Quote
yasmin
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.

200 years after the fact? Is that a fact? What did Paul and John drive? Deloreans? Like we saw in Back to the Future?

The Epistles were written at the time the Apostles were yet alive.

Galatians 6:11[/color:aedb169d82]
"See what large letters I use as [b:aedb169d82][u:aedb169d82]I write to you[/u:aedb169d82][/b:aedb169d82] with my own hand![/size:aedb169d82][/color:aedb169d82]


Philemon 1:21[/color:aedb169d82]
Confident of your obedience, [b:aedb169d82][u:aedb169d82]I write to you[/u:aedb169d82][/b:aedb169d82], knowing that you will do even more than I ask.[/size:aedb169d82][/color:aedb169d82]


1 John 2:12[/color:aedb169d82]
[b:aedb169d82][u:aedb169d82]I write to you[/u:aedb169d82][/b:aedb169d82], dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.[/size:aedb169d82][/color:aedb169d82]

Quote

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.

That was spoken to Jews who were yet living under the Law. Age of Israel. Not to the Church who today is to live under grace and truth.

They were later given a new commanded to love one another as Christ loved them. That takes us well beyond a self centered consciousness in how we are to treat others.. by treating others how we wish to be treated.

We are now to treat others better than we think we would deserve at times. And, not spare them of the truth at other times, even when it hurts.



John 13:34[/color:aedb169d82]
"[u:aedb169d82][b:aedb169d82]A new command I give you[/b:aedb169d82][/u:aedb169d82]: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.[/size:aedb169d82][/color:aedb169d82]


We must know the Word very well in order to love believers as Christ loved the disciples. For, Jesus was [b:aedb169d82]brutally honest[/b:aedb169d82] at times.

Imagine that? Peter said he would never allow the Lord to be hurt? Just after the Lord just informed them he must suffer in the hands of his religious enemies?

And? What did Peter get in return for his love?

Being told he spoke like he were Satan himself.

If that took place today? And some witnessed to it? They would be running here to vehemently complain that Jesus was overbearing and insane for treating the well intentioned, loving Peter, that way.

After all? Peter was only looking after the well being of the Lord. Right? Good intentions is what matters in God's plan. Right? How we feel it should be? Even when the Word says to the contrary? Right? Right! (right?)

Matthew 16:22-24 (New International Version)[/color:aedb169d82]
"Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

Jesus turned and said to Peter, [b:aedb169d82][u:aedb169d82]"Get behind me, Satan![/u:aedb169d82][/b:aedb169d82] You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."[/size:aedb169d82][/color:aedb169d82]


We are now to love one another as Christ loved his disciples.

That even means being brutally honest on occasion when need be. Many who are not serious in their following of Christ can not take it when they get their feelings hurt by the truth. They refuse to take up their cross and accept what the Word says when it contradicts their wishful thinking as how they would like things to be.

Yet, cults will appear to be brutally honest, as well. So, again. One must be walking in the Spirit and Truth in order to discern the matter. For the secular outsider? He can not discern the difference in that case. He has no means to. Yet he can tell when there is psychological manipulation going on. But? Doctrinal differences? He is not qualified to judge. He can only go by how he feels about a matter.

In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
SpiritualLiberty


Here’s something else for you to consider, brainout,

Are you OK? Mmoderator stated that Brainout has been banned. You OK?

Quote

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.

Payment for sins was at the cross. Forgiveness of sins, when you believe.

Acts 10:43
All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him [u:744c594f98]receives forgiveness of sins[/u:744c594f98] through his name."[/size:744c594f98][/color:744c594f98]

They did not receive forgiveness on the cross. The Cross provided the means for the forgiveness when they believed.


# Acts 26:18
to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, [u:744c594f98]so that they may receive forgiveness of sins[/u:744c594f98] and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'[/size:744c594f98][/color:744c594f98]

Quote

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?

I never saw his teaching on this. I just saw what the Word said. Did you?

Quote

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.)

All sins will ultimately be forgiven when we are in a resurrection body. The ultimate sanctification!

But now? If we sin? We must acknowledge our sins and God will forgive us our sins. Because we still have a body with a sin nature that is capable of sinning.


We enter into the privilege of receiving forgiveness when we enter into salvation.

There are no more animal sacrifices to be offered. Jesus paid for the penalty of sin. We will never be forsaken by God for that reason. No matter how bad a believer we may be. We can not be forsaken Jesus was forsaken on the Cross because of our sins.

That means the moment we name a sin we stumble into? Its forgiven.

God can not be one with sin. So, when we sin, it cuts us off from fellowship with the Spirit. The forgiveness we now receive is a family matter. Between Father and child. Its no longer a legal issue. The legality was dealt with on the Cross! Justice was satisfied with the payment of the sacrifice of Jesus.

Now?

Why is there 1 John 1:9?

1 John 1:9 (New International Version)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." [/color:744c594f98][/size:744c594f98]


We receive *forgiveness* when we acknowledge our sins to God. Its like when a Father forgives a child who admits he did wrong. Its not a legal issue. The legal issue was settled on the Cross.

We get back in fellowship, walking in the Spirit, when we do acknowledge (admit) our sins.

Why is that?

Amos 3:3
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" [/color:744c594f98][/size:744c594f98]

When we acknowledge our sin? We *agree* with God by calling 'sin' what God calls sin! We agree! We then can walk together once more in agreement with one another. That is why we ask forgiveness! To admit our sin, is to agree its sin!


Amos 3:3
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" [/color:744c594f98][/size:744c594f98]


I did not get this from Thieme's teachings. I got it from my own study. Study that I can have because of benefiting from the growth I experienced under RBT's teachings.

He always taught us to not be afraid to be original thinkers. Remember how he used to shout... "THINK! THINK! THINK!

He used to hate it when other pastors would simply parrot his messages.

For, we all benefit from each other's insight. Thieme never discouraged original thinking and personal insight. He was angry with those who were afraid to think for themselves and could only parrot others.


Pastors I know that were ordained under RBT teach their own doctrines. They do not parrot Thieme. I have even heard disagreements with some of his teachings. But its always done in love and respect. That's what Thieme was aiming for. To bring us to maturity so we can think for ourselves.

Insight is a beautiful thing when it happens. Its like receiving a kiss from the Father.




Philippians 1:9
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight.[/size:744c594f98][/color:744c594f98]

Quote

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.

Like I said. I have not seen Thieme's teaching on this matter.

And, like I also said. I did not always agree with Thieme's conclusions. I do not know if what I just said contradicts Thieme. But, I know its in agreement with what the Word teaches. That's what counts.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Truthtesty quote

Quote

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."

gene quote

Quote

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.

Truthtesty states: This is an evasive response. Regardless how long or short Jesus was on the cross it and having a spear thrust in his side, this modern evidence proves that it was possible for Jesus to shed his blood for our sins and clinically physically die for our sins, then say "it is finished" I agree with Dr. Wall that it was both a physical and spiritual death as well as the majority of christians in the USA and the world.

Thieme rants that physical death was not necessary. But if physical death
was not necessary then why was physical ressurection necessary?

Truthtesty Quote:
Did Thieme ever recant his doctrine of salvation?


gene quote:

Quote

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

Truthtesty states: I am the only one qualified to judge. Other's are the only ones qualified to judge for themselves. Thieme has recanted many of his doctrines, I was wondering from the glaring errors, if he had recanted this one.



Truthtesty

Hi Genez, thank you for that correction: you are right of course re the fact that Pauls' letters etc were written during his lifetime( Duh! Foolish of me!)
Of course from most accounts the language Jesus was talking was not Greek but Galilean Aramaic: the language of the common people and the Jews at the time.The sermon on the mount was given in Aramaic, not Greek.
And no one was writing any gospels while Jesus was actually alive.So word of mouth for ? some years. And at least some language translation involved in changing at least some Aramaic ( the common tongue) to Greek.Does that sound more accurate?
Back to what Jesus said and did.The only two times that I can think of where he showed violence or anger in the bible was where he pushed the money changers from the temple and yelled at the scribes and Pharisees (Not a ringing enodrsement of his approval of organized religion and the sanctity of teachers in my view) and the passage you quoted re Peter. The rest of the time: parable of the good samaritan, saving the prostitute from being stoned, feeding the hungry with the loaves and fishes...doesn't really sound like he would have endorsed bombing, does it.He did not even try to kill the money changers.
Seems like Jesus new commandment was very like his old one: not be brutally honest with each other, but love one another, as I ( who am about to die for you) love you. Again, a lot like what he said earlier was most important.And no requirement to be brutally honest, or to kill rebellious children.Don't you think he would have been a little more specific if that is what he had been wanting from his followers?

Quote
yasmin
Hi Genez, thank you for that correction: you are right of course re the fact that Pauls' letters etc were written during his lifetime( Duh! Foolish of me!)

It is believed the Gospels may have been penned later on. The Epistles are self evident of being written in real time.

Quote

Of course from most accounts the language Jesus was talking was not Greek but Galilean Aramaic: the language of the common people and the Jews at the time.The sermon on the mount was given in Aramaic, not Greek.

The wide spread language used was Greek, Aramaic was regional. Greek is a very exacting language. God chose Greek as the means to convey the intent of the NT. Even the Greek LXX is a very valuable tool for those desiring to see nuances that can be missed in the Hebrew OT.

Quote

And no one was writing any gospels while Jesus was actually alive.So word of mouth for ? some years. And at least some language translation involved in changing at least some Aramaic ( the common tongue) to Greek.Does that sound more accurate?

Oral tradition was a way of life. I believe those we see today with encyclopedic minds... photographic memory... were back then the candidates of God's design to pass along the oral traditions. Oral tradition was a way of life for that time and culture.

Quote

Back to what Jesus said and did.The only two times that I can think of where he showed violence or anger in the bible was where he pushed the money changers from the temple and yelled at the scribes and Pharisees (Not a ringing enodrsement of his approval of organized religion and the sanctity of teachers in my view) and the passage you quoted re Peter. The rest of the time: parable of the good samaritan, saving the prostitute from being stoned, feeding the hungry with the loaves and fishes...doesn't really sound like he would have endorsed bombing, does it.He did not even try to kill the money changers.

He said that there will be wars and rumors of wars until he comes. He also told the disciples not to be alarmed.

Jesus also advocated self defense.

Luke 11:21
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." [/color:7070728b39][/size:7070728b39]

Quote

Seems like Jesus new commandment was very like his old one: not be brutally honest with each other, but love one another, as I ( who am about to die for you) love you.

Love will be absolutely brutally honest [u:7070728b39][b:7070728b39]when its called for.[/b:7070728b39][/u:7070728b39]



Proverbs 27:6
"Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."[/color:7070728b39][/size:7070728b39]

Quote

Again, a lot like what he said earlier was most important.And no requirement to be brutally honest, or to kill rebellious children.

Please? Will you get your head out of the Law?

We are not under the Law of Moses anymore as our civil code.

We do not kill rebellious youths today. Not children. Young adults. It spoke of one being a habitual drunkard.

We do not kill them today. Today they get sleazy lawyers that keep them out on the streets so they can end up killing someone else. That's only fair, you know. Right?

Yet.. there always will be civil law. Romans 13 explains that quite clearly to us.

Quote

Don't you think he would have been a little more specific if that is what he had been wanting from his followers?

He always knew some believers in time would do a good job in understanding the Scriptures, and some will refuse to. Some, out of fear and timidity of their particular sin nature will refuse to be made strong in the LORD. Some others will be made strong by grace and truth. Some will refuse.

Christ left us his Word to supply us with all the things he could not cover personally in the short time he had on earth. Yet, some want (beg for) excuses to be given so they do not have to face their own deficiencies. Deficiencies that the Word exposes in all of us. We all are commanded to deny self and take up our cross if we are to truly follow Christ. Many compromise and follow 'a christ.' One of their own making.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Genez, interesting ideas.
It seems that a lot of your or Theimes' beliefs are based on the idea that most of what Jesus says actually doesn't apply .Love your neighbour as yourself? Well that doesn't really mean us...we are the new christians. Turn the other cheek? Well that does not really apply to us either...Of course it appears that according to Theime the really old testament stuff (the law of Moses) seemed to have good points...Even though Jesus stopped people from through stones ( let he is without sin cast the first stone?) he did not really mean that either.
I am sorry if I am misinterpreting you, and I do appreciate you dialoging.
Honestly, I am generally a live and let live sort of person,and quite capable of nodding politely when someone explains that black is really white.
In this case, you remind me so much of myself at one point. i had to respond. Hoping you are able to come to find your own truth, not just Theimes.Wishing you so much peace. Yasmin

To who it may concern:

Let's stop and take inventory here.

Do others posting at this thread think GeneZ is contributing anything meaningful?

He seems to say the same things over and over again defending Thieme on and on etc.

Do others here feel he is engaged in dialog or just spamming the thread?

Quote
rrmoderator
To who it may concern:

Let's stop and take inventory here.

Do others posting at this thread think GeneZ is contributing anything meaningful?

He seems to say the same things over and over again defending Thieme on and on etc.

Do others here feel he is engaged in dialog or just spamming the

thread?

There is a genuine dialog just beginning to develop and it seems your intent is to sabotage it. We were discussing doctrinal issues, not so much even Thieme. I also sent a post that revealed something about Thieme that you apparently wish to suppress. That he encouraged original thought. He encouraged it when it came to sound teaching.

Now... You are supposed to moderate? Correct? Or control what I think?

You keep taking sides. Which is not what a moderator is supposed to do.

I have been sensing for quite some time as if I walked into a cult chat room of sorts here. That's what I find so ironic. In its own way, this mind control of yours is much like what a cult does.

I know what I think. You seem to think you are dealing with a child. I have no idea who you are. But I am learning quickly that there is an agenda here. And, its determined to paint reality as it wants to. If not? That's what I am getting so far.

I would just as soon be out of here if you are going to keep telling me what I think, and what I mean. Its growing old rather quickly, because you are taking sides and not moderating with impartiality.

If you had been in Thieme's ministry and want to give your evaluations? Fine, then. You just keep taking a position to take to try and get me to react. I do not even believe you believe what you say. I think its to simply manipulate the dialog to poke it and see what comes out. You really don't know the truth. And, you have to know that rumors fly in many places because wherever you find a church? You will find malcontents. Its a fact of life in the Church age.

What ever your reasons are, I perceive it as unprofessional in approach. It appears you have a bias that you can not control. Its called your own agenda. As if we are commodities to be manipulated for your forum's benefit.

I got better things to do. Those here trying to make their case have holes all over the place. But, now that a genuine dialog has begun? You want to poison it.

Your game. Your forum. If you are going to continue playing the part of a condescending self appointed expert? I will soon be gone. I do not have to take this. The typical and obvious cults in this world do not take much more than common sense to see, and to know what makes them tick. For those in them lack common sense.

Are you going to continue to show partiality and act unprofessional? If you are? I will be gone.

Now? Is there going to be impartiality on your part? Or, am I being told to leave? Because if you keep taking sides in a place where you have no first hand experience? Its like telling me to leave. I will not put up with you. Just like I would not have put up with Thieme if he were the way you desire us to portray him to be for your benefit.

In the mean time.

In Christ, GeneZ

Genez wrote:

Quote

Jesus also advocated self defense.

Luke 11:21
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

Come on GeneZ. Just like Thieme, you want to take everything out of context. You want to look up close at the bark on a tree while overlooking the surrounding forest.

That passage in Luke is talking about something entireley different than "self-defense". This statement comes after Jesus was accused of driving out demons by Beelzebub and not by the finger of God.

From Luke 11:14 and following:

"Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, 'By Beelzubub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons'. Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: 'Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzubub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

When a strong man (here, that would mean Satan, or the evil one, or Beelzebub, whatever), fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger (Jesus, by the finger of God) attackes and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils"

This in no way advocates self-defense. It is simply an illustration saying that God is stronger than Satan, and that his power is coming from God, not Satan.

Quote
rrmoderator
To who it may concern:

Let's stop and take inventory here.

Do others posting at this thread think GeneZ is contributing anything meaningful?

He seems to say the same things over and over again defending Thieme on and on etc.

Do others here feel he is engaged in dialog or just spamming the thread?

His contribution is meaningful in that it gives a real clear example of how Thieme followers think (their train of logic--or illogic--so to speak).

GeneZ is burying himself by his misinterpretations of scripture. I vote to let him continue digging his own grave as long as he follows the rules here.