To the Forum:



People have a right to know beforehand that Thieme used Doktor Gerhard Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. People have a right to know beforehand that Gerhard Kittle and Johannes Behm were Hitler's Theologians. People have a right to know beforehand what Dr. Chafer said about the literal shed blood of Christ.

Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol 2 p 110
Quote:
As has been observed, cults are now multiplying and their appearance is restricted to very recent times. These cults cover a variety of ideas all the way from Christian Science to Buchmanism. The latter as completely ignores the blood redemption of Christ as the former. While the former substitutes bodily health for the salvation of the soul, the latter substitutes consecration to God for a new birth by the Spirit. No less misleading is the modern doctrine that salvation is through faith plus consecration. Probably no religious movement is more bold than the I AM cult of recent months. It unblushingly announces by its blasphemous name that it freely embraces all that belongs to the original lie. Its title would have been equally appropriate had it been, I will be like the most High. Space cannot be claimed for an enumeration and analysis of all these systems, ancient and modern. No one can anticipate the number that will yet appear or the confusion of doctrine they will engender; but for each and all there is but one acid test, namely, What place does it give to the redeeming grace of God made possible only through the death and shed blood of Christ ?



Thieme
Quote:
1 John 1:7 "And THE BLOOD FROM HIS VEINS WAS A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS HANDS AND A LITTLE BLEEDING FROM HIS FEET, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE YOU AND NEVER WILL"




Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer Vol. V pg 199
1 John 1:7 Quote:
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a figure of speech, but it is not meaningless on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood



One can see from Dr. Chafer's own writings that Dr. Chafer would consider Thieme a cult. The figurative usage of the blood of Christ as falsely taught by Thieme are not supported By Kittle's TDNT or Ardnt and Gingrich.



If someone mistakenly assumes Thieme's twisted interpretation of figurative usage used by Ardnt and Gingrich is correct, then how can they justify Arndt and Gingrich's figurative use of Lev. 17:11? Lev. 17:11 is not classified as under "b. of blood of animals"(Note Thieme does not mention this). Lev 17:11 is classified by Arndt and Gingrich as "2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2" Fig means figurative. Thieme says Lev. 17:11 is only referring to animals, but Ardnt and Gingrich classify Lev 17:11 blood usage as figurative. It is not classified under "b. of blood of animals" AT ALL.

By Arnt and Gingrich, if one is to say that the blood of Christ in Rom 3:25 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood then they'd be incorrect, just as if they'd be incorrect to say that the blood mentioned in Lev. 17:11 is only figurative and not referring to literal blood. Both are listed as figurative.

For correct figurative usage of blood used for "seat of life" in Lev. 17:11 contrast WSD 7:2 [www.biblicalproportions.com]

Correct figurative usage of "seat of life" by Arndt and Gingrich in WSD 7:2 is literal human life compacted with literal human blood in a literal human womb.

Undoubtedly the readings in levitcus 17:10-14 refer to eating animals, but also the summarized plain reading of the text in Lev. 17:14 says "life of all flesh is in the blood". Humans are a manner of flesh and are classified as part of "all flesh".

Leviticus 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Pg 799 Arndt and Gingrich "body":

body

1. body of man or animal —

a. dead body etc...

b. the living body (Hes. +; inscr., pap., LXX) of animals h 3: 3.— Mostly of human beings Mt 5: 29f; 6: 22f; 26: 12; Mk 5: 29; 14: 8; Lk 11 : 34a, b, c; J 2: 21; Ro 1: 24; 1 Cor 6: 18a, b; IRo 5: 3. etc...
... ---The body as the seat of mortal life ; be in the body=alive, subject to mortal ills (Poryphr., Abst. 1, 38 ) Hb 13: 3.

Arndt and Gingrich clearly state that "The body as the seat of mortal life".



Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)


Truthtesty:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

1 Clement 55:1 says

1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.


Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents[/u] literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.

Arndt and Gingrich goes on:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice (not just blood alone). Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only". Ardnt and Gingrich are not saying what Thieme is falsely stating.

You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used in different contexts.

Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only", is not substantiated by the evidence of Arndt and Gingrich.




Even Thieme's selective misuse of Johanne Behm's statement in Kittle's TNDT, of "mere pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ, is false. in Kittle's TNDT (Dr. Kittle being the editor; Johanne Behm(1883–1948) being the author), 1st you see in (1.) 1 John 19:34 literal "blood and water" being included by Behm in the blood of Christ. Thieme "left out" were Behm specifically states in (4.) under "haima" "The intrest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken." That is SHED MATERIAL BLOOD as the life is violently taken.

Both the "pregnant verbal symbol" statement and the shed (material) blood are within a few sentences of each other, under Kittle's (4.) of haima.

J. Behm's "pregnant" phrase itself is questionable. I spoke to MIT's linguistics department about the phrase "pregnant verbal symbol". At first just mentioning those 3 words. The department had no idea what that meant. Then I said "pregnant verbal symbol in reference to the blood of Christ". The department replied "In that context (blood of Christ) "pregnant verbal symbol would mean a verbal symbol with rich connotations"".

A verbal symbol for example, is the word "stop" spoken or written, while a non-verbal symbol would be someone holding thier hand in front of them for "stop".

So the blood of Christ from J. Behm is basically saying a "mere verbal symbol with rich connotations, for the saving work of Christ"

So why did Behm use "mere"? "Mere" and "rich connotations" are contradictory. That's like saying "I made just a mere billion dollars last year."

Looking at J Behm saying that the "blood of Christ was "mere" pregnant verbal symbol of the saving work of Christ"" is an illogical contradictory phrase. That is like saying The bible is just a "mere book" of the writings of God or Jesus was a "mere saviour". The use of the word "mere" detracts from the meaning "pregnant verbal symbol". Certainly the "blood of Christ" is more than a "mere" "phrase" of the saving work of Christ, according to Dr. Chafer "there is limitless reality in it." The "blood of Christ" is just a phrase on paper, but not in reality.


Also:
Dr. Kittle (Nazi party member) is the editor who quotes Johannes Behm's (1883–1948) article of the mere "pregnant verbal symbol" phrase. Dr. Kittle was one of "Hitler's theologians" who were charged by "the Fuerher" to research a "moral christian" reason to expulse(get rid of) the Jews from Germany. Dr. Kittle was also imprisoned by the Allies after WWII. Kittle's writings about the Jews pre-Hitler versus during Hitler's reign differ and were obviously influenced. Dr. Kittle praised Hitler and thought Hitler was chosen by God to lead Germany. Poor judgement.

More info see JSTOR articles "Theologian in the Third Reich: The Case of Gerhard Kittel" [0-www.jstor.org.catalog.houstonlibrary.org]

and

"Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanuel Hirsch by Robert P. Eriksen" [0-www.jstor.org.catalog.houstonlibrary.org]



Thieme did support the Jews. I support the Jews. But that doesn't mean Thieme wasn't a cult leader. Thieme was. Just as Osama Bin laden and other mullahs twist the teachings of the Koran for war, Thieme twisted the teachings of the christian bible for war and politics.


It's quite possible that political powers that be within the USA, paid Thieme to teach as he did. For political persuasion of christians within the United States."

Yes I made that hypothetical statement. It is a theory. Hitler paid Kittel for a christian moral reason to get rid of the Jews in Europe. That is just 1 historical example of HOW christians have been manipulated through the pulpit. DOn't get me wrong. I am not agreeing with what Hitler did. So, why wouldn't the powers that be in the USA, pay a christian minister who they thought was deceptive enough to fool the masses, to do so? When in the 1960's there was so much revolt against the government and it's false war in Vietnam. And the government was losing control of the population?

Then again it is possible that Thieme did this simply from his own personal prejudices of the love of commercialism and war.

The again it is possible that Thieme was just a sick individual.

Those are theories.

The evidence shows time after time, that Thieme taught false christianity. The evidence shows that people were abused by his teachings. The evidence shows that Thieme falls under Dr. Lifton's description of a cult. Thieme's abuse was carried home to families. The parents became the Lieutenants of Thieme's cult authority. Thiem's teaching was damagin to the soul inside Bereichah, but the marks of abuse were carefully "hidden" they were mostly carried out outside of Bereichah. Many homes, family's, and churches across the USA were destroyed by Thieme's false "christian blitzgrieg".



Truthtesty

GeneZ:

A couple of your posts were deleted because they were off topic.

Again, the topic here is Thieme, not Osama bin Laden, what is a "cult," etc.

If you wish to discuss other topics through this message board, either start a new thread or find one discussing that topic.

You seem to be on something like a vendetta of retaliation regarding Truthtesty. He exposed your connection to Thieme at another discussion board and you came here to essentially harass him and defend your mentor R. B. Thieme Jr.

For the most part your posts have been helpful.

You have revealed the level of devotion Thieme engendered amongst his following and the peculiar audiotape subculture that has evolved around him.

You say the Thieme tapes are free, but admit the producers of the audiotapes solicit donations.

You also admit that your direct exposure to Thieme was very limited and that you know him largely through the audiotapes you have received and listened to over a period of time.

You also seem to admit that Thieme had no meaningful accountability to his congregation through democratically elected church government as within most Protestant churches. That is, he could not be disciplined and if need be fired by a church board. He also had no accountability to a denomination, peer review, etc.

It appears that Thieme was an authoritarian even totalitarian leader.

When asked if you could find three things wrong with Thieme's teachings, you essentially remained silent, implying that he was never wrong regarding any teaching. You have also compared Thieme with "Luther."

Your performance on this thread is compelling evidence that Theime cultivated a personality-driven cult-like following.

Quote
rrmoderator
GeneZ:

A couple of your posts were deleted because they were off topic.

Well?

Quote
rrmoderator
Again, the topic here is Thieme, not Osama bin Laden, what is a "cult," etc.

That was Truthtesty that asked that. Not me, sir.

Quote
rrmoderator
If you wish to discuss other topics through this message board, either start a new thread or find one discussing that topic.

The only thing I tried to discuss that did not make it here, was how the word "blood" was used by the ancients. Which was in response to Truthtesties many posts concerning this issue which do get printed here.

Quote
rrmoderator
You seem to be on something like a vendetta of retaliation regarding Truthtesty.

Vandetta? I simply revealed what he did to me as a vandetta in another forum? And, its me who has the vandetta?

Quote
rrmoderator
He exposed your connection to Thieme at another discussion board and you came here to essentially harass him and defend your mentor R. B. Thieme Jr.

I did not come here to harass him? You got it all wrong. We had already met here. He followed me as a vendetta because of my stand on Thieme here.

Quote
rrmoderator
You have revealed the level of devotion Thieme engendered amongst his following and the peculiar audiotape subculture that has evolved around him.

Almost all the more successful pastors in the nation have tapes going out of their teachings, as well.

Quote
rrmoderator
You say the Thieme tapes are free, but admit the producers of the audiotapes solicit donations.

They do not solicit donations. I purposely ordered tapes without donating a few time, and no money was asked. Most pastors will ask about $5 for a single tape. I received 21 tapes every month for years. Not a penny was asked for.

Quote
rrmoderator
You also admit that your direct exposure to Thieme was very limited and that you know him largely through the audiotapes you have received and listened to over a period of time.

He was the same in person as on tape as in person. I found the tapes more convenient because I could pick the time to learn. I have been listening to him for over 25 years. I have family members that did not like him. I have some that do. If I had to make the ones who did not like him as some here were made to attend as children? I can understand their reaction. Parents are to blame if something wrong happened. I know parents that make their children's lives miserable over religious issues in regular denominations. Their's so happened to be centered around Thieme who had a concentrated teaching ministry. Like I said. If you ordered some messages (don't send a penny.. you will not receive a letter asking for a donation if you do) you could end this nonsense and find out what all the mystery is about.

The tapes can not produce a cult, for there is no one looking over your shoulder to make sure you tote the line. I have also been in other churches where a pastor has a strong personality. As long as he preached what the people want him to tell him, he will not have this type of criticism. I have also seen reports of other ministries where the pastor has a sterling reputation, but there will always be some who will find fault and blame him for their misery. And, many ministries have problems much worse as some claim here for Thieme. That's why I do not buy it. Its a trend to be found in many ministries. And, I do have inside information that even the ones here complaining do not have. I know some who served directly under Robert Thieme. They saw the good and the bad. All ministries do. It does not make them a cult. It makes them human.

Quote
rrmoderator
You also seem to admit that Thieme had no meaningful accountability to his congregation through democratically elected church government as within most Protestant churches. That is, he could not be disciplined and if need be fired by a church board. He also had no accountability to a denomination, peer review, etc.

For a person who should be an expert in this area, you sure have a way of leading my words into what I am not saying. The church had its governing board, and Thieme could have been removed at any time. Berachah tended to attrach a great deal of professionals... lawyers, doctors, successful business men, etc. He was teaching to a crowd that wanted a higher education from the pulpit. Even some of his critics will admit to this. He had a segment of the Houston police force as members. When I heard him speak in a conference in Washington DC, he had high ranking officers attending. He was close friends with Barry Goldwater. I have a friend who traveled in the sphere of very influential people. When she and I first met she and I discussed Thieme. The reason she decided to give him a try is because she first asked a friend who is a General if Thieme is the real item. The General knows him and gave his seal of approval. Thieme is known in higher circles. Conservative, of course. That is what some here fail to see.

Quote
rrmoderator
It appears that Thieme was an authoritarian even totalitarian leader.

You really have him on a projector screen, and making it bigger than it was. He simply acted like he was. A military type. Some have a disliking for the disciplined life such have and demand of others. They desire a nice and sweet pastor. Yet, I know nice and sweet pastors who appreciated Thieme because they saw him as a valuable source of knowledge for their Bible teaching. His gift was teaching. Not personality.


When I was a young man in the service I had viewed higher ranking men as authoritarian and totalitarian. But, one could approach Thieme and ask questions if you wanted to. Many did so before a conference. My niece and her husband went to dinner with him (as a group). If you were not hung up with his personality, he was approachable. He couldn't help it. He was born to be a military type. Military types by nature are authoritarian.

Imagine placing a sensitive artist as commanding general? It would cause conflicts within the organization. But? If this artist was a brilliant military mind? He would be respected by those who recognized his gift. Yet, some would always resent him by nature because their priorities lay elsewhere.

Quote
rrmoderator
When asked if you could find three things wrong with Thieme's teachings, you essentially remained silent, implying that he was never wrong regarding any teaching. You have also compared Thieme with "Luther."

Sir? I would love to cross examine you. To show how you consistently distort what I say. It seems you want to feed the prevailing prejudice here. I have already clarified what you are now presenting. I did not say I found nothing wrong with Thieme's teachings. But, that's not a problem. One would have to be insane or stupid to think any man is always right. As for Luther? I clarified. Yet, you still can not grasp what I said? How am I to explain what I think if you can not understand what I clarified already? I said that Luther and Thieme used the same approach to teaching the Bible. And, they did! Very few pastors will, even attempt to teach from the Greek and Hebrew. Both Luther and Thieme (and others) have taken that approach. When Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth were originally founded? They were designed to raise up pastors of such quality. Today, most pastors are working with very limited resources. And, that is one reason why so many pastors were attracted to Thiemes teaching. They did not like his personality, either. Luther was not a polite sweet man in personality when it came to opposing what he saw as false teaching of the RCC. In that regard, Thieme and Luther are very much alike. That's what I said.

Quote
rrmoderator
Your performance on this thread is compelling evidence that Theime cultivated a personality-driven cult-like following.

Personality? It was his personality that made many not want to listen to him!


It was his teaching that made those who did, want to follow him.

For they were after teaching, not a personality.


His largest ministry was to be found outside of Berachah churches walls. All we heard was a voice and teaching. His personality was not to be an issue if one wanted to learn. And, his personality was not always constantly in a state that some here would have you believe. Settle it. Make up a name like Tom Twilly. Order some messages. And, stop trying to figure out what you are only getting by hearsay. And I have noted, you have shown a strong leaning in bias to try and make Thieme out to be a cult. I can see a vested interest in doing that.

Quote
rrmoderator
Your performance on this thread is compelling evidence that Theime cultivated a personality-driven cult-like following.

The jury is still in the waiting room, sir. Your biased opinion towards me is noted.

So? No one can come here and show how those complaining are possibly wrong. That if their claim is made? It must be so as they see it. I can show you similar complaints about other ministries. But because the pastor is a sweet man, and public opinion would not buy it? Its not worth following up.


The only abuse Thieme did, if its to be seen as abuse, was to make everyone sit still and be quiet while he taught. He told everyone if they did not want to be, that they should leave before the message began while everyones eyes are closed and heads bowed. His expressed anger at times is not foreign to the pulpit. There have been other pastors who have such an expression in their preaching, Usually, when they preached about fire and brimstone (which Thieme refused to do, and was chided by certain believers who liked to condemn others).


Those who stayed to learn did so out of their free will. As far as his saying his teaching is more correct than another's? You then should have a million cults in the USA, sir. Take your pick. The reason his ministry gets attention from you, is because his ministry gets attention from others. If he were just another small church? What then? Would you bother? I have seen some come here to the forum complain about their church and be told they are too insignificant to take note of. Interesting.



In Christ, GeneZ

GeneZ:

So you ordered and listened to more than 200 Thieme tapes annually for years.

This does seem to define someone deeply devoted to Thieme.

Please understand that you can comment here, but others on this thread may respond to your comments.

I had never heard of Thieme before this thread. He seems to be a relatively unimportant and obscure preacher.

And apparently Thieme had little if any meaningful accountability to his church or anyone.

Thieme also had critics that disagreed with his teachings and he was controversial.

His teachings were not generally accepted by Christians, and some apparently felt he taught falsely, was wrong biblically and often ego driven.

But if you wish to keep listening to the hundreds of tapes you have accumulated and donate to the Thieme tape ministry, that's your choice to make.

This thread is the ultimate example of mayhem (chaos, confusion disorder, etc.).

The first few postings were simple, to the point and informative. But it didn’t take long for things to go very sideways with accusation, innuendo and anger.

I am certainly not stating that anybody is wrong with his or her assessments; frankly, I don’t know enough about Barachah Church, Thieme or “The Colonel” to assess for myself.

The point I’m trying to make is this: As an objective observer, I’ve lost interest and any hope of getting objective information from this thread.

To anyone trying to defend the accused in this thread: Has not what “needs” to be said already been said? If someone has been unjustly accused, do you not believe that the Lord Himself is able to defend him or her? An angry defensive comment only makes you suspect. If you have a point to make, then simply make it without the excessive adjectives and adverbs. If someone slams you for your comment and it offends you, then, well, grow up. What did you expect when you wrote your comment? People who are contributing to the theme of this thread are already hurt or angry; your anger only inflames their emotions, exacerbating the situation.

To all who have an interest in this thread: Can this thread get back to the actual topic? Can you at least attempt to post a point without defending yourself (what you said, why you said it, etc.) and just state a fact or observation?

Just wondering.

claypot;

An open public message board can be a bit chaotic and not that ordered, but its the nature of the beast.

That is, people with different views and those that come with the specific purpose of defending a group and/or to subvert a thread they don't appreciate.

The moderators try to keep things as reasonable as possible, without being excessively rigid and controlling.

Often apologists for various groups or leaders do more damage to the credibility of their group than the critics here.

For example, GeneZ goes on endlessly, but reveals the kind of mindset and devotion that has developed around Thieme. A kind of audiotape subculture of devoted students listening to hundreds of tapes annually.

Interesting.

He has also admitted some things that add depth to an understanding of what makes such devotees tick.

So what you may view as a chaotic thread can be helpful in sorting through an obscure figure like Thieme, someone not discussed that much and often probably overlooked.

Now there is a permanent record here, which includes comments from both sides, including someone indoctrinated by hundreds of tapes.

If there was only Truthtesty talking about Thieme it wouldn't be quite as informative or revealing.

rrmoderator,

Thank you for your comments.

I had to chuckle (in agreement) that many of the postings in defense actually do more harm to their cause than good.

And, I like the term "nature of the beast." (I won't comment further on that one.)

I am just attempting to reveal to those who post on this thread/board how benign and foolish the commentary can become. And, yes, there if a permanent record of their comments that certainly does give some insight to those posting.

I'm actually wondering how the contributors to this thread will respond to my comments. I imagine that in itself will be insightful... (lol)

GeneZ and any other follower of the Thieme ministry:

I assume that since Bobby Thieme is now Berachah's pastor and has tapes available, you listen to him teach as well as CoI. Thieme. I'm sure you are familiar with I Tim. chapter 3, which outlines the qualifications for a leader over the body of believers. I wonder how the members of Berachah and tapers justify Bobby's pastorship, knowing that he has had 3 failed marriages and is currently unmarried.

Of course I'm specifically referring to vs.2, "the husband of one wife", vs.4, "one that ruleth well his own house", and vs.5,"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?)"

mile2

GeneZ:

Your last very long post was deleted.

You are repeating the same things over and over again.

Please try to stay on topic, get to some meaingful point, something new and relevant to this thread.

It seems like you have run out of gas here.

Maybe you have said pretty much all you have to offer on this subject?

You have made your position on Thieme known in some detail.

claypot:

Please understand that this thread is about R. B. Thieme Jr.

If you have an interest in that topic feel free to post specifically about Thieme.

Otherwise, as you stated previously it takes the thread "sideways."