Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

You seem willing to excuse Theime of almost anything. And you also appear to be so enthralled and captivated by him.

Based upon your posts it sounds like Thieme's followers and fans became something like a personality-driven "cult" following.

I am not enthralled. You are fishing. You really do not know what I think.

Personality cult? That's funny. I could not stand his personality. I wished often that it would change so more would be attracted to the teaching.

I was listening to Thieme because I recognized the teaching. For years I craved someone who could teach on that level. If there was a nice and sweet pastor that could teach on that level? I would have gone with him instead.

If I were all those things you claim I am? I would have packed my bags and moved to Houston.

Instead, I was busy helping manage a 4 Star Mobil restaurant and 3 Star Country Inn. Famous people and the wealthy I had to be in contact with. I would have hardly qualified for the job if I fit your personality profile of me. One had to be not easily impressed with personality if one were to do that sort of job. But, that's besides the point. You are simply dead wrong in your assessment of me.

I simply appreciated the fact I could hear and learn Bible doctrine on tape on a regular basis. I hungered for knowledge. Not a social life. Not to idolize some pastor. I always felt there is a level of mindlessness in those who do.

I never said I liked Thieme's personality. I said I began to understand it better. But, I never liked it. I was never after a personality. I was after teaching. Thieme provided it. I did look. I found no one else.

Now? Please stop stereotyping me? You do not know me. Yet, you assume to know who and what I am. You do not. You reveal this in how you accuse me of things of which I am not.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

Quote

You do not know the kind of good stable and clear thinking believers that were attracted to Thieme's ministry.

But instead, you seem deeply confused.

Sir? What are you doing? Why did you just say that?

Quote

Thieme is not "what God has caused to be," but rather just a man, even though you seem to worship him.

God causes all.

Even the Antichrist could not be without God causing it. (2 Thes 2:10-12)

Quote

What makes you think there is anything regarding "the Lord's purpose" in cults?

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (New American Standard Bible)
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'

you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; [u:42214068e8][b:42214068e8]for the LORD your God is testing you[/b:42214068e8][/u:42214068e8] to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [/size:42214068e8]

Quote

Bottom line--you don't seem to be able to seperate Thieme from the Lord in your thinking.

You are assuming that your assumptions about me, are not assumptions.

Quote

He apparently was a bad teacher to leave you in such a state.

I thought you are supposed to be moderating. Not taking sides. Why are you doing this?

Quote

BTW--If this Forum didn't make a difference people like you would not bother to post here, defending their leaders.

Name all the cults your forum contains?

Now? Name one you stopped?

This is a place to exchange ideas and to learn. And, you assume that everyone who comes here with a complaint is being objective. Like I said before. All those here complaining were FORCED to be in the ministry by their parents. Against their wills. Kids who could not think like adults.


Its been complaints by those who were kids who were [b:42214068e8]forced[/b:42214068e8] to attend by parents. They did not want to be there.

Your always going to have some malcontents in any highly motivated ministry. If you do not realize that? Then I suspect you have not been around many churches. I even remember one lady who was complaining about Charles Stanley's ministry. I know of one small church where a sweet pastor (not affiliated with Thieme) was getting death threats. His crime? He was teaching God's Word effectively on a very simple level. In some churches they even fight over what the new carpet color is going to be.

Based on the teachings?

Now if Thieme denied the Deity of Christ? Denied the resurrection? Believed in salvation by works? Then, even if every child in the church were happy? It would still be a cult. Disagreements on other areas of theology does not constitute a cult.

In Christ, GeneZ

GeneZ:

You continue to confuse God with Thieme. And you don't seem to be here to discuss anything, other than praise and/or defend Thieme.

I have watched this thread for some time and that is my conclusion.

There are about 30,000 posts at this board. Many mention groups called "cults." There is not a distinct personality profile regarding those that join cults, people that do have varying personalities and backgrounds.

No need to PM, just say it here on the board and I will respond.

To the Forum and future readers:

In view of the fact that people have clinically died on the operating table and have come back to life, which would prove that Jesus could have died physically and then said Telestai then gave up his spirit,

Did Thieme ever recant his doctrine of salvation?



Truthtesty

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

You continue to confuse God with Thieme.

You continue to get confused as to what I think.

Quote

And you don't seem to be here to discuss anything, other than praise and/or defend Thieme.

You do not read my posts very well that addressed this issue when asked. Just because I did not see all bad seems to be a problem for what you want to hear. You are looking to build a case. You see anyone that does not lead where you want it to go needing to be led by your insinuations. I have seen you leading the witness when they are not heading where you would like it to go. You put them down when they do not agree with how you want the case to end by using your power to control the direction that the dialog is taking. I see how you give some free reign when its the direction you want it to go, even when they have been shown to be motivated strictly by bias and personal feelings.

Quote

I have watched this thread for some time and that is my conclusion.

Tunnel vision. You sometimes see what you want to see. Yes, you , too, can be prey to that human condition. I have watched some of your posts in other threads and see a trend in you as well. You want to find something, even when its not there. You tell a person what the outcome is to be when its not what you are seeking for an answer. In a funny sort of way, its like cult pressure to conform to a desired way of thinking towards an outcome.

Quote

There are about 30,000 posts at this board. Many mention groups called "cults." There is not a distinct personality profile regarding those that join cults, people that do have varying personalities and backgrounds.

Not all fathers who are strict with their children are abusive. Yet all abusive fathers are strict. Its you that have a mind set that has become habitual. You see certain trends and you assume it must fit a pattern in its own way. Then you keep hitting to try and make someone confess what you want them to. Even when you were not there and do not really know what happened.

Quote

No need to PM, just say it here on the board and I will respond.

I just did...

And something else I noticed.

You are not a Christian, are you? You appear to be affiliated with Jewish organizations solely. What is your experience with Christianity as a Christian? You appear to be unaware of certain problems that do take place in many Christian churches on various levels. Churches that are not cults.

What qualifies you to understand the problems with churches unique to Christianity? Cults are easy to spot. But you appear to not see the line that divides the two when it comes to authority. If you are not a Christian you would see it as abusive because you would have no means to identify for the reasons for the authority.

If I wanted to play this game too, I could drag in a lot more churches here and start giving reasons for them being cults. All I would need to do is to seek out the malcontents and mentally unstable. Even Billy Graham is seen as being of the Devil by some. Yet, since he has such world wide popularity most can see for themselves that these complaints do not hold water. Yet, if Billy Graham were not yet well known? A case could be made. And, some will listen. There will always be an audience for this.

Now? For those who are truly cults? They will quote Scripture to defend what they do. But, when someone like you do not know Christianity? It will just seem like a superstitious belief gone awry. I am assuming you are not a Christian. Most Christians stay away from cults because they know the correct meaning of what the cults misuse.

Thieme got in trouble with many fundamentalists because he exposed them for being religious fundamentalism. He equated the abuses that are real and never get noticed here with the Muslim fundamentalists. He took sacred cows and pulled off the veils for all to see. That is why he became controversial. Then the malcontents who were forced to be there (not by Thieme) came out of the wood work. Others listened to them because they felt threatened by Thieme's teaching.

My parents we both Jewish. My father was a founder of a local synagogue and my mom's grandfather was a rabbi. They despised what they saw in Christianity, and I could not argue with them. For they were seeing religion and fundamentalism in action. Which is a sub clinical form of being a cult.


I was disowned by my parents when I first became a Christian. Years later my Dad was given a few tapes by Thieme. He liked listening to him. My father did not become a taper. He stil, attended Jewish services.

After his funeral my Mom and I discussed the tapes I saw in his office. She looked at me and said with tears in her eyes. I wish your brother and sister would listen to him. Your Dad could listen to Thieme because the man had an open mind.

My brother and sister had gotten themselves wrapped up in fundamentalism which I stayed away from and avoided. Three Jewish kids. Three believers in Christ. Three different paths. One can easily say that Christianity attacked my home and broke it up. That Christianity is a cult. For it did break up my family. No preacher did. Christianity did.

Matthew 10:33-36 (New International Version)
"But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[/size:cf8e3890a1]

What do you do with that? Family members will become enemies of each other when Christianity finds a place in members of the family's hearts. Who will they blame? Christ? Or, the one teaching about Christ? A strong case for a cult can ensue. If someone attempting to put a stop to it is not keenly aware of this? It all will be branded as cult tendencies.

There you have it. Christianity will appear to have the same end results as a cult, yet be exactly what Christianity will be. Cults do not simply have controversial teachings. They have teaching which are shown to be contrary to the truth by even those denominations which will not agree with each over in areas that they do see as controversial.

Controversy in itself does not constitute a cult. It may reveal intelligence in action. It may not. But, it has nothing to do with being a cult. For if you were a Christian? You would know that there is controversy all the time. That is why we see so many denominations, and sub denominations.

Ok... No PM. There you have it.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum and future readers:

In view of the fact that people have clinically died on the operating table and have come back to life, which would prove that Jesus could have died physically and then said Telestai then gave up his spirit."

Men did not physically die that quickly on a cross. Why do you think Pilate was surprised to hear Jesus was dead already? (Mark 15:43-45) Why do you think he ordered the spear be thrust in his side? To make sure he was not feigning death, or only unconscious. Men did not die that quickly in crucifixions. They broke the legs of the other two as to speed up the process of dying. Once they could not longer hold themselves up they would die from asphyxiation. You would have to be a serious student of the Bible to know that fact. That's why Pilate was surprised to hear of the death so soon.

Quote

Did Thieme ever recant his doctrine of salvation?

You are going where you are not even beginning to qualify to judge.

Why not ask if Thieme recanted in the teachings on Paul?


Its you, sir, that most Bible believing Christians would wonder about. Your thinking Paul was a heretic? You'd have a very small audience, you know. Very small. That's a fact.


Suggestion: If you ever want to discredit Thieme to Christians with an ounce of credibility? May I suggest you re-invent yourself? Claim that Paul was a great follower of Christ? That way you may convince some believers that Thieme is a cult. Until you do? You will only persuade some who are not Bible believing Christians who will view this issue from a secular stand point. To those who read their Bibles? You would be seen as a kettle screaming Thieme is black. Rejection of Paul's teachings is usually a sure sign of being cultic to those who know their Bible.


In Christ, GeneZ

GeneZ and brainout have tried to con everyone following this thread with a blizzard of Greek references. I mean, who can argue with men so well versed in the 'original languages'? Don't believe it folks! Let's take a look at the exigetical expertise of the man the they worship - the fountainhead of all things Thiematic.

The following quotes are from 'The Integrity of God' by R.B. Thieme, Jr., R.B. Thieme, Jr. Bible Ministries 5139 West Alabama, Houston, Texas, 77057. Second Edition 1987. pp. 185 - 186.

[i:6887301899]"Having long ago memorized the Authorized translation of Romans 8:28, we expect at this point to find the familiar heart of the verse. We glance at the Greek text - and get a shock! We look back and forth from the Greek to the King James English and wonder how this could be? As if misplacing a phrase were not bad enough, the next two words were [b:6887301899]inexcusably[/b:6887301899] translated by the dons of the 1611. ....

The subject and object are nouns, and in these nouns Greek shows its versatility. An English noun can appear in only one or two forms (singular or plural), but a Greek noun can take a variety of forms. With its many suffixes, it can show not merely singular or plural but other things as well, including what part it plays in a sentence. We can quickly identify the subject because it is in the form of the nominative case: the object, in the accusative case. It makes no difference at all where the word appears in a sentence - first, second, on so on: we can always discover by checking its case what role the noun plays. Subject: nominative case. Object: accusative case. So far so good.

With this rule firmly in hand, we turn back to the statement translated, "all things work together." These four English words represent only two Greek words: panta sunergei. Panta is a plural form of the adjective pas, meaning "all." This adjective is used here as a substantive - like a noun - and being it is in the neuter gender, it is correctly translated "all things." But what role does "all things" perform in this sentence? Is it the subject or the object? We immediately pull out our rule: check the case. Panta is the nominative neuter plural of pas. But then, the accusative neuter plural of pas is also panta! Which is it? Our rule is no help at all. Obviously we must look further.

The verb comes to our rescue. Sunergei is a form of sunergeo, "to cooperate, to work together with." When we analyze sunergei, we can list .....

A basic rule of Greek and English grammar states that the number of the subject must agree with the number of the verb. A singular verb must have a singular subject: a plural verb, a plural subject. What is the number of the verb sunergei? Singular. What about "all things"? Plural!

No singular verb [b:6887301899]ever[/b:6887301899] takes a plural subject. That would be like saying "They has a problem," or "Young pups is smart." But for some reason, despite their brilliance, [b:6887301899]the King James translators chewed up this tremendous verse in just that illiterate way. [/b:6887301899] They said, in effect, "All things works together for god." That is poor English: [b:6887301899] it would be terrible Greek[/b:6887301899].[/i:6887301899]

Three pages of telling the unsuspecting reader that the King James translators "[b:6887301899]inexcusably[/b:6887301899]" miss-translated Romans 8:28 by ignoring the basic rules of Greek grammar. In fact, he said "[b:6887301899]it would be terrible Greek."[/b:6887301899]

What the "Colonel" didn't tell the reader, and every first-year Greek student knows this, is: neuter plural substances [b:6887301899]can[/b:6887301899] occur with singular or plural verbs.

Here's what A.T. Robertson, the greatest Greek scholar this country ever produced:

[i:6887301899]But the agreement is not by mechanical rule, but according to sense very often. This applies to number as in Matt. 21:8 .........Neuter plural substantives [b:6887301899]occur[/b:6887301899] with singular or plural verbs indifferently as in Lu. 4:41... So in Lu. 8:30.....[/i:6887301899] A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament 10th Edition, A.T. Robertson, W. Hersey Davis, p.203

There are two possibilities here: One, Thieme is not the Greek scholar he would have us believe he is, or, Two, he is a liar.

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

You continue to confuse God with Thieme. And you don't seem to be here to discuss anything, other than praise and/or defend Thieme.

I have watched this thread for some time and that is my conclusion.

rrmoderater, you don't realize how right you are! You would not believe how many times I've heard a Berachah member inadvertently substitute the word 'God' in place of Thieme's name. Freudian slip, or spirit? You decided.

[i:8fba22ba93]PROOF TEXTS are vital, to them and to me. Bible IS proof text, Heb4:12, 1Jn4:1-6. Oh, I'm citing again, as I'm required to do in order to demonstrate [b:8fba22ba93]the location of a doctrine[/b:8fba22ba93]. Sorry.[/i:8fba22ba93]

brainout,

In your response, you ignored the second half of my sentence: “Much like Galiban, you like to make statements followed by a string of ‘prooftexts,’ but [b:8fba22ba93]you do nothing to [u:8fba22ba93]show that those scriptures actually support your statement[/u:8fba22ba93][/b:8fba22ba93].” Anyone can rattle off a list of scripture references as the alleged “location” of their doctrine (including Catholics, Pentecostals, Hyper-Calvinists, et al), but this by itself proves nothing. You have to demonstrate that those verses actually teach “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit.” Otherwise all your Scripture quoting is meaningless. I could make a statement that “Pigs can fly” and throw in a list of verses after it. But my statement, like yours, is meaningless until I can show that those “prooftexts” actually support my statement.

[i:8fba22ba93][b:8fba22ba93]IT'S IN THE GREEK,[/b:8fba22ba93] using a very famous LXX Temple-purifying verb, "katharizw", and 1Jn uses the term in parallelism.

Greek verb katharizw is used for purifying the OT Temple so the Spirit could fill it[/i:8fba22ba93] [where do you find the Spirit filling the Temple?][i:8fba22ba93], all over the LXX (94 occurrences, search on the root). So 1Jn1:7 uses katharizw and parallels that to the Cross[/i:8fba22ba93] [the Cross accomplished [b:8fba22ba93]salvation[/b:8fba22ba93], not the filling of the Spirit; the filling of the Spirit is part of the spiritual life [b:8fba22ba93]after [/b:8fba22ba93]salvation][i:8fba22ba93], as does Isa53:10 in the LXX; so 1Jn1:9 demonstrates filling in the Temple of the Believer (so to speak) using the same keyword.[/i:8fba22ba93]

So this is what it takes to figure out “rebound.” First, you have to get your hands on a copy of the Septuagint—nearly impossible for 99.9% of Christians throughout church history (and apparently we not only need a Hebrew Old Testament, now we also need a Greek OT). Then you have to learn koine Greek (again, nearly impossible for 99.9% of Christians throughout church history). Then you have to find [i:8fba22ba93]katharizw [/i:8fba22ba93]in the OT. Then you have to [i:8fba22ba93]assume [/i:8fba22ba93]that it was related to some kind of “filling of the Temple” (?) by the Holy Spirit. (The Shekinah Glory, by the way, was specifically the Lord Jesus Christ, the revealed member of the Godhead.) You then have to assume that katharizw in 1 John 1:9 carries this same alleged reference to a “filling of the Temple” by the Holy Spirit, even though John mentions nothing of the kind. And not only that, you also have to assume that the use of katharizw here is completely different from every other reference to cleansing from sins and unrighteousness in the NT. In that case, it would have been impossible for God’s people throughout church history to ever discover “rebound.” Koine Greek died out rapidly after the apostolic era, and by the third century the dominant Bible was the Old Latin, a.k.a. the [i:8fba22ba93]Old Italic[/i:8fba22ba93]. (Ephesians confuses this with the Catholic Latin Vulgate in his mistaken reference to 1 John 5:7, but I’ll get to that in another post.) 99.9% of Christians have never had access to the koine Greek. If knowing Greek was so essential to our Bible study, then couldn’t God have done a better job of preserving this language? And wouldn’t He have told us at least once in the Bible itself that we have to know the languages His Word was originally written in? Wouldn’t He have to make this language accessibl e to His people throughout history? Wouldn’t He be failing them if He didn’t? God has certainly failed His people if He has made it impossible for 99.9% of them to find this doctrine that is so vital to their spiritual life (and then start killing them because they didn’t practice it). But it’s a pretty safe bet that you won’t respond to my points, given your aversion to answering questions...

[i:8fba22ba93]So to the other issues you raise, I cannot reply, since we aren't supposed to be talking doctrines, rats![/i:8fba22ba93]

Did you not notice that there is a link to email me on each of my posts? And that I already offered to correspond with ephesians outside this forum?

[i:8fba22ba93]IT’S IN THE GREEK...[/i:8fba22ba93]

You remind me so much of the Calvinist ministers I know (having been raised Presbyterian). They would go to absurd lengths to try to make the Bible say, “Christ only died for the elect.” This kind of statement would typically be followed by a string of “prooftexts.” And I have asked Calvinists very simple, direct questions like the questions I’ve presented to you, ephesians, and Galiban. Questions like these:

• Why is there not one scripture in the entire Bible that simply states that Christ did not die for unbelievers?
• Why does the Bible declare so often that He died for “the world” and “all men,” without giving any
exceptions?
• If the “non-elect” are incapable of believing in Christ, then why does God still command them to believe?

Of course, they have never been able demonstrate how their “prooftexts” actually support their fatalistic Calvinist philosophy. And when it comes to answering my questions, their responses have been very similar to yours. They’ll rattle off their “prooftexts” (sometimes straight out of the Westminster Confession of Faith). They will then appeal to a big pi l e of meaningless technical terms like “radical corruption,” “particular redemption,” etc. And, when all else fails, they resort to the biggest cop-out of all: “WELL, IT’S IN THE GREEK!” They love their “corrected translations” just as much as you do. Now they can make basic, everyday words like “world” mean something totally different. Now they can re-translate the Bible at their own whim and make the Bible say anything they want. Like you, there are probably some of my Calvinist brethren who wish I would stop asking questions. But I will continue to challenge both you and them until I get some straight answers.

[i:8fba22ba93]If you all don't want to see the BIBLE, then [b:8fba22ba93]please stop asking questions [/b:8fba22ba93]because in Christianity, we need to cite the BIBLE to back up something, and it was not written in English.[/i:8fba22ba93]

This is just a weak attempt at dodging the issue, brainout. Anyone can accuse their opponents of “not seeing the Bible,” and tell them to stop asking questions. But giving direct answers to challenging theological questions isn’t so easy. By the way, the pope and the Catholic clergy tell the people the same thing when they start to question the Catholic Church: [i:8fba22ba93]"Stop asking questions." [/i:8fba22ba93]Because they know they cannot defend their pagan, apostate theology from the Bible.

Also, I don’t see how you can possibly get “Confess your sins to be filled with the Spirit” out of Isa 53:12, or any passage in Isaiah. And since you don’t want to talk about it anymore, we may never know.

Here’s something else for you to consider, brainout, even if you don’t want to talk about it. I have challenged all the Thieme followers on this forum repeatedly concerning Thieme’s denial of the forgiveness of sins at the Cross. And still none of you have been willing to address it. And this is a relatively recent doctrine of Thieme’s. Why the change? Why suddenly deny one of the fundamental truths of Christianity after several decades of teaching?

This issue seems to be causing some confusion among you Thieme followers. For example, Galiban claims to believe in the forgiveness of sins at the Cross, although he contradicts himself by saying that we need to keep getting forgiven and that our forgiveness will not be fully accomplished until eternity. (And, like you and ephesians, he has not answered the questions I’ve challenged him with.)

[u:8fba22ba93]Galiban said:[/u:8fba22ba93]
[i:8fba22ba93]...now we have the “Completed work of the Cross” This is not an inaccurate doctrine. [b:8fba22ba93]We were completely [u:8fba22ba93]forgiven[/u:8fba22ba93] for our sins. [/b:8fba22ba93]True! [/i:8fba22ba93](RickRoss C.E.F. post; 02/22/07; emphasis mine)

[u:8fba22ba93]Thieme said:[/u:8fba22ba93]
[i:8fba22ba93]The Bible teaches that your sins were [b:8fba22ba93]not [/b:8fba22ba93]forgiven at the cross.[/i:8fba22ba93] (http://www.rbthieme.org/selected.htm; Series No. 376, Spiritual Dynamics, lessons 1385 to 1395; emphasis his)

Since Galiban, ephesians, and GeneZ won’t answer me, could you please tell me which one is right? (Or are you still afraid to answer my questions?) I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
Liberty

I agree with you Spiritualiberty. Wasn't the bible originally based down by word of mouth for over 200 years? Seems that quibling over single words in the Kione Greek OT is a little questionable.
If I remember correctly , Jesus when asked what were the most important two commandments was pretty clear, in Greek, Hebrew and English, that one of them was love your neighbour as yourself. Turning the other cheek 7x7x7 times was in there too, i think. And suffer the little children to come unto me..Interpreting that to mean "we should kill rebellious children" and" lets' bomb Hanoi?" Hmmm.