Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 12:52AM
To the Forum:
gene: Look.... I am not going to argue with you. The first half of your direct quote says the following:
Truthtesty: Look.... All you have done is argue with me (ie JohanNES Behm, researching your name, etc...) You and Thieme are trying to twist the obvious.
gene: "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood." What does that say? Not in what?
Truthtesty: You say it says "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood." But note you end it with blood." NOTE blood PERIOD END QOUTE blood." on gene's statement.
But note the direct quote of Kittel\Behm doesn't end with blood." It ends with blood, blood COMMA blood, Why? because there is more to the sentence than just the 1st part. The second part of the sentence qualifies the 1st.
Look at the whole sentence, not just the part you want to extract for your political end. The statement includes shed blood.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I am not going to argue with you as if what it says is up for interpretation.
Truthtesty: That's all you did was argue as if what the 2nd part says is up for interpretation.
You want to be so exacting on the 1st part and forget rational explanation of the second part. You take the second part out of the context of the sentence.
SO be exacting about his shed blood in the context of the sentence. Look at the whole sentence, not just the 1st part.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I tried to explain to you what the second part of your direct quote refers to. But, you decided to ignore the first part, and to say just the opposite concerning the second part.
Truthtesty: I did not ignore the 1st part. I did not just say the opposite. I include the 1st part. I look at the whole sentence. Your explanation of the second part is illogical.
gene: The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.
Truthtesty: Kittel and Behm are not ancients, they are moderns. In that sentence, they are not interchanging blood with life or death or visa versa. No where in the context of that sentence is blood said to be anything other than material blood, it's either shed or not shed. It's about material blood, shed or not shed, spoken by modern Kittel\Behm in modern terms spoken about the ancient world. It's not ancient Kittel\Behm speaking to modern people about the ancient world. They used modern German (material blood and shed blood) to explain to modern people about the ancient world about "not his material blood, but in his shed blood". Material blood obviously means literal blood that is not being shed, while shed blood obviously means literal material blood that is being shed.
Again, just as Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.
Don't tell me you and Thieme don't want to follow Dr. Chafer closely.
Blood was used interchangebly with other words. I won't argue that, but in that sentence Kittle\Behm are referencing literal material blood either shed or not shed.
gene: And, that's exactly how some of Thieme's critics would argue with him. That's why he would not bother with most of them.
Truthtesty: What? Doctors of Theology confused Thieme with the facts? and the truth? Thieme could not defend himself logically so he just didn't argue. It was easier for Thieme to attack anyone who disagreed with with him, and never debate. It was easier for Thieme to form a cult around his opinions and to suggest that he was a great bible teacher who was just an innocent victim who was under a false attack, by satan. But the truth is that Thieme could not defend himself logically, in some crucial areas. It was thieme who spit venom at "bleeding heart liberals" in nearly every indoctrination training session for his political agenda. Thieme had no logical defense, it was easier for Thieme to continue his blitzgrieg political agenda and suggest to people that if you don't understand just listen to more endless repetitve tapes until you are submissively corrupted to what Thieme says, without really understanding. And/or if you can't understand Thieme's illogical statements, it's because "it's a christian thing", you need to jump through the confession hoop.
Thieme vipered off of christianity, twisted Dr. Chafer's teachings, and formed a cult around his false opinions. The reason it is so difficult to discern Thieme as a cult is because he included much of the truth of Dr. Chafers teachings. Thieme's obvious intent was a blitzgrieg re-indoctrination of christians all across America for his extreme political agenda.
Remember once saved always saved? Dr. Chafer taught that 1st, not Thieme. So it's not easy for some people to see Thieme as cult.
Truthtesty
gene: Look.... I am not going to argue with you. The first half of your direct quote says the following:
Truthtesty: Look.... All you have done is argue with me (ie JohanNES Behm, researching your name, etc...) You and Thieme are trying to twist the obvious.
gene: "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood." What does that say? Not in what?
Truthtesty: You say it says "The interest of the NT is not in his material blood." But note you end it with blood." NOTE blood PERIOD END QOUTE blood." on gene's statement.
But note the direct quote of Kittel\Behm doesn't end with blood." It ends with blood, blood COMMA blood, Why? because there is more to the sentence than just the 1st part. The second part of the sentence qualifies the 1st.
Look at the whole sentence, not just the part you want to extract for your political end. The statement includes shed blood.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I am not going to argue with you as if what it says is up for interpretation.
Truthtesty: That's all you did was argue as if what the 2nd part says is up for interpretation.
You want to be so exacting on the 1st part and forget rational explanation of the second part. You take the second part out of the context of the sentence.
SO be exacting about his shed blood in the context of the sentence. Look at the whole sentence, not just the 1st part.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I tried to explain to you what the second part of your direct quote refers to. But, you decided to ignore the first part, and to say just the opposite concerning the second part.
Truthtesty: I did not ignore the 1st part. I did not just say the opposite. I include the 1st part. I look at the whole sentence. Your explanation of the second part is illogical.
gene: The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.
Truthtesty: Kittel and Behm are not ancients, they are moderns. In that sentence, they are not interchanging blood with life or death or visa versa. No where in the context of that sentence is blood said to be anything other than material blood, it's either shed or not shed. It's about material blood, shed or not shed, spoken by modern Kittel\Behm in modern terms spoken about the ancient world. It's not ancient Kittel\Behm speaking to modern people about the ancient world. They used modern German (material blood and shed blood) to explain to modern people about the ancient world about "not his material blood, but in his shed blood". Material blood obviously means literal blood that is not being shed, while shed blood obviously means literal material blood that is being shed.
Again, just as Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.
Don't tell me you and Thieme don't want to follow Dr. Chafer closely.
Blood was used interchangebly with other words. I won't argue that, but in that sentence Kittle\Behm are referencing literal material blood either shed or not shed.
gene: And, that's exactly how some of Thieme's critics would argue with him. That's why he would not bother with most of them.
Truthtesty: What? Doctors of Theology confused Thieme with the facts? and the truth? Thieme could not defend himself logically so he just didn't argue. It was easier for Thieme to attack anyone who disagreed with with him, and never debate. It was easier for Thieme to form a cult around his opinions and to suggest that he was a great bible teacher who was just an innocent victim who was under a false attack, by satan. But the truth is that Thieme could not defend himself logically, in some crucial areas. It was thieme who spit venom at "bleeding heart liberals" in nearly every indoctrination training session for his political agenda. Thieme had no logical defense, it was easier for Thieme to continue his blitzgrieg political agenda and suggest to people that if you don't understand just listen to more endless repetitve tapes until you are submissively corrupted to what Thieme says, without really understanding. And/or if you can't understand Thieme's illogical statements, it's because "it's a christian thing", you need to jump through the confession hoop.
Thieme vipered off of christianity, twisted Dr. Chafer's teachings, and formed a cult around his false opinions. The reason it is so difficult to discern Thieme as a cult is because he included much of the truth of Dr. Chafers teachings. Thieme's obvious intent was a blitzgrieg re-indoctrination of christians all across America for his extreme political agenda.
Remember once saved always saved? Dr. Chafer taught that 1st, not Thieme. So it's not easy for some people to see Thieme as cult.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 01:51AM
To the Forum:
gene: Men did not bleed to death on crosses. They died from asphyxiation. If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken. The legs were broken so they could not longer push upwards to breath as to hasten the asphyxiation.
Truthtesty: What is obviously a fraudulent are these "it could have only happened this exact specific way" statements, by thiemites. I want people to see the obvious lack of the inclusion of reality in these statements. Now how would gene "know" that not 1 person in all the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people crucified in Rome bled to death? The blood lusting Romans loved the colliseum, sometimes threw spectators from the stands into the arena, to be slaughtered. I think it's very educated guess that many people died in many ways before and during crucifixations. I am sure all sorts of things happened to people on the way to being crucified.
You see gene's limited judgement? not 1 bled to death and they only died from asphyxiation.
gene: If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken.
It's quite possible since the Romans enjoyed the lust of blood so much, they may have just broke thier legs because they were sadistic. I am sure all sorts of things happened to people on the cross. I am certain that there probably many different makeshift crosses. Afterall, Romans did not have access to Home Depot, but they were skilled craftsmen. I don't think the Romans were worried about whether or not the persons were going to die. They weren't in any hurry. The persons were going to die any way. The crucifixions were probably more a demonstration of Rome's Imperial power and source of intimidation to those who would not submit to Romes will. Like I said, many things probably happened to people on the crosses while they were being humiliated.
This is just 1 example of how thiemites "exclude any other possibility" in thier own judgement, forego thier own judgement, and circle thier wagons around Thieme's opinons (thier fuhrer).
Truthtesty
gene: Men did not bleed to death on crosses. They died from asphyxiation. If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken. The legs were broken so they could not longer push upwards to breath as to hasten the asphyxiation.
Truthtesty: What is obviously a fraudulent are these "it could have only happened this exact specific way" statements, by thiemites. I want people to see the obvious lack of the inclusion of reality in these statements. Now how would gene "know" that not 1 person in all the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people crucified in Rome bled to death? The blood lusting Romans loved the colliseum, sometimes threw spectators from the stands into the arena, to be slaughtered. I think it's very educated guess that many people died in many ways before and during crucifixations. I am sure all sorts of things happened to people on the way to being crucified.
You see gene's limited judgement? not 1 bled to death and they only died from asphyxiation.
gene: If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken.
It's quite possible since the Romans enjoyed the lust of blood so much, they may have just broke thier legs because they were sadistic. I am sure all sorts of things happened to people on the cross. I am certain that there probably many different makeshift crosses. Afterall, Romans did not have access to Home Depot, but they were skilled craftsmen. I don't think the Romans were worried about whether or not the persons were going to die. They weren't in any hurry. The persons were going to die any way. The crucifixions were probably more a demonstration of Rome's Imperial power and source of intimidation to those who would not submit to Romes will. Like I said, many things probably happened to people on the crosses while they were being humiliated.
This is just 1 example of how thiemites "exclude any other possibility" in thier own judgement, forego thier own judgement, and circle thier wagons around Thieme's opinons (thier fuhrer).
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 18, 2007 02:50AM
Quote
Truthtesty
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
Truthtesty?
You can not have it both ways. You are flat out trying to. For if what you are saying is the case? You have quoted a self contradictory statement to make your point.
The "shed blood" as "the life violently taken" was explaining how the meaning of blood was to be viewed. To the ancients, to take someone's life was spoken of as to take his blood.
Look at this...
1 Kings 2:37 (New International Version)
"The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."
Acts 18:6 (New International Version)
"But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
Truthtesty? Do those passages really mean that someone stabbed another to death and then poured their blood on their heads?
No.. It does not.
It was an ancient way of expressing that someone was to die a violent death.
And, that is why it was the religious literalist that Robert Thieme drove up the wall.
If your quote clearly states that the interest was not in the material blood? And, it does clearly states that. Then? You can not turn around and make the second half of the quote to mean what it just stated is not the case. But, you are trying to do just that with great determination.
That is why I do not want to argue with you. You are not listening to reason. You made an embarrassing mistake when you did not realize what it was you were quoting.
Which goes to prove that you do not really have a grip on what you wish to prove. Just like Robert Thieme's critics became highly emotional and irrational in their attacking his exegetical teaching on this matter. Reasoning with them went out the window. As Robert Thieme used to say about his critics... "Don't confuse me with the facts."
So be it..... GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 18, 2007 03:10AM
Quote
Truthtesty
gene: If they were to bleed to death, the two remaining thieves would have been stabbed, etc. Instead, they had their legs broken.
It's quite possible since the Romans enjoyed the lust of blood so much, they may have just broke thier legs because they were sadistic. I am sure all sorts of things happened to people on the cross. I am certain that there probably many different makeshift crosses. Afterall, Romans did not have access to Home Depot, but they were skilled craftsmen. I don't think the Romans were worried about whether or not the persons were going to die. They weren't in any hurry. The persons were going to die any way. The crucifixions were probably more a demonstration of Rome's Imperial power and source of intimidation to those who would not submit to Romes will. Like I said, many things probably happened to people on the crosses while they were being humiliated.
This is just 1 example of how thiemites "exclude any other possibility" in thier own judgement, forego thier own judgement, and circle thier wagons around Thieme's opinons (thier fuhrer).
Truthtesty? ... The understanding about breaking the legs comes from historical research to find out why things were done in that day. It was not conjecture. It was the reason the Romans broke the legs. To hasten the death by asphyxiation.
It was a part of their protocol in certain executions. Besides.. It was not sadistic Romans who thought of breaking the legs. Pilate ordered the legs to be broken only after being requested by the Jewish religious leaders who saw Jesus as a heretic. Are you saying those Jewish leaders were motivated by sadism?
It was to hasten death on the cross by asphyxiation. The Jewish leaders knew this.
"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other."
The soldiers were simply following orders. The reason was to hasten their deaths. They would no longer be able to push up with their legs enabling them to keep breathing.
GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 03:28AM
To the Form:
November 11, 2007 11:01PMGeneZ
Date Added: 02/12/2007
Posts: 115 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Quote:
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
Truthtesty:
I will need proof. It's very likely what your saying is a complete false hood. It is much more likely Thieme was paid by the Republican party to attack and smear liberals and Thieme tried to find a "moral christian reason" to do so. Afterall Thieme has associations with Ed Hunter (CIA) from CACC. Barbra Bush has attended Berachah church. Barbra Bush is married to ex-CIA and former president Bush. And both Bushs live within 2 miles of Berachah today. In effect, you could say that Thieme was the Fox News Channel before the Fox News Channel was the Fox News Channel. If you look at the current situtation in the middle east, you see the exact political agenda Thieme taught in the early 1970s being played out. Attack Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Dan Quayles wife attended Berachah. Who knows how many underlings in the current adminitration are former or current attendees of Berachah.
gene:
And? Thieme was a cult? Don't you realize what you just said? Former president Bush? Dan Quayle's wife? With the left media breathing down their throats? There are background checks that must be made for this sort of thing to avoid political suicide. Now? You claim such people attended this church and there was no background checks even made? What a propaganda treasure trove the left could have had on George B. if his parents frequented such a cult church. If Berahah were a cult? The people you mentioned would not attend that church. Especially with all the wide open choices one would have for the many churches found in Houston. They would have gone elsewhere. OK... enuf said.
November 15, 2007 04:20AMGeneZ
Date Added: 02/12/2007
Posts: 129 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Rick Ross has been incorporated for a good number of years. Yet? Thieme is only being mentioned here recently. The report on Thieme that TTesty used was dated around 1976. Why are you only seeing his name mentioned here now? And, only after he has Alzheimer's and can not speak for himself? As well as someone can make a up a report about his past life at this time? And? Who can refute it, or clarify what went on? Thieme has for a long time been controversial. So have other preachers. That does not make anyone a cult. Those here filing their complaints? Not one of them wanted to be in Berachah church as a child or teen. The ones I see complaining the loudest where exposed to Thieme as children, or in their teens. They did not choose to enter his church as an adult of their own free will. And? They hated the church. They were forced by their parents/relatives to attend. If these are the ones making a complaint? What does that mean? RR should have seen reports coming to your organization when Thieme was in his prime if he was truly a cult. It was either Newsweek, or Time Magazine. There was a report on Thieme done because he was the pastor of Vice President Dan Quayle's wife. They reported of his right wing leanings. They spoke of his stand on anti-liberal issues. But, not one reporter even hinted at him being a cult. Dan Quayle was the mockery of the media. If Thieme was a cult? It would have been made known then. For the media was very pro-liberal and disliked Thieme's stand on issues. That's why I asked you what I did. It was not about you. It concerned Thieme. I figure if all the things being said here are only recent? And, as you indicate, they are. And, mostly by a few, who as children? Were forced to attend Berachah? If it were a cult you should have been long aware of his name by adults who attended as adults. That's how I see it. Only now after he has Alzheimer's are the critics coming out in the open like they are. A few.. And, not one is coming out with the reports that one normally finds with cults who do use mind control.
Truthtesty:
It makes it ok to abuse teenagers? Wrong.
Political suicide? I didn't say President Bush attended. I said Barbara Bush has attended. Notice how it's the wives, not the men?
Well Quayle's political handlers tried to distance Quayle from Thieme. And Barabra was careful to say she made up her own mind, even though she had attended Berachah.
James Dunn said Thieme was cult figure back inthe Bush/Quayle administration.
Here's a few quotes:
"Marilyn Quayle herself endorsed R.B. Thieme's devotional materials as "very good." But Quayle and his handlers have attempted to distance the family from Thieme"
"R.B. Thieme has been described as "a cult figure" by James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington. Controversial through he may be even among fundamentalists, Thieme is one of the Quayle family's contact points with the legions of Armageddon, who provided a decisive base of support for the Bush-Quayle administration during the Gulf war."
Colonel R.B. Thieme is the pastor of the Berachah Church, an interdenominational-fundamentalist institution located in the Galleria neighborhood of Houston, Texas. Thieme is a preacher of decidedly military cast who sometimes wears his World War II US Army Air Force unform during his appearances in the pulpit. The Bulletin and Prayer List for the Berachah Church stresses the military motif, with a quarter of its space being devoted to parishioners who are on active duty with the US military. Thieme sees the world approaching the end-time, and exhorts his congregation to "prepare for battle," while "preparing for the rapture." His ideal is one of "Christian knights, soldiers going to war for Jesus."
[www.tarpley.net]
Also, I have had a website since 2000. Internet Web Forums were not really popular until the late 90s.
Truthtesty
November 11, 2007 11:01PMGeneZ
Date Added: 02/12/2007
Posts: 115 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Quote:
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
Truthtesty:
I will need proof. It's very likely what your saying is a complete false hood. It is much more likely Thieme was paid by the Republican party to attack and smear liberals and Thieme tried to find a "moral christian reason" to do so. Afterall Thieme has associations with Ed Hunter (CIA) from CACC. Barbra Bush has attended Berachah church. Barbra Bush is married to ex-CIA and former president Bush. And both Bushs live within 2 miles of Berachah today. In effect, you could say that Thieme was the Fox News Channel before the Fox News Channel was the Fox News Channel. If you look at the current situtation in the middle east, you see the exact political agenda Thieme taught in the early 1970s being played out. Attack Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Dan Quayles wife attended Berachah. Who knows how many underlings in the current adminitration are former or current attendees of Berachah.
gene:
And? Thieme was a cult? Don't you realize what you just said? Former president Bush? Dan Quayle's wife? With the left media breathing down their throats? There are background checks that must be made for this sort of thing to avoid political suicide. Now? You claim such people attended this church and there was no background checks even made? What a propaganda treasure trove the left could have had on George B. if his parents frequented such a cult church. If Berahah were a cult? The people you mentioned would not attend that church. Especially with all the wide open choices one would have for the many churches found in Houston. They would have gone elsewhere. OK... enuf said.
November 15, 2007 04:20AMGeneZ
Date Added: 02/12/2007
Posts: 129 Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Rick Ross has been incorporated for a good number of years. Yet? Thieme is only being mentioned here recently. The report on Thieme that TTesty used was dated around 1976. Why are you only seeing his name mentioned here now? And, only after he has Alzheimer's and can not speak for himself? As well as someone can make a up a report about his past life at this time? And? Who can refute it, or clarify what went on? Thieme has for a long time been controversial. So have other preachers. That does not make anyone a cult. Those here filing their complaints? Not one of them wanted to be in Berachah church as a child or teen. The ones I see complaining the loudest where exposed to Thieme as children, or in their teens. They did not choose to enter his church as an adult of their own free will. And? They hated the church. They were forced by their parents/relatives to attend. If these are the ones making a complaint? What does that mean? RR should have seen reports coming to your organization when Thieme was in his prime if he was truly a cult. It was either Newsweek, or Time Magazine. There was a report on Thieme done because he was the pastor of Vice President Dan Quayle's wife. They reported of his right wing leanings. They spoke of his stand on anti-liberal issues. But, not one reporter even hinted at him being a cult. Dan Quayle was the mockery of the media. If Thieme was a cult? It would have been made known then. For the media was very pro-liberal and disliked Thieme's stand on issues. That's why I asked you what I did. It was not about you. It concerned Thieme. I figure if all the things being said here are only recent? And, as you indicate, they are. And, mostly by a few, who as children? Were forced to attend Berachah? If it were a cult you should have been long aware of his name by adults who attended as adults. That's how I see it. Only now after he has Alzheimer's are the critics coming out in the open like they are. A few.. And, not one is coming out with the reports that one normally finds with cults who do use mind control.
Truthtesty:
It makes it ok to abuse teenagers? Wrong.
Political suicide? I didn't say President Bush attended. I said Barbara Bush has attended. Notice how it's the wives, not the men?
Well Quayle's political handlers tried to distance Quayle from Thieme. And Barabra was careful to say she made up her own mind, even though she had attended Berachah.
James Dunn said Thieme was cult figure back inthe Bush/Quayle administration.
Here's a few quotes:
"Marilyn Quayle herself endorsed R.B. Thieme's devotional materials as "very good." But Quayle and his handlers have attempted to distance the family from Thieme"
"R.B. Thieme has been described as "a cult figure" by James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington. Controversial through he may be even among fundamentalists, Thieme is one of the Quayle family's contact points with the legions of Armageddon, who provided a decisive base of support for the Bush-Quayle administration during the Gulf war."
Colonel R.B. Thieme is the pastor of the Berachah Church, an interdenominational-fundamentalist institution located in the Galleria neighborhood of Houston, Texas. Thieme is a preacher of decidedly military cast who sometimes wears his World War II US Army Air Force unform during his appearances in the pulpit. The Bulletin and Prayer List for the Berachah Church stresses the military motif, with a quarter of its space being devoted to parishioners who are on active duty with the US military. Thieme sees the world approaching the end-time, and exhorts his congregation to "prepare for battle," while "preparing for the rapture." His ideal is one of "Christian knights, soldiers going to war for Jesus."
[www.tarpley.net]
Also, I have had a website since 2000. Internet Web Forums were not really popular until the late 90s.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 05:25AM
To the Forum:
gene: Yes, Jesus had to die physically in order to guarantee our resurrection *which followed* our salvation from sin. Jesus said "It is Finished." When was that said? Before he died physically? Or, after?
Truthtesty: You don't know that. Thieme doesn't know that. Nobody does. It is theoretical at best. You don't know death. You don't know the exact process of corrupt humans death, let alone perfect man's death. And all that was involved in it. Jesus could have timed it perfectly to physically die at the exact moment that the (d) of finshe(d) was uttered. Or it could have been just like in combat when someone is gunshot, and they know they have bought it. You don't know what the "gunblast of sin" does to perfect human flesh. Perfect human flesh that in and of itself is one with God. Jesus was alive physcially but sin was also imputed into perfect flesh of Jesus, along with spiritual separation. But those are God's processes which we cannot not describe accurately, and we only know what is limitedly revealed. We do know life or death as God does. We cannot breath life into dirt and we don't know all the processes of death and life with corrupt man let alone with death and life of theanthropic man.
Dr. Chafer said no one can know what happened in those 6 hours. Thieme inserts an extreme theory here and he can't prove it, all the while attacking peace loving liberals via the shed blood of Christ.
Simply, if spiritual death were the only aspect requirement, then why didn't Jesus just spiritually die (separate from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah and resurrect? Thieme's theory is wrong.
Truthtesty
gene: Yes, Jesus had to die physically in order to guarantee our resurrection *which followed* our salvation from sin. Jesus said "It is Finished." When was that said? Before he died physically? Or, after?
Truthtesty: You don't know that. Thieme doesn't know that. Nobody does. It is theoretical at best. You don't know death. You don't know the exact process of corrupt humans death, let alone perfect man's death. And all that was involved in it. Jesus could have timed it perfectly to physically die at the exact moment that the (d) of finshe(d) was uttered. Or it could have been just like in combat when someone is gunshot, and they know they have bought it. You don't know what the "gunblast of sin" does to perfect human flesh. Perfect human flesh that in and of itself is one with God. Jesus was alive physcially but sin was also imputed into perfect flesh of Jesus, along with spiritual separation. But those are God's processes which we cannot not describe accurately, and we only know what is limitedly revealed. We do know life or death as God does. We cannot breath life into dirt and we don't know all the processes of death and life with corrupt man let alone with death and life of theanthropic man.
Dr. Chafer said no one can know what happened in those 6 hours. Thieme inserts an extreme theory here and he can't prove it, all the while attacking peace loving liberals via the shed blood of Christ.
Simply, if spiritual death were the only aspect requirement, then why didn't Jesus just spiritually die (separate from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah and resurrect? Thieme's theory is wrong.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 05:26AM
To the Forum:
In 1990, Thieme also predicted war between the United States and the Soviet Union within 10 years (see below). Again, Thieme was wrong. (cults often invoke a fear of impending doom that is not too far away or to close) And Thieme retired in 2002, so he never had to deal with repercussions of his false theory.
During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.
[www.adherents.com]
Truthtesty
In 1990, Thieme also predicted war between the United States and the Soviet Union within 10 years (see below). Again, Thieme was wrong. (cults often invoke a fear of impending doom that is not too far away or to close) And Thieme retired in 2002, so he never had to deal with repercussions of his false theory.
During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.
[www.adherents.com]
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 09:05AM
gene The animal could not die spiritually. So blood was used to illustrate the taking of a life. The killing of the animal was a type. A training tool used as an illustration for the true atonement. There was no way an animal could portray spiritual death. It was simply a training tool to prepare the minds of believers for the true atonement which was yet to come.
Truthtesty: For those who want a reliable explanation blood animal sacrifice you can read Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology 8 vols):
The Taking Away of Precross Sin Once Covered by Sacrifice Vol. 3, Pgs 103, 104
The Purification of Things in Heaven Vol. 3, Page 113
The Prescribed Sacrifices of the Old Testament Vol. 3, Page 122
In Types Vol. 5, Page 178
The Prescribed Sacrifices of the Old Testament Vol. 3, Page 123
Miscellaneous Types of Christ’s Death Vol. 3, Page 124
The Spoiling of Principalities and Powers Vol. 3, Page 110
The Resurrection of Christ Incarnate Vol. 5, Page 232
“Grieve Not the Holy Spirit of God” Vol. 6, Page 244
In John’s Writings Vol. 5, Page 194
Atonement Vol. 7, Page 25
Mercy Seat Vol. 7, Page 236
Redemption Vol. 7, Page 263
Your local library may have a copy of the 8 volume set of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology, if not you can ILL it.
Truthtesty
Truthtesty: For those who want a reliable explanation blood animal sacrifice you can read Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology 8 vols):
The Taking Away of Precross Sin Once Covered by Sacrifice Vol. 3, Pgs 103, 104
The Purification of Things in Heaven Vol. 3, Page 113
The Prescribed Sacrifices of the Old Testament Vol. 3, Page 122
In Types Vol. 5, Page 178
The Prescribed Sacrifices of the Old Testament Vol. 3, Page 123
Miscellaneous Types of Christ’s Death Vol. 3, Page 124
The Spoiling of Principalities and Powers Vol. 3, Page 110
The Resurrection of Christ Incarnate Vol. 5, Page 232
“Grieve Not the Holy Spirit of God” Vol. 6, Page 244
In John’s Writings Vol. 5, Page 194
Atonement Vol. 7, Page 25
Mercy Seat Vol. 7, Page 236
Redemption Vol. 7, Page 263
Your local library may have a copy of the 8 volume set of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology, if not you can ILL it.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 10:19AM
To the Forum:
gene: The physical death was necessary. But, he did not bleed to death. That was the point.
Truthtesty: No one is trying to say he did. That was Thieme's straw man attack on liberal fundamentalists. Why? More than likely it was "more of the same", Thieme's political agenda to attack liberals.
In any case you don't know and Thieme doesn't know that it wasn't timed perfectly so that the last drop was shed at the exact moment of (d) finishe(d). He's God he can do perfect things like that.
He said "it is finished", what? He didn't specify, but still you don't know that another of God's processes wasn't at work the exact moment of His death. Maybe He was speaking of the earthly (realm) portion of the Work, but you can't say that physical death (the final completion in another realm or between realms) wasn't necessary. We only have what is limitedly revealed.
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 313 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.
We are left with Rom 3:25 "faith in His blood", with it's infinite meaning.
Truthtesty
gene: The physical death was necessary. But, he did not bleed to death. That was the point.
Truthtesty: No one is trying to say he did. That was Thieme's straw man attack on liberal fundamentalists. Why? More than likely it was "more of the same", Thieme's political agenda to attack liberals.
In any case you don't know and Thieme doesn't know that it wasn't timed perfectly so that the last drop was shed at the exact moment of (d) finishe(d). He's God he can do perfect things like that.
He said "it is finished", what? He didn't specify, but still you don't know that another of God's processes wasn't at work the exact moment of His death. Maybe He was speaking of the earthly (realm) portion of the Work, but you can't say that physical death (the final completion in another realm or between realms) wasn't necessary. We only have what is limitedly revealed.
Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 313 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.
We are left with Rom 3:25 "faith in His blood", with it's infinite meaning.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 18, 2007 11:05AM
Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
In 1990, Thieme also predicted war between the United States and the Soviet Union within 10 years (see below). Again, Thieme was wrong. (cults often invoke a fear of impending doom that is not too far away or to close) And Thieme retired in 2002, so he never had to deal with repercussions of his false theory.
During Memorial Day weekend in May 1990, Thieme (pronounced "theme") was in Arlington, Virginia to conduct four evenings of a regional bible conference for his East Coast followers. Only a few miles away, President George Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were meeting at the White House to discuss peace at the same time that Colonel Thieme was predicting that, within ten years, war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable.
[www.adherents.com]
Truthtesty
Thieme always added in such messages that if the pivot of mature Christians became big enough, our nation will be spared. You do not recall that? He said it many times.
Fear tactic? We were in big trouble with the Soviet potentially. You see that as fear tactics? He was telling the truth that many already knew about. If you ever attended a Bible Conference in D.C.? A very large percentage of listeners were in uniform. Ranking officers. I attended at least two in D.C. It was very military oriented. He preached that message to a large group of military types. They could handle it without being seen as a scare tactic.
Now?
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
I noticed how you diverted away from that and began throwing stuff out going in all kinds if directions.
And?
"R.B. Thieme has been described as "a cult figure" by James Dunn, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs in Washington. Controversial through he may be even among fundamentalists, Thieme is one of the Quayle family's contact points with the legions of Armageddon, who provided a decisive base of support for the Bush-Quayle administration during the Gulf war."
Baptist? They were the ones who hated his teaching that tithing did not apply to the church age. They have a guaranteed income with their teaching no matter how poor the teaching was. And? The blood of Christ was another Baptist taboo. And, you wonder why James Dunn referred to Robert Thieme as a "cult figure?"
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
That is one reason he would be viewed as a "cult figure" to the Baptists.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood."
Still avoiding dealing with what you quoted.
Sorry rrmoderator.. I always felt theological discussion in this forum is not the right setting. But, TT insists on making this into a theological debate. I hope you can see why Baptists would automatically label Robert Thieme a cult figure. If you understood what they view as "not to be touched" teachings, it would be seen as an inevitible outcome. Thieme's background was Baptist, and he was ready to reveal what he saw as error in their teachings.
So be it, GeneZ
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.