R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: April 04, 2007 07:16PM
rrmoderator
Happy is right. Let him stay for a while longer. His dialogue is not honest, but he's unintentionally providing this board and the world, an example of how a Thiemite behaves, thinks, acts, tries to control, tries to intimidate, attacks everyone who doesn't agree with Thieme, everyone is out to get him, worships Thieme, etc...
It's kinda like CSI, sometimes you have to see some pretty putrid stuff to get the evidence, so you need to make sure you wear gloves.
...and how jealous he is of the moderator being in control here.
Truthtesty
Happy is right. Let him stay for a while longer. His dialogue is not honest, but he's unintentionally providing this board and the world, an example of how a Thiemite behaves, thinks, acts, tries to control, tries to intimidate, attacks everyone who doesn't agree with Thieme, everyone is out to get him, worships Thieme, etc...
It's kinda like CSI, sometimes you have to see some pretty putrid stuff to get the evidence, so you need to make sure you wear gloves.
...and how jealous he is of the moderator being in control here.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: April 04, 2007 10:45PM
Quote
HappyAndFree
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.
Are we taling about a cult, now? Or a disagreement over interpretation?
Quote
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.
Of course it was pointing to a different situation, and was being used to illustrate. Yet, what you fail to grasp. Jesus was not using some illegitimate process to justify what he was doing. You seem to think he was.
I can just picture using the following illustration in the light of how you just portrayed him.
"Does a drug dealer give his stuff away for free? No, he sells it for a profit! Likewise, we are not to give away our bosses money just because everyone wants something for free." :wink:
You really are missing the purpose that Jesus gave the illustration. It was to show the legitimacy of his own actions. You are trying to tell us it is wrong to have self defense. That Jesus was using a wrong action to justify what he was doing.
Well, go ahead. Be my guest.
In Christ, GeneZ
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: April 04, 2007 10:47PM
Quote
Truthtesty
rrmoderator
Happy is right. Let him stay for a while longer. His dialogue is not honest, but he's unintentionally providing this board and the world, an example of how a Thiemite behaves, thinks, acts, tries to control, tries to intimidate, attacks everyone who doesn't agree with Thieme, everyone is out to get him, worships Thieme, etc...
It's kinda like CSI, sometimes you have to see some pretty putrid stuff to get the evidence, so you need to make sure you wear gloves.
...and how jealous he is of the moderator being in control here.
Truthtesty
Yes! And let the reader be the judge. Not the moderator.
In Christ, GeneZ
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HenryL
()
Date: April 05, 2007 12:40AM
Quote
SpiritualLiberty
[i:7f9873629d]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:7f9873629d]the location of a doctrine[/b:7f9873629d]. Sorry.[/i:7f9873629d]
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:7f9873629d]you do nothing to [u:7f9873629d]show that those scriptures actually support your statement[/u:7f9873629d][/b:7f9873629d].” 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:7f9873629d][b:7f9873629d]IT'S IN THE GREEK,[/b:7f9873629d] 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:7f9873629d] [where do you find the Spirit filling the Temple?][i:7f9873629d], all over the LXX (94 occurrences, search on the root). So 1Jn1:7 uses katharizw and parallels that to the Cross[/i:7f9873629d] [the Cross accomplished [b:7f9873629d]salvation[/b:7f9873629d], not the filling of the Spirit; the filling of the Spirit is part of the spiritual life [b:7f9873629d]after [/b:7f9873629d]salvation][i:7f9873629d], 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:7f9873629d]
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:7f9873629d]katharizw [/i:7f9873629d]in the OT. Then you have to [i:7f9873629d]assume [/i:7f9873629d]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:7f9873629d]Old Italic[/i:7f9873629d]. (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:7f9873629d]So to the other issues you raise, I cannot reply, since we aren't supposed to be talking doctrines, rats![/i:7f9873629d]
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:7f9873629d]IT’S IN THE GREEK...[/i:7f9873629d]
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:7f9873629d]If you all don't want to see the BIBLE, then [b:7f9873629d]please stop asking questions [/b:7f9873629d]because in Christianity, we need to cite the BIBLE to back up something, and it was not written in English.[/i:7f9873629d]
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:7f9873629d]"Stop asking questions." [/i:7f9873629d]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:7f9873629d]Galiban said:[/u:7f9873629d]
[i:7f9873629d]...now we have the “Completed work of the Cross” This is not an inaccurate doctrine. [b:7f9873629d]We were completely [u:7f9873629d]forgiven[/u:7f9873629d] for our sins. [/b:7f9873629d]True! [/i:7f9873629d](RickRoss C.E.F. post; 02/22/07; emphasis mine)
[u:7f9873629d]Thieme said:[/u:7f9873629d]
[i:7f9873629d]The Bible teaches that your sins were [b:7f9873629d]not [/b:7f9873629d]forgiven at the cross.[/i:7f9873629d] (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
Very good post Liberty. You are absolutely on the mark with your comments about about the Greek, Septuagint, and Hyper-Calvinists.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HenryL
()
Date: April 05, 2007 12:44AM
Quote
Truthtesty
rrmoderator
Happy is right. Let him stay for a while longer. His dialogue is not honest, but he's unintentionally providing this board and the world, an example of how a Thiemite behaves, thinks, acts, tries to control, tries to intimidate, attacks everyone who doesn't agree with Thieme, everyone is out to get him, worships Thieme, etc...
It's kinda like CSI, sometimes you have to see some pretty putrid stuff to get the evidence, so you need to make sure you wear gloves.
...and how jealous he is of the moderator being in control here.
Truthtesty
I agree. Let them continue so we can expose their corrupt theology.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: April 19, 2007 09:16AM
To the Forum:
Contrary to what Thieme claimed for years that "Dallas Theological Seminary that deviated from Chafer" (I have never seen evidence of this) , it appears [b:39b7ee6bca]it was Thieme who deviated from Chafer on the literal blood of christ and the physcial death of Jesus[/b:39b7ee6bca]. This is also defines Thieme as a cult because the blood of christ is what is attacked by cults.
The doctrinal statement of DTS states:
[b:39b7ee6bca]We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are [i:39b7ee6bca][u:39b7ee6bca]characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:39b7ee6bca][/i:39b7ee6bca] and of salvation by grace alone[/b:39b7ee6bca] (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
Truthtesty states: Also, Thieme dogmatically stated that the Blood of Christ is not to be interpreted or taken literally, but that it is a “type” of His spiritual death. Thieme suggests that wherever you find references to the Blood in the New Testament writings you should insert in place of the Blood, “the spiritual death” of Christ.
Thieme violates the basic hermeneutical principles of scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. This is contrary to sound Biblical exegesis. The Bible does not use a fulfilled anti-type in the New Testament as a new “type” of something else in the New Testament.
The rule of Scripture interpretation is always to take the literal meaning unless another meaning is clearly indicated.
Thieme does not believe the physical death of Jesus or the literal blood of Jesus has any atoning qualities. This is contrary to Chafer, DTS, and most of christian America/world oh wait I think Jehovah's witnesses are on Thieme's side.
Thieme's landmark quote was "The Blood from His veins [Christ's veins] was a little bleeding from his hands and a little bleeding from his feet, and it doesn't save you and never will.
Thieme also stated:
Wherever the Blood of Christ is mentioned in connection with the cross, it's referring to something else, outside of the fact that when He was nailed to the cross there was bleeding from His hands and from His feet. very little bleeding, and obviously He had a lot of Vitamin K, in His system because His blood coagulated immediately so that leads to point 3.
Truthtesty states: Dallas Theological Seminary, Chafer, Wall, Waite, Hannah, and many others, all agree it was all the physical death, literal shed blood, and spiritual death of Jesus necessary for salvation.
Truthtesty
Contrary to what Thieme claimed for years that "Dallas Theological Seminary that deviated from Chafer" (I have never seen evidence of this) , it appears [b:39b7ee6bca]it was Thieme who deviated from Chafer on the literal blood of christ and the physcial death of Jesus[/b:39b7ee6bca]. This is also defines Thieme as a cult because the blood of christ is what is attacked by cults.
The doctrinal statement of DTS states:
[b:39b7ee6bca]We believe that Satan is the originator of sin, and that, under the permission of God, he, through subtlety, led our first parents into transgression, thereby accomplishing their moral fall and subjecting them and their posterity to his own power; that he is the enemy of God and the people of God, opposing and exalting himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; and that he who in the beginning said, “I will be like the most High,” in his warfare appears as an angel of light, even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are [i:39b7ee6bca][u:39b7ee6bca]characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ[/u:39b7ee6bca][/i:39b7ee6bca] and of salvation by grace alone[/b:39b7ee6bca] (Gen. 3:1–19; Rom. 5:12–14; 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:13–15; Eph. 6:10–12; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:1–3).
Truthtesty states: Also, Thieme dogmatically stated that the Blood of Christ is not to be interpreted or taken literally, but that it is a “type” of His spiritual death. Thieme suggests that wherever you find references to the Blood in the New Testament writings you should insert in place of the Blood, “the spiritual death” of Christ.
Thieme violates the basic hermeneutical principles of scripture interpretation by setting up a typology in the New Testament based on the anti-type also in the New Testament. This is contrary to sound Biblical exegesis. The Bible does not use a fulfilled anti-type in the New Testament as a new “type” of something else in the New Testament.
The rule of Scripture interpretation is always to take the literal meaning unless another meaning is clearly indicated.
Thieme does not believe the physical death of Jesus or the literal blood of Jesus has any atoning qualities. This is contrary to Chafer, DTS, and most of christian America/world oh wait I think Jehovah's witnesses are on Thieme's side.
Thieme's landmark quote was "The Blood from His veins [Christ's veins] was a little bleeding from his hands and a little bleeding from his feet, and it doesn't save you and never will.
Thieme also stated:
Wherever the Blood of Christ is mentioned in connection with the cross, it's referring to something else, outside of the fact that when He was nailed to the cross there was bleeding from His hands and from His feet. very little bleeding, and obviously He had a lot of Vitamin K, in His system because His blood coagulated immediately so that leads to point 3.
Truthtesty states: Dallas Theological Seminary, Chafer, Wall, Waite, Hannah, and many others, all agree it was all the physical death, literal shed blood, and spiritual death of Jesus necessary for salvation.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: April 19, 2007 11:05AM
To the Forum:
Helmut Thielicke wrote:
The serpent is assuredly not the Bolshevik type of atheist who blurts out his infernal notions in Paradise -- [b:8fec3892d0]the serpent is a firm believer in God. [/b:8fec3892d0]Indeed he is fully informed on the subject of God -- and he trembles (Jas. 2.19) . But being cunning and clever, he succeeds in trembling with his tail only, while his face remains calm, compelling and fascinating. At all events he takes his stand on the basic fact of ‘God’. For that very reason is he so sinister, so dangerous, so abysmal, so hellish, because he goes to work from that standpoint -- does he not on that account wear the mask of an angel of light (2 Cor. 11.14) ?
"That is the terrifying consequence of the devil’s taking his stand on the fact of God. [b:8fec3892d0]That is why his disguise is so dangerous. For this reason is he so dangerous a seducer, a ‘teacher of error’ in the Church, because there his principle of taking his stand on the fact of God, on the basis of positive Christian belief, is seen at its most effective.[/b:8fec3892d0] We may well say that the most diabolical thing about the devil is that he takes this stand. That is why he is accounted a liar from the beginning. That is why he is called the ‘ape’ of God. That is why we can mistake him for God."
Helmut Thielicke was Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Hamburg. Translated by Rev. C.C. Barber, M.A., D. Phil. Published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1958, 1960, 1961, 1962). Published in Great Britain by Oliver and Boyd Ltd. Edited for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
Lutheran theologian and preacher, born in Barmen, W Germany. He was dismissed from his post at Heidelberg for criticizing the Nazis, and in 1944 contributed to a draft declaration on Church–State relations for a revolutionary government to follow a successful plot against Hitler. He was appointed professor of theology at Hamburg after World War 2, becoming dean of theology (1954), and university rector (1960). He wrote many devotional books, as well as major works on theology and ethics.
Truthtesty
Helmut Thielicke wrote:
The serpent is assuredly not the Bolshevik type of atheist who blurts out his infernal notions in Paradise -- [b:8fec3892d0]the serpent is a firm believer in God. [/b:8fec3892d0]Indeed he is fully informed on the subject of God -- and he trembles (Jas. 2.19) . But being cunning and clever, he succeeds in trembling with his tail only, while his face remains calm, compelling and fascinating. At all events he takes his stand on the basic fact of ‘God’. For that very reason is he so sinister, so dangerous, so abysmal, so hellish, because he goes to work from that standpoint -- does he not on that account wear the mask of an angel of light (2 Cor. 11.14) ?
"That is the terrifying consequence of the devil’s taking his stand on the fact of God. [b:8fec3892d0]That is why his disguise is so dangerous. For this reason is he so dangerous a seducer, a ‘teacher of error’ in the Church, because there his principle of taking his stand on the fact of God, on the basis of positive Christian belief, is seen at its most effective.[/b:8fec3892d0] We may well say that the most diabolical thing about the devil is that he takes this stand. That is why he is accounted a liar from the beginning. That is why he is called the ‘ape’ of God. That is why we can mistake him for God."
Helmut Thielicke was Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Hamburg. Translated by Rev. C.C. Barber, M.A., D. Phil. Published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1958, 1960, 1961, 1962). Published in Great Britain by Oliver and Boyd Ltd. Edited for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
Lutheran theologian and preacher, born in Barmen, W Germany. He was dismissed from his post at Heidelberg for criticizing the Nazis, and in 1944 contributed to a draft declaration on Church–State relations for a revolutionary government to follow a successful plot against Hitler. He was appointed professor of theology at Hamburg after World War 2, becoming dean of theology (1954), and university rector (1960). He wrote many devotional books, as well as major works on theology and ethics.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: April 19, 2007 07:18PM
To the Forum:
So I ask you, after looking at what Thieme has done to the literal shed blood of Jesus and the physical death of Jesus, and after looking at Thielicke's statements, who would be the most interested in spreading a [u:25c4f4fdb9]false gospel[/u:25c4f4fdb9]?
Truthtesty
So I ask you, after looking at what Thieme has done to the literal shed blood of Jesus and the physical death of Jesus, and after looking at Thielicke's statements, who would be the most interested in spreading a [u:25c4f4fdb9]false gospel[/u:25c4f4fdb9]?
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
HappyAndFree
()
Date: April 20, 2007 12:05AM
Quote
GeneZQuote
HappyAndFree
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.
Are we taling about a cult, now? Or a disagreement over interpretation?Quote
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.
Of course it was pointing to a different situation, and was being used to illustrate. Yet, what you fail to grasp. Jesus was not using some illegitimate process to justify what he was doing. You seem to think he was.
I can just picture using the following illustration in the light of how you just portrayed him.
"Does a drug dealer give his stuff away for free? No, he sells it for a profit! Likewise, we are not to give away our bosses money just because everyone wants something for free." :wink:
You really are missing the purpose that Jesus gave the illustration. It was to show the legitimacy of his own actions. You are trying to tell us it is wrong to have self defense. That Jesus was using a wrong action to justify what he was doing.
Well, go ahead. Be my guest.
In Christ, GeneZ
GeneZ, dear, dear. What will it take to make this passage clear to you?
Let's try to have a civil dialogue about that passage.
In that illustration, Jesus is likening the demon-possessed man to a house that is being protected by it's owner. In this case, the owner would be Satan. Satan is defending his house, this residence for his demons. But then along comes a stronger man. In this illustration, that stronger man would be God (or Jesus). God comes in and overpowers Satan and takes possession of the property.
The illustration is very, very clear when taken in context. Now you can claim that by using this illustration, Jesus is condoning "self-defense". But if you do that, you also have to claim that Jesus in condoning "may the stronger man win". Because in this illustration, the stronger man overcame the man protecting his house. Just so happens, in this case, the stronger man is God.
I don't think Jesus' goal in this illustration was to condone or condemn any particular human behavior. He just shows how humankind behaves. I'm certain his goal here was to illustrate that he was driving out demons by the power and authority of God, not Satan. That's the point, and trying to read other extraneous meaning from the illustration only serves to dilute the real message here.
I encourage other bible scholars and students from the group to step in here and offer your opinions on this passage. That's just my interpretation. But it seems very straightforward if you read from verse 14 all the way through. If you just take that one little section out of the surrounding scripture, it's easy to misinterpret.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: April 20, 2007 08:35AM
Yasmin quote
I agree Yasmin. Thieme does devalue the words of Jesus.
Truthtesty
Quote
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 agree Yasmin. Thieme does devalue the words of Jesus.
Truthtesty
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.