Truthtesty wrote:

Quote

[[b:e1f0be23f6]Notice Voltaic makes [u:e1f0be23f6]no mention of the evil of Thieme's teachings[/u:e1f0be23f6] [/b:e1f0be23f6]that cause: the bumping into walls, falling down stairs, having nervous breakdowns, and suffering identity dysfunctions.)

Voltaic

Quote

[b:e1f0be23f6]Now you are plainly lying about what I have or haven't said[/b:e1f0be23f6]. I refer you to post #44879 in this thread where I did briefly discuss this and where you went off into left-field about wanting me to go to jail because I believe Christians should follow the law when the Anti-Christ is in charge or something outlandish. Maybe you don't agree with my answer or things could be misinterpreted, etc. That's fine and we can discuss it. But what I have or haven't said is very plainly documented here in this thread.

[b:e1f0be23f6]If I am lying, then where did you specifically state Thieme's teachings are evil?[/b:e1f0be23f6]

Also, you have broken your own "[b:e1f0be23f6]holier than thou art[/b:e1f0be23f6]" rules, by specifically and falsely accusing me of lying, in public, and without me contacting you "privately".



Truthtesty

Truthtesty wrote:

Quote

The answer to your question is yes you should go to the internet and point out the truth. Have the debate. Put all the facts on the table. You might be right or you be wrong, but the truth is out there.

Voltaic wrote:

Quote

If there is a chance that a person is wrong, then this person is guilty of incredible evil in making trouble against others. I will simply have to disagree with you on this point. I don't believe we are called to debate and all this out there to the world at large, and I've never seen a passage in Scripture that supports this idea. Can you provide one?

Truthtesty:

Quote

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. This is an unrestricted statement, and certainly would include the world at large.

Voltaic

Quote

And the very next verse 1 Thess 5:22 says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Even the appearance of evil should be avoided according to this passage. So I wonder if your statement "You might be right or you be wrong" is a good standard to use; and [b:cd74a5c716]I wonder if disputes and accusations and engaging in these kinds of discussion violates the command to avoid the appearance of evil.[/b:cd74a5c716] In any case, “proving” means to test and examine something, as in the modern phrase “proving grounds”, not as in evidence like a trial. So I am simply going to disagree with your interpretation that this means unrestricted working in the world at large to make a point.

Truthtesty:
If you really believe - "I wonder if disputes and accusations and engaging in these kinds of discussion violates the command to avoid the appearance of evil."-, then it sure isn't stopping you from "disputing and discussing" here, now is it?

Wonder all you want, fighting evil and bringing evil to justice is avoiding complicity with evil. For example, if you witness someone being beaten and robbed (or worse) and you do nothing about it,(you don't call 911, no testimony as a court witness, etc...) then you are complicit. You [b:cd74a5c716]appear[/b:cd74a5c716] as an accomplice of that evil. Fighting evil and bringing evil to justice of the light, is not evil, it's good.


I disagree with your interpretation of proving.

dokimavzw from (1384)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Dokimazo 2:255,181
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
dok-im-ad'-zo Verb

Definition
to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

[bible1.crosswalk.com]

The testing the world at large would certainly be a part of "testing all things".



Truthtesty

Truthtesty wrote:
It does not say be complicit with evil. The command Be not overcome of evil, to me means to resist evil and to hate evil, and to not be overcome by evil, and not be defeated by evil.

Voltaic

Quote

I agree with that meaning, but overcoming doesn’t mean working and toiling and earning. Christ did the overcoming, we ride his coattails and honor Him by living in His example. “Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5)

Truthtesty wrote:
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. This is a conditional statement.

Voltaic

Quote

My Lord and Saviour said: "With God, all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26, [b:09a627a4e2]Mark 10:27[/b:09a627a4e2]).

Truthtesty:

[b:09a627a4e2]Mark 10:27[/b:09a627a4e2]
And Jesus looking upon them saith, [b:09a627a4e2]With men it is impossible[/b:09a627a4e2], but not with God: for [b:09a627a4e2]with God all things are possible[/b:09a627a4e2].

I say again "[b:09a627a4e2]If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.[/b:09a627a4e2]" This is a conditional statement. Paul is practical and realizes that there is going to be violence anyhow. You can briefly maintain your "[b:09a627a4e2]holier than thou art[/b:09a627a4e2]" beliefs, but if you don't work against, or don't toil against, or don't overcome evil then you are complicit with evil - you become evil, you appear evil, and your belief system collapses. I am not saying that you will go to heaven for fighting evil (Jesus did that and Jesus is victorious over principalities and powers), but good work is a fruit of the spirit.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty

Quote

I am not saying that you will go to heaven for fighting evil (Jesus did that and Jesus is victorious over principalities and powers), but good work is a fruit of the spirit.

For example, while a christian is testfying against a murderer at a trial, it is completely possible and biblical to be praying to God at the same time.

The logic being a christian can "walk in the light" and chew gum at the same time.



Truthtesty

Voltaic wrote:

Quote

If there is a chance that a person is wrong, then this person is guilty of incredible evil in making trouble against others. I will simply have to disagree with you on this point. I don't believe we are called to debate and all this out there to the world at large, and I've never seen a passage in Scripture that supports this idea. Can you provide one?

Truthtesty wrote:
The Gospels are for the whole world are they not? What type of Gospel, What type of Word, what type of TRUTH are you trying to sell, IF THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS EVIL, HAS TO BE HIDDEN AWAY IN SECRET? Can you provide a scripture that says hide the truth of what is evil? I have never seen a passage of scripture that supports this.


Voltaic wrote:

Quote

You are changing what I am saying. I have never said that the truth should be hidden, whether it is the truth of evil or truth of the Gospel or anything else. Not once. Go back and read my posts, there aren’t many.

Truthtesty:
I just asked you if you could produce a scripture that said to "hide the truth". The world at large includes christians too. I know there are alot of things to hide at Berachah. I also know that the truth is universal to the world, not just truth in church. My point again, why would it hurt to debate it in front of the whole world? What do you as a christian have to hide from the whole world? Paul just says it is shameful that unegenerates have to judge christian matters, because thier aren't wise enough christians to do it.


Volatic wrote:

Quote

But there are Scriptures that say disputes between Christians (which is why in one of my first posts I asked if everyone agrees that Thieme is at least a brother in Christ) shouldn't take their disputes before the unregenerate world. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 says Christians shouldn't take each other to court and be judged by unbelievers even on worldy matters. In addition, Titus 3:8-9 teaches that we should be devoted to doing good to everyone instead of promoting controversies of doctrine. To me this includes public displays in front of the unregenerate world such as, oh, an internet forum.

Truthtesty:
Your interpretation is not to be trusted. 1 Corinthians 6:5 says
"[b:dd347c299f]I speak to your shame[/b:dd347c299f]. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? [b:dd347c299f]no, not one that shall be able [/b:dd347c299f]to judge between his brethren?"
This is saying in question form "Is there not a wise enough christian(s) able to judge matters among you, that therefore the unregenerate have to judge matters?". Modern day examples of unregenerates having to judge: Andrea yates, BTK, David Koresh, etc...


Titus 3:9 is speaking about contentions and strifes about Jewish Law, not christian doctrine.

[bible1.crosswalk.com]

Also reference Chafer Volume 7, p 168.

Voltaic

Quote

If he or his son were here, that would at least be Biblical. All the scriptures I see say that if a brother ignores rebuke or exhortation, you just leave it alone and go separate ways (Titus 3:10); none of them talk about taking it to the people or speaking it to the world or what have you.

Truthtesty:

Wrong.

I would imagine that Thieme or his son have probably read this site. Thieme and his son are allowed to join this forum. Thieme has been spoken to about these matters. In any case this site is mostly for the healing of the victims, who need to hear [u:dd347c299f][b:dd347c299f]the truth[/b:dd347c299f][/u:dd347c299f]!

Titus 3:10
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
[b:dd347c299f]
after the first and second admonition reject[/b:dd347c299f];
have nothing to do with him; have no society with him; admit him not to private conversation; and eject him from church communion, after he has been publicly admonished twice by the order of the church;[u:dd347c299f] for this is not to be understood of private admonition, by a particular person or persons; as in the case of private offences, (Matthew 18:15,16) but of public admonition, in the name of the church[/u:dd347c299f].
[bible1.crosswalk.com]


Voltaic:

Quote

Even Paul says he rejoices when people preach Christ for false motivations as long as Christ is preached (Philippians 1:17-18 )

Truthtesty:

Philippians 1:17
But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

[bible1.crosswalk.com]

It doesn't say for false motivations, it says "in pretence". Be very careful with this, becuase:

2 Corinthians 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an [b:dd347c299f]angel of light[/b:dd347c299f].


The doctrinal statement of DTS states:

Quote

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 [b:dd347c299f]appears as an angel of light[/b:dd347c299f], even counterfeiting the works of God by fostering religious movements and systems of doctrine, which systems in every case are characterized by a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ and of salvation by grace alone (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).

Helmut Thielicke wrote:

Quote

The serpent is assuredly not the Bolshevik type of atheist who blurts out his infernal notions in Paradise -- the serpent is a firm believer in God. 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 -- [b:dd347c299f]does he not on that account wear the mask of an angel of light [/b:dd347c299f](2 Cor. 11.14) ?

"That is the terrifying consequence of the devil’s taking his stand on the fact of God. That is why his disguise is so dangerous. For this reason is he so dangerous a seducer, a ‘teacher of error’ in the Church, [b:dd347c299f]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:dd347c299f]. 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."

Truthtesty

To Voltaic:

You wrote that you had recently read the biography, "Robert B. Thieme, Jr.:His Ancestry: His Life" and were disturbed by the typos, etc. The editorial flaws in the book, though they may be irritating to you, certainly do not discredit the validity of the statements made, or lessen their impact on the reader's understanding of Thieme's life story.

In reference to Thieme's study of Greek at the University of Arizona, I would direct your attention to p.60 under "Language Courses", 198a-198b. Individual Reading Course. "Reading by the individual student, conferences, and reports. Open with the consent of the instructor to students admitted to upper division language courses in the department. May be repeated for credit without duplication of work. Not for graduate credit." This Independent Study class was the only class offered to upper division (Junior and Senior) students studying Greek. Many college students exposed to such Independent Study classes know that such a class is almost always an easy A grade. As a student you are for the most part self taught, meeting with the professor once a week when he reviews your reports, answers a few questions and in general carries on a conversation as you, the student, direct. Professors love this arrangement as it provides them income with a minimun of work. They likewise show great favor to those students interested in signing up for their Independent Study. As you will notice on p.64 the only other student besides Thieme pursuing the same major of Greek at the U. of A. also graduated "with high distinction" and with "Honors" in Greek. But in no way does Independent Study compare to the rigors of a typical class of 30 competing peers, studying under a demanding, preset curriculum.

Are you familiar with Thieme's story of how his military superiors during WWII approached him with a secret mission in which he would parachute into Greece behind enemy lines? They supposedly chose him because of his ability to speak Greek. He was ready and willing to go until it was noticed that he had a slight accent from classical Greek that differed from the modern spoken Greek language. So in the end the plan couldn't be executed.

Could it really be that in Independent Study Thieme learned to speak classical Greek?! (If you have not taken Greek, be sure to ask someone who has.) And is a slight accent the defining difference between modern spoken Greek and ancient Greek?! That story is absurd on its face and evidence that Thieme was lying to exalt himself.

You say "It is a little bit weird that the author went around to all these private residences and took pictures of their current facades." If you have heard the claims Thieme has made concerning his family and upbringing, you should be able to understand what these pictures reveal. As a point of correction you mention the picture on p.64 as the door of Thieme's college rental from the lower staircase. Actually this picture is the entrance to the triplex his father moved the family to sometime prior to the spring of 1937. It's not exactly the scene of opulance that Thieme refers to in his teachings.

To recognize and appreciate an in-depth bio requires more than a superficial reading.

From UA:


Classical Literature became a two-professor department in 1937. The Head of the Department was Associate Professor Garret Douglas Percy who joined the UA in 1937. His Ph. D. was from California in 1935 and he taught all the Latin classes. All Greek classes were taught by Professor Frank Hamilton Fowler (who received his Ph.D. from Chicago, 1896 He joined the UA faculty in 1919.). Prior to 1937 Dr. Fowler taught both Greek and Latin (and was head of the department until 1937).



in the 1935-36 description of courses Classical Literature section states:

The major: 24 units above 1b; the supporting minor shall consist of 20 units advised from English, French, German, Spanish, philosophy, history. The courses in Greek offered are:

51a-51b Elementary Greek. (4-4) Yr. A beginners’ course in the Greek language and literature, including selections from Plato and the New Testament. 152a-152b. Attic and Homeric Greek Literature. (4-4) Yr. Reading and interpretation of selections from Attic and Homeric Greek. Prerequisite, 51b. Classical Literature Honors (2-2) Yr. The college of Liberal Arts and Education offer Seniors an opportunity to enroll as candidates for Departmental Honors. Honors students could receive 4 credits with either a grade of 1 (Recommended for Honors” or 2 “Passed”) Those who fail were given a grade of W. The honors classes were largely independent studies.



The “announcement for the academic year 1939-40” says the following under Classical Literature – Greek:

The major: 24 units above 1b

51a-51b. Elementary Greek (4-4) Yr. A beginner’s course. Grammar, pronunciation, and reading. Credit toward graduation in 51a is allowed only after completion of 51b. Offered in 1940-41 and alternate years

151a-151b. Greek Reading course. (4-4) Yr. The reading and interpretation of selections from Greek literature with a review of the principles of the grammar. Prerequisite, 51b or equivalent. Not for graduate credit. Offered in 1939-40 and alternate years. 198a-198b. Individual Reading Course (2-4-2 to 4) Yr. Reading by the individual student, conferences, and reports. Open with the consent of the instructor to students admitted to upper division language courses in the department. May be repeated for credit without duplication of work. Not for graduate credit. Classical Literature Honors (2-2) Yr. (see above).


Truthtesty:
It also appears that 198a-198b was not offered until Thieme's senior year 39/40. When there is a 2-4 indication it means the student can opt for 2, 3, or 4 credits, so for 198a Individual Reading a student could opt for 2, 3, or 4 credits.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

I apologize, I misread this statement "Offered in 1939-40 and alternate years". I think that statement would apply to 151a-151b, not 198a-198b.

I have no reservations, if I make a mistake, I am happy to see someone correct me. For me it's about the truth, not about protecting my ego.



Truthtesty

Hi SynergyCon,

Since you have never listened to any of the Thieme tapes or watched any of the DVDs or attended any of the Thiemite services, and since you haven't been exposed to anything but the written materials; you really don't have much of an insight or basis from which to offer a meaningful opinion. His written materials are pretty much in line with the vast majority of the broad evangelical church.

The popish doctrines of "right pastor" and telling Christians that they can't read the Bible and get anything out of it, among the other cultish things were done within the context of the services which were recorded and disseminated via audio and video means. Order some of those and you'll get more exposure to the cultish elements that have been mentioned here and in written critiques of the Thiemite system.

Hi Thiemite:

While I have never heard or seen Theime, I did however attend a church in Pittsburgh called Tetelestai Church that was, and is pastored by a Theime prodigy named Pastor Knapp.

Knapp uses all the theime words, free tapes, etc. and if you are one minute late, you are not allowed in the church. Nobody is allowed to say a word, get up during service, no children, etc. Very, very strict. So, while I have never seen, or heard theime, I sort of can relate from sitting under a theime prodigy for 15 years.

Like I said before, I believe the theology is debatable. As for the cult stuff, I guess I just want to add some input.

Have you or anyone here ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? I know people who stop what they are doing everyday to listen to Rush. They believe every word he says. Rush says things like "talent on loan from God", "half my brain tied behind my back to be fair", etc, etc. etc. One could say that Rush is very arrogant, cocky, conceited, etc. I can listen to him, and just laugh when he says that stuff, but I enjoy his show, and have learned alot about politics from Rush.

Why is it that some people who listen to him become totally obsessed? They almost, or do worship him. They turn to him for the answers to everything.

I have seen fellow family members of mine and friends reach this state with Pastor Knapp (Theime prodigy.) Again, isn't this just not simple idolatry?

If Theime is committing heresy, then lets address it as heresy. I know all about the "right woman, right man", "right pastor", "appeal trial of satan", "Bible doctrine", "blood of Christ", and all the other military operation this, and operation that lingo that he uses.

Again if this is heresy, then call it heresy, and post a rebutal backing it with scripture.

A cult is a pretty strong description, but I know what you mean. I seen my own close family members basicly worship the pastor instead of worshiping God. I don't know how this happens. Why was I able to attend for 15 years, and not become like them?

I had a good freind of mine and his wife who attended Tetelestai for years, move to Arizona. He and his wife have been there for about 7 years now, and don't go to church there. They went every Sunday while they lived here. I was talking to him a couple of weeks ago, and asked him if he and his wife had found a church in Arizona yet. He said NO. They can't find a church they like, they looked for years, but every pastor doesn't come close to Knapp (Theime prodigy) so they just receive knapp's tapes in the mail and listen to them becuase none of the churches in all of Phoenix are good enough.

Are my freind and his wife in Arizona part of a cult, or have they fallen under the obsession of idolatry?

I don't have any judgement on anyone on this forum. I am not saying I'm right, and you are wrong. I'm not trying to defend Theime, or condem him either. I just don't understand how the cult label comes into play.

Are Calvinists cult members? Lutherans? Each of these denominations are named after human beings?

I get that Mormons are cultists. So are Harry Chrisnas. Along with Christian Scientology. These are easy. Are "dittoheads" (Rush listeners) cultists?

I see Theime as a man who tried to somehow take theology from a esoteric level, and make it practacal. He also in my opinion tried to explain from a physcological view how things like your sin nature, conscience, soul, and spirit worked.

Again, if a pastor tells the congregation that they shouldn't read the Bible, and that they need a Pastor Teacher to do this, then maybe it's heresy, or does that make him a Jim Jones.

I believe that if someone who has no knowledge of God at all becomes saved today, and tomorrow picks up a Bible and starts reading it he or she will soon become very confused, and or frustrated. So I have to say that I agree with his statement regarding this. What is the answer to this hypothetical situation? I believe that a believer should read his or her Bible, but at the same time listen to a Pastor Teacher, read books written by pastors, listen to tapes. Even attend Bible studies, Bible classes, or join a small group.

If one would go to church and the sermon is from the book of Acts Chp 7 wouldn't it make sense to read at least Chp 7 later that day, and/or read a book about Acts Listen to a tape from a different pastor giving a sermon on Acts Chp 7. Type Acts Chp 7 on google and view some of the hundreds of sites that come up. Read Chp 7 in the NIV, KJ, NASB?

One may even be able to do all of the above from a computer.

Just like some of the people who listen to Rush become right-wing fanatics, I think that is what happens to people who listen to Theime. Again simple idolatry.

Are these so calles theimeites believers? Do they worship God, or do they worship Theime? Do they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and have they accepted Him as their Savior?

So if Theime is a cult leader what now? Should I throw away every book I have that he has written? What about the many prodigys of his that are scattered throughout the USA that have started churches?

In my lifetime I have met many different Christians. I have had many conversations with different belivers. I enjoy every one of them. You name it, and I have met somone who disagrees with me. Disspensations, covenant theology, appeal trial, tribuation, rapture, tounges, miracles, prophesey, divorce/remarriage, woman pastors, kingdom of God - kingdom of Heaven, baptism, sin nature, spirituallity, angels, and I could go on and on. My point is that I have met a beliver somewhere at some time that shares a 100% opposite view than me on any of the above topics. Are they belivers? Yes, I belive they are.

Are the cultists? Heretics? Wolves in sheeps clothing? Demons?

Just because someone shares a different theological view, or sees God different than you does not mean they are a cultist. If this were the case than every believer would be a cultist to every believer because there is no way that two believers can share the exact same beliefs.

I acknowledge that this is a really hard topic to discuss, because it touches deep to some people, and everyone wants to think that what they know and believe is right. If someone believes something else, than they have to be wrong.

I found a really good article by a pastor who made this sort of checklist of questions. The first one was "Do you believe in God?' then the second one was "Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God?", and the checklist continued and as the questions continue you start to see the different beliefs that belivers have. For instance tounges was one of the questions. His attempt was to determine if you are a beliver, and then what was blasphamy, and what was heresy. I will try to find it and post