught.

Criticism is good, if informed.

GeneZ and Brainout,

Truthtesty is as qualified as you. He brings a lot of insight into this forum, and I appreciate his posts. You two bring nothing but Thieme rhetoric. It doesn't hold up. I read everything carefully, and I'm not impressed with your arguments.

Someday, perhaps you will be begging God to let Testy dip his finger in water and bring it to you so you can cool your tongue. You treat him as if he is a beggar outside the gate. I recommend that you be careful of how you judge.

Quote
HappyAndFree
GeneZ and Brainout,

Truthtesty is as qualified as you. He brings a lot of insight into this forum, and I appreciate his posts.

Of course you agree with his posts! You naturally agree with him. He is like a union leader gathering together malcontents on a job, to form a union to fight the boss they are envious of. So what? Rebel leaders always find those willing to folllow. In other words? (this is so ironic)... He would make a good cult leader!

Quote

You two bring nothing but Thieme rhetoric. It doesn't hold up. I read everything carefully, and I'm not impressed with your arguments.

You act as if the only teachers I have learned from is Thieme.

What a poor way to evaluate. By projecting condemnable qualities onto a person, which he does not possess. And, then condemn your own recreation of that person.

You do not know me. Yet, you act like you know me better than myself. You have no idea whom I have studied from, and what I do know.

I have been in other ministries. Where ever the pastor is effective? There will always be examples found of what those here try to pin on what went on at Berachah church. Seen it in other places, too. Always vicious in its approach, as well.

Quote

Someday, perhaps you will be begging God to let Testy dip his finger in water and bring it to you so you can cool your tongue.

Truthtesty [b:798f5b7cf8]condemns Christianity[/b:798f5b7cf8] openly in the Hisory Channel forum?! [b:798f5b7cf8] And, you raise Truthtesty up to that level in your heart? [/b:798f5b7cf8]

Everyone watching this? This is the kind of person who hates Thieme! I believe for those who keep an open mind, Happy and Free just vindicated those who came to the defense of Theme's name. Here he is raising someone up who viciously attacked Christianity, to the level of Abraham!

Quote

You treat him as if he is a beggar outside the gate. I recommend that you be careful of how you judge.

:roll: Sounds like Truthtesty can easily start his own cult.

For, he already has enough people who follow him blindly. Even though Truthtesty said he detests Christianit? Some here who claim to be Christian? Are willing to ignore all the warning signals to follow him?!

That says volumes, sir! It shouts it from the rooftops.

I think we have the making of secularized cult.

That's how its done folks. Someone raises himself up as a leader. Gathers around him malcontents. Demonizes a person to amplify his effect over the crowd, and then begins a cult. Free and happy has just shown us a perfect example of how it is done.

Free and Happy? I do not give a tinkers tootle what you think about me. You are ignoring all the clear warning signals because you have been blinded by your own hatred and bias.

You are a perfect candidate to become part of a secularized cult. For you will not listen to reason. Only to someone who appeals to your fears, hatred, and bias...

Moving on..... GeneZ

Happy and Free, I've tried to be on both sides of this question, because -- truth to tell -- I empathize with those who complain about the gushiness of SOME among the "thiemites" as you call them. As I stated earlier, I LEFT THE CHURCH because of that. But I found the teaching correct, so stayed on the tapes. MESSAGE, never mind who is the messenger.

So now I'm trying to illustrate what happened post-1978 since it seems that the internet criticism is too narrowly focused on 1978 and prior, hence any criticism levied, makes the one criticising, look disingenuous. If you want to criticise anyone, you should look at the whole, so that the criticism is apt and balanced.

Criticism is good, if informed. I'm not seeing INFORMED criticism here, and hopefully some will BEGIN to be generated. That's what this forum is about.

So, to that end, I'm thinking maybe I should post some of the major doctrines taught since 1978, since I know what they are. Then anyone can throw stones as desired. Doesn't matter that it's Thieme, really, this is the kind of procedure one should follow to test ANYONE who claims something about Bible.

Any popular pastor gets lambasted and criticised. Watchman Nee, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, Gene Scott, Arthur Murray have been or are all popular and because of that popularity, they came under scrutiny. Thieme's popularity doesn't even begin to compare with those folks. But, this forum is on him. So it becomes necessary to adopt a proper criticism procedure. That's all I'm trying to do.

Of course, if the response continues to be mere vitriol without substance, then there's no point in trying to go further.

While you were making your post, I was at the "Self-Realization Fellowship" forum in RRI. I was there, to get a better handle on what distinguishes a "cult" from extremely-zealous positive attitude. The moderator at the SRF forum "corboy" made some great posts which distinguish "cult" -- and, relating to your last post -- [u:30483cfd5f]shows how iconoclasm also creates cults[/u:30483cfd5f].

The SRF board is only five pages. If you scan it for "corboy" comments it wouldn't take long. I tried to paste the quote here, but I'm afraid it posted to that forum, instead.

Distinction seems to be three fold: 1. Does the leader ENCOURAGE OTHERS to treat him like a do-no-wrong 'savior'? Hence, there is bullying? 2. Is EMOTION, how one feels -- a criterion of spirituality? 3. Do they want your money?

To me the usually-omitted 4th criterion is the clincher: is the teaching FALSE? Else I can't distinguish between the overzealous attitude of the adherents, and whatever may or not be encouraged, by the leader.

Iconoclasm 'follows' the same 1-2-3 as above, and it's always based on some falsehood as an underpinning. I saw that fact "live" with those who got into SRF, with those who left whatever other faith they had, and changed to something else. So it doesn't seem to matter whether the rejected teacher/faith/tenet is right or wrong -- if the motive to leave is iconoclastic, then the person still spirals down like Paul says in Romans 1.

To Happy:

Thankyou for your support.

Truthtesty

GeneZ,

You are insignificant and irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. You have demonstrated your ignorance of God and His way throughout your posts.

You think you know so much, but you know so little.

GeneZ, according to the RRI FAQs, (Contact button, then click on FAQs), the definition of cult goes by BEHAVIOR, not by the beliefs of the organization. Not that beliefs aren't relevant, but rather what BEHAVIOR they produce, are the focus of these forums, alerts, etc.

So my foray in disclosing updates on Thieme's teaching post-'79, so that one can evaluate whether it deserves to be called 'cultic', appears to be outside the realm of this forum. I guess I shouldn't have posted it, and RRI was being kind to approve it.

[b:66fdafd642]That means I must exit this forum. [/b:66fdafd642] For to me, it's the TENETS which create the cult, no matter what the outside behavior.

To be sure, the psychological orientation of those in a given group will cause certain bad behaviors, as people can be quite obsessive over those in their periphery. But that's human nature, and as one matures he grows out of what Yellowbeard (in Self-Realization Fellowship forum) defined as "bliss bunny" or "bitter bunny" (iconoclastic) status. (As Yellowbeard and corboy there explain, iconoclasm has the same characteristics: an arresting, trying to knock down someone previously idolized, only shows that the idolization remains.)

I also now think I was somewhat over-reacting to the gushiness I saw at Berachah. It's just a phase people go through. Some never grow out of it, but you'll find such "bliss bunnies" and "bitter bunnies" in any faith.

Apparently it's the behavior which is the focus of the forum, so what I've got to say wouldn't help the dialogue. I'll therefore read, but will not likely say anthing further. The experiment I intended isn't what any of the RRI forums are about, it seems.

Thank you for your posts. I will continue to read them with interest.