I have seven copies of Dr. Wall's dissertation on my computer from a long time ago, both old and new versions. It was 1978, and you have to ask yourself why DTS would grant a doctorate in theology for a dissertation which is NOT about God.

The doctrines discussed in the dissertation are discussed at the most elementary level, a kind of kindergarten version of GOD101. This isn't to say that Dr. Wall was bad. It is to say that a kind of adikia exists when a seminary wants a dissertation on a mere human being for a doctorate which is supposed to represent competence in the STUDY OF GOD.

It's ironic that the dissertation Thieme was writing had to stop, due to WWII, so here's this guy years later writing a dissertation on him, from the same seminary. And Blood of Christ is THINKING, which Isaiah says 21 times in the Hebrew (and Greek) texts of Isa52:13-53:12.

And, it's been about 30 years of vastly improved theology since then, which Thieme has passed on.

Don't get me wrong; I've seen some of the silly idolizing of Thieme you all complain about here, and I moved away from the church because of it. But the teaching from Thieme? Sterling. Buy good Bible software like BibleWorks and then throw all the stones you want at what he says in exegesis. The exegesis is sound. So is the interpretation.

Mind you, I don't care that it's Thieme or any other mere human name who teaches Bible. I care that I LEARN this Bible, from whomever.

People stuck on people rather than God do stuff like post 30-year old elementary dissertations, rather than learn Bible. I'll go back to learning Bible, now. Bye.

When someone credentialed abuses his authority, it's called "adikia" in the Greek. In modern English, we'd call this a breach of public trust, and of course all the time credentialed people sling mud in public claiming someone ELSE breached the trust.

Thieme just taught Bible. What OTHER people made out of him, is their problem. As I posted just now, I left the church and became a taper over 34 years ago because I didn't like all the gushy attitude I saw. The people were stuck on Thieme, positively and negatively, so THEY DID NOT HEAR THE MESSAGE. I didn't want to become like that, so I left.

Frankly, the DTS dissertation shows the same fixation on a person, so the message of Bible is rather puerily understood, sorry. It's a mismatch to say that SOUL sins can be paid for by mere physical death -- that's what mainstream Christianity (and the writer of the dissertation, and DTS) believe anyway. So they are preoccupied with persons, so the message of Isa53 goes unheard. So DTS was having a bad hair day when they authorized that dissertation, and for all you know Dr. Wall was constrained to write the dissertation that way, basing his arguments on mere human consensus about the Bible, rather than on the Bible exegesis itself. Happens all the time in academia.

Of course, that was a dissertation from 1978, and I'm sure Dr. Wall has grown up spiritually since then. So you dishonor him by making him a whipping boy. We none of us remain the same as we were. Every morning is new.

The MESSAGE does not depend on whose mouth states it. If a drunk is screaming the Gospel down Calcutta streets, the Gospel is still TRUE in his mouth. So think of Thieme like a drunk or like a dedicated doulos, but it's still only the MESSAGE which matters. Your choice, whose mouth you want it to come from.

I empathize with a lot of what you and the others critical of Berachah have said. So I have nothing against you. I don't think Thieme needs defending, however. So all I'm gonna say about it, I've said already.

Here's the thing: if someone writes calumny about YOU, and especially in an academic format, it's still hearsay and calumny. So what should I do, if I love God? I should disregard it. I shouldn't judge the speaker of it, and I shouldn't judge you, either, lest I incur Matt7:1-2. Even if I know it's wrong, obviously we all have bad hair days. Christ paid for them all.

Stating a thing as wrong or right is a daily task. It's an entirely SEPARATE thing, to JUDGE the person. We have to discern in order to grow up spiritually, as we are all Royal Priests, and doggone it, we can't do that unless we make pronouncements on the PRINCIPLES. That's why in West Point, you study military blunders made by great men. But the men, are still great. We all have bad hair days. Great men make greater blunders. It's unavoidable.

So: back to the accusation problem. Just because someone accuses YOU of something, what should I do then? Should I just swallow what is said against you, because some alleged authority said it? No, for even a great person can blunder. So, I should maybe instead, go to you and ask you about the accusation. Because, it would be against YOU.

Okay, now what should YOU do? You should NOT defend yourself, because if you're wrong, then to defend yourself is wrong. If you're right, GOD will defend you, and you'll be wrong to defend yourself. God demonstrates all those principles in His Word when recounting Joseph, Moses, etc.

So you should not defend yourself when accused. So someone not hearing you defend yourself, is free to deem you guilty, or innocent.

But notice: it doesn't MATTER if you are guilty or innocent, for only GOD matters. Only Kol-Dabar Him matters.

"Where are your accusers?" The Lord asked the adulterous woman. "Oudeis, Kurie" she replied. No one. For He was accused for us all, im tasim asham naphesho, Hebrew of Isa53:11.

So I won't accuse you, either. So I won't defend Thieme, either. God says we shouldn't do that. So I use 1Jn1:9 like breathing, and resume kata skopon diokw, eis to brabeion, tes anw klesews tou theou en Christou Iesou, Phili 3:14 (I think, can't look it up and type here, not good at this type of posting).

Peace be on you, k?

Lookie here, I blundered! Is God witty, or what?

"im tasim asham naphesho" is in Isa53:10, NOT 53:11. Translation: "If He will appoint His Soul as a Substitute for sin" (lit., as a guilt offering, red heifer concept). You'd think I'd remember Isa53:10 well, since I just spent a week fitting the LXX and BHS text together (published Bibles only give you one or the other, and you need both). Sorry!

Also I blundered in quoting the Greek of Phili3:14, in an English forum; sometimes I forget what language is in my head, what a dufus I am. So here's an NASB translation I pasted from BibleWorks. Dunno if you like that version: "Philippians 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

Sorry for that lapse into non-English. My apologies to Truthtesty and the forum!

It's "en Christoi Iesou", not "Christou". My bad typing, sorry.

To brainout:

brainout quote

Quote

Five more posts and I get 'pm' rights. I read the Forum Rules and realize there are no exceptions. Honoring rules is always beneficial. So here goes:

Well it's looks like you weren't just trying to get you pm rights, like you wanted everyone to believe, because here you are with many more posts than you need-speaking directly at the Thieme cult issue.

brainout quote

Quote

I have seen some justification for some of the complaints in this forum about Berachah people, but in each case it was a problem of the people being too idolizing of the pastor.

This is false. Your blaming the victim.

brainout quote

Quote

I've seen that (as have all of us) in other churches, too.

Don't speak for all of us because you don't know us. Remember also, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because 1 church does something wrong and another church does something wrong doesn't make it right.



brainout quote

Quote

On the other hand, those who quit often become quite obsessed about getting others to quit, and will go to some lengths to push themselves on those who do not quit. They hound the one who stays so much, that the one who stays must choose between staying, and the one who quit. The one who quit, provides an ultimatum.

Actually that would depend. It could be that the one who is staying was the one who initially made the other listen, pushing themself on those who would not listen, and hounding the one who quit to listen, the one who stayed imposes the ultimatum between listening or the one who stayed-initially.

brainout quote

Quote

So when it comes to whether or not a quitter is ostracised -- valid testing question for a cult -- it must also be asked if the one who stays is likewise mistreated, badgered, etc. for staying. In short, behaviors on one side or the other, aren't of themselves, determinative of "cult".

This is not true also. It's partially determinative. I have mine, but what is your testing for a cult?

brainout quote

Quote

It's natural for a human being to be enthusiastic over a topic or person he/she ardently supports. It's even natural to become, for awhile, obsessed -- as it were -- but then the obsession gives way to the normal demands of life.

Where were you going with this? Your not making sense, it's not just obsession (in the context that you placed it) that gives way to normal demands of life, everything in life gives way to next demand, be that it's a person being happy, sad, obsessed, studying or whatever. Then you drop the paragraph and move on to the next.

brainout quote

Quote

People who get in cults -- or think that OTHERS are in cults -- tend to have some emotional disturbance which such obsession seems to fulfill.

Here's where your way off. Cults manufacture cult members, not the other way around. The emotionally disturbed force in the cult, is the cult leader. Your trying to "blame the victim" of a cult as if they were responsible for abuse. I'll give you an example. A husband beats his innocent wife, because she won't submit to doing something evil. Ok Is the wife responsible for the beating? No she's not. The abusive husband is emotionally disturbed and the one dealing out the punishment. The wife is innocent. But now she becoming emotionally disturbed because she's either being beaten or forced to do something she doesn't want to. So you could say that the wife became emotionally disturbed because of an abusive action acted out on her. You could say that a cult member is emotionally disturbed because an abusive cult leader acted so on them.
So it's the cult leader who is dealing out the abuse not the deceived unwitting cult members who arrive at the cult with thier innocent faith.

brainout quote

Quote

In the latter category -- those who accuse or imagine OTHERS to be in cults -- the individual is obsessed with someone else's enthusiasm, and often negatively. The sure sign is that the one who accuses or imagines, himself/herself is obsessive about 'saving' the object of the accusation or imagination. When this obsession is not met, the accuser easily slips into vitriol and even violence.

This is certainly possible. However not the only scenario. There are other scenarios possible to. The one who quits may not be obsessed with someone else's enthusiasm, they may and rightfully so, see the cult member as a danger to themself and danger to other family members and a danger to society in general. The one who quits may see this as a peaceful verbal attempt to stop unnecessary violence and abuse that a cult member is potentially capable of, before the one who quits has to resort to whatever justified physical force is necessary to stop them.

brainout quote

Quote

So any claims about a cult need to be carefully analyzed with respect to the accuser's motive, too.

Sure ALL TRUTH is important. Most importantly let's not forget the cult leader's motive. Just because an accusers motive is anger and revenge doesn't mean that they are unjustifed in thier accusation. Say in the previous example the Father of the wife being beaten walks in as the husband is beating the wife. Is the Father angry? Yes he is. Is he justified in anger? Yes he is. Would the father be incorrect in accusing the husband in front of a judge that the husband is a wife beater? No he would not.

brainout quote

Quote

In large measure, Christianity became the mainstay religion in the Roman Empire because it was persecuted as a cult.

Your main contention is false. There were many cults in Rome. After Theodosus declared christianity the sole religion of the empire, all other cults were persecuted. However, they did not spread as you contend. Persecution of cults often lead to people seeing the falsehood in the cult. That is the intention here.

Quote

We all know about Romans 1, the dire statement that those who don't believe in God are left to their own delusions; that those delusions become rather horrible over time; that the person spirals down into a miserable life as a result. 1Jn2 spent time on how Christians who became negative, were troubling those still positive, as well.

"We all know"? Again you assume you know us. But delusions oh yeah like the misery of thiemites suffering from Thieme's delusions? I'd say if you didn't believe in God, it would be better to suffer your own delusions than the delusions copied from a cult leader like Thieme. Again the word "positive" is not used in the bible not in 1John2 nor anywhere else. However Thieme consistently used the word "positive" as "absolute truth" of his bible teachings. Just a note - The Nazis pre-WWII also used a form of christianity - called "positive christiainty".

Truthtesty

Quote

The MESSAGE does not depend on whose mouth states it. If a drunk is screaming the Gospel down Calcutta streets, the Gospel is still TRUE in his mouth. So think of Thieme like a drunk or like a dedicated doulos, but it's still only the MESSAGE which matters. Your choice, whose mouth you want it to come from

I have a question for you brainout. If David Koresh were screaming the Gospel down Calcutta streets would the gospel still be true in his mouth? What about if Satan screamed it? Would it still be true in ALL TRUTH? Satan knows the scripture and quoted it to Jesus. Matthew 4:6

Why then did Jesus say "be ye wise as serpents"? "Beware of false prophets"?

Satan is an angel of light, all false teachers claim they are of Christ.

Separating the message from the man does not mean ignoring the evil of the mouth of the speaker, ie OBUFISCATING RHETORIC etc.... "Be ye wise as the serpents" "Know your enemy and the ways of the enemy". One of the ways of the enemy is the cult [www.refocus.org]. When Jesus was here on earth in the flesh, chrisitainty was not a cult, because Jesus was perfect authority and submission to perfect authority - the flesh of God - was not corrupt. The cults of christianity developed after Jesus. I have said it before and I'll say it again. NO ONE IN A CULT BELIEVES THEY ARE IN A CULT. They can believe others are in a cult, but not them. Also, as unbelieveable as it may seem, many intelligent people who use 4 syllable words are caught up in cults and don't know it.

Truthtesty

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

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

Quote
Truthtesty

Quote

The MESSAGE does not depend on whose mouth states it. If a drunk is screaming the Gospel down Calcutta streets, the Gospel is still TRUE in his mouth. So think of Thieme like a drunk or like a dedicated doulos, but it's still only the MESSAGE which matters. Your choice, whose mouth you want it to come from

I have a question for you brainout. If David Koresh were screaming the Gospel down Calcutta streets would the gospel still be true in his mouth? What about if Satan screamed it? Would it still be true in ALL TRUTH? Satan knows the scripture and quoted it to Jesus. Matthew 4:6

Why then did Jesus say "be ye wise as serpents"? "Beware of false prophets"?

What are YOUR qualifications?

Quote

Satan is an angel of light, all false teachers claim they are of Christ.

According to what you said in the History Channel forum, you are are not a Christian. You despise them. Who are you?

Quote

Separating the message from the man does not mean ignoring the evil of the mouth of the speaker, ie OBUFISCATING RHETORIC etc.... "Be ye wise as the serpents" "Know your enemy and the ways of the enemy". One of the ways of the enemy is the cult.

How do we know you are not deliberately attempting to paint RBT as being a cult? That you are driven to? For reasons only known to yourself.

Why are you, a Christian despiser... so interested in Thieme, anyway? Why this obsessive interest?

When a Christian despiser tries to warn Christians against a Christian teacher? It makes one wonder what can be motivating this action. Why the interest? Why the concern?

Who are you sir? And why are you so interested in Thieme? Why should you be? What gives you the right to think you have the discernment to tell Christians what to believe? You said so yourself, you think Christianity is something to be looked down upon. Your comments in the History Channel forum wreaks with hatred for Christianity. So? Why should we listen to you?

It would be like me telling Klan members that they should elect a better Grand Wizard. That the one they have now is not to be trusted. Who would I be to tell them such a thing? And, why should they listen? Would I be qualified to do such a thing? Heck no. Yet? You despise Christianity? And, try to tell Christians who they should not follow?

Christians here were trying very hard to be polite to you, in spite of your bully tactics. Calling someone a chicken? In discussion theological matters? As if the one who wins the fist fight knows the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Sir...... Your hatred of Christianity automatically disqualifies you from being qualified to be a judge of a Christian leader. But, no one here is calling you on it.

You do not have the qualifications to make a right judgment. And, most of all. And, most importantly! [i:530fee6d27][b:530fee6d27] It disqualifies you from being an authority on what Dr. Wall taught! [/b:530fee6d27] [/i:530fee6d27]

[i:530fee6d27][b:530fee6d27]You have no way to know if Wall erred. Do you? [/b:530fee6d27] [/i:530fee6d27]

Yet, you treat him (for some reason) as if he were infallible. And? That's how members of a cult see their leaders. I find that quite ironic, to say the least.



In Christ, GeneZ[/quote]

brainout quote

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

Truthtesty