I have been away to try and gather some information.


I am back for the moment to see how this is received.......



First.... Those involved here must realize what its like to see his/her church being attacked in this type of forum.

Second.... Those involved here are obliged to verify first hand for themselves to see if the vilification is warranted.


Third... Those involved here should try to see if those speaking against have not an agenda of their own.




I would like to quote Rick Ross after he was asked a question in an interview:

http://gothamist.com/2005/07/18/rick_ross_cult_expert.php


What advice would you give to a friend or family member of someone who appears to be becoming part of a "cult"?

Quote

Don't overreact. Don't be confrontational. You may be wrong.

First, carefully and discretely research the group in question and educate yourself. Then make an informed decision about how you can best respond. Before taking any action get a second, even a third opinion from people and/or professionals you trust. Don't jump to any conclusions before a process of due diligence. Keep all communication as open as possible and strengthen continuing goodwill with the person you are concerned. [end quote]


What has me concerned.... How can one discretely research the group in question with the way this thread is going? When the complaint is coming from someone who has personal reasons for attacking? Should not one go to the group itself and find out what was actually taught? Rick Ross also warned that you may be wrong. He is allowing some here to overreact, which he warns against. He is allowing some here to be highly confrontational, which he warns against. I wish he would control both sides of the argument.

I would wish for the RR institute to personally order materials from R.B. Thieme Jr, ministries. Cults are never based upon theological disagreements alone. And, that is all this long thread has turned into. I did not come here to debate the Blood of Christ, etc. That is not what a cult is about.



No money asked for, and no price for all the materials of Robert Thieme's teachings. Again, that is not how a cult functions.


GeneZ

Truthtesty in many posts used the book given by Dr. Wall as proof of Robert Thieme's warranting rejection.


But... Truthtesty failed to reveal the intro to the book in its context.

Let's take a look:

Quote

A balanced and fair evaluation of the extensive teachings of Robert Thieme has been
overdue. The writer of this volume has achieved a balance between proper recognition of
the good qualities of the teaching ministry of Colonel Robert B. Thieme and at the same
time a candid evaluation and critique. The author has had a long and warm relationship
to Colonel Thieme which has enabled him to show proper appreciation of those aspects
of his ministry which are commendable. At the same time, he has not blindly ignored
problems which many have noted in these same teachings. As one who has had a long
personal relationship with Colonel Thieme, I have been distressed both by those who
shower undiscerning praise upon his teachings as well as those who have been unfairly
critical.[end quote]

I noticed something that is not being put forth....


"I have been distressed both by those who shower undiscerning praise upon his teachings as well as those who have been unfairly critical."


Undiscerning praise occurs in many a ministry. That is a given to be found almost universally in churches where a communicator is effective in getting his message across.

Dr. Wall states that he was aware of something else, as well. Those who were unfairly critical.


I ask you? If Robert Thieme was such a monster Truthtesy portrays him to be? How could any criticism be seen as unfair? And, if RBT was the monster as Truthtesy portrays? Why would Dr. Wall also speak well of Robert Thieme?


Which, in my opinion, is the type that is protesting Robert Thieme receives in this forum. Unfairly critical. In no way was Dr. Wall trying to condemn the ministry of Robert Thieme, as Truthtesty would have us believe. And, Dr, Wall even back then, saw in some the tendency in some to be unfairly critical.

Who are the unfairly critical Dr. Wall spoke of?


I think that says enough...




In Christ, GeneZ

To the Forum:


Truthtesty: Personally, I would say Thieme's cult is a "sleeper cult". Although Thieme's cult is highly trained to obey the law, if there were 3 or 4 liberal democrat presidents in a row, you would see Thieme's cult become very active in anti-government activities. I don't think Thieme's cult would be so law abiding, at that point it would become a full-fledged destructive cult.

gene: Truthtesy? You must be really counting on others here not to know anything about the ministry if you really think that is to be believable.

Truthtesty: gene? "others" know exactly what I am talking about. Thieme exhibited unwarranted "extreme authority" and you know it.

gene: Yet, its quite revealing to see what you think. I am beginning to better understand why you are able to hate Thieme the way you do.

Truthtesty: gene? I hate evil. period. I am not the one running away and hiding.

gene: Thieme's ministry was not simply highly trained to obey the law. Many in the ministry were in law enforcement itself.

Truthtesty: gene? I have no problems with law enforcement personnel (I am prior US Military (combat vet)). I support law enforcement, but that means everyone equally. With Thieme speaking out against the "bleeding heart" liberals who love civil rights, and Thieme calling black people "melanoderms", hispanics "spics", and italians "wops", etc... Thieme is teaching "christian fascism" and predjudice from the "christian pulpit". Thieme's coercive teaching could effect the judgement and actions of law enforcement personnel, especially in the use of "deadly force" in a violent emergency.

gene: This is really getting to sound loony. I have at times tried to see things from your perspective. On this one, you have completely gone off the map. If you had attended the DC Conferences like I have, you would have seen men holding positions at the Pentagon. Men who's job was to be defending our land.

Truthtesty: gene? loony? Quit trying to to lead people off the map. If you think that I have "gone off the map" there are others who agree with what I am saying about Thieme. ie: ""Sieg Heil at Houston," The Wittenberg Door, April-May, 1977, pp. 22-24.

gene: What can I say. That's simply pathetic. If you stood before those men and had the mic? You would not be able to look up and look them in the eyes and speak. Sad to see such thinking.

Truthtesty: gene? pathetic? Is everyone seeing this? gene "who runs away" falsely tells you that I cannot look them in the eyes and speak. gene "who runs away" is jumping to another premature false conclusion about my view of law enforcement. It is you gene that cannot face the truth. It is you gene, that runs away, as you have done before. It is you gene that has run away again. gene? You prematurely jump to false conclusions with your careless judgement. I have no problems looking anyone in the eye and speaking.


To the Forum:


Hitler spoke of "the Lord" many times in his speeches:
Hitler speech: The German people are no longer the people without honor, the people of disgrace, self destructive, narrow minded, with little faith. No, God, the German people have become strong again in their spirit, strong in their will. Lord, we do not let you go. Now bless our struggle, our liberty, and with that our German people and our fatherland. [speakingoffaith.publicradio.org]

I watched "Theologians Under Hitler" [www.amazon.com]

Kittel and Thieme are near identical. You could replace the - German church with Beriechah Church - and except for the fact that Thieme spoke in favor of the Jews, you can see an exact replica of "Kirche/Volk" "Church/Nation" fascism that emerged in christianity pre and during Hitler's rise to power. Bereichah fascism does not merely support law enforcement, Thieme spoke against true democracy of the people and civil rights of "We the people". So did Hitler. It was this christian fascist support for a dictatorial "christian leader", which gave rise to Hitler in Germany, just as and this type of "christian fascism" support at Bereichah, gives "christian pulpit" support to a would-be dictatorial "christian" leader today.

One of the speakers in "Theologians Under Hitler", Dr. Doris Bergen, (summarizing) asked who "in the chain of complicity" was most responsible for the tradgedy of the Jews and Anne Frank? It was the christian pastor using the power of the pulpit and the authority of the church to preach and teach hatred and prejudice. It was the "guilty" nazi german christian pastor who taught that it was not only acceptable, but desireable to hate, fear, and attack fellow human beings, who was the most complicit in the tragedy.

Another speaker, Dr. Hartmut Lehmann, Goettingen University (summarizing) Those german christian theologians given thier elements of theological thinking it was in a "way" logical that they would support the nazis. On the otherhand since christianity has so much independence, non-conformity, and freedom of conscience they should have seen that injustice was injustice, that violence is violence, that brutality is brutality, that human rights are something basic, also in religous terms that freedom of conscience is something of an elementary fundemantal nature. That they would sacrifice all that is deeply dissappointing.

So I ask you thiemites, how many atrocities of conscience will you commit in support of your Fuhrer? How many atrocities of conscience will you commit in the name of christianity? towards yourself? towards others?



Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty

sm" support at Bereichah, gives "christian pulpit" support to a would-be dictatorial "christian" leader today.

One of the speakers in "Theologians Under Hitler", Dr. Doris Bergen, (summarizing) asked who "in the chain of complicity" was most responsible for the tradgedy of the Jews and Anne Frank? It was the christian pastor using the power of the pulpit and the authority of the church to preach and teach hatred and prejudice. It was the "guilty" nazi german christian pastor who taught that it was not only acceptable, but desireable to hate, fear, and attack fellow human beings, who was the most complicit in the tragedy.

Another speaker, Dr. Hartmut Lehmann, Goettingen University (summarizing) Those german christian theologians given thier elements of theological thinking it was in a "way" logical that they would support the nazis. On the otherhand since christianity has so much independence, non-conformity, and freedom of conscience they should have seen that injustice was injustice, that violence is violence, that brutality is brutality, that human rights are something basic, also in religous terms that freedom of conscience is something of an elementary fundemantal nature. That they would sacrifice all that is deeply dissappointing.

So I ask you thiemites, how many atrocities of conscience will you commit in support of your Fuhrer? How many atrocities of conscience will you commit in the name of christianity? towards yourself? towards others?

You are well aware of the fact that the moderators here are mostly Jewish in background. The term "Nazi" therefore, holds a strong emotional implication.

Now, tell us all.

What was Robert Thieme's attitude towards Anti-Semitism?

What did he tell the congregation about allowing knowingly having Anti-semitics to attend?

Let's see what you are going to say. It appears you keep on trying to paint Robert Thieme with Nazi motifs, and quite often, in a forum moderated by a good number of Jewish moderators.

What was Robert Thieme's stand on Israel? Was he anti-Israel? Was he anti-Semitic?

Your turn.


GeneZ

To the Forum:


gene: Everyone can witness to the fact that Truthtesty has many posts which repeat the same theme of commentary - over and over - again.

Truthtesty: I have many themes of commentary.


gene: I finally gave one post with documentation , and he gives a weak rebuff... then quickly diverted away.


Truthtesty: You "Finally gave one post with documentation" can certainly be appreciated seeing how most of your posts have no documentation whatsoever. Weak? quickly diverted away? I am not the one that runs away gene. I am right here right now.


gene: to refute his ongoing claim

Truthtesty: Which ongoing claim? Did I say that no one else attacked the blood of Christ? no I didn't. Are there others who attacked the blood of Christ? Probably. Each would need to be looked into carefully. I have many "ongoing claims". I have limited time. I am currently focusing on the blood of Christ issue. There are other cult issues with Thieme, that I have already shown evidence for on this forum. It is disingenienous, dishonest, and not even an accurate description of my current "ongoing claim" for you to make such a unsupported broad charge, while leaving out the specifics of my statements. Right now I am doing research within the Thieme trilogy. As I posted before:

_{TruthtestyPosted: 06-14-2007 08:07 PM
To break the grip of the psycological bond that Thieme holds over many of his most extreme followers, they need to see with thier own eyes the errors Thieme has made from Thieme's own references. You can beat YOUR IDEA of truth over the head of a cult member all day, it won't do any good. They are programmed to doubt whatever you say. You must show them exactly how thier cult leader is false. So Thiemites need to go through the exercise of what Thieme has referenced. This is the reason that I have produced factual evidence for the Thieme-Chafer-DTS trilogy. I have produced evidence for Thiemites to develop thier own critical eye(critical thinking), while recovering from Thieme, however they choose to. It is within the microcosm of the Thieme-Chafer-DTS trilogy, that I seek to prove Thieme's falsehoods.}

Truthtesty: Thieme as far as I know never mentioned Bullinger or Wesley. If he did bring the evidence to this forum.

gene: He did not address what was actually said. He gave a speculative quick answer, but did not deal with what was said. Here it is for others to see what he could not refute.

Truthtesty: Could not refute? lol Almost all theologians today agree that the blood of Christ is figurative/literal. ie: (Dr. Wall synecdoche) the blood of Christ was figurative for the death(total death) of Christ and that it also included Jesus' literal shed blood.

gene: What did Charles Wesley say in reference to the blood of Christ?

Truthtesty: This is not Wesley speaking alone, this is John R. Tyson mostly referencing others: nazi Kittel\Behm, Rattenbury, etc...

Something of importance to note in ref 26: "As I did not see these before they were published, there were some things in them which I did not approve of."

The blood of Christ does symbolize the death of Jesus(total death), but it also includes his literal shed blood. It is true alot of people do not understand "blood" is symbolic for "total death", but on the flip side it is not correct for the people who do understand this, to totally exclude and perform a "blitzgrieg attack" on the literal shed blood of Jesus either. This was a "blood sacrifice" of God\Man, albeit that separation from the Father is not widely recogized as being a part of the "blood of Christ". You can see how many times blood is referenced in the bible. Blood is very significant to God, one example is: God needed to see the evidence of blood smeared on doorposts in Passover, just killing the animal was not enough.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


gene: Truthtesy has been saying the concept all began with Robert Thieme in Houston, back in the 60's. That is not the case. And, according to the fact that Truthtesy is saying Thieme is a cult based upon this doctrinal teaching? He in turn, has declared Charles Wesley, and E.W Bullinger, to be a cult leaders.

Truthtesty: gene again you have misrepresented what I have stated. Was it not Thieme who made this claim? Thieme did start his "spiritual death only" theory back in the 1960's. I recall thieme claiming that he had made a "breakthrough discovery", that had lied hidden for thousands of years. I recall Thieme referencing Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and Dr. Scofield (who disagree with Thieme on the blood of Jesus).

Were there others who spoke of spiritual death only? Maybe there were, but Thieme said he discovered it. Each needs to be looked into carefully, not cart blanch. Were Wesley and Bullinger cultists? Research it. Did Wesley and Ethlebert Bullinger proclaim "spiritual death only"? Research it. If they did was it throughout thier entire lives? Research it. Were Wesley and Ethlebert Bullinger fascist authoritarians of thier day? Research it.


Truthtesty

Gene Z:

Didn't you say you were leaving this message board?

The Ross Institute and/or its message board moderators have no special interest in Thieme and moderators are not interested in listening to his tapes.

Quote
rrmoderator
Gene Z:

Didn't you say you were leaving this message board?

The Ross Institute and/or its message board moderators have no special interest in Thieme and moderators are not interested in listening to his tapes.

I left because this thread was becoming one big broken record with the same fragmented song blasting every day.

I came back because I thought had something new to contribute and ask.


I also notice in one web page that Rick Ross does not believe in getting into doctrinal differences concerning churches. But, this thread is what it is almost all about.

One of the most important reasons was to come back and ask Truthtesy what I did concerning Dr. Wall's book. I am awaiting Truthrtesty's response.

GeneZ:

You have been "one big broken record" offering endless apologies for Thieme, which is apparently the only reason you are here.

Pointing out doctrinal issues at times can be helpful, to distinguish one group from another.

Preaching for the purpose of proselytizing is against the rules.

Thieme was an obscure preacher that had his own idiosyncratic beliefs and teachings, which were not mainstream and defined him.

Truthtesty has laid that out and you have helped to clarify this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2007 06:14AM by rrmoderator.

To the Forum:


Truthtesty: Hold on gene, before you run away again.

I asked gene this question many times.

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 asked gene this question many times. gene was evasive. Finally gene PM'd this to me in a "private message"

gene "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is a different substance."


Truthtesty:

That is not an answer to people who use common sense. That is not an answer which thinks through and applies logic to the theory as a whole.

So thiemites, what would that "different substance" be?

Could that "different substance" be "flesh and blood"?

gene COULD have said " "If he died as the Angel of Jehovah? It could not work. For the sins of our human flesh could not be imputed to the body of an angel who is not "flesh and blood".

gene tries to put as much distance between "flesh and blood" as possible, by using "other" words "different substance"

So logically gene, tell this forum how our sins of the flesh could only be IMPUTED into the "flesh and blood" of Jesus. Answer this gene if sins could only be imputed through Jesus' "flesh and blood" Would not that make "flesh and blood" efficacious? Efficacious and necessary for salvation? Yes. It would.

Yes! The flesh and blood of Jesus WERE/ARE necessary and efficacious and they performed thier part in God's process(s).

Thus the reverse is proven to be true. "It" in "it is finished" does not refer only to "spiritual death only".

Thieme's "spiritual death only" theory, is proven incorrect.



Truthtesty