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

Truthtesty.....

We should take this sort of debate where it belongs. In a Christian Forum.


In a forum where many will be learning about Thieme for the first time. One in which I

am not well known?

Your choice. You can invite your friends, and will invite mine. Or.. it will be just the

two of us, with others in the forum free to join in. I am sure you will find some to

side with you.



GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
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

Quote
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.

I will be accused of being an apologist again.

I have over the years had some insights of my own. I even thought I discovered it first. Only to find out later that hundreds of years ago another person had the same thought.

How can that happen? Simple. Its revealed in the Bible. It takes personal study and correlation.... insight. I really thought I discovered it. I was later surprised to find out I was not the first. But, when I first had the thought? And, never heard or seen it taught before in written or spoken teaching? I discovered it.


I discovered it for myself. Robert Thieme probably did discover it for himself. Those were pre-internet days where no one could do a world wide search and gather information that one would never know exists otherwise.

I had no idea what Charles Wesley believed. I had no idea what E.W. Bullinger believed. Yet, I knew both were serious students of the Bible. That is why I quoted them here.

Now.... accuse me of being an apologist.

GeneZ

Truthtesty...

One more vital thing. I am putting this before all here to see as witnesses.

If you should agree to take this doctrinal issue into a Christian forum where it belongs?


The issue will be the teaching only. It will not be a place to bring up Robert Thieme.


The message will be the issue.


You present your concept of the blood of Christ. I will present mine.



GeneZ

To the Forum:

Truthtesty: gene's trying to run again.

<sub>Quote:
Truthtesty
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</sub>


gene:
We should take this sort of debate where it belongs. In a Christian Forum.
In a forum where many will be learning about Thieme for the first time. One in which I
am not well known?
Your choice. You can invite your friends, and will invite mine. Or.. it will be just the
two of us, with others in the forum free to join in. I am sure you will find some to
side with you.
GeneZ


Truthtesty: THIS Forum should note that gene has avoided answering the question again.

What's the different substance, gene? Could that "different substance" be "flesh and blood"? Answer this gene if sins could only be imputed through Jesus' "flesh and blood" Would not that make "flesh and blood" efficacious?

If you were an honest student of the word of God, then you would see that the actual truth of the bible is more important, than Thieme's cult ideology. For you and many thiemite cult members protecting your Fuhrer is more important than the simple truth of he bible.

Why stop posting now? What would another Forum do? Does not Thieme try to spread his ideology around the world? Then why should't we let the world see what's actually on the inside of Thieme's cultic ideology. People have a right to know beforehand, before they get "wordbombed" by Thieme and told well if you don't understand just listen to another tape, more wordbombing, tape, more wordbombing, tape, more wordbombing, tape, more wordbombing etc... tape after tape, until you corrupt yourself to Thieme's false authority and then submit to whatever he says.

Answer the questions. You say Thieme's not a cult, but you're acting like an evasive cult member defending Thieme.

Answer the questions. Tell the truth. What's the different substance, gene? Could that "different substance" be "flesh and blood"? Answer this: "if sins could only be imputed through Jesus' "flesh and blood" Would not that make "flesh and blood" efficacious?"

By the way I have been asking thiemites this question since:


Truthtesty
Posted: 07-22-2007 10:42 AM Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To brainout and all Thiemites:

Among all the other evidence, if spiritual death was the only requirement, then why didn't Jesus just die spiritually and resurrect as the Angel of the Lord?


ANSWER THE QUESTION THIEMITES!


Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To brainout and all Thiemites:

Among all the other evidence, if spiritual death was the only requirement, then why didn't Jesus just die spiritually and resurrect as the Angel of the Lord[/color]?


ANSWER THE QUESTION THIEMITES!


Truthtesty

Answer?

Over in a Christian Forum where the answer will be understood.

You have a problem with the answer being understood by the readers? I think so.

GeneZ

GeneZ:

Here is a more relevant issue pertaining to this thread.

You come across as rather fanatical and obsessive, like a "cult" member.

Thieme comes across as pretty much a petty, authoritarian crank, that operated on the fringes of Christianity.

You would like to ignore these issues and/or anything that relate directly to Thieme's behavior, but that's what this Web site is largely about.

That is, if leaders and groups don't hurt people, no one really cares about their beliefs.

The point Truthtesty seems to have made here is that Thieme often used his ethnocentric and idiosyncratic beliefs to set himself above and apart from other churches and leaders. His claims about personal revelation and special knowledge, combined with his bad behavior and general lack of meaningful accountability, made Thieme a problem for those once stuck in his church.

Truthtesty apparently lived through this, whereas you really did not.

You listen endlessly to Thieme's tapes, idolize the man, which is much like many people fanatically devoted to a leader.

Maybe that's not too healthy.

And you don't have to be a Christian to recognize this.

Quote:
Truthtesty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To brainout and all Thiemites:

Among all the other evidence, if spiritual death was the only requirement, then why didn't Jesus just die spiritually and resurrect as the Angel of the Lord?


ANSWER THE QUESTION THIEMITES!


Truthtesty[/color]


gene: Answer?

Over in a Christian Forum where the answer will be understood.

You have a problem with the answer being understood by the readers? I think so.

GeneZ


Truthtesty: No that would be you as your currently demonstrating. You evade the answer again. You don't answer because you only have 1 answer and you won't admit it , because you don't like it. The answer is Thieme is wrong on "Spiritual death only".

This is gene's idea for answers to be understood by readers on a "Christian Forum":

gene PM: Christian forum debate
From: GeneZ
To: Truthtesty
Date: 12/04/2007 05:36PM


One thing needs to be clarified now....

When we enter the Christian forum? we are to debate only the doctrine of the Blood of Christ. Not Thieme.
If you bring up Thieme, or any pastor by name, at any point? I will immediately provide the link to the History Channel Forum. I can also email a copy of the forum pages, which I have copied to my hard drive. Your credibility will be instantly lost. But, as long as you only debate the doctrine? You will remain unknown. Another thing. You go there as Truthtesty. We are only to debate over the veracity of the teaching "The Blood of Christ." If someone asks where this teaching comes from? I will answer. You are there only to refute it. I will start off the teaching myself, and then you post in response to refute it. That way the burden of where it came from rests on me. That's the rules.
No Thieme? - No talk about Nazi theologians? ... and there will be no talk about the History Channel Forum.
In Christ, GeneZ


Tell the truth! The whole truth! and nothing but the truth! Answer the question, thiemites!

Truthtesty

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

Here is a more relevant issue pertaining to this thread.

You come across as rather fanatical and obsessive, like a "cult" member.

Thieme comes across as pretty much a petty, authoritarian crank, that operated on the fringes of Christianity.

You would like to ignore these issues and/or anything that relate directly to Thieme's behavior, but that's what this Web site is largely about.

That is, if leaders and groups don't hurt people, no one really cares about their beliefs.

It those here did not have their parents make them attend church when they did not want to go, you would not be getting these complaints. Notice how all who are complaining here were children or teenagers when they were made to attend church.

The church was an open door. You could attend if you wanted. If you desired to remain anonymous? No visitors cards were ever handed out for follow up. Its some of the children that hated it that are complaining here. Go back and see who they are. They did not attend out of free will. I would have hated it too if I were not wanting to attend and were made to.

Quote
rrmoderator
His claims about personal revelation and special knowledge, combined with his bad behavior and general lack of meaningful accountability, made Thieme a problem for those once stuck in his church.

Look at the following, please:


Philippians 1:9
"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight."


Insight is not personal revelation. Thieme did not hear God's voice speak to him and tell him special revelations. As I pointed out, others like Charles Wesley and E.W. Bullinger had similar insights on certain teachings that TT jumps all over. Then TT began to attack E.W. Bullinger not realizing he was a highly respected theologian. And, he was controversial, too. For, what good is it being an expert if you can not teach something not seen before?

Quote
rrmoderator
Truthtesty apparently lived through this, whereas you really did not.

I know people who grew up in the ministry. They would tell you a different account entirely. There were those who wanted to be there because they wanted to learn. Others hated it and did not want to be there. Just like if your parents made you attend a class in something you hated intensely and the teacher demanded your full attention and not to distract others while in class You would have hated it. I would have not wanted to sit still.

Quote
rrmoderator
You listen endlessly to Thieme's tapes, idolize the man, which is much like many people fanatically devoted to a leader.

I idolize the man? What else do I think? Since you know.

You ran with an erroneous assumption. I did not say I continued ordering that way. I ordered twenty tapes a month at times, and for a while. I said that only to show how they would not charge for materials. Then you turned it around into something evil. Something I did not say. It made me wonder about the veracity of those moderating here.

I just checked my recent orders... .A single box in two, three, months? That's endlessly, to you? Yes, I still like to learn Bible teachings. And, not just from Berachah.


Go back and read my original statement more carefully. Its you that assumed I listen endlessly. You were wrong.

Quote
rrmoderator
Maybe that's not too healthy.

Carelessly listening to another and then accusing them of what they did not intend, nor say... is not healthy.

Quote
rrmoderator
And you don't have to be a Christian to recognize this.

What I have recognized is how you attempted to force a scenario upon me before you verify the facts. You have run on strong subjective assumption at times. Then accuse as if it were fact.

I have been patiently waiting for you to begin asking honest questions rather than only waiting for opportune moments to accuse. My patience only lasts so long.

I have been making copies of my posts before they are submitted. Since they get edited.


GeneZ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2007 10:44PM by rrmoderator.

Quote
Truthtesty

Truthtesty: No that would be you as your currently demonstrating. You evade the answer again. You don't answer because you only have 1 answer and you won't admit it , because you don't like it. The answer is Thieme is wrong on "Spiritual death only".

If you could bring this charge into court on the grounds for some sort of offense? All the defendant would need to do is have each juror (as evidence) the book of "The Blood of Christ" and the case would be dismissed right after they finished it.


You are confusing something that is an isolated part of the teaching, with that which is not the complete official teaching. The spiritual death is for only for one aspect in salvation. His physical death was for other aspects in salvation. That much I can say here without confusing anyone.

I think you misheard that the spiritual death is the only issue in salvation, and did not hear that is was the only issue in an aspect of salvation.


GeneZ


(I made a copy of this to my hard drive so TT will not say I refused to address something in the event something in this is edited out.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2007 10:50PM by rrmoderator.