Quote
radaph

Quote
kcjones
Well shoot welcome to 'wrestlin' match. Hope you stay.

If you would like a little insight into what was going on down on Sage St. before you were born, check out page 62 where Juker tells what he saw...

Hopefully this link works.
Rick Ross

Please read it and tell me what you think.

Thanks,
KCJones

You wanna know what I think?

I think I was raised in a cult. That's all for now. I have soul-searching to do.

Quote
kcjones

Quote
radaph

Quote
kcjones
Well shoot welcome to 'wrestlin' match. Hope you stay.

If you would like a little insight into what was going on down on Sage St. before you were born, check out page 62 where Juker tells what he saw...

Hopefully this link works.
Rick Ross

Please read it and tell me what you think.

Thanks,
KCJones

You wanna know what I think?

I think I was raised in a cult. That's all for now. I have soul-searching to do.

Hold your fire Testy!
Lets give the man some breathing room and do a little soul searching. Sometimes it has to come from someone on the inside...

Radaph, brother I will wait for your reply. You are welcome to contact me via Private Message if you want to talk bounce thoughts of.

kcjones.

Quote
GeneZ
Truthtesty said...


It's quite possible that political powers that be within the USA, paid Thieme to teach as he did. For political persuasion of christians within the United States."


Everyone read that?


At first I could not believe my eyes.

Well, one thing you admitted by that. He would have had the respect of those in power. Cults do not get that kind of respect. Especially during those years when cults were flourishing in the USA.

And? As far as what might be in an attempt on your part to associate Thieme with Kittel's Nazi sympathies?

One of the things my Jewish father most respected about Thieme was his powerful Anti Semitism teachings. His pro-Israel teachings which were given in great detail.

Matter of fact.. You must have heard Thieme warn numerous times that if anyone sitting in his congregation is an Anti-Semitic? That he wanted them out of his church. For he showed from God's promise to Abraham, that there is a curse on them from God. Remember?

For the record.. Mind telling everyone here Thieme's stand on Anti-Semitism?

For, the way you are throwing Kittel and the Nazis around, youy may be swaying any Jewish moderators who might be overseeing this thread.


Tell us. What was Thieme's stand on Anti-Semitism? That would help distant him from any misunderstanding your Kittel/Nazi connection may have insinuated.

By the way.. My father not only appreciated Thieme's teachings on the Jews. He made copies for himself to listen to again.


This is getting interesting.....


It's quite possible that political powers that be within the USA, paid Thieme to teach as he did. For political persuasion of christians within the United States."


That's a keeper. LOL


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty

Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
Another difficulty with Thieme's exegesis comes from the way he frequently communicates his conclusions. His normal way of teaching his exegesis includes retranslating each passage so as to include his interpretation. Such retranslations should be called "interpretive paraphrases" or “expanded translations.” However, he repeatedly labels these paraphrases “corrected translations.”30 This is a serious misrepresentation, for it leaves one with the impression that Thieme's interpretation is on a par with Scripture itself.

Robert Thieme has corrected mistranslation problems over the years. I have followed in various translations in print and have found what he corrected from the King James Version will often times show up in another translation.

I recall when I first begun listening to Robert Thieme on tape. He flat out said that the King James had wrongly translated an OT passage. He even went as far as to say that the translators refused to translate it correctly because they could not understand why it says what it does.

Being new to Thieme at the time I refused to take his word for it. I had various translations in my library to cross reference. I kept checking. Kept looking. None agreed with Robert Thieme.

I was just about to call it quits and not believe him. Then I took a look in my Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. Young's Literal Translation had it the same as Robert Thieme said it appears in the Hebrew. No other translation I had agreed. Young attempted not to interpret, but rather translate as literally as possible. That can lead to a choppy translation at times, so its not used to teach from, but for reference.. Thieme said that it was what the Hebrew said. Young agreed. Robert Thieme said the translators shunned away from the meaning because they could not reconcile what was said with God's character. Thieme showed how it could be so. I was won over another notch at that point.

And, anyone who translates from another language will have to use paraphrasing at times in order to reveal intent. Thieme's "corrected" translation was attempting to get closer to the original intent. No one is perfect. But his ability to do that was very helpful at times.


I once heard Professor Stan Ashby say he disagreed with Thieme on the interpretation of a passage. But, he could not disagree with his translation. If anyone could finagle the translation to disprove Thieme, it would have been done then. For, Stan Ashby did not like the conclusion Thieme presented. Meaning? ... Just because Thieme said it was a correction did not mean one is to automatically accept his conclusion as to what that corrected translation was telling us.


After about three long years of checking and verifying (which takes time and work) you learn just to begin to trust another's opinion after he is proven right many times, realizing also that no one person is correct all the time. His batting average was high enough to win my respect where I could begin to relax. Three years is a long time for that sort of thing.


I can categorically list areas where I not only disagreed with Robert Thieme, but I can confidently justify my correction of those errors. But, what those corrections are, are only for the ears of those who know what Robert Thieme truly stood for. Not for those looking for ways only to tear him down. Like you do.

Pastors I know who followed Thieme have not agreed with all he said. Yet, they respect his ability to teach.


I did not blindly believe all that Robert Thieme taught. And, having been brought up Jewish also made me realize that some of his Hebrew pronunciation was a bit skewed. But, it was not an issue. What was, was that he made me think about Biblical concepts that opened my mind to greater understanding. He taught on a level that one could develop the needed resources to be able to see his errors, and solutions to his errors when they occurred. That in itself is a sign of a good teacher. I did not say perfect. I said, "good." No man on this earth is a perfect teacher. Robert Thieme was not without error. Neither, am I.


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
GeneZ
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

GENE Z you continually speak of "the complaint" as if only one person were doing all the complaining. Did you not have some idea when you entered this forum that it was not and is not a one-man show?



You also imply that if you do complain about Thieme, then you must not really know what he taught. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY COMPLETE STRANGERS TO THIEME on this board who have made complaints. Do you? When we affirm our long experience, you disallow it because we ended up leaving. Our personal testimonies whether of Berachah attendees or the far more numerous faithful tapers count for nothing for you since they disagree with much of what your respected leader said and how he said it. I won't go into implications of immorality because we don't have direct proof, despite firm convictions of some who had reason to know who was doing what with whom.

Just what did you research on your hiatus from this forum?

I can understand why you would want a vacation to catch your breath. But what was the subject of your research? was it related to this topic in this thread?

PLEASE enlighten us.



RRoss advice which you have quoted above seems quite appropriate for those concerned about Thieme. You don't seem to realize that that is the process we all in one way or another came through. And as for why now? Why now are people coming out of the woodwork to complain? It is not hard to see. Computers are plentiful and fairly cheap. We veterans of the Thiempark are "just catching our breath" some of us and beginning to be able to speak up about some very personal painful experiences we went through. And don't tell me it was because some parents forced their children to attend Berachah when the children did not want to go. I did not know Thieme existed until I was in college, and was never forced to go anywhere. I was the only person in my family "following" Thieme. I did not share much about what he taught because I knew they would not agree, or like you, I was sure if they did not agree, that meant they just did not understand!

If this were just a matter of taste or denominational preferences, it would be very different. Since you won't accept anyone's testimony who DOES DISAGREE WITH THIEME AND WHO LEFT BECAUSE OF IT, and, you refuse to share your personal disagreements because (sigh) WE "don't understand what RBT truly stood for" then what are you still here for?

As I said before, the more you talk, the more you confirm our claims. I have yet to meet a dedicated Thiemer who could fight his way out of a paper bag.


Why not share with us your ideas of what in your mind constitutes a cult? Are there no variations to your concepts? No room for individual tweaks? We could forget the C word altogether, but that would not have brought you into this forum, would it? The cult experts who have been cited in and out of this forum have some enlightening things to say about degrees of what constitutes a cult, or cultic abuse, which is in our case spiritual abuse.

It is ABUSIVE to instruct Christians NOT TO READ their Bible for themselves (until they reach Thieme's notion of "maturity" when it will be safe.) It is ABUSIVE to tell Christians that God turns His back on them and they are out of the will of God and will be punished for leaving Thieme's teaching.

It is ABUSIVE to scream from the pulpit and use "hell" and "damn" and BIZARRE to "chew out" IMAGINARY offenders in the audience!

It is A LIE to say that "in and out of fellowship" is a New Covenant concept related to "confession of sins" as if CONFESSION were the wages of sin instead of death. You and Testy go round and round about the blood of Christ and exactly what that means, and what did Thieme teach about it, but the point of Christ's physical and spiritual death and resurrection was to COMPLETE THE WORK ON THE CROSS to take all the punishment for all sins of all men of all time onto Himself and DO AWAY with sin forever. THAT is what was FINISHED on that Cross. You are almost missing the point entirely, it seems to me. And more than almost anything else, this part of Thieme's emphasis is the primary mechanism of control over his followers: Sin, Confess, Sin, Confess, you never grow, you never learn how to say no to sin that way, you don't understand flesh because Thieme practically ignored it in his teaching, or obscured it so that Biblical teaching about sin in the life of the believer so that it has no practical value in the Thiemepark. God is not now condemning His Children for their sins! Christ took all the punishment for that on the Cross. But if you admit that, Thieme's THREATS lose their power over his followers.

If you were at all open I would suggest you go back to SpirituaLiberty's eminently reasonable and Biblical posts on the subject of 1 John 1:9. but I don't think they made a dent the first time around. Why do I think it might do some good now?


Thieme is not alone in teaching this about sin and confession, but he takes it so far out of balance that it becomes an instrument of abuse. I call it abusive where ever I see it taught this way.

If you were at all open I would suggest you go back to SpirituaLiberty's eminently reasonable and Biblical posts on the subject of 1 John 1:9. but I don't think they made a dent the first time around. Why do I think it might do some good now?


Sistersoap

Quote
GeneZ
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
kcjones
I was doing a little reading this morning and found a stark contrast between R.B. Thieme's 'breakthroughs' in 1st John and what another bible scholar wrote. None other than William Tyndale, the man who was burned at the stake so I could read the bible, in English, not needing to knowing Latin,koine greek, or hebrew or rely on some man or men to tell me what it should mean.

A Prologue upon the Three Epistles of St John

The first epistle of saint John containeth the doctrine of a very apostle of Christ, and ought of right to follow his gospel. For as in his epistle he setteth out the true faith, and teacheth by it only all men to be saved and restored unto the favour of God again: even so here in this epistle he goeth againist them that boast themselves of faith and yet continue without good works and teacheth many ways that where true faith is, there the works tarry not behind, and contrary that where the works follow not, there is no true faith but a false imagination and utter darkness. - William Tyndale New Testament Translation 1534. Bold emphasis mine.

To Gene and others who study on Bob, please, please read the whole epistle of 1st John, without the another man's perspective. Tyndale and others gave their lives so you could read God's Word ON YOUR OWN, without a 3 degrees in Language.
With Love,
KCJONES