Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 09, 2009 08:57PM
To the Forum:
Take another look, z. Blood in this case is not referring to "blood equals death".
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Do you see the parallel sentence structures? Eat is referring to body. Drink is referring to blood. Those are indicating two separate distinct elements. They are not combined at this point. Jesus is definitely pointing to his literal shed blood(figuratively wine)as Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is pointing only to his literal blood as being Shed for the remission of sins, not his body at this point. Check the sentence structure.
In this case, for blood to equal death, Jesus would need to have said "eat and drink" "for this is my blood". But? He did not. Blood and drink are clearly seperated from Body and eat, though parallled.
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Eat is for the body.
And seperated in this case,
Drink is for "MY Blood of the New Testament."
For your false conclusion to be true(in this case), it would have to read "Eat and drink for that is the "blood..."
But? It doesn't and it isn't.
It is "drink" alone,
It is "drink" alone, clearly seperated in the parallel sentence structure. Blood is alone seperated by Jesus indicating His literal Shed blood of the New Testament.
Even if you disagree with the figurative/literal usages, a non-predjudiced person can easily see the parallel but seperated distinctions of the elements and the different action toward each seperate element. "Blood" clearly does not equal death in this case.
I only just pointed to the "self-proof" of the scripture itself.
So debate the text as it is.
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard.
Truthtesty
Take another look, z. Blood in this case is not referring to "blood equals death".
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Do you see the parallel sentence structures? Eat is referring to body. Drink is referring to blood. Those are indicating two separate distinct elements. They are not combined at this point. Jesus is definitely pointing to his literal shed blood(figuratively wine)as Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is pointing only to his literal blood as being Shed for the remission of sins, not his body at this point. Check the sentence structure.
In this case, for blood to equal death, Jesus would need to have said "eat and drink" "for this is my blood". But? He did not. Blood and drink are clearly seperated from Body and eat, though parallled.
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Eat is for the body.
And seperated in this case,
Drink is for "MY Blood of the New Testament."
For your false conclusion to be true(in this case), it would have to read "Eat and drink for that is the "blood..."
But? It doesn't and it isn't.
It is "drink" alone,
It is "drink" alone, clearly seperated in the parallel sentence structure. Blood is alone seperated by Jesus indicating His literal Shed blood of the New Testament.
Even if you disagree with the figurative/literal usages, a non-predjudiced person can easily see the parallel but seperated distinctions of the elements and the different action toward each seperate element. "Blood" clearly does not equal death in this case.
I only just pointed to the "self-proof" of the scripture itself.
So debate the text as it is.
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: December 09, 2009 09:58PM
zeebrook:
How does your view of the "the blood of Christ" specifically differ with Thieme?
How does your view of the "the blood of Christ" specifically differ with Thieme?
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
thereporter
()
Date: December 10, 2009 08:49AM
Truthtesty,
I have enjoyed you highlighting in your most recent posts the non response from Theimeites after the election. Their too busy "arming" themselves... Their motives are transparent and have never been for the continued growth of joy in truth.
To The Forum:
A Ber-REICH-ah Holiday Special: Scrap the Baby Jesus! Let’s get those Wise Men ready to lock and load! How are our Angels hangin’, with MK 83s or 84s? Are my Rudolf Rangers from the Prep School ready to police the yard for Commi Christmas Carolers?!
One year ago..
The Reporter Nov 2008 – “They all wear uniforms?”
The Soldier Nov 2008- “Mint Juleps”
Closing Commentary
The Reporter:
“They All Wear Uniforms?”
(Realtime to a theimer)
And Oh Yes....I must attend the "Military Social" at the end of the year. “Social” is used in this pamphlet. A Socialist Mixer? Will there be recruiting booths set up in the Sunday School rooms? Muted coronet trumpets playing while men in uniforms and women in house dresses and wrist corsages slow dance or mingle while sipping martinis? That is, until the band stops and a man in a uniform takes stage behind the podium, standing in front of a large flag, wearing a red arm band, delivering a feverish treatise on Military Strength, Human Evil and Human Sin Nature, The Them versus Us Supreme.
I am bringing my camera. As I have never actually visited a Church that has a "Military Social" at Christmas time. Rambo Jesus. How quaint. How charming. I bet it kicks pot luck "socials" or Church Christmas Handel Messiah Celebration's butt! Screw remembering that two bit player J whatever… He was no John Wayne. Or dare I even whisper Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men. Hellz No!!! Eat Lead!!! That's the Christmas Spirit!!!
Ah well, conscription rates have been piss poor since the 70s. The Church is one way to go. Everyone knows how effective Religion and the Military is...(tongue in cheek)
Must bring camera. I wonder if members will actually wear their uniforms to it? Balls. That is a terrifying thought.
At a Church? Well, testing out the newest Soldier of Fortune gadgets will be cool. (tongue in cheek) My old friends in Special Ops sold their shop in A town. I can't recall its name but she was voted best business woman. They moved to Dubai before I could get everyone poison pen stocking stuffers. But a "Military Social" at a Church? Yes… must bring a camera but NO pictures taken of me. I think I have a wig somewhere. At a Church? Jesus, Tax Breaks, and Military Contracts. Who in heck is throwing this party together? The Light Brigade? (They lost big time fyi) Freak out time…
Mrs. Peatry, those are quite the deviled eggs. And this china is lovely. You've had it since World War 2? My stars and stripes! How neat...What's this symbol on the back here? It's a little smudged. Mrs. Peatry!!! Or should I call you Frau… Cazarts!!! Jesus, I knew there was something weird going on here......Frick! Mother ofTwelve Apostles…. I am in the never ending hallway. And now rooms with TVs are set up, barely at capacity, with two or three G looking men monitoring them. I found the upstairs Lady's room next to the organ pipes. Doors with no labels. Manchurian Jimminy Christmas!!! Did I Just Join The Workers’ Party? Church a front for Military Operations, testing out Military spy operations and hardware with little to no Constitutional interference as that First Amendment is a dandy for a lot of stuff. A "Military Social" at Church for Christmas? Take it more underground at least...To the catacombs and VC interconnected tunnels built under the Church, where the choir is bound and gagged.
If Mr. Theime tones down his Militarist bent he'll loose half his Santa Slush Fund or two. Won't he? Well, we can see now what everyone will be armed with for the “Angelic Conflict” if these wannabes who still have not paid off their loans for arming the Contras along with a 5 trillion plus sink hole and historical recession is any indication…3 tongue depressors, 2 Chiclets, and a bald tire in a spaaaare treeeeeeeeeeee.
If these losers ever ran out of wars they don’t fight they could not mock G-d in their uniforms at Christmas annually. This group is obviously not going to have Nativity Scenes or bake sales but can’t these insolated Lone Star Grace Card Users take up paint ball? I have heard it all! What’s next? Lawsuits against “The Colonel” for blowing the Angelic Conflict? In Texas it would fly. I would pay to see a Lionel Hutz type, Homer Simpson’s attorney handle that one before the next holiday. An attorney with a business card that turns into a sponge is just about on level for these “serious students of doctrine.”
Rambo Jesus. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
(theimer)
“It's a military Communion and they do wear uniforms. “ (concerned about the word social)
The Reporter:
Even if they are no longer in military? I think I’ll pass obviously. Thanks for the info…
What???!!!!!! THEY ALL WEAR UNIFORMS!!!!
Yes. Please go dig up your old Army uniform, stuffed in the cedar drawer full of mothballs, and lead all the Christmas Halloweiners in a military communion. Bow your heads and do not laugh at men in their 60s wearing the sailor outfit you just dressed your 3 year old boy in or the harsh and pitiful reality statement of current USA military operations summed up in the visual of old Mr. Pertermire sporting an Army Captain's uniform, with severe osteoporosis...Oh heck, I can't tell if it is an Army uniform or Airforce, as he is humped over like a candy cane. All I know is that I find it funny when he salutes me because it is neither me or anyone standing in front of him or he hits me square in the chest...I finally told him to hold his salute so I could balance a tray of cocktail shrimp puffs on it.
Bow your heads. No, not you Captain Petermire, and pray that these nutjobs get a clue.
You have got to be kidding me. What a horrid thing to do in the face of all the men and women in service around the world whose uniform is humility. What an embarrassment, a mock-up self-serving arrogant display sullying the values and beliefs devoted to remembering a peaceful refuge and benevolent comfort for all. The blasphemy is unbelievable.
The Soldier:
“Mint Juleps”
I was a 'Berachah baby', there in diapers in the mid-1960s; and attended without fail until I entered the Army in 1980. My last visit to Berachah Church was in May 1984. My parents began attending when Thieme was preaching in the "quonset hut", somewhere downtown, before the current facility was constructed.
I am pleased to say that by the grace of Almighty God, my family escaped from Berachah Church. My intention here is to offer my personal views and experiences. I know of quite a number of people who were friends of mine in the 1970s-80s, and still attend.
My parents made their last visit to Berachah in 1981. I was home on leave and so thrilled to be a part of the 'military communion' at Christmas - a ceremony I now regard as blasphemous. The focus of communion should be on Jesus Christ, not all the pretty uniforms. It is completely out of place. But I digress.
The weirdness began in the early 1970s. R.B. Thieme, Jr. (I will do all I can to refrain from referring to him as The Colonel) began wearing his old staff officer WWII uniform for the various 'conferences'; this was, I believe, about the same time that his son was commissioned as an Army officer. The Viet Nam War was ending, and Thieme began pushing a strong pro-military stance, incorporating this stance, as we all well know, into his ministry. A massive RANGER tab appeared on the balcony of the church where the children's classes (formerly known as Junior Church) were held. (Sidebar: As a child, I attended Junior Church under the guidance of Sam Hankins, an amazing man and a true teacher of the Bible. He was fired by Thieme, and Thieme announced one night that he had "taken control" of what would now be known as "Prep School". It was, in my opinion and conversations with those younger than I, an unparalleled disaster and warped many young lives.) The hallway behind the pulpit became "Ranger Hall", with huge photos of any man who was qualified as a Ranger. How pleased God must have been by all of this. I remember the summer of 1974, the 4th of July "Conference" - Ranger demonstrations, hand-to-hand combat in the grass "quad", Gary Horton rappelling out of the (completely abandoned) baptistry, and people sitting on the floor. In those days, tapers took their holiday vacations to come to Berachah - one had to arrive a couple of hours before services began just to get a seat. All kinds of men carrying concealed weapons, ready to take a bullet if the doors ever crashed in and Soviet agents came to get Thieme, who was (by his own admission) on several death lists as their chief protagonist. (Ahem, pardon me while I clear my throat.) Police patrolling the parking lot, making sure no indigent/homeless/hippie types got in. (Please, try to justify this exclusion using your Bible. I dare you.) And as a young man, living in perpetual terror that at any moment now, the Communists were coming to get me.
They were heady times.
I was speaking on the telephone to a good friend of mine just last night. He still lives in Houston, and his family left in the same timeframe as ours. (Note: There was a considerable exodus from Berachah from 1980-85; you will find many of these folks at First Baptist, Second Baptist, and Spring Branch.) He made the point that his family has been in disarray ever since, and this was 20 years ago. Four siblings, all with children now, and none of them ever see each other. He stated that he credits Berachah with this dysfunction, as there was never time for family. Dad came home, gobbled some dinner, packed up the family, off to church - five nights a week, twice on Sunday, with "Berach Night at the Movies" available for Saturday night entertainment, and to keep the congregation from having to mingle with anyone beyond the doors of Fort Berachah. I am relieved and blessed to say that my parents were saved BEFORE joining Berachah, and we're all fine, and all members of various Baptist and non-denom Christian churches. I have three older sisters, and the eldest suffered the worst fate. She graduated high school in 1973, having found her 'right man' who was in Marine ROTC. He was commissioned in 1975, and she spent the next several years under the iron-fisted neglect of one of Thieme's star minions. He would get off duty, come home, bark a few orders and tell her how horrible the house looked (it was always immaculate), then lock himself in the study for the duration of the night and suck down his nightly load o'doctrine. This was their routine, and it never changed. There was no physical abuse, but neither was there a marriage - nothing with even a passing resemblance to the love and sacrifice that husbands are called to. They divorced, and she eventually found her mate. She is one of the premier examples of the ludicrous right man/right woman doctrine that sent all single Berachans into a frenzy of dating and social events, a mad race to find their RM/RW.
On a positive note -
1. Thieme's presentation of the gospel of salvation was entirely accurate, and I am confident he was an instrument in leading many, many thousands to the Lord.
2. In any church I attend, I always compare their handling of the offering and other funding to how it was done at Berachah. Thieme was right on this issue 100%. And even though I think his teachings are mostly ludicrous, I respect him immeasurably for making sure anyone could get them for free.
And now, I'll attempt to itemize a few of the thousand things where I am confident he is/was wrong, and why. I will try to limit this to 10 points.
1. Privacy of the Priesthood - This doctrine was pounded home over and over. It is heretical, and invented by Thieme to keep him from having to perform his true duties as a pastor - counseling, visiting, tending the flock. This so-called "doctrine" was structured to insulate him, aided by his little band of goons, bodyguards, flunkies, and wanna-be Rangers. This doctrine also kept anyone at the church from contacting my parents when they slipped quietly away, after having been members for 30 years. To this day, never a phone call or any contact. For all the church knows, they drove off a cliff.
2. Gates of Arrogance - My goodness, it makes me want to vomit. This doctrine got so convoluted with its countless 'gates' that I came to realize he was just making it all up. If anyone on this planet stands as a shining example of arrogance and megalomania, it's Thieme. Fired the choir, fired the board, fired the deacons, fired the assistant/associate pastors, wrote the lyrics to the hymns (and yes, I can still recite "Christian Soldier" and "Bread of Heaven" verbatim), and set himself up as a complete and total dictator, daring anyone to question his authority. This singular position cannot be justified anywhere in the ministry of Jesus Christ - which is exactly why we are given strict guidance on the role of deacons and elders, and ESPECIALLY the pastor. This all came with the swarming crowds attending the conferences - it's all timed together (firing everyone and taking complete control). Quite frankly, I just think it simply went to his head. He forgot he was supposed to be teaching God's Word, and the ministry evolved into truly bizarre stuff.
3. Right Pastor - Completely erroneous. If you accept this notion, then you must accept that everyone else is wrong, and that only your Right Pastor is, well, right. You must then discard all the books and teachings of the truly great minds of Christian theology. Right Pastor is a complete and total lie. See 4 (next).
4. It is the joy of the believer to study the Word of God. This study should not be a chore. It requires no acronyms, formulas, and invented so-called 'doctrines' for you to hear from God through His Holy Scriptures. The Bible was recorded so that even the most simple-minded believer could understand it clearly. This is made possible by the presence of the Holy Spirit within us (believers). Thieme was able to rewrite the Bible by telling the congregation that they couldn't understand it. I clearly remember having this very argument with classmates in my high school, and sneering at them for thinking they could read God's Word themselves. If any of you are reading this, know that I have actually lost sleep over that argument in my adult years.
5. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations..." According to Thieme and the insane doctrine of privacy, you shouldn't even go next door. Never witness. Never visit. Never tend to the sick, the elderly, the dying, the infirm, the weak, the needy. Besides, they're probably suffering the sin unto death or in the 196th level of reversionism. If you can begin to grasp point 4 above, you will begin to see that Thieme's exclusive ministry all tied together to protect him on his personal Mount. Right pastor. No deacons. Privacy. Etc., ad nauseum.
6. I have heard from more than a few students of Greek and Hebrew, and read the comments by greater scholars than they, that Thieme's grasp of the original languages was a sham. One such student, a grad student whom I knew personally, went into Thieme's office after "class" (always "class", never "church" or "worship") because he couldn't get Thieme's interpretation to jive with the Greek. He even had his textbooks with him. He was hoping for a bit of enlightenment from his pastor, and instead was laughed at by Thieme and escorted from the church by two of the goons. I was there the night this happened.
7. It is the privilege of the believer to make a public declaration of his/her faith through water baptism. This baptism is not necessary for salvation; it is, rather, a testament. You can easily find ample verses in the true Bible (I stand by the KJV) attesting to this. Thieme denounced water baptism simply because he didn't want to have to touch the masses. All that interaction, all that shepherd and flock stuff, yuk....
8. "Rebound", at its core, is a completely false notion. "Rebound and keep moving" gave thousands of Berachans free reign to have affairs, take the Lord's name in vain, and sin with wild abandon. Confess it in the morning, get back in the club, and move on, right? WRONG. It is a privilege for the believer to confess his/her sins to the Lord. In so doing, we seek to draw closer to God, in that while we can never be sinless, we can strive to sin less. Confession of sin heightens our awareness of how our sinfulness grieves the Holy Spirit within us. It is not a free token to go out and sin some more. A repentant soul strives to avoid sin, and seeks to walk more closely with God; to do, as overused as the phrase has become, what Jesus would do.
9. The foundation of Christ's ministry was love and giving. He constantly taught the importance of these, and how they are intertwined - and by His grace, I have come to understand that we are here to serve one another, to love one another, to minister to one another. We are here to spread the ministry of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, not stand in defiant defense of a lunatic who makes up his own Bible. How often I have heard and read hardcore Berachans'/Thiemeites' defend "THE COLONEL". Dear Friends, I have something alarming to share with you. HE IS A MAN. Question: WHY DON'T YOU STAND AND DECLARE YOUR DEVOTION TO THE LORD AS VEHEMENTLY AS YOU DO FOR THIEME? Answer: Because as a cult leader, he has saturated your mind with the law that he is the one true leader, the one with all the answers, the one you should exemplify. (My goodness, in the late 70s, there were more white Cadillacs at Berachah than there were at the Cadillac dealership. I'm surprised Cadillac didn't try to run an ad in the bulletin. And Lafitte Rothschild '64 is swill, which you probably discovered if you were there, and making minimum wage, and were told over and over by your Colonel that it was the only thing worth drinking, and you spent your hard-earned money to procure some.)
10. Super Grace and Ultra Super Grace are made up. They are not in the true Word of God. They were extrapolated by Thieme so he could set himself above the crowd. It's a shocker, I know. Get over it and get with the Lord. When believers reach the Judgment Seat of Christ, there are five crowns that will be given. But these crowns don't go to us; they go back to the Lord, to His Glory. HEAVEN AIN'T ABOUT US, FOLKS, IT'S ABOUT GOD. No "plantations and mint juleps" - just a perfect eternity, worshipping and adoring the Creator of the Universe. He, who alone is holy. And here on earth, we are blessed by God when we strive to do His Will, when we strive to be Christlike. This entails witnessing, counseling, prayer, giving, and a host of other post-salvation works, all of which involve interacting with others. "Faith, without works, is dead, being alone." So, if you truly DID reach 'Super Grace' or 'Super Duper Grace', it would be incumbent upon you to be a servant of the Lord - not to insulate yourself from unbelievers and condemn anyone who is missing their daily intake o'doctrine.
11. (Okay, I went one over.) Be aware of any "pastor" who does not teach the Word of God. By this, I mean anyone who routinely steps outside of the Bible, either by new interpretations from the 'original languages', or whose ministry is nothing but the same homespun aw-shucks feel-good story every Sunday, or who spends an entire service discussing the Battle of Waterloo. Or telling you what you should drink. He is there to present the Word of God to you - not entertain you, belittle you, demean you, or embarrass you. And by golly, if you can't approach your pastor after the service, and have a chat, or ask a question, or get counseling - THEN HE IS NOT A PASTOR.
12. (Just one more.) While I am certain Thieme helped thousands to find Christ as their Savior, I am just as certain he destroyed many thousands of lives through his false teachings. Re-interpreting God's Word is not something that goes unnoticed by the Almighty, and Bob Thieme certainly had no proprietary domain on the truth.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." So much so that He gave His life for mine. The end for me came when Thieme stepped to the side of his pulpit, put one hand on his hip, leaned forward, and sneered to the congregation, "Jesus doesn't love you - he TOLERATES you." I never went back after that night. Dozens of notebooks full of scribbled doctrines went in the dumpster. It took me several years to clear my head of all the nonsense, but I turned my life over to the Lord and He has blessed me abundantly. I am in a fundamental Baptist church (independent), have taught a number of Sunday School and men's classes, and was even asked by the pastor to give a sermon last Thanksgiving regarding Christ's ministry of giving.
I have been deliriously, happily, joyfully married for just over 20 years. I have one son, who is a senior at the top of his class at a Christian school.
I follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, not any one man. I read and clearly understand my Bible. I know where I will spend eternity.
To those of you still under the ministry of R.B. Thieme, Jr. - I know there is nothing I can say that you will convince you of any of this. Hopefully someday you will come to realize that his teachings are a grain of truth wrapped up in an ocean of falsehoods and self-serving lies. There are doctrines in the Bible, but it is perfectly proper to say, "I am studying God's Word" - not performing your daily intake of Bible doctrine.
*************************************************************************************************
Though I don’t share a few sentiments expressed by this individual I found his testimony interesting and happened across it a year after learning about “The Military Communion” which is par practice for a Cult.
This is one testimonial from a former “Berachah diaper baby”. One of the other “Berachah diaper babies” I spoke with completely by chance, random, not at Berachah, fought back tears when I pressed her regarding her experience. She was in her mid 30s, spoke of a paddle and had a special name for it… “The Colonel” had all the men make, her Dad’s name she flashed as if I should know him, explaining from the time she was three her and her brothers had to grab their ankles and endure beatings from the special paddle until they stopped crying. Her parents divorced over it she relinquished. She gathered her emotions together (of course) and said, “But he did such wonderful things for so many people.” (I have yet to meet these people and these people are always nameless, abstract, beyond the confines of Cult members.) Then she asked if I knew of the celebrities “The Colonel” knew in Hollywood, and was quickly back to one of the lucky and chosen ones invited to dinner with The Beverly Hills royal family of god. She stated rather curtly that she hated religion, sharing how her children were now Jehovah’s Witnesses and under their father’s sole custody in Dallas, ending the discussion saying the only thing she was concerned with regarding faith was that they had John 3:16 and that was it.
Beyond the dueling over the hatchet job RB Theime II did to add and take away from the Bible to glorify himself absolutely, is the lasting evident emotional trauma of ritualistic abuse, abuse. How much further can a person go in brutalizing or manipulating another human being, than to reach right into their immortality? Anything short of hell on earth is still not immortality right? Raise them to the highest heavens, stroke them, let them in on the secret, provide them an elite path, provide them a unique code language, navigate them through a maze, provide check points and maps, the light at the end of the tunnel is near, closer, closer, and then CRUSH their Savior, their light, along with their spirit…Will prove who is boss. What produces Fierce loyalty? Why, absolute control, god of course, not pastors. Talk about an existential delima which devours, eating at the core of a person, when the after-life conquors death but is forever spent with someone who merely tolerates you. Try to absolve? Consider the source telling you to consider The Source? Cannot be questioned. Scriptures are merely functional for battle fatigue, defense, and identification of the enemy, anyhow. All the scriptures given and principles stressed to engage the individual in battles with the Them are also good defense for absolute power. Create a militant cult? Every flunkie is programmed to say ‘The battle is the Lords.” Penetrate all personal physical space? Every flunkie says doctrine of privacy for believers. Belief and reality severed for maximum attrition. All buttons are for the pressing. All pressure points located. Lock down. Malliable mental midgets await further instruction. Tendorized hamburger. The compound is into eternity.
How much can they take? Let’s see what they do. Cameras on? Check. What if they go home? Tapes. Daily Intake… Get to them in their cars, in their living room, in their walkmans, in their computers, in their bedrooms …Anywhere. Have em anywhere. What about when they die? Have em their too. The exit strategy is no exit. What happens if they decompress? The drill works like a charm. Self-destruct mode. “On our own volition.” Right...Should work. Covered all our bases.
Sorry people but Christianity and Jesus was never Theime’s objective. But you know this. Spiritual growth? (Pause to laugh.) There must be some other reasons for the draw to Berrachah hmmm?
I guess upbeat or “positive “ in the Theime Park is that this method might make good soldiers assuming soldiers do not need to be good people, and claiming valor is as easy as claiming the Christian label? Well… always prepping for battle, ingrained into daily life, leaves a nation with simulation soldiers and they make the worst soldiers. A nation of simulation soldiers is a vast weak military. Who attacks an enemy using routine? What enemy speaks the same thing over and over? How can you build alliances if you are always classifying? Here is a hint…When your “Colonel” has you always engage in a method prayer to maximize your “problem solving technique,” you are going to be up to your eye balls with problems. (Just ask fundamentalist Muslims.) When a “Colonel” tells you to pray, he hasn’t got a strategy to save your life and you have no cover. Door slammed. The power of prayer broken down into a problem solving technique is a declaration by your Commander that you haven’t got a snow ball’s chance in hell. Faced with a problem other than simulated and pre-determined IE not a problem, how long will it take you to run through your mental gymnastics before you blow it or are smoked? As a result the only problems you can solve are the ones you create. It’s part of what happens when you put Satan and G-d on the same line. “Satan controls your world and G-d merely controls history.” You are locked in a battle to change history to take over the world? You have to remove G-d. You are locked into a battle against Satan’s world? Victory is Satan’s because you have to become Satan. You are locked in a battle for G-d, G-d controls history and you win? Both of you are winners under Satan. Next Chapter. Tired of fighting rigged wars? Don’t worry your god had plenty of wars mapped out. Where are you if you are fighting Satan and his demons in the after-life? Hell.
Dope!
Getting you ground into powder so that you don’t think about things and they are rote, is great for sitting ducks. Especially, when the method to produce the routine is mired in complexity in order to exhaust a possible solution. So you don’t think at all do you? You “Rebound”. You cannot recognize basic Biblical principles, your enemies, or your friendlys. Do as I say, not as I do, and here is the method to the madness, is a problem, battle, and war lost at the onset. Strung out and strung along simulation soldiers design billion dollar helicopters with no rear-mount artillery. Strung out simulation soldiers who can’t leave their own compound because their “Colonel Pastor” killed god and he has got to be somewhere?...play lost and found until they are shocked that their only back up on a deserted road in Falluja, is card board cut-outs and their slag heaps don’t start. (But remember your problem solving technique just in case praying never occurred to you) A strung out simulation military can’t believe that their enemy does not line up. These poor flunkies can’t make it out of the compound much less in foreign terrain. They have been disabled at every nook and cranny by the man who decided to reprogram them to insure they could not leave.
Too much of this “teutonic” strain in our own military has meant while an enemy recognizes we do not live in 1435 for one, our Marines are out drowning each other to simulate drowning, the “what if” if sunk by an enemy in the ocean. In these maneuvers, Marines are drowned and then resussitated by other Marines. Marines drown and die in these simulations. The Marines who survive are prepared to drown. Score one, two, and counting for the enemy and they did not have to lift a finger. The body is molecularly evil matter anyways and treatment of it is rough right? Who needs an enemy if you are always playing war, in a nutshell. It is albatross to our military, our strength, when an elitist armchair warrior admin engages our own civilians in war. It is an albatross to our nation when attacked, if people are already fighting lost wars lead by someone like RB Theime II. It is an albatross to faith when people are drowning each other.
Well, surely there is an upbeat to Theime regarding engendering good American citizens? Assuming we don’t live in a free country, yes. Here is another example where belief and reality has been severed to maximize attrition. Theimeites can only be “good” citizens if they can coerce and replicate the absolute rule of their compound, and drive the US further in the direction of Mao’s China. With Theime III at the helm, Deng Xiaoping,s China is possible. Awe shucks. Can you take back the freedom you destroyed? Lost and found. Burn the village to save the village? Lost and found. Burn that bridge when you build it? Lost and found. Has a dictatorship ever been free? How does “Call no man your servant” mesh with absolute authority?
Ah but alas, keep those cameras rolling, tape every word, and prepare for battle. Keep ramping it up. A climate of fear, intimidation, and zonkies in the word is what Jesus is all about. Once you rob G-d of his sacrifice as merely a flexing of himself and not for humans, he is not there for you is he? And then you can be god…Claude. You can out think G-d can’t you? Stay on top of it and keep a tight record of wrongs. Once you have tested G-d to the limit trying to achieve Super Duper Duper Grace, by turning every message from The Torah onward on its head and stomping all over it, making movies and tapes of the whole affair to demonstrate just how foolish you believe G-d is, thoroughness and loop holes that guarentee you are IN no matter what you do, is all you need. Yep, G-d has no choice once you lock Him into semantics. Perfect Justice has no choice but to concur with a defense attorney and his label maker. The “Supreme Court of Heaven” is really Jacko’s Law Joint above the Pizza Palour. Jesus is really a neophyte with a hair trigger, GI Joe is really a consiencious objector, Barbi is really a brainy go getter, Ralph Lauren makes you an American, RB Theime II was a Minister of G-d, and Berachah is a Church.
I have purposely pulled back a wider lens to illustrate that spending 3o plus years to teach a congregation that they do not have to give money is not much of a skyhook for anything considering. It is reaching to say the least.
RB Theime II’s contribution to Christianity, society, the military, would not be summed up by anyone but RB Themie II himself of course, in one of his Basic Training tapes,
“This idiot came to me one time and said he wanted to kill himself. And you know what I did?!!! ………
I handed him the gun.”
(Happy Holidays),
thereporter
I have enjoyed you highlighting in your most recent posts the non response from Theimeites after the election. Their too busy "arming" themselves... Their motives are transparent and have never been for the continued growth of joy in truth.
To The Forum:
A Ber-REICH-ah Holiday Special: Scrap the Baby Jesus! Let’s get those Wise Men ready to lock and load! How are our Angels hangin’, with MK 83s or 84s? Are my Rudolf Rangers from the Prep School ready to police the yard for Commi Christmas Carolers?!
One year ago..
The Reporter Nov 2008 – “They all wear uniforms?”
The Soldier Nov 2008- “Mint Juleps”
Closing Commentary
The Reporter:
“They All Wear Uniforms?”
(Realtime to a theimer)
And Oh Yes....I must attend the "Military Social" at the end of the year. “Social” is used in this pamphlet. A Socialist Mixer? Will there be recruiting booths set up in the Sunday School rooms? Muted coronet trumpets playing while men in uniforms and women in house dresses and wrist corsages slow dance or mingle while sipping martinis? That is, until the band stops and a man in a uniform takes stage behind the podium, standing in front of a large flag, wearing a red arm band, delivering a feverish treatise on Military Strength, Human Evil and Human Sin Nature, The Them versus Us Supreme.
I am bringing my camera. As I have never actually visited a Church that has a "Military Social" at Christmas time. Rambo Jesus. How quaint. How charming. I bet it kicks pot luck "socials" or Church Christmas Handel Messiah Celebration's butt! Screw remembering that two bit player J whatever… He was no John Wayne. Or dare I even whisper Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men. Hellz No!!! Eat Lead!!! That's the Christmas Spirit!!!
Ah well, conscription rates have been piss poor since the 70s. The Church is one way to go. Everyone knows how effective Religion and the Military is...(tongue in cheek)
Must bring camera. I wonder if members will actually wear their uniforms to it? Balls. That is a terrifying thought.
At a Church? Well, testing out the newest Soldier of Fortune gadgets will be cool. (tongue in cheek) My old friends in Special Ops sold their shop in A town. I can't recall its name but she was voted best business woman. They moved to Dubai before I could get everyone poison pen stocking stuffers. But a "Military Social" at a Church? Yes… must bring a camera but NO pictures taken of me. I think I have a wig somewhere. At a Church? Jesus, Tax Breaks, and Military Contracts. Who in heck is throwing this party together? The Light Brigade? (They lost big time fyi) Freak out time…
Mrs. Peatry, those are quite the deviled eggs. And this china is lovely. You've had it since World War 2? My stars and stripes! How neat...What's this symbol on the back here? It's a little smudged. Mrs. Peatry!!! Or should I call you Frau… Cazarts!!! Jesus, I knew there was something weird going on here......Frick! Mother ofTwelve Apostles…. I am in the never ending hallway. And now rooms with TVs are set up, barely at capacity, with two or three G looking men monitoring them. I found the upstairs Lady's room next to the organ pipes. Doors with no labels. Manchurian Jimminy Christmas!!! Did I Just Join The Workers’ Party? Church a front for Military Operations, testing out Military spy operations and hardware with little to no Constitutional interference as that First Amendment is a dandy for a lot of stuff. A "Military Social" at Church for Christmas? Take it more underground at least...To the catacombs and VC interconnected tunnels built under the Church, where the choir is bound and gagged.
If Mr. Theime tones down his Militarist bent he'll loose half his Santa Slush Fund or two. Won't he? Well, we can see now what everyone will be armed with for the “Angelic Conflict” if these wannabes who still have not paid off their loans for arming the Contras along with a 5 trillion plus sink hole and historical recession is any indication…3 tongue depressors, 2 Chiclets, and a bald tire in a spaaaare treeeeeeeeeeee.
If these losers ever ran out of wars they don’t fight they could not mock G-d in their uniforms at Christmas annually. This group is obviously not going to have Nativity Scenes or bake sales but can’t these insolated Lone Star Grace Card Users take up paint ball? I have heard it all! What’s next? Lawsuits against “The Colonel” for blowing the Angelic Conflict? In Texas it would fly. I would pay to see a Lionel Hutz type, Homer Simpson’s attorney handle that one before the next holiday. An attorney with a business card that turns into a sponge is just about on level for these “serious students of doctrine.”
Rambo Jesus. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
(theimer)
“It's a military Communion and they do wear uniforms. “ (concerned about the word social)
The Reporter:
Even if they are no longer in military? I think I’ll pass obviously. Thanks for the info…
What???!!!!!! THEY ALL WEAR UNIFORMS!!!!
Yes. Please go dig up your old Army uniform, stuffed in the cedar drawer full of mothballs, and lead all the Christmas Halloweiners in a military communion. Bow your heads and do not laugh at men in their 60s wearing the sailor outfit you just dressed your 3 year old boy in or the harsh and pitiful reality statement of current USA military operations summed up in the visual of old Mr. Pertermire sporting an Army Captain's uniform, with severe osteoporosis...Oh heck, I can't tell if it is an Army uniform or Airforce, as he is humped over like a candy cane. All I know is that I find it funny when he salutes me because it is neither me or anyone standing in front of him or he hits me square in the chest...I finally told him to hold his salute so I could balance a tray of cocktail shrimp puffs on it.
Bow your heads. No, not you Captain Petermire, and pray that these nutjobs get a clue.
You have got to be kidding me. What a horrid thing to do in the face of all the men and women in service around the world whose uniform is humility. What an embarrassment, a mock-up self-serving arrogant display sullying the values and beliefs devoted to remembering a peaceful refuge and benevolent comfort for all. The blasphemy is unbelievable.
The Soldier:
“Mint Juleps”
I was a 'Berachah baby', there in diapers in the mid-1960s; and attended without fail until I entered the Army in 1980. My last visit to Berachah Church was in May 1984. My parents began attending when Thieme was preaching in the "quonset hut", somewhere downtown, before the current facility was constructed.
I am pleased to say that by the grace of Almighty God, my family escaped from Berachah Church. My intention here is to offer my personal views and experiences. I know of quite a number of people who were friends of mine in the 1970s-80s, and still attend.
My parents made their last visit to Berachah in 1981. I was home on leave and so thrilled to be a part of the 'military communion' at Christmas - a ceremony I now regard as blasphemous. The focus of communion should be on Jesus Christ, not all the pretty uniforms. It is completely out of place. But I digress.
The weirdness began in the early 1970s. R.B. Thieme, Jr. (I will do all I can to refrain from referring to him as The Colonel) began wearing his old staff officer WWII uniform for the various 'conferences'; this was, I believe, about the same time that his son was commissioned as an Army officer. The Viet Nam War was ending, and Thieme began pushing a strong pro-military stance, incorporating this stance, as we all well know, into his ministry. A massive RANGER tab appeared on the balcony of the church where the children's classes (formerly known as Junior Church) were held. (Sidebar: As a child, I attended Junior Church under the guidance of Sam Hankins, an amazing man and a true teacher of the Bible. He was fired by Thieme, and Thieme announced one night that he had "taken control" of what would now be known as "Prep School". It was, in my opinion and conversations with those younger than I, an unparalleled disaster and warped many young lives.) The hallway behind the pulpit became "Ranger Hall", with huge photos of any man who was qualified as a Ranger. How pleased God must have been by all of this. I remember the summer of 1974, the 4th of July "Conference" - Ranger demonstrations, hand-to-hand combat in the grass "quad", Gary Horton rappelling out of the (completely abandoned) baptistry, and people sitting on the floor. In those days, tapers took their holiday vacations to come to Berachah - one had to arrive a couple of hours before services began just to get a seat. All kinds of men carrying concealed weapons, ready to take a bullet if the doors ever crashed in and Soviet agents came to get Thieme, who was (by his own admission) on several death lists as their chief protagonist. (Ahem, pardon me while I clear my throat.) Police patrolling the parking lot, making sure no indigent/homeless/hippie types got in. (Please, try to justify this exclusion using your Bible. I dare you.) And as a young man, living in perpetual terror that at any moment now, the Communists were coming to get me.
They were heady times.
I was speaking on the telephone to a good friend of mine just last night. He still lives in Houston, and his family left in the same timeframe as ours. (Note: There was a considerable exodus from Berachah from 1980-85; you will find many of these folks at First Baptist, Second Baptist, and Spring Branch.) He made the point that his family has been in disarray ever since, and this was 20 years ago. Four siblings, all with children now, and none of them ever see each other. He stated that he credits Berachah with this dysfunction, as there was never time for family. Dad came home, gobbled some dinner, packed up the family, off to church - five nights a week, twice on Sunday, with "Berach Night at the Movies" available for Saturday night entertainment, and to keep the congregation from having to mingle with anyone beyond the doors of Fort Berachah. I am relieved and blessed to say that my parents were saved BEFORE joining Berachah, and we're all fine, and all members of various Baptist and non-denom Christian churches. I have three older sisters, and the eldest suffered the worst fate. She graduated high school in 1973, having found her 'right man' who was in Marine ROTC. He was commissioned in 1975, and she spent the next several years under the iron-fisted neglect of one of Thieme's star minions. He would get off duty, come home, bark a few orders and tell her how horrible the house looked (it was always immaculate), then lock himself in the study for the duration of the night and suck down his nightly load o'doctrine. This was their routine, and it never changed. There was no physical abuse, but neither was there a marriage - nothing with even a passing resemblance to the love and sacrifice that husbands are called to. They divorced, and she eventually found her mate. She is one of the premier examples of the ludicrous right man/right woman doctrine that sent all single Berachans into a frenzy of dating and social events, a mad race to find their RM/RW.
On a positive note -
1. Thieme's presentation of the gospel of salvation was entirely accurate, and I am confident he was an instrument in leading many, many thousands to the Lord.
2. In any church I attend, I always compare their handling of the offering and other funding to how it was done at Berachah. Thieme was right on this issue 100%. And even though I think his teachings are mostly ludicrous, I respect him immeasurably for making sure anyone could get them for free.
And now, I'll attempt to itemize a few of the thousand things where I am confident he is/was wrong, and why. I will try to limit this to 10 points.
1. Privacy of the Priesthood - This doctrine was pounded home over and over. It is heretical, and invented by Thieme to keep him from having to perform his true duties as a pastor - counseling, visiting, tending the flock. This so-called "doctrine" was structured to insulate him, aided by his little band of goons, bodyguards, flunkies, and wanna-be Rangers. This doctrine also kept anyone at the church from contacting my parents when they slipped quietly away, after having been members for 30 years. To this day, never a phone call or any contact. For all the church knows, they drove off a cliff.
2. Gates of Arrogance - My goodness, it makes me want to vomit. This doctrine got so convoluted with its countless 'gates' that I came to realize he was just making it all up. If anyone on this planet stands as a shining example of arrogance and megalomania, it's Thieme. Fired the choir, fired the board, fired the deacons, fired the assistant/associate pastors, wrote the lyrics to the hymns (and yes, I can still recite "Christian Soldier" and "Bread of Heaven" verbatim), and set himself up as a complete and total dictator, daring anyone to question his authority. This singular position cannot be justified anywhere in the ministry of Jesus Christ - which is exactly why we are given strict guidance on the role of deacons and elders, and ESPECIALLY the pastor. This all came with the swarming crowds attending the conferences - it's all timed together (firing everyone and taking complete control). Quite frankly, I just think it simply went to his head. He forgot he was supposed to be teaching God's Word, and the ministry evolved into truly bizarre stuff.
3. Right Pastor - Completely erroneous. If you accept this notion, then you must accept that everyone else is wrong, and that only your Right Pastor is, well, right. You must then discard all the books and teachings of the truly great minds of Christian theology. Right Pastor is a complete and total lie. See 4 (next).
4. It is the joy of the believer to study the Word of God. This study should not be a chore. It requires no acronyms, formulas, and invented so-called 'doctrines' for you to hear from God through His Holy Scriptures. The Bible was recorded so that even the most simple-minded believer could understand it clearly. This is made possible by the presence of the Holy Spirit within us (believers). Thieme was able to rewrite the Bible by telling the congregation that they couldn't understand it. I clearly remember having this very argument with classmates in my high school, and sneering at them for thinking they could read God's Word themselves. If any of you are reading this, know that I have actually lost sleep over that argument in my adult years.
5. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations..." According to Thieme and the insane doctrine of privacy, you shouldn't even go next door. Never witness. Never visit. Never tend to the sick, the elderly, the dying, the infirm, the weak, the needy. Besides, they're probably suffering the sin unto death or in the 196th level of reversionism. If you can begin to grasp point 4 above, you will begin to see that Thieme's exclusive ministry all tied together to protect him on his personal Mount. Right pastor. No deacons. Privacy. Etc., ad nauseum.
6. I have heard from more than a few students of Greek and Hebrew, and read the comments by greater scholars than they, that Thieme's grasp of the original languages was a sham. One such student, a grad student whom I knew personally, went into Thieme's office after "class" (always "class", never "church" or "worship") because he couldn't get Thieme's interpretation to jive with the Greek. He even had his textbooks with him. He was hoping for a bit of enlightenment from his pastor, and instead was laughed at by Thieme and escorted from the church by two of the goons. I was there the night this happened.
7. It is the privilege of the believer to make a public declaration of his/her faith through water baptism. This baptism is not necessary for salvation; it is, rather, a testament. You can easily find ample verses in the true Bible (I stand by the KJV) attesting to this. Thieme denounced water baptism simply because he didn't want to have to touch the masses. All that interaction, all that shepherd and flock stuff, yuk....
8. "Rebound", at its core, is a completely false notion. "Rebound and keep moving" gave thousands of Berachans free reign to have affairs, take the Lord's name in vain, and sin with wild abandon. Confess it in the morning, get back in the club, and move on, right? WRONG. It is a privilege for the believer to confess his/her sins to the Lord. In so doing, we seek to draw closer to God, in that while we can never be sinless, we can strive to sin less. Confession of sin heightens our awareness of how our sinfulness grieves the Holy Spirit within us. It is not a free token to go out and sin some more. A repentant soul strives to avoid sin, and seeks to walk more closely with God; to do, as overused as the phrase has become, what Jesus would do.
9. The foundation of Christ's ministry was love and giving. He constantly taught the importance of these, and how they are intertwined - and by His grace, I have come to understand that we are here to serve one another, to love one another, to minister to one another. We are here to spread the ministry of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, not stand in defiant defense of a lunatic who makes up his own Bible. How often I have heard and read hardcore Berachans'/Thiemeites' defend "THE COLONEL". Dear Friends, I have something alarming to share with you. HE IS A MAN. Question: WHY DON'T YOU STAND AND DECLARE YOUR DEVOTION TO THE LORD AS VEHEMENTLY AS YOU DO FOR THIEME? Answer: Because as a cult leader, he has saturated your mind with the law that he is the one true leader, the one with all the answers, the one you should exemplify. (My goodness, in the late 70s, there were more white Cadillacs at Berachah than there were at the Cadillac dealership. I'm surprised Cadillac didn't try to run an ad in the bulletin. And Lafitte Rothschild '64 is swill, which you probably discovered if you were there, and making minimum wage, and were told over and over by your Colonel that it was the only thing worth drinking, and you spent your hard-earned money to procure some.)
10. Super Grace and Ultra Super Grace are made up. They are not in the true Word of God. They were extrapolated by Thieme so he could set himself above the crowd. It's a shocker, I know. Get over it and get with the Lord. When believers reach the Judgment Seat of Christ, there are five crowns that will be given. But these crowns don't go to us; they go back to the Lord, to His Glory. HEAVEN AIN'T ABOUT US, FOLKS, IT'S ABOUT GOD. No "plantations and mint juleps" - just a perfect eternity, worshipping and adoring the Creator of the Universe. He, who alone is holy. And here on earth, we are blessed by God when we strive to do His Will, when we strive to be Christlike. This entails witnessing, counseling, prayer, giving, and a host of other post-salvation works, all of which involve interacting with others. "Faith, without works, is dead, being alone." So, if you truly DID reach 'Super Grace' or 'Super Duper Grace', it would be incumbent upon you to be a servant of the Lord - not to insulate yourself from unbelievers and condemn anyone who is missing their daily intake o'doctrine.
11. (Okay, I went one over.) Be aware of any "pastor" who does not teach the Word of God. By this, I mean anyone who routinely steps outside of the Bible, either by new interpretations from the 'original languages', or whose ministry is nothing but the same homespun aw-shucks feel-good story every Sunday, or who spends an entire service discussing the Battle of Waterloo. Or telling you what you should drink. He is there to present the Word of God to you - not entertain you, belittle you, demean you, or embarrass you. And by golly, if you can't approach your pastor after the service, and have a chat, or ask a question, or get counseling - THEN HE IS NOT A PASTOR.
12. (Just one more.) While I am certain Thieme helped thousands to find Christ as their Savior, I am just as certain he destroyed many thousands of lives through his false teachings. Re-interpreting God's Word is not something that goes unnoticed by the Almighty, and Bob Thieme certainly had no proprietary domain on the truth.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." So much so that He gave His life for mine. The end for me came when Thieme stepped to the side of his pulpit, put one hand on his hip, leaned forward, and sneered to the congregation, "Jesus doesn't love you - he TOLERATES you." I never went back after that night. Dozens of notebooks full of scribbled doctrines went in the dumpster. It took me several years to clear my head of all the nonsense, but I turned my life over to the Lord and He has blessed me abundantly. I am in a fundamental Baptist church (independent), have taught a number of Sunday School and men's classes, and was even asked by the pastor to give a sermon last Thanksgiving regarding Christ's ministry of giving.
I have been deliriously, happily, joyfully married for just over 20 years. I have one son, who is a senior at the top of his class at a Christian school.
I follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, not any one man. I read and clearly understand my Bible. I know where I will spend eternity.
To those of you still under the ministry of R.B. Thieme, Jr. - I know there is nothing I can say that you will convince you of any of this. Hopefully someday you will come to realize that his teachings are a grain of truth wrapped up in an ocean of falsehoods and self-serving lies. There are doctrines in the Bible, but it is perfectly proper to say, "I am studying God's Word" - not performing your daily intake of Bible doctrine.
*************************************************************************************************
Though I don’t share a few sentiments expressed by this individual I found his testimony interesting and happened across it a year after learning about “The Military Communion” which is par practice for a Cult.
This is one testimonial from a former “Berachah diaper baby”. One of the other “Berachah diaper babies” I spoke with completely by chance, random, not at Berachah, fought back tears when I pressed her regarding her experience. She was in her mid 30s, spoke of a paddle and had a special name for it… “The Colonel” had all the men make, her Dad’s name she flashed as if I should know him, explaining from the time she was three her and her brothers had to grab their ankles and endure beatings from the special paddle until they stopped crying. Her parents divorced over it she relinquished. She gathered her emotions together (of course) and said, “But he did such wonderful things for so many people.” (I have yet to meet these people and these people are always nameless, abstract, beyond the confines of Cult members.) Then she asked if I knew of the celebrities “The Colonel” knew in Hollywood, and was quickly back to one of the lucky and chosen ones invited to dinner with The Beverly Hills royal family of god. She stated rather curtly that she hated religion, sharing how her children were now Jehovah’s Witnesses and under their father’s sole custody in Dallas, ending the discussion saying the only thing she was concerned with regarding faith was that they had John 3:16 and that was it.
Beyond the dueling over the hatchet job RB Theime II did to add and take away from the Bible to glorify himself absolutely, is the lasting evident emotional trauma of ritualistic abuse, abuse. How much further can a person go in brutalizing or manipulating another human being, than to reach right into their immortality? Anything short of hell on earth is still not immortality right? Raise them to the highest heavens, stroke them, let them in on the secret, provide them an elite path, provide them a unique code language, navigate them through a maze, provide check points and maps, the light at the end of the tunnel is near, closer, closer, and then CRUSH their Savior, their light, along with their spirit…Will prove who is boss. What produces Fierce loyalty? Why, absolute control, god of course, not pastors. Talk about an existential delima which devours, eating at the core of a person, when the after-life conquors death but is forever spent with someone who merely tolerates you. Try to absolve? Consider the source telling you to consider The Source? Cannot be questioned. Scriptures are merely functional for battle fatigue, defense, and identification of the enemy, anyhow. All the scriptures given and principles stressed to engage the individual in battles with the Them are also good defense for absolute power. Create a militant cult? Every flunkie is programmed to say ‘The battle is the Lords.” Penetrate all personal physical space? Every flunkie says doctrine of privacy for believers. Belief and reality severed for maximum attrition. All buttons are for the pressing. All pressure points located. Lock down. Malliable mental midgets await further instruction. Tendorized hamburger. The compound is into eternity.
How much can they take? Let’s see what they do. Cameras on? Check. What if they go home? Tapes. Daily Intake… Get to them in their cars, in their living room, in their walkmans, in their computers, in their bedrooms …Anywhere. Have em anywhere. What about when they die? Have em their too. The exit strategy is no exit. What happens if they decompress? The drill works like a charm. Self-destruct mode. “On our own volition.” Right...Should work. Covered all our bases.
Sorry people but Christianity and Jesus was never Theime’s objective. But you know this. Spiritual growth? (Pause to laugh.) There must be some other reasons for the draw to Berrachah hmmm?
I guess upbeat or “positive “ in the Theime Park is that this method might make good soldiers assuming soldiers do not need to be good people, and claiming valor is as easy as claiming the Christian label? Well… always prepping for battle, ingrained into daily life, leaves a nation with simulation soldiers and they make the worst soldiers. A nation of simulation soldiers is a vast weak military. Who attacks an enemy using routine? What enemy speaks the same thing over and over? How can you build alliances if you are always classifying? Here is a hint…When your “Colonel” has you always engage in a method prayer to maximize your “problem solving technique,” you are going to be up to your eye balls with problems. (Just ask fundamentalist Muslims.) When a “Colonel” tells you to pray, he hasn’t got a strategy to save your life and you have no cover. Door slammed. The power of prayer broken down into a problem solving technique is a declaration by your Commander that you haven’t got a snow ball’s chance in hell. Faced with a problem other than simulated and pre-determined IE not a problem, how long will it take you to run through your mental gymnastics before you blow it or are smoked? As a result the only problems you can solve are the ones you create. It’s part of what happens when you put Satan and G-d on the same line. “Satan controls your world and G-d merely controls history.” You are locked in a battle to change history to take over the world? You have to remove G-d. You are locked into a battle against Satan’s world? Victory is Satan’s because you have to become Satan. You are locked in a battle for G-d, G-d controls history and you win? Both of you are winners under Satan. Next Chapter. Tired of fighting rigged wars? Don’t worry your god had plenty of wars mapped out. Where are you if you are fighting Satan and his demons in the after-life? Hell.
Dope!
Getting you ground into powder so that you don’t think about things and they are rote, is great for sitting ducks. Especially, when the method to produce the routine is mired in complexity in order to exhaust a possible solution. So you don’t think at all do you? You “Rebound”. You cannot recognize basic Biblical principles, your enemies, or your friendlys. Do as I say, not as I do, and here is the method to the madness, is a problem, battle, and war lost at the onset. Strung out and strung along simulation soldiers design billion dollar helicopters with no rear-mount artillery. Strung out simulation soldiers who can’t leave their own compound because their “Colonel Pastor” killed god and he has got to be somewhere?...play lost and found until they are shocked that their only back up on a deserted road in Falluja, is card board cut-outs and their slag heaps don’t start. (But remember your problem solving technique just in case praying never occurred to you) A strung out simulation military can’t believe that their enemy does not line up. These poor flunkies can’t make it out of the compound much less in foreign terrain. They have been disabled at every nook and cranny by the man who decided to reprogram them to insure they could not leave.
Too much of this “teutonic” strain in our own military has meant while an enemy recognizes we do not live in 1435 for one, our Marines are out drowning each other to simulate drowning, the “what if” if sunk by an enemy in the ocean. In these maneuvers, Marines are drowned and then resussitated by other Marines. Marines drown and die in these simulations. The Marines who survive are prepared to drown. Score one, two, and counting for the enemy and they did not have to lift a finger. The body is molecularly evil matter anyways and treatment of it is rough right? Who needs an enemy if you are always playing war, in a nutshell. It is albatross to our military, our strength, when an elitist armchair warrior admin engages our own civilians in war. It is an albatross to our nation when attacked, if people are already fighting lost wars lead by someone like RB Theime II. It is an albatross to faith when people are drowning each other.
Well, surely there is an upbeat to Theime regarding engendering good American citizens? Assuming we don’t live in a free country, yes. Here is another example where belief and reality has been severed to maximize attrition. Theimeites can only be “good” citizens if they can coerce and replicate the absolute rule of their compound, and drive the US further in the direction of Mao’s China. With Theime III at the helm, Deng Xiaoping,s China is possible. Awe shucks. Can you take back the freedom you destroyed? Lost and found. Burn the village to save the village? Lost and found. Burn that bridge when you build it? Lost and found. Has a dictatorship ever been free? How does “Call no man your servant” mesh with absolute authority?
Ah but alas, keep those cameras rolling, tape every word, and prepare for battle. Keep ramping it up. A climate of fear, intimidation, and zonkies in the word is what Jesus is all about. Once you rob G-d of his sacrifice as merely a flexing of himself and not for humans, he is not there for you is he? And then you can be god…Claude. You can out think G-d can’t you? Stay on top of it and keep a tight record of wrongs. Once you have tested G-d to the limit trying to achieve Super Duper Duper Grace, by turning every message from The Torah onward on its head and stomping all over it, making movies and tapes of the whole affair to demonstrate just how foolish you believe G-d is, thoroughness and loop holes that guarentee you are IN no matter what you do, is all you need. Yep, G-d has no choice once you lock Him into semantics. Perfect Justice has no choice but to concur with a defense attorney and his label maker. The “Supreme Court of Heaven” is really Jacko’s Law Joint above the Pizza Palour. Jesus is really a neophyte with a hair trigger, GI Joe is really a consiencious objector, Barbi is really a brainy go getter, Ralph Lauren makes you an American, RB Theime II was a Minister of G-d, and Berachah is a Church.
I have purposely pulled back a wider lens to illustrate that spending 3o plus years to teach a congregation that they do not have to give money is not much of a skyhook for anything considering. It is reaching to say the least.
RB Theime II’s contribution to Christianity, society, the military, would not be summed up by anyone but RB Themie II himself of course, in one of his Basic Training tapes,
“This idiot came to me one time and said he wanted to kill himself. And you know what I did?!!! ………
I handed him the gun.”
(Happy Holidays),
thereporter
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 10, 2009 11:31AM
To thereporter:
Excellent! Hah I always enjoy reading your posts. You capture and expose the essence of the sick spirit of Be-Reich-ah, in the many different facets, in raw detail.
Truthtesty
Excellent! Hah I always enjoy reading your posts. You capture and expose the essence of the sick spirit of Be-Reich-ah, in the many different facets, in raw detail.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 10, 2009 02:41PM
To the Forum:
Truthtesty:
First of all z, where have you ever said Thieme taught one thing in error? You would gladly point to the moderator as making an error and you try in the extreme to find my error, but what about Thieme's errors, what about yours? Typical thiemite PSYOPS psycological warfare. You appear to be here as other thiemites. You appear to be here to DICTATE a pro-Thieme agenda.
What about your false accusations to me? You never apologized for the crude lying behaviour, but now? You want "common courtesy"? Hah for what? You certainly have not displayed "common courtesy" here. And? No one here believes you or Thieme is superior. No one believes you should be given special treatment.
Would you kindly point to any of the theologians that you mentioned above about the "Blood", who would agree with Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor? Or? Will you just conveniently bypass answering my question? And by bypassing the question and not mentioning Thieme's error you are covering up for Thieme. You are defending Thieme.
You say you are not here to defend Thieme, but you do not appear to be here to point out in anyway where Thieme made error, either. That is defending Thieme in the worst way. It is also dangerous for people because you like Thieme only want to point the 1 side of the story which would show Thieme in a "positive" light. Even though you would easily point to the moderator as making an eggregious error. So where is Thieme's error on the false cult doctrine of "right pastor"? Which? Dr. Wall has pointed to Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor as "diotrophes doctrine".
Also, you should be aware of Dr. Hymer poiting out Mcarthur's learning and copying from Thieme on the blood. Which I have also already shown on this form. [forum.culteducation.com]
The moderator is correct you are here to hypocritically defend Thieme by only pointing to "positive" things about Thieme and not "negative".
You forget. I know the "inside" story of Be-reich-ah. So I am no outsider. You can fool outsiders, but not me.
Morris I said was a "low information" theologian because of his "low info input" "low info output" info, simpleton error on the 2 birds and the blood. Where Morris points to blood meaning death ont the death of the first bird(slain), but makes no mention of blood being applied to the second bird and released. While your laughing why don't you read how ridiculously funny it it that Morris just stops with the first bird. And? I do not see much "proofwork" in his writings. It appears mostly to be speculation.
Dr. Wall and the "nine fundementals" are a "brief summary of Chafer theology". Which is where I have proven before(and you were here when I did post this) that Chafer believed with good reason in the literal Shed blood. But? You would completely and bald-facedly bypass this fact. The "nine fundementals" being a brief summary is true to a point, but in fact do not reflect Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus.
Dr. Wall made a mistake here. Dr. Wall nor Thieme ever mentioned Dr. Chafer's literal Shed blood theology.
This is proof, you only mention "positive" things about Thieme without mentioning facts which happen to show Thieme in a negative light.
Something that you should learn is that when a theologian, scholar, Thieme, Wall, Dewar, Gayford, Morris, or anyone says something? Then make them prove it what they said in scripture. If they don't prove it, then it is just speculation. When they make a mistake? Admit it.
Your "blood equals death" argument has a problem with the potentially eternal G-d connected perfect Blood of Jesus. "Lamb without spot" perfected and provided by G-d's intervention into this realm with the Virgin birth. So yes the Blood of Jesus had eternal G-d connected properties in the material blood which was "circumcised" and "cut short" of the potential eternal life it held.
Where is Nazi Behm's, Morris', Stibbs' "proof-work"? Just because someone has a "name" in theology doesn't mean they are correct. Let's deal in the details of proofwork, for example:
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2009 02:51PM by Truthtesty.
Quote
zeebrook
Good grief Mr Moderator. How can you make such an outlandish declaration. "So zeebrook is here essentially to defend Thieme and his beliefs." Common courtesy would have you at least phrase it as a question, "are you zeebrook here to defend Thieme and his beliefs?" Simple answer, No. Long answer follows:
...
So I am not defending Thieme and his beliefs. When you misdirect and deliberately obfuscate I challenge.
In what way am I defending Thieme and his beliefs when my position is similar Morris, Stibbs, and the following:
...
So Mr Moderator your declaration that Zeebrook is defending Thieme and his beliefs is an egregious error. Just because Truthtesty says so does not make it so.
Truthtesty:
First of all z, where have you ever said Thieme taught one thing in error? You would gladly point to the moderator as making an error and you try in the extreme to find my error, but what about Thieme's errors, what about yours? Typical thiemite PSYOPS psycological warfare. You appear to be here as other thiemites. You appear to be here to DICTATE a pro-Thieme agenda.
What about your false accusations to me? You never apologized for the crude lying behaviour, but now? You want "common courtesy"? Hah for what? You certainly have not displayed "common courtesy" here. And? No one here believes you or Thieme is superior. No one believes you should be given special treatment.
Would you kindly point to any of the theologians that you mentioned above about the "Blood", who would agree with Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor? Or? Will you just conveniently bypass answering my question? And by bypassing the question and not mentioning Thieme's error you are covering up for Thieme. You are defending Thieme.
You say you are not here to defend Thieme, but you do not appear to be here to point out in anyway where Thieme made error, either. That is defending Thieme in the worst way. It is also dangerous for people because you like Thieme only want to point the 1 side of the story which would show Thieme in a "positive" light. Even though you would easily point to the moderator as making an eggregious error. So where is Thieme's error on the false cult doctrine of "right pastor"? Which? Dr. Wall has pointed to Thieme's false cult doctrine of right pastor as "diotrophes doctrine".
Also, you should be aware of Dr. Hymer poiting out Mcarthur's learning and copying from Thieme on the blood. Which I have also already shown on this form. [forum.culteducation.com]
The moderator is correct you are here to hypocritically defend Thieme by only pointing to "positive" things about Thieme and not "negative".
You forget. I know the "inside" story of Be-reich-ah. So I am no outsider. You can fool outsiders, but not me.
Morris I said was a "low information" theologian because of his "low info input" "low info output" info, simpleton error on the 2 birds and the blood. Where Morris points to blood meaning death ont the death of the first bird(slain), but makes no mention of blood being applied to the second bird and released. While your laughing why don't you read how ridiculously funny it it that Morris just stops with the first bird. And? I do not see much "proofwork" in his writings. It appears mostly to be speculation.
Dr. Wall and the "nine fundementals" are a "brief summary of Chafer theology". Which is where I have proven before(and you were here when I did post this) that Chafer believed with good reason in the literal Shed blood. But? You would completely and bald-facedly bypass this fact. The "nine fundementals" being a brief summary is true to a point, but in fact do not reflect Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's theology of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus.
Dr. Wall made a mistake here. Dr. Wall nor Thieme ever mentioned Dr. Chafer's literal Shed blood theology.
This is proof, you only mention "positive" things about Thieme without mentioning facts which happen to show Thieme in a negative light.
Something that you should learn is that when a theologian, scholar, Thieme, Wall, Dewar, Gayford, Morris, or anyone says something? Then make them prove it what they said in scripture. If they don't prove it, then it is just speculation. When they make a mistake? Admit it.
Your "blood equals death" argument has a problem with the potentially eternal G-d connected perfect Blood of Jesus. "Lamb without spot" perfected and provided by G-d's intervention into this realm with the Virgin birth. So yes the Blood of Jesus had eternal G-d connected properties in the material blood which was "circumcised" and "cut short" of the potential eternal life it held.
Where is Nazi Behm's, Morris', Stibbs' "proof-work"? Just because someone has a "name" in theology doesn't mean they are correct. Let's deal in the details of proofwork, for example:
Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
Take another look, z. Blood in this case is not referring to "blood equals death".
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Do you see the parallel sentence structures? Eat is referring to body. Drink is referring to blood. Those are indicating two separate distinct elements. They are not combined at this point. Jesus is definitely pointing to his literal shed blood(figuratively wine)as Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is pointing only to his literal blood as being Shed for the remission of sins, not his body at this point. Check the sentence structure.
In this case, for blood to equal death, Jesus would need to have said "eat and drink" "for this is my blood". But? He did not. Blood and drink are clearly seperated from Body and eat, though parallled.
Take, eat; this is my BODY
Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Eat is for the body.
And seperated in this case,
Drink is for "MY Blood of the New Testament."
For your false conclusion to be true(in this case), it would have to read "Eat and drink for that is the "blood..."
But? It doesn't and it isn't.
It is "drink" alone,
It is "drink" alone, clearly seperated in the parallel sentence structure. Blood is alone seperated by Jesus indicating His literal Shed blood of the New Testament.
Even if you disagree with the figurative/literal usages, a non-predjudiced person can easily see the parallel but seperated distinctions of the elements and the different action toward each seperate element. "Blood" clearly does not equal death in this case.
I only just pointed to the "self-proof" of the scripture itself.
So debate the text as it is.
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my BODY. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard...
Truthtesty
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2009 02:51PM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 11, 2009 09:53AM
To the Forum:
z quote:"This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.unquote.
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.
Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.
Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.
The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 10:13AM by Truthtesty.
z quote:"This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.unquote.
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.
Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.
Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.
The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".
Truthtesty
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2009 10:13AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
orangeperuviscacha
()
Date: December 11, 2009 10:28AM
[www.dtic.mil]
- Perhaps relevant to The Reporter's latest post above
- "RBTjr's influence in military circles", comment from Wikipedia page
- Perhaps relevant to The Reporter's latest post above
- "RBTjr's influence in military circles", comment from Wikipedia page
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 12, 2009 07:14AM
To the Forum:
Truthtesty: No it is you z, who should take your own advice. It is you like Thieme who would take Nazi Behm's "low information" speculation to wild extremes. Again, as I have said before you need to debate what the text says and not your substitutions.
Truthtesty: First, the synecdoche "Blood of Christ" does include the Shed literal Blood of Jesus, His broken Body, His physical and Spiritual death. Second, if Jesus, the theophany of G-d in the flesh prayed and blessed the bread and gave thanks for the wine, then it is most unwise to second guess G-d and say:
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. But? there's more. Why do you think it wasn't his actual body/blood? Because it was not occuring at the moment. If you are going to go to insane literal extremes and say that because the wine does not equal exactly the literal Shed blood of Jesus, and the Shed blood of Jesus was not being Shed at the moment at the moment. And? the Bread was not the literal broken body, and the body of jesus was not being broken at the moment, then guess what z? THEN USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS! Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm?? If you are going to apply your failed logic to the obvious interpretation, then make sure you follow through and apply your failed logic to your own interpretation. You have distorted that obvious figurative to literal interpretation.
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
z quote if he were honest and applied his failed logic to himself: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood AND NOT HIS ACTUAL DEATH ON THE CROSS, but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e." BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WERE OCCURING AT THE MOMENT, AND F-I-G-U-R-E-S ARE USED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL."unquote
Truthtesty: You are here to protect Nazi Behm and Thieme, and other fringe theologians. This is ridiculous and insane. I dont' WANT anything. IT IS THE OBVIOUS LOGICAL INTERPRETATION. The figurative to literal meaning is obvious. I don't think you realize how to "argue" apart from looking at what a theologican "you like", says.
Truthtesty: No as I said before
There is no conflict with the aspect of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus and the physical aspect and spiritual aspect of the Death of Jesus.
Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.
You see? Blood does not equal death in this case. Blood equals literal Shed blood of Jesus. Both bread eaten and wine drank represent rememberance of the Death of Christ, but? neither the Shed literal Blood nor "life given up in Death" are contradictory, contrare, they compliement each other.
26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come"
For your false figurative to literal meanings to be true, it would have said:
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's BLOOD till he come.
BUT? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. Do you see the difference? Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.
Your figurative to literal meaning, as well as Thieme's and Nazi Behm's "that blood equals death only", in the "Blood of Jesus" is false. The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.
Also, above you copied from somewhere "The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi." to sound as if you really know something, (you run to your greek lexicon touting"present active indicative" when your are in greatest doubt as if like Thieme(who said "present active indicative" thousands of times) you can just snowball people about the truth. It is so obvious and pathetic) but? try to argue the parallel text that I have just shown you:
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I doubt you will because there is nothing to copy.
Truthtesty
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2009 07:33AM by Truthtesty.
Quote
zeebrook
Well Truthtesty you want to have your cake and it too. If you are going to argue based on Matthew 26:26-28 then argue what the text says and not your substitutions.
Truthtesty: No it is you z, who should take your own advice. It is you like Thieme who would take Nazi Behm's "low information" speculation to wild extremes. Again, as I have said before you need to debate what the text says and not your substitutions.
Quote
zeebrook
Jesus says “This IS my body”. He did not say as you then say “although bread is substitute for the body for the meal” (your words). So argue the text at it stands. Either Jesus is using “this is my body”, “this is my blood” as figures or metaphors or He is saying this is actually, literally my body and blood your are about to eat (This was the argument of Luther against Zwingli in the transubstantiation debates). The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi. Emphatically this IS my body, this IS my blood. We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e. Something that represents something else. Same as the phrase “the blood of Christ” represents, is a figure/metaphor for His death.
Truthtesty: First, the synecdoche "Blood of Christ" does include the Shed literal Blood of Jesus, His broken Body, His physical and Spiritual death. Second, if Jesus, the theophany of G-d in the flesh prayed and blessed the bread and gave thanks for the wine, then it is most unwise to second guess G-d and say:
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
Truthtesty: You act as if G-d in the fleshs' prayers are powerless in reality. And you would say that you know more than G-d in every moment, which is wrong. You don't know that there was not something that G-d "did" to the bread and the wine, in prayer. But? there's more. Why do you think it wasn't his actual body/blood? Because it was not occuring at the moment. If you are going to go to insane literal extremes and say that because the wine does not equal exactly the literal Shed blood of Jesus, and the Shed blood of Jesus was not being Shed at the moment at the moment. And? the Bread was not the literal broken body, and the body of jesus was not being broken at the moment, then guess what z? THEN USING YOUR FAILED EXTREME LITERAL DISTORTED FIGURATIVE LOGIC SINCE JESUS DID NOT DIE AT THAT MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED TO REPRESENT THE DEATH OF JESUS THEN? IT WASN'T REALLY THE DEATH OF JESUS THAT IS BEING REFERRED TO BECAUSE FIGURES WERE USED FOR WHAT WAS REAL. YOU SHOULD SAY "YOU KNOW FULL WELL IT WASN'T HIS DEATH AT THE MOMENT AND FIGURES WERE USED, SO JESUS WASN'T REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS". SO HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO HIS REAL DEATH ON THE CROSS! Do you get how absolutely unsound that sounds when you take you failed logic to the extreme, just to protect Thieme and Nazi Behm?? If you are going to apply your failed logic to the obvious interpretation, then make sure you follow through and apply your failed logic to your own interpretation. You have distorted that obvious figurative to literal interpretation.
z quote: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e.".unquote
z quote if he were honest and applied his failed logic to himself: "We know full well it was not His actual body/blood AND NOT HIS ACTUAL DEATH ON THE CROSS, but a figure. That is f-i-g-u-r-e." BECAUSE NONE OF THESE WERE OCCURING AT THE MOMENT, AND F-I-G-U-R-E-S ARE USED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL."unquote
Quote
zeebrook
You say “Literal liquid blood is drank and referred to by Jesus (although wine is the close substitute for the meal, literal sacrificed blood is what Jesus is referring to).” Again you want to the best of both arguments. You want the wine to be literal blood but not really literal blood because it’s a “close substitute” (your words). This is the same argument Stibbs, Morris et.al. use in saying “the blood of Christ” is an expression meaning His death. Exactly as we understand Jesus in the Matthew passage saying this bread/wine represents my body, my blood it is not actually my body or my blood it represents them. He shed His blood meaning He died upon the cross for our sins.
Truthtesty: You are here to protect Nazi Behm and Thieme, and other fringe theologians. This is ridiculous and insane. I dont' WANT anything. IT IS THE OBVIOUS LOGICAL INTERPRETATION. The figurative to literal meaning is obvious. I don't think you realize how to "argue" apart from looking at what a theologican "you like", says.
Quote
zeebrook
So Matthew 26:26-28 has Jesus using physical items to symbolise His pending death, that He would die upon a cross to give His life for all mankind. Jesus is saying "This is my body/blood" is clearly showing His death as required for the remission of sins. "This My blood represents my death which is required for the remission of sins"..
Truthtesty: No as I said before
Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: No not in this case. Blood is seperate from Body in the text usage. Jesus is NOT referring to "Blood stands not for real Shed blood, but instead "death only" on the cross". Nothing here indicates that. Blood is clearly seperate from Body. Notice how z is confused and completely unaware of the seperate but paralled sentence structure in Matthew 26:26-28.
Also, it needs to be remembered that the verse divisions(verse numbering) DID NOT exist in the original manuscripts. So it is quite logical to debate the text as it is, WITHOUT the verse numbers.
Take, eat; this is MY BODY
Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Removing the verse numbering makes the paralled sentence structure (although seperate and distinct in each paralled aspect)even more obvious. Note "action" before the semicolon AND "this is my" after the semicolon, in each seperate but paralled case. Blood is not included with body, thus proving the literal Shed blood is meant and disproving the false "blood equals death only" speculation.
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus is clearly referencing the "Blood of Jesus" "My blood" (seperate from but paralled to "My body" in sentence structure, in this case.), which is the literal liquid (potentially drinkable) "Blood of Jesus" which is Shed for the remission of sins.
Jesus made the distinction for a reason and it is disrespectful to intentionally blur the distinction, with careless disregard for careless speculations, which can become a needless stumbling block.
The large majority of Protestants and all Catholics do not believe "blood equals death only".
Truthtesty
There is no conflict with the aspect of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus and the physical aspect and spiritual aspect of the Death of Jesus.
Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come.
You see? Blood does not equal death in this case. Blood equals literal Shed blood of Jesus. Both bread eaten and wine drank represent rememberance of the Death of Christ, but? neither the Shed literal Blood nor "life given up in Death" are contradictory, contrare, they compliement each other.
26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's DEATH till he come"
For your false figurative to literal meanings to be true, it would have said:
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's BLOOD till he come.
BUT? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. Do you see the difference? Why didn't the Author use "BLOOD" instead of "DEATH"? If what Nazi Behm, Thieme and you are saying is true? It is not true. It is false.
Your figurative to literal meaning, as well as Thieme's and Nazi Behm's "that blood equals death only", in the "Blood of Jesus" is false. The "Blood of Jesus" is a synecdoche, which includes(not excludes) the literal Shed efficacious Blood of Jesus, neither is there conflict with the physical and spiritual aspects of the Death of Jesus.
Also, above you copied from somewhere "The Greek text uses the present active indicative of eimi." to sound as if you really know something, (you run to your greek lexicon touting"present active indicative" when your are in greatest doubt as if like Thieme(who said "present active indicative" thousands of times) you can just snowball people about the truth. It is so obvious and pathetic) but? try to argue the parallel text that I have just shown you:
Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is MY BLOOD OF the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I doubt you will because there is nothing to copy.
Truthtesty
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2009 07:33AM by Truthtesty.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
orangeperuviscacha
()
Date: December 12, 2009 10:11AM
Quote
orangeperuviscacha
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA250326&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
- Perhaps relevant to The Reporter's latest post above
- "RBTjr's influence in military circles", comment from Wikipedia page
Editing to include
- Notes from early 1970's 4th of July conferences
[kukis.org]
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr., Berachah Church Houston, Robert B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: December 12, 2009 11:03AM
To the Forum:
z quote: "Let’s go further, Charles Spurgeon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 32 p123 says “When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin"; we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"; and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God," Even Spurgeon knew full well that the phrase “the blood of Christ” did not solely relate to literal fluid but speaks of His death."
Truthtesty: Let's go further. I accept your surrender, because Spurgeon believed in the efficacy of the literal Shed blood.(Note quit copying others and you won't get blindsided with their error). Note Spurgeon said "“When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus."
The key word there is "solely". However? It is a complete misrepresentation and mischaracterization of Spurgeon to say that he believed the material blood was not efficacious. Spurgeon believed the material blood was efficacious, but he also believed it had further meaning.
For example: one cannot walk away from reading The Voice of the Blood of Christ
[www.spurgeon.org]
and believe Spurgeon did not believe in the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. Spurgeon believed in the efficacy of the literal Shed blood.
The Voice of the Blood of Christ
[www.spurgeon.org]
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, August 29, 1858, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens "The blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."—Hebrews 12:24. F all substances blood is the most mysterious, and in some senses the most sacred. Scripture teacheth us,—and after all there is very much philosophy in Scripture,—that "the blood is the life thereof,"—that the life lieth in the blood. Blood, therefore, is the mysterious link between matter and spirit. How it is that the soul should in any degree have an alliance with matter through blood, we cannot understand; but certain it is that this is the mysterious link which unites these apparently dissimilar things together, so that the soul can inhabit the body, and the life can rest in the blood. God has attached awful sacredness to the shedding of blood. Under the Jewish dispensation, even the blood of animals was considered as sacred. Blood might never be eaten by the Jews; it was too sacred a thing to become the food of man. The Jew was scarcely allowed to kill his own food: certainly he must not kill it except he poured out the blood as a sacred offering to Almighty God. Blood was accepted by God as the symbol of the atonement. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, because, I take it, blood hath such an affinity with life, that inasmuch as God would accept nought but blood, be signified that there must be a life offered to him, and that his great and glorious Son must surrender his life as a sacrifice for his sheep.Now, we have in our text "blood" mentioned—two-fold blood. We have the blood of murdered Abel, and the blood of murdered Jesus. We have also two things in the text:—a comparison between the blood of sprinkling, and the blood of Abel; and then a certain condition mentioned. Rather, if we read the whole verse in order to get its meaning, we find that the righteous are spoken of ..."
"And again, Abel's blood cries continually, there is the mercy-seat, and there is the cross, and the blood is dropping on the mercy-seat. I have sinned a sin. Christ says, "Father, forgive him." There is one drop. I sin again: Christ intercedes again. There is another drop. In fact, it is the drop that intercedes, Christ need not speak with his mouth; the drops of blood as they fall upon the mercy-seat, each seemeth to say, "Forgive him! forgive him! forgive him!"
Spurgeon believed in the efficacious literal shed drops of blood.
Truthtesty
z quote: "Let’s go further, Charles Spurgeon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 32 p123 says “When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, "He shall make his soul an offering for sin"; we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"; and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God," Even Spurgeon knew full well that the phrase “the blood of Christ” did not solely relate to literal fluid but speaks of His death."
Truthtesty: Let's go further. I accept your surrender, because Spurgeon believed in the efficacy of the literal Shed blood.(Note quit copying others and you won't get blindsided with their error). Note Spurgeon said "“When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus."
The key word there is "solely". However? It is a complete misrepresentation and mischaracterization of Spurgeon to say that he believed the material blood was not efficacious. Spurgeon believed the material blood was efficacious, but he also believed it had further meaning.
For example: one cannot walk away from reading The Voice of the Blood of Christ
[www.spurgeon.org]
and believe Spurgeon did not believe in the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood. Spurgeon believed in the efficacy of the literal Shed blood.
The Voice of the Blood of Christ
[www.spurgeon.org]
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, August 29, 1858, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens "The blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."—Hebrews 12:24. F all substances blood is the most mysterious, and in some senses the most sacred. Scripture teacheth us,—and after all there is very much philosophy in Scripture,—that "the blood is the life thereof,"—that the life lieth in the blood. Blood, therefore, is the mysterious link between matter and spirit. How it is that the soul should in any degree have an alliance with matter through blood, we cannot understand; but certain it is that this is the mysterious link which unites these apparently dissimilar things together, so that the soul can inhabit the body, and the life can rest in the blood. God has attached awful sacredness to the shedding of blood. Under the Jewish dispensation, even the blood of animals was considered as sacred. Blood might never be eaten by the Jews; it was too sacred a thing to become the food of man. The Jew was scarcely allowed to kill his own food: certainly he must not kill it except he poured out the blood as a sacred offering to Almighty God. Blood was accepted by God as the symbol of the atonement. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, because, I take it, blood hath such an affinity with life, that inasmuch as God would accept nought but blood, be signified that there must be a life offered to him, and that his great and glorious Son must surrender his life as a sacrifice for his sheep.Now, we have in our text "blood" mentioned—two-fold blood. We have the blood of murdered Abel, and the blood of murdered Jesus. We have also two things in the text:—a comparison between the blood of sprinkling, and the blood of Abel; and then a certain condition mentioned. Rather, if we read the whole verse in order to get its meaning, we find that the righteous are spoken of ..."
"And again, Abel's blood cries continually, there is the mercy-seat, and there is the cross, and the blood is dropping on the mercy-seat. I have sinned a sin. Christ says, "Father, forgive him." There is one drop. I sin again: Christ intercedes again. There is another drop. In fact, it is the drop that intercedes, Christ need not speak with his mouth; the drops of blood as they fall upon the mercy-seat, each seemeth to say, "Forgive him! forgive him! forgive him!"
Spurgeon believed in the efficacious literal shed drops of blood.
Truthtesty
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.