Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

One of the "terrible things" about Thieme forcing Thiemites to submit to Thieme's authority and be "positive and learn" is that members feel forced to submit to Thieme's conclusions of biblical logic only.

Didn't work. Did it? :lol:

Quote

(to get the word) and shut down thier own critical biblical logic in favor of Thieme's conclusions. Biblical logic is something that everyone has.

He said, save that for later. Listen to what he has to say, and later do your own critical thinking. If you want to discuss it while he teaching in class? Then you would be disrupting class for those who wanted to listen. He was not about to tolerate that. I think I might feel that way, too, if I had just studied the Greek and Hebrew for hours on end to get a message together, then have some people who did not agree disrupting class for others willing to listen. You were free to disagree. I disagreed. But not in class in an open manner to disrupt others.

He set it up as if when you are in school. Students are not allowed to speak to each other as the teacher or professor is giving a class. Is that mind control too when the teacher rebuffs a student for disrupting class? When someone gets sent to the principles office for not letting the other students learn? You say these were adults? They should have know better by then. Thieme was not going to tolerate some bad habits that some picked up in churches where the preacher shouted what ever came from the top of his head and people shouted out as they pleased. This was to be a classroom for the Word of God.

Thieme did not always have to do that. After those who attended became accustomed to what was protocol of the church, you do not see him taking anyone to task who were doing these things.

Now? If you did not want to attend? Who was forcing you?

If your parents did? Then its your parents who were the problem, not Thieme.

Thieme even used to tell certain people who he saw did not like being there that they he felt sorry for them because some girl talked him in to attending, or friends convinced him to come. He used to get a few chuckles from sympathizers because we all knew that Thieme's teachings were not for everyone. You had to want to be there. You had to want to hear the Word of God taught exegetically, not devotionally.

I keep reading from you about Thieme's exegesis. I have attended Baptist services where the preacher grabbed a word from the KJV. It was wrongly translated. And, spent an half hour winging it on a wrong word, and having the congregation all shouting Hallelujah! Cult? :lol:

Quote

There are many differences of Theologians throughout the USA and the world. To prematurely shut down your own biblical logic in favor of Thieme's conclusions only, is simply premature, unnecessary, and self-destrcutive. Your own critical bilblical logic something that is required in your daily life meeting christians and non-christians alike, everyone has a different point of view.

Not everyone stayed with Thieme. They sought out what pleased them. You were a kid then. Thieme was teaching adults, as adults. You were in a position that you endured because of your parents authority over you. Just like I endured sitting in synagogue and being bored with getting nothing for hours on end, other than to learn about the Jewish culture. Like learning to read and pronounce Hebrew words so I could phonetically pronounce them for my Bar Mitzvah, but had not a clue as to what I was reading until I sat under Thieme. Ironic, a bit. I would say.

Quote

Also, does anyone know what Thieme's "final answer" was to forgiveness at the cross?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. [/size:a7a373482e]

That was what he said many times in class.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
Truthtesty wrote:


Per Dr. wall's dissertation:


Neither does the statement of Christ from the cross that it was "finished" (tetelestai) [b:d8daba607b]necessarily[/b:d8daba607b] refer solely to his spiritual death.
[b:d8daba607b] Probably[/b:d8daba607b] He had in view both His physical suffering and His spiritual death, and that He no longer needed to remain alive physically.
Finally, the critical error in Thieme's logic involves his oversight of the

Notice how sure Dr. Wall was? [i:d8daba607b]"Necessarily?" "Probably?"[/i:d8daba607b] Dr. Wall was not giving absolutes here. He was simply introducing his own areas of doubt. He was not getting what Thieme was saying.

And? Dr. Wall was not looking in context to the time line.

Jesus said "It is Finished" BEFORE any physical death occurred. How could it include the physical death, then?

Kenneth Wuest in his exegesis of this passage said the Greek reveals a past event that now remains in status quo. In other words? At a point in time just before Jesus spoke those words something was finished, and now remains finished.

Jesus had not yet died physically. So? How could it include physical death? A physically dead man does not speak!

Now you are going to tell me Kenneth Wuest was a cult, too?

Thieme said it had to refer to his spiritual death, because the Greek speaks about what just happened prior, and now remains finished. Jesus would have used a different tense if he was about to finish the salvation from sins and had to wait to die physically. Matter of fact. he could have waited until after his resurrection to tell us its finished.

Adam was told in the day he ate he would surely die. He did not die physically. He died spiritually. Spiritual death.


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote

So, you understand the concept of hearsay?

One would not know it by the way you speak.

*NOTE TO MODERATOR THIS IS JUST AN UNFOUNDED INVALIDATING ATTACK

Quote

As for Dr. Wall's exegesis? In court we can bring in more than one witness. There are those who can present the other side who are not being heard.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MORE WITNESSES. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Quote

There are those who do know Hebrew and Greek who would disagree with Dr. Wall. If Professor Ashby of Ancient Languages [Harvard] had though Thieme was off in these vital areas he would never have recommended Thieme to me. And, Professor Ashby was not afraid to disagree with Thieme when he had a point of disagreemnet. For all exegetes do not agree with all things. Just look at the contrasts between Luther and Calvin.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH [u:41b8352ed9]ALL[/u:41b8352ed9] WITNESSES. I HAVE PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF OTHER WITNESSES. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE YOU SPEAK OF?

DON'T ATTACK ME BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MY CONFIDENCE AND THEN YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE? YOU PREMATURELY ACCUSE ME OF NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HEARSAY IS AND THEN YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE? WHERE'S THE ASHBY EVIDENCE?

IN TEXAS, WE HAVE A WORD FOR WHAT YOU JUST SAID.



TRUTHTESTY [u:41b8352ed9][b:41b8352ed9]THE CONFIDENT[/b:41b8352ed9][/u:41b8352ed9]

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

Where do you think Theime came up short and was wrong regarding his teachings?

In various areas. He did not come up short, per se. He was pioneering.

Christopher Columbus named the natives "Indians" because he thought he found a new route to India. Yet! He found a new route to an area where men normally did not go. I loved Thieme's teaching because they did make me do my own thinking.

One area I did not agree was on abortion. Yet, I agree 100% with his exegesis of when the soul is imputed to the body. Yet, his conclusions that followed the exegesis were more a reactionary move on his part (in my opinion) to the insane movement at the time of trying to get Christianity to become a political machine.


Jesus said if a man lusts in his heart after a woman? He has committed the act.

Now? If someone does not know there is no soul life in the fetus? And there is bodily movement? The person having an abortion is committing murder[b:93fa9cdc8a] in their heart.[/b:93fa9cdc8a] In God's eyes! Its murder by intent. Just like Jesus said lusting in ones heart for a woman is the same as committing the act. Yet? For those who understand this doctrine? If there were a right reason for an abortion? And, there will be right reasons. It is a doctrine that needs to be understood. I have a friend who is Catholic. She told me that the policy of one Catholic hospital was in the case of making a choice. That the baby will be saved and the mother allowed to die if it came down to that in an emergency situation calling for that choice. I found that to be insane thinking in the light of the doctrine of the imputation of the soul at birth. Even though I did not like Thieme's way of concluding what he exegeted... I see need for understanding of this teaching. For the Catholics err on the opposite side of the pole in their wrong conclusions which lack sound exegesis.

God judges the intent of heart. Thieme brutally declared those who had abortions were not committing murder. Technically, according to the Word of God... they were not. Yet, the intent to murder had to be there for those who did not know what the Hebrew and Greek tell us.

For? How many can know that there is no soul life until "min bettan" Ek Kolia?" Until the point of birth? By sight? Its impossible to be certain of.

I have taken great pains to see what others teach on this. I found one book written by a team of rabbis who agree on this point from the Hebrew. One rabbi on the committee did not like what the Hebrew says, Yet, he grudgingly agreed that the soul is not given until birth.

I disagreed with Thieme's conclusion. Yet, his exegesis concerning when the soul is imputed to the body is worth its weight in gold. For it leads to greater understanding in many other areas of doctrine. Important areas of doctrine. And, That is exactly why God raises up men who can exegete and places them in the public view. Luther and Calvin saved us from the RCC cult. Yet? They both made errors in areas of exegesis and conclusions. That is why no one man has it all. That we are all parts of a greater whole called the body of Christ.

There are other areas of disagreement, as well. But to say Thieme is a cult? That's simply being shortsighted and close minded in the face of the facts that run contrary. Thieme allowed for freedom of thought. He just did not allow for bad manners in church. He did not want certian types of thinking to be allowed to permeate in his congregation. He was very set against anyone who was anti-semitic, and did not allow for the Pentecostal mentality to have its say, and for doctrinal reasons. He told them to keep out of the pews. Go find a church some place else. That was his prerogative. One I appreciated. I agreed.

He did allow for disagreements. His one criterion was that the criticism had to be done objectively. He would not tolerate emotionally charged attacks based upon bias. He had little tolerance for that. And, he did quote other scholars from time to time in certain messages to show that his exegesis was not something he cooked up all alone.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
]genez qoute

Quote

I realize that. But I wish to take the wind out of his sails because his approach and attitude needs to be toned down. His sense of overconfidence needs balancing. His attacks need to be shown from what kind of person he is.

That will never happen.

AND if Thieme wasn't cultic in the first place and hadn't attacked my family, then this conversation wouldn't be taking place. I don't start fights I finish them.


Truthtesty

Again? Once more? I ask you...


How did he attack your family?

Keeping an open mind... GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
Wow can you believe this? I made a mistake. I did not put quotes around this in the previous post.

Quote

It became a political issue when DTS started seeking funds from fundamentalist organizations, and DTS needed to distance themselves from this teaching which was unpopular with fundamentalists.

Prove this. hearsay until proven.


Truthtesty

If it ever came to a court room hearing? Then I would start mentioning names. But, if you can not accept what I am saying? Why should I accept yours? Why should anybody? Because you say so? Every ministry that is powerful and effectual will have its malcontents. Just look at Moses! Perfect teaching from the hand of God. Miracles going on all around them. And? There still was rebellion of those who thought Moses was evil. Its Biblical principle. Whenever you do find a powerful ministry that is not a cult? There will always be the rebels quick to say it is a cult. And, believe it!

So, what are you proving by hearsay? By gathering the malcontents to have a stronger voice than the majority who think you are blind to what was actually going on. For the worse place for person like yourself to be was in Berachah. Here is a man exegeting Paul in great power? And, you see Paul as a heretic? Bad combination.

That would be like me sitting in a class where a professor was teaching Mao's model of Communism, and being in full agreement with Mao. I would dislike the professor with a passion. Like you dislike Thieme. Nothing new.

In Christ, GeneZ

Greek definition of "mathetes" means a student, disciple UNDER a teacher. In both OT times and back then when the Greek word was used, you enrolled under the teacher (i.e., Elijah in OT or Socrates in Greek culture) [b:8535153685]and followed him, scarfing up all that wisdom. The Lord had about 5000 of these people until He told them He was the bread of life[/b:8535153685] (in John 6 I think, each Gospel has a parallel). Hebrew definition can be checked with a rabbi, and of course there are thousands of rabbis with their own students who still practice this same following-around. Greek cultural practice and definition can easily be checked in any lexicon stronger than mere Strong's.

In my previous posts I cited the Bible verses where the LORD -- not Thieme, the LORD -- talks about this. So argue with Him. Sidebar humorous application -- yeah, all us Christians are SUPPOSED to be in a cult of learning Jesus Christ (2Pet3:18, Heb4:12, 1Cor2:16, Eph4:13). Christianity really is a cult. Question is, what teacher within it, does God want you to be under, and only God would know that. So GeneZ's earlier clever definition C.U.L.T. is apt: you could rephrase that here as Christians United by Learning under a Teacher -- whomever God appoints per person, many joints in the body, not just one joint. That's precisely what Ephesians 4:16 wittily says, and you can check with ANY pastor who knows the Greek -- even Bauer Danker lexical entries make that clear. So this isn't an unknown thing or the 'prize' of only one man.

So now to the instant case: 26 December 1975 and many other times, Thieme says you need a TEACHER. But the REASON why, is because the LORD says so. Again, Testy, you keep on attributing to Thieme the writing of the Bible so you can turn around and blame Thieme for what's IN the Bible. Thieme didn't write the Bible, so stop equating him with God.

When Watson and Crick broke open the DNA code back in what was it, the 1950's? They did not do it alone. THEY HAD TEACHERS. But as they learned, while still going to their collegues (among whom were their TEACHERS), they themselves could do research themselves. But they didn't start out that way.

Thieme himself was always dependent on his teachers: Kittle was a teacher, wrote this huge compilation of lexical definitions very much in use within pastoral circles today, affectionately called "Big Kittle" (unabridged) and "Little Kittle". So whenever a pastor teaches he LEARNS AS A STUDENT from this and many other fine lexicons and commentaries -- a whole library of stuff on Bible scholastically produced by TEACHERS.

See, a student is never free of his teacher. This is plain to any eye. Basta, enough: Testy, you are basically saying the MILLIONS of people in all faiths who go to church/mosque/synagogue to GET teaching, are all dupes under cult leaders. So THEY all know they NEED a teacher: they testify against what you're saying, Testy. Most common understanding in Judaism for example, is that you must study under a rabbi, you can't study Talmud on your own. So now, Testy, you condemn Judaism as well. Be careful who you condemn.

This is basic academia: you study under a teacher. Everyone knows this, doesn't matter whether it's Bible or not. You can't read genetic books and become a geneticist on your own, and you can't read Bible and become your own teacher, either -- unless you have the gift yourself.

Again, Testy, your posts prove why I should leave this forum. The insanity of making Thieme the inventor of what BIBLE says, the insanity of claiming that if he says you need a teacher -- a fact which MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in all faiths know and demonstrate by GOING TO GET teaching -- demonstrates that discussion here is fruitless. I'm outta here.

To the Forum:


genez quote

Quote

Notice how sure Dr. Wall was? "Necessarily?" "Probably?" Dr. Wall was not giving absolutes here. He was simply introducing his own areas of doubt. He was not getting what Thieme was saying.

Truthtesty states: He was introducing what he thought Thieme was thinking, not his doubts. Dr. Wall knows very very well what Thieme knew. Dr. Wall was Thieme's friend FOR YEARS. Dr. Wall started with Thieme before the church moved outside the loop.

genez quote

Quote

And? Dr. Wall was not looking in context to the time line.

Jesus said "It is Finished" BEFORE any physical death occurred. How could it include the physical death, then?

Truthtesty states: I think it is logical that GOD saying "it is finished" was defintely saying some requirement was met.

genez quote

Quote

Kenneth Wuest in his exegesis of this passage said the Greek reveals a past event that now remains in status quo. In other words? At a point in time just before Jesus spoke those words something was finished, and now remains finished.

Jesus had not yet died physically. So? How could it include physical death? A physically dead man does not speak!

Now you are going to tell me Kenneth Wuest was a cult, too? Thieme said it had to refer to his spiritual death, because the Greek speaks about what just happened prior, and now remains finished. Jesus would have used a different tense if he was about to finish the salvation from sins and had to wait to die physically. Matter of fact. he could have waited until after his resurrection to tell us its finished.

Truthtesty states: Do you know what death is? Have you ever died? Has Thieme ever died? Only God knows the total mysteries of the universe. If Jesus said it was necessary shed his blood for our sins then he did. How do you know that Jesus didn't shed his blood for our sins then in the process of the last drop was being shed at that exact microsecond he died the words came through his lips as he gave up his spirit? How do you know that he didn't time the shedding process perfectly? Timed so that the letter d of finishe(d) occured in the process of the last microsecond as he gave up his spirit? or How do you know it wasn't God's voice just coming through his physically dead lips? He's GOD. He's God in the flesh, so he is a perfect physical being and was different than corrupt physical man. We have no modern day example. He was/may have been in some state of being/sphere/consciencousness/dying that we cannot understand/or partially understand. We have no example of a PERFECT GOD/MAN dying today, that we can reference. We only have examples of corrupt men dying. Afterall, we have examples of corrupt people having died on the operating table and come back to life.

We are all in a process of learning ALL TRUTH, no one has the complete absolute picture, except GOD. The best we have is a 2000 year old document and GOD. That's my thinking. I might be wrong or I might be right, but I am not going to create a cult about it.



TRUTHTESTY THE CONFIDENT

To genez:

What was Thieme excuse of stopping all questions during class? It wasn't really "class" after that was it? It became a dictation at that point. I mean because in a real classroom where you are able you ask questions, in the act of asking a question your using critical thinking.


TRUTHTESTY THE CONFIDENT

Quote
Truthtesty
To genez:

What was Thieme excuse of stopping all questions during class? It wasn't really "class" after that was it? It became a dictation at that point. I mean because in a real classroom where you are able you ask questions, in the act of asking a question your using critical thinking.


TRUTHTESTY THE CONFIDENT

He used to stop class for questions all the time. Then he stopped doing so. Do you know what it was like listening to a tape... having the message stop for a question; and hearing nothing but silence during the question because it was not able to be recorded? It disrupted the class. And, not all teachers and professors stop for questions, either. I have sat through many lectures where one dared not interrupt. And, that was even in a secular environment. Its just good manners. If someone missed something said? They always could get it on tape later.. for FREE.

No charge! Cults have a nasty habit of sucking you for your money. Thieme used to chide anyone who wanted to set a price for his books or tapes. He said that if someone could not afford to pay, should not be denied the teaching if they wanted it. That is running 180 degrees in the opposite direction of what cults normally seek first. But, of course. That's not enough to say its not a cult. Its only an increment on the list of things that the minsitry did that ran contrary to what cults do.

But? if you think he was a cult? And, you are confident about it? Well? I bow down to you and concede it must thefore be a cult.

Its that simple. A possible malcontent states its a cult. Is vehement in his approach. Throws out bits and pieces of others who disagree with doctrinal issues? Finds others that were not happy there. That settles it. Besides... you have confidence. That really settles it.

I notice that all those here complaining were there when they we children. I would like to hear complaints from those who entered as adults and then felt compelled to stay by the force of Thieme's authority.

So we have this. Children who would have never liked Thieme as adults were forced to attend by their parents. I was forced to attend what I did not like as a child. Why? My parents had righful authority over me to make me attend Synagogue when I did not want to go. Yet? There are those who wanted to be there. Are they in a cult?




In Christ, GeneZ