To the Forum:

Doing my best wth German. Anyone who knows German feel free to help me out. Regardless, one can see the following professors confessed to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party.

"Chronik/Rückblick mit scheinbaren Analogien und ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit"
"Chronicle review with apparent analogies and without claim to totality"


Leipzig, festival organization "with Adolf Hitler for the German people honor, freedom and right!" with "Confession of the professors and intellectual at the German universities and universities to Adolf Hitler and the national socialistic country signed by Dr. Friedrich Alverdes, Prof. Dr. Georg Anschütz, Prof. Dr. Adolf Bach, Prof. Dr. Johannes Behm, Dr. Edwin Blanck, Prof. Dr. Fritz Blättner, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Blaschke, Prof. Dr. Werner Blume, Prof. Dr. Paul Böckmann, Prof. Dr. Otto Bollnow, Prof. Dr. Conrad Borchling, Prof. Dr. Gustav Bredemann, Prof. Dr. Ernst Broermann, Prof. Dr. Paul Brohmer, Prof. Dr. Alfred Burgardsmeir, Prof. Dr. Adolf Butenandt, Prof. Dr. Hans Freiherr v. Campenhausen, Prof. Dr. Adolf Dabelow, Prof. Dr. Hans Dachs, Prof. Dr. Gustav Deuchler, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Dittler, Prof. Dr. Heinz Dotterweich, Prof. Dr. Richard Egenter, Prof. Dr. Theodor Fahr, Prof. Dr. Rainer Fetscher, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Fleck, Prof. Dr. Hans Fliege, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Flitner, Prof. Dr. Günther Franz, Prof. Dr. Hans Freyer, Prof. Dr. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Prof. Dr. Arnold Gehlen, Prof. Dr. Gustav Giemsa, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Giese, Prof. Dr. Franz Groebbels, Prof. Dr. Hans Großmann, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Großmann, Prof. Dr. Konstantin v. Haffner, Prof. Dr. Helmut Hasse, Prof. Dr. Otto Heckmann, Prof. Dr. Martin Heidegger, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Heinitz, Dr. Rudolf Heinz, Prof. Dr. Johannes Hempel, Prof. Dr. Paul Hesse, Dr. Max Heuwieser, Prof. Dr. Theodor Heynemann, Dr. Emanuel Hirsch, Prof. Dr. Edgar Irmscher, Prof. Dr. Eduard Jacobshagen, Prof. Dr. Fritz Jäger, Prof. Dr. Erich Jaensch, Prof. Dr. Maximilian Jahrmärker, Prof. Dr. Harro Jensen, Prof. Dr. Eduard Keeser,
Prof. Dr. Erwin Kehrer, Prof. Dr. Egon Keining, Prof. Dr. Hugo Knipping, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Knoll, Prof. Dr. Peter Koch, Prof. Dr. Ernst Kretschmer, Dr. Albrecht Langelüdecke, Prof. Dr. Gerhard Mackenroth, Prof. Dr. Johann Mannhardt, Dr. Friedrich Mauz, Prof. Dr. Kurt May, Prof. Dr. Martin Mayer, Prof. Dr. Waldemar Mitscherlich, Prof. Dr. Walther Mitzka, Prof. Dr. Hans Möller, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Mommsen, Dr. Peter Mühlens, Prof. Dr. Paul Mulzer, Prof. Dr. Hans Naujocks, Prof. Dr. Friedrich Neumann, Prof. Dr. Arthur Nikisch, Prof. Dr. Herrmann Noack, Prof. Dr. Bernhard Nocht, Prof. Dr. Max Pagenstecher, Prof. Dr. Siegfried Passarge, Dr. Hans Petersson, Prof. Dr. Robert Petsch, Prof. Dr. Heinrich Pette, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiehl, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Pinder, Dr. Hans Plischke, Prof. Dr. Hans Preuß,
Prof. Dr. Georg Raederscheidt, Prof. Dr. Otto Reche, Dr. Joachim v. Reckow, Prof. Dr. Eduard Reichenow, Dr. Ferdinand Reiff, Dr. Adolf Rein, Prof. Dr. Hermann Rein, Prof. Dr. Heinrich Remy, Dr. Joachim Ritter, Dr. Erich Rix, Prof. Dr. Josef Schmid, Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Sauerbruch (1937) Prof. Dr. Karl Thalheim (quotations: "the cleaning of the dt. Culture life of decomposing influences, that especially of the judaism went out, was for a renewal an unconditional prerequisite. Prof. Dr. Eugen fisherman: „...einen national country we erected, and we are there it up
zubauen, a country out of blood and ground, a country out of the German people solidarity out Constructed on nationality, race and German soul. ..der leader has the size had to say: I the entire German people asks whether it stands with its will behind me; and tomorrow the entire will become Say German peoples: Yes! Yes!", Prof. Dr. Richard gulf: „...my Adolf Hitler for the German people honor, freedom and right." Prof. Dr. Martin Heidegger: „...keiner can stay away at the day of the testimony of this will Safely Hitler. " Prof. Dr. Emanuel Hirsch: „...aus that all now the last that I have to say: We have one Leader, who has always and every time this well known, that he as nothing then a tool of the creator All things knows itself. It knows, the providence lets do it the service, it stands over it and directs it. "Prof. Dr. Friedrich new man: "we lean every humanism off, that all peoples the same life Form forces. "(1933 NSDAP, books combustion involves, 1971 universities. Marburg Brüder-Grimm-Med.), Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Pinder: politics out of morals, that is is „...Das politics out of the heart, out of one Quite religious underground here. That is something new in the story... „(H. Nannens professor) Prof. D. Dr. Friedrich Schumann: „...Nationalsozialistische upbringing of the German people means Upbringing to the conviction that a people can live only out of its honor. People is not only a historical size, but rather in that it that is, a moral size.
"Emsland-warehouse" (CONCENTRATION CAMP Börgermoor, Esterwegen, Neusustrum) are placed ready and with ca. 4000 in Prisoner present "protective custody" belays, become further "Emsland-warehouses" in Alexis- in the consequence village, ashes villages bog, Bathorn, Brual-Rhede, Dalum, fell, largely-Hesepe, waiter long, verses
Walchum, Wesuwe and Wietmarschen erects, under that until 1945 on ca. 60,000 appreciated "Protective custody" -
[translate.google.com]


Truthtesty

Truthtesy,


I have been away from posting in this forum for months.

I came back out of curiosity when I was cleaning out my Bookmarks, and noticed this site.


This is what I do not understand about how you have taken your argument.

This forum is not a Christian Theology forum. Its not a forum designed to deal with Bible doctrine differences.

If the same tact you are taking here were applied by every denomination that has differing Scriptural beliefs?

Then, every denomination would be calling all other denominations a cult, because the others do not hold to the same Scriptural conclusions.


That is why I wonder what you are doing all this for. You do realize that the Moderators here are not Christian theologians. Right? How can they know what you are getting at?

This is not a forum to determine Christian dogma as to which church is right, or wrong on a doctrine. That should be supervised by Christian theologians if its to be done correctly at all.

But? Now it appears that your basis for determining who is a cult is to be based upon what doctrines they believe?!

And, where try to do you do this? Is in a non-Christian - non- theological - forum? That makes no sense.


Besides....


Even if Thieme were absolutely wrong about some doctrinal issues that you keep making your main issue? Its still does not make anyone a cult. If it did? Then The Catholic Church is a cult. The Baptist church is a cult. The Methodist church is a cult. Etc. The large list of various denominations that do not agree with what you thinks is sound doctrine? Would on that basis? Be determined to be a cult.


I believe you have lost your focus, and are now using certain teachings of Thieme to attack Theime, whom you obviously despise. Its evident to many how you feel about Thieme.


Now, even more important. I asked you a question months ago. You ignored/refused to answer.

You claimed that Theime's ministry destroyed your family. When I asked in what way? You refused to answer.

Is it that some of your family reject you now? Because of your apparent dislike for Thieme?

We can all read in the History Channel forum your comments on how you despise Christianity.

Anti Christianity thinking

So, its understandable that someone like yourself would despise Theime who had such a strong teaching ministry.

Now? How was your family destroyed? You made the claim, but never showed why it was so.

If you make claim that his ministry destroyed your family? You should explain what that means. For it can mean anything as stated. Does that mean that certain members of your family who are Christian do not want to associate with you because of how you feel towards the ministry? It would be helpful to see that what you claimed is not simply reactionary and subjective. If he did destroy your family by wrong doing, you should clarify rather than make a blanket statement on such a serious charge.

In Christ, GeneZ

To the Forum and gene,


Your opinions are noted, but wrong. And I don't believe your story. I think it's more likely you have been following this more than you admit. Afterall, it was you who tried to run when you thought you were caught. I stood my ground. The moderator would know whether or not you have used other fake names. This forum is about the truth and the facts, if that doesn't fit your limited view of the world then, oh well.

Deal with the facts.


Here's one of your opinions that could not weather the facts.

genez Posted: 03-28-2007 09:25 PM

gene quote:
The problem with Thieme and DTS was not that Thieme broke away from DTS. He never broke away from what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted the school to produce. Thieme broke away from what the school had become. There is a difference.


Truthtesty: Thieme did break away from what Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer taught and and the whole world can clearly see that now. We can clearly see genez is wrong and believed Thieme's lie, like most Thiemites.

So instead of denying the truth because? you don't like the truth, why don't you? try being honest with yourself? and place blame where it belongs? on Thieme? for the colossal lie? that he perpetrated? and his own errored? heretical teachings?

Thieme's false doctrine of right pastor is only one cult aspect that defines Thieme as a cult. And it is not like every other church. hah

Deal with the facts such as that Thieme twisted and perverted Dr. Chafer. The History Channel forum has nothing to do with:


Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 313 The Death of Christ. The careful student of doctrine, when examining the Scriptures, soon becomes aware of the imperative need of discriminating between physical death and spiritual death, and in no aspect of this great theme is the human mind more impotent than when considering the death of Christ in the light of these distinctions. There could be no doubt about Christ’s physical death, even though He, in His humanity, being unfallen, was in no way subject to death; nor was He, in His death, to see corruption (Ps. 16:10); nor was a bone of His body to be broken (John 19:36). On the other hand, Christ’s death was a complete judgment of the sin nature for all who are regenerated, and He, as substitute, bore a condemnation which no mortal can comprehend, which penalty entered far into the realms of spiritual death—separation from God (cf. Matt. 27:46). In His death, He shrank back, not from physical pain, nor from the experience of quitting the physical body, but, when contemplating the place of a sin bearer and the anticipation of being made sin for us, He pleaded that the cup might pass. The death of Christ was wholly on behalf of others; yet, while both the physical and the spiritual aspects of death were demanded in that sacrifice which He provided, it is not given to man, when considering the death of Christ, to disassociate these two the one from the other.

Thieme's claim of "following Dr. Chafer closely" was false and misleading. Dr. Chafer did not teach spiritual death only, but Thieme kept that real quiet. And Thieme let everyone believe that Dr. Chafer taught as Thieme did. And that was just one of Thieme's complete asinine falsehoods.


That is just one example of the facts, not predjudiced opinion.

Deal with it. Adjust to the truth and move out and move on.

Go back to cleaning your bookmarks.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty?


There you go again! Making this forum into a Christian theology debate. LOL!

And, the moderators can check to see what ever you wish. I only started peeking in here recently.

And, only under my own name. I have not posted here since I left months ago.



Now? Truthtesty?

Answer the question, please? You made an accusation, but refuse to back it up.

In what way did Thieme's ministry destroy your family? That would be the only basis for a cult. Not this

silly theological debate you have created that makes everyone who does not see doctrine as you claim it

should be, into a cult.

This is probably my third time asking you the same question. And, you just refused to answer again.



How did Thieme's ministry destroy your family?




And? From your comments made in the History Channel forum?

It would be safe to say you are not a Christian. To think you are would be absurd.


Patiently waiting for a straightforward answer..... GeneZ

This I should clear up for everyone.

Quote
Truthtesty


Here's one of your opinions that could not weather the facts.

genez Posted: 03-28-2007 09:25 PM

gene quote:
The problem with Thieme and DTS was not that Thieme broke away from DTS. He never broke away from what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted the school to produce. Thieme broke away from what the school had become. There is a difference.


Truthtesty: Thieme did break away from what Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer taught and and the whole world can clearly see that now. We can clearly see genez is wrong and believed Thieme's lie, like most Thiemites.

That's not what I said. Looks like you misconstrued what I said, just like you have Thieme.

I said..... "He never broke away from what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted the school to produce."


Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted to produce students who could think independently. Think for themselves. Those who would be skilled at exegeting the Word of God from the Hebrew and Greek texts... and to even come up with original thinking as a result.


Thieme mentioned how he once ran by Dr. Chafer his thinking on the death of Christ. It was not something Chafer had taught. Chafer told Thieme that he would be the right one to develop the idea. Chafer never taught him what Thieme taught later on. And, I never said he had. You just misread what I said. Just like you do Thieme's thinking.

Now? How did Thieme's ministry destroy your family? You made the claim. But you never backed it up with any facts.


Waiting patiently, GeneZ

To gene:

Your going to be waiting for a long time.

gene quote That's not what I said. Looks like you misconstrued what I said, just like you have Thieme.

I said..... "He never broke away from what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted the school to produce."

Thieme mentioned how he once ran by Dr. Chafer his thinking on the death of Christ. It was not something Chafer had taught. Chafer told Thieme that he would be the right one to develop the idea. Chafer never taught him what Thieme taught later on. And, I never said he had. You just misread what I said. Just like you do Thieme's thinking.


Truthtesty: Wrong again. Looks like I haven't misconstrued what anyone has said. Let me guess, you can't prove that and neither can Thieme. That explanation may work in one of your "Heil Thieme" websites, but not here. It is obvious what Dr. Chafer wanted to produce from what Dr. Chafer taught. People know the truth of what Chafer taught, at this website. Thieme wanted everyone to believe as your displaying here that Thieme was "just an extended teaching of Chafer". That's a Thieme lie. For example there is no way in just "running an idea past" Dr. Chafer, that Chafer would say "Wow! what an idea yeah go develop your theory on attacking the blood of Christ even though I (Dr. Chafer) think it's satanic and I personally hold the literal shed blood of Christ in the highest regard. BUNK! is as far as I can say on this forum. Thieme could not have just "ran past Chafer" Thieme's attacking of the literal shed blood of Christ, because Chafer would have probably expelled Thieme for attacking the literal shed blood of Christ, and needless to say nor would Dr. Chafer consider Thieme's satanic theory anything worth developing. There would have been now way to just run past Chafer, the dissociation of the spiritual death and the physical death of Christ, (which I have just recently displayed) and then Dr. Chafer say yeah your just the person to develop this, even though I (Dr. Chafer) know that it is not given unto man to dissociate the two aspects of Christ's death. lol

That's just 2 examples that prove Thieme a liar.


gene quote Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted to produce students who could think independently. Think for themselves. Those who would be skilled at exegeting the Word of God from the Hebrew and Greek texts... and to even come up with original thinking as a result.

Truthtesty: There is no way to convince me(nor anyone else of sound mind), from what you have stated on this forum, that you know in the slightest what Lewis Sperry Chafer wanted.


Bring proof of the conversation and the specific words spoken in the conversation with Thieme and Dr. Chafer, until then, you haven't cleared anything up. You have simply passed on Thieme's myth.



Truthtesty

Truthtesty,,,,,,


Here you are. A non-Christian. And, you want to act like you are an expert on theological matters, no less?

You will grab onto any source that works for your desired outcome. Yet? You think (as you revealed in the History Channel Forum) that Christianity is a joke.

So I am to debate with you on Christian theological matters that you can only seek out and quote others for answers? And, you can not collect your own thinking to make your own conclusions because Christianity is not reality to you?

Why debate anyone like you on such matters? And? In a secular forum no less?


OK.... enuf of that.

You are not going to answer my question? That's all I need to know.

I am surprised that you won't, since you claim never to fear the truth.


Have a nice day...


In Christ, GeneZ

Please don't begin a flame war here filled with personal attacks.

The subject is R.B. Thieme Jr.

FYI -- At times when dealing with some supposedly "bible based" groups it is meaningful to point out areas of controversy regarding their doctrines and teachings. This is not preaching per se, but rather reflects that some religious groups, which claim to be bible based, are really not, at least according to the overwhelming majority of established biblical scholarship.

For example the "Children of God" has historically taught women to become "Hookers for Christ."

Mormons teach that God was once a man and men can become gods, which is not a historical Christian doctrine.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that blood transfusions should be rejected because the bible says so, when in fact they are referring to dietary laws, which have no relevance to blood transfusions.

rrmoderator....


I understand your point.

What Thieme taught was interpretation which ended up with the same conclusion as most others. Yet the means to the conclusion included details overlooked by many... but not all. For instance, F.F. Bruce, who is a highly esteemed exegetical teacher.. did not go into detail. But, simply stated that the blood of Christ is not to be assumed to be the blood "that dripped on the ground." He saw that it was noit to be. Thieme took it a step further and showed why.


I can not quote F.F.Bruce's publication at this time, because when I was researching out Thieme's teaching on the matter it was many years ago when this controversy was new. After searching exegetical resources, and saw that Thieme did not originate this teaching... and the Pastors all over the nation use these scholars for reliable resource material... I then let it rest. Yet, some will not let it rest. Just like the catholic church will not let it rest if you show why that the bread and wine are not transformed into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. They call anyone who does not believe this apostate, or even a cult. They are well known. They have large numbers. They are a powerful church. But, they are dead wrong. So? Who's a cult?




Now? Even if what Truthtesy were saying was correct?

It still does nothing to make Thieme's teaching ministry into a cult. The cult way of thinking comes from several factors...

He was authoritative and would not allow for people shouting out "Hallelujahs" and that sort. He did not allow for people talking to one another while he taught. Why? Because it distracted others wanting to learn.

Just like in secular school... If a student was seen talking to another student during history class? It was not allowed.

Thieme was very strict on this matter. For, like himself, I used to hate it when trying to listen to the message being taught. It distracted me from learning.

Some of those used to shouting out during church service found this highly offensive. They saw him as being controlling and manipulative. But to others like myself? It was a welcome relief. I was there to learn. Not to be entertained.

Before the message would begin, he would tell everyone if they could not remain silent during the message, or were going to have unnecessary movement which will distract others? If they can not control themselves? That they were asked to leave during silent prayer when everyones eyes were closed. This granted those not willing to comply, the privacy to leave without others knowing who they were.


Now? as far as flaming? What I did is about one being qualified to evaluate what the controversy is. If you read what TT said in the History Channel Forum. Its a flame to the ears of every Christian. Yet? He is trying to set himself up as being an authority on Christian doctrine. That is why I brought it up. As far as his claim that Thieme's ministry broke up his family? It might simply be because his antagonism to Christianity caused his family to distance themselves from him. I know if he were in my family? And he acted the way he now does? I would avoid his company. He might claim that the ministry I follow broke up the family. Not because its a cult. Because of TT's antagonisms and attacks.


The point I was making with the History Channel forum? Is that TT is not qualified for what he sets himself up for here. For doctrine in churches are quite often times controversial. That is why we see so many denominations.


I believe TT observed that when Thieme taught certain things that some in the congregation reacted. TT is now using those teachings (which the vast majority saw as being sensible) and is bringing up the old things that have long been settled. For he knows that your typical fundamentalist would see red to hear what Thieme taught on certain matters.


If someone is going to claim to be an authority on a matter, he better be ready to be scrutinized. What TT said in the History Channel Forum reveals a motivation that does not stem from proper motives. He despises Christianity. He makes it quite clear. That could very well indicate that the better a Christian teacher is, the more he will be hated by those who hate Christianity. That's why I added it in.

Here's an excerpt...



Then why aren't you laughing. And why are my posts here? Becuase people know what I am saying is true.

There is no hope in christianity becuase it does not exist. It was a virgin-saviour bedtime story that went from Egypt to Persia and throughout the regions of that time. The Gnostic christians were persecuted in the 1st century becuase the knew christianity was a myth. The Literalist christians - Roman orthodox christians were stupid enough to take it literally. The Romans caught on that it was a religious way to subjugate and persecute people by getting them to do it to themselves - self-persecution - through thier own faith. Wow what a slick way to control people! The Romans were the 1st fanatics of christianity. Just look at the blood lust of the Coliseum. And now the modern day fanatics easily slip in and control.








You think that represents unbiased thinking towards Christian teachings? That? That way of thinking is able to weigh both sides of a doctrinal debate, and see which side is correct? I do not think so. But, you do?



So be it... GeneZ

GeneZ:

You are here as a Thieme defender and an apologist.

And your attempt to attack those that criticize Theime should be seen in that light.