PDA

View Full Version : I Thank God for Col. R.B. Thieme Jr.



SCSaunders
08-21-2009, 03:05 PM
Yes, I was a "taper." And yes, I thank God for Col. R.B. Thieme, Jr. I benefited greatly from his tapes 'n' pubs ministry. God used this man to bless me and my family.


http://www.berachah.org/images/RBTBIOPH3.jpg


From his website Berachah.org (http://www.berachah.org/ColThiemeUpdate.htm)


Robert B. Thieme, Jr., pastor of Berachah Church from 1950-2003 and president of R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries, passed through death into eternity Sunday, 16 August 2009 at 8:45 PM and is now “absent from the body and face to face with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8b). He was the beloved husband of Betty Beal Thieme and devoted father of Robert B. Thieme III. He is also survived by his sister, Ann T. Wallis, and his cousins, Fredericka Botts and Nancy N. Harder.

Bob was born on 1 April 1918. His father, Robert B. Thieme, and mother, Anna Cloakey Thieme, of Ft. Wayne, Indiana moved to Beverly Hills, California in 1926. Bob graduated from Beverly Hills High School in the summer of 1936, having lettered in football, track, and gymnastics. He was a member of the Beverly High Alumni Association.

Bob enrolled at the University of Arizona in Tucson in the fall of 1936 where he majored in classical Greek and joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. After a distinguished college career, he graduated on 29 May 1940 magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He was also commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve.

With the goal of becoming a pastor, Bob was licensed to preach by the First Baptist Church of Tucson, Arizona on 5 June 1940. To further his ministerial preparation, he enrolled in Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas in 1940. After one semester, his seminary studies were interrupted by the impending entry of the United States into World War II.

On 3 April 1941 Lieutenant Thieme began active duty service in the Army Air Corps. Because of the nature of his assigned duties he received rapid promotion and by the end of the war had attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. LTC Thieme was the Director of Military Training for Flying Training Command. In this position he was charged with initiating, prescribing, and standardizing military training for all categories of personnel in the Aviation Cadet programs. His duties included coordinating training at 120 Army Air Corps installations throughout the United States and authoring publications that standardized this training. By 1943, he had written The Military Triad, Strategy and Tactics for The Aviation Cadet, and Get Smart, Mister. His final assignment was to supervise and direct the gunnery training at Harlingen Field, Texas. Bob returned to Dallas Seminary in 1946 to resume preparation for the ministry. The academic training he received in Greek, Hebrew, theology, history, and textual criticism became the foundation for a rigorous professional life of studying and teaching the Word of God. As a student, he became the interim pastor of Reinhardt Bible Church in Dallas, Texas. Upon graduating summa cum laude with a Master of Theology in May 1949, he continued to pastor at Reinhardt until April 1950.

For fifty-three years Robert B. Thieme, Jr., was the pastor of Berachah Church in Houston, Texas. As pastor he developed an innovative system of vocabulary, illustrations, and biblical categories designed to communicate the truths of God's Word. His scholarly, expository approach to teaching the Word of God and the worldwide distribution of his publications and biblical teachings without charge or obligation have made Pastor Robert B. Thieme, Jr., a major voice in Christianity today.
If I could be there this Sunday, I'd go. In a heartbeat!

Dan Phillips
08-22-2009, 11:37 AM
Thieme was indeed a most remarkable and formidable man of impressive accomplishments. Without doing personal disrespect, I would say that my estimate of his distinctive doctrines and their impact would not be positive.

SCSaunders
08-22-2009, 12:01 PM
Thieme was indeed a most remarkable and formidable man of impressive accomplishments. Without doing personal disrespect, I would say that my estimate of his distinctive doctrines and their impact would not be positive.Dan, I knew when I posted this thread, that comments would certainly come. You commented in a respectful way and for this I thank you.

For me Bob's distinctive is in the overwhelming majority of his work. Like everyone, you and me included, if we had the world stage that he had, we'd have a few points of view that would get serious attack, gallons of ink, etc.

There will be those who will discredit his entire work for a few doctrines. There will be many who will thank God for the majority of his work, not getting exorcised over the R.B. Thieme hot buttons.

I think you would be overwhelmingly surprise at the world players that God used Bob Thieme's ministry to bring volumes and volumes of solid teaching. The names would be quite surprising, none of whom you could say "drank the punch."

Anyone want to flame Bob, go for it. The way in which you measure it out (Dan, no reference to you, like I said above, you were not disrespecfult) .... Walk in his shoes, to the level of planetary impact/influence that he had and then get back to me. Until then, enjoy the ministry God has given you. Pastor the flock that is among you.

Adelphos
08-22-2009, 04:02 PM
I heard one or two of Thieme's tapes and I was intrigued, but disappointed with the foul language that came out of his mouth, which should never happen from anyone in the pulpit, (and I was even more suspicious when I heard him try to justify it), but, living in Houston for a couple of years during his heyday (circa 1980), I went to see him personally.

It only took the one time seeing him personally to confrim my overall suspicions. I did not go back, and I would never recommend him to anyone that wanted to find truth.

I remember that Paul discredited a few people in his day over a single issue, for truth mixed with error is infinitely more dangerous than plain falsehood, and there's no doubt about it, Thieme had a lot of good things to say mixed in with his false teachings.

With regard to "world impact", or whatever, there are multitudes of genuinely born again Christians whose names were never known outside of their infinitesimly small sphere of influence who will nevetheless receive FAR greater rewards from Jesus Christ than many of the notables of history in that day when all stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, where the vast, vast majority of those who have had a "world impact" will be forgotten throughout eternity, and the little ones who were perhaps never known outside of their own village or community will be heralded and rewarded for their faithfulness world without end.

Transcendental Meditation and Yoga and a whole host of other things "help" people, but neither that nor a person's influence is a measure of truth.

Truth is found absolutely and dogmatically in the person of Jesus Christ and his Word, and nowhere else, and that is the touchstone upon which all truth is to be measured.

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6049008/i/Thieme.pdf

SCSaunders
08-22-2009, 05:39 PM
I heard one or two of Thieme's tapes .... It only took the one time seeing him personally to confrim my overall suspicions. Wow. With numbers like this you are definitely qualified to make dogmatic assertions!


... With regard to "world impact", or whatever, there are multitudes of genuinely born again Christians whose names were never known outside of their infinitesimly small sphere of influenceFor me, many of these are Thieme tapers that you will never know. Some of my very best friends are Thieme tapers. Genuine believers every one of them. You couldn't name a single one.

As for whether or not you could recognize any ....
genuinely born again Christians I'll leave it with this threaded discussion. (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3256)

Keep goin' Scott. From this point on, I won't stop you.

Adelphos
08-22-2009, 05:44 PM
Wow. With numbers like this you are definitely qualified to make dogmatic assertions!

You mean you can't recognize serious doctrinal error when you hear it repeated one or two times?

Pity.

Clint Yale
08-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Confessions of a former taper. It too used to be a devout follower of R.B. Thieme Jr. I had hundreds of his reel to reel tapes. I copied down on yellow legal sized paper the whole content of his tapes to the tune of hundreds of pages while I served overseas in the service. I can fairly say that he allowed me to see facets of "so great a salvation" that I had not comprehended before. However, there were other aspects of his teaching that were false and have been exposed by discerning believers since. A deacon in my Church used one verse that convinced me that I was in doctrinal error (Hebrews 9:22). I had no argument for it and it turned me around in one point of time. I took all my reel to reel tapes and the hundreds of pages of notes and burned them in the garbage. It took me years to remove the arsenic from the doctrinal teaching that I was exposed to while under his ministry. It has motivated me wholly to examine for myself "what saith the Scriptures" I poured my whole being into studying Greek (6 Formal years) and Hebrew (4 formal years) and Aramaic (1 formal year) with over 25 years of post-graduate reading of the sacred text so that I would never again be taken in by false teaching based on the original text. I can honestly thank God for Col R.B. Thieme Jr. in that he has had such a negative impact on my life that has turned into something as positive as a never ending love and desire to study and know what the Scriptures really teach.

Clint Yale
Bellingham, WA

Adelphos
08-22-2009, 09:53 PM
Confessions of a former taper. It too used to be a devout follower of R.B. Thieme Jr... I can honestly thank God for Col R.B. Thieme Jr. in that he has had such a negative impact on my life that has turned into something as positive as a never ending love and desire to study and know what the Scriptures really teach.

Thanks for that testimony, Clint. There are plenty like you, although I'm not sure anyone went to the extremes you did to get straightened out! :cool:

Perhaps God was really watching over me, because the night I went to hear him in person, everything I ever needed to hear came out in technicolor.

Thieme had a huge chalk board behind him, and on that chalk board he had drawn enough circles to represent several solar systems. Without going into the convoluted details, I heard him at one point assert that saying "G** d**n" was not sinful, that they were only words.

Of course, I realized instantly the application of such logic applied to the third commandment, not to mention all the others, as well as the rest of Scripture.

And that's just for starters. On the other hand, your testimony is a very fine example of the fact that truth mixed with error is far more dangerous than plain error, for Thieme had a lot of good things to say, but his erroneous material was, and still is, in my opinion, not merely heretical, but some of it downright blasphemous.

As I said, plenty of testimonies like yours are about, so once again, thanks for sharing it.

SCSaunders
08-23-2009, 02:35 PM
Really would have been nice to have been there. Hopefully Berachah will make a video available for all us heretic followers. :)

SCSaunders
08-24-2009, 07:09 AM
One obituary can be found here (http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/houstonchronicle/obituary.aspx?n=robert-b-thieme&pid=131604527).

At the bottom of the page is a link to a Guest Book with a lot of positive testimonies, plenty of positive testimonies. As of now there are 205 entries.

Looks like the R.B. Thieme didn't ruin everyone's life and ministry. FWIW.

Glenn Weaver
08-24-2009, 09:20 AM
I never met Col. Theime, nor was a taper. But I did pastor a church whose previous pastor was ordained at Berachah. Some of the people in the church were tapers. It was difficult sometimes to help them grow. They accepted various doctrines and weren't always able to grow from the Scriptures in the places where the Scriptures contradicted their theology or practice.

But I am thankful for the emphasis upon the Scriptures. They wanted the Word. Without going into many details of God's working, I became acquainted with BibleWorks because of the previous pastor. He bought BibleWorks (v.2.3c), and persuaded some in the congregation to buy BibleWorks. When I became the pastor, one of the members in the congregation traded BibleWorks to me for an Online Bible CD that I had. It was a good deal for both of us. That was my being of a relationship with BibleWorks. And now I am part of the team. God's plans have no time limit.

Glenn

ISalzman
08-24-2009, 11:03 AM
I never met Col. Theime, nor was a taper. But I did pastor a church whose previous pastor was ordained at Berachah. Some of the people in the church were tapers. It was difficult sometimes to help them grow. They accepted various doctrines and weren't always able to grow from the Scriptures in the places where the Scriptures contradicted their theology or practice.

But I am thankful for the emphasis upon the Scriptures. They wanted the Word. Without going into many details of God's working, I became acquainted with BibleWorks because of the previous pastor. He bought BibleWorks (v.2.3c), and persuaded some in the congregation to buy BibleWorks. When I became the pastor, one of the members in the congregation traded BibleWorks to me for an Online Bible CD that I had. It was a good deal for both of us. That was my being of a relationship with BibleWorks. And now I am part of the team. God's plans have no time limit.

Glenn

Well, I am very grateful that you are with BibleWorks, Glenn. I enjoy all of your helpful posts immensely. And I attended one of your BibleWorks Workshops at Princeton a few years ago. (Don't know if you remember me from that?) You did a great job! BibleWorks and BibleWorks users are blessed by your body of work with the company.

Irving

Glenn Weaver
08-24-2009, 11:09 AM
Thanks, Irving. God's plans are perfect. In hindsight I can see what He was doing, but I didn't know it at the time. I'm glad to be with BibleWorks. I get to meet many wonderful folks. It would be great to see you again, Irving.

Blessings,
Glenn

ISalzman
08-24-2009, 11:11 AM
It would be great to see you again, Irving.

Blessings,
Glenn

Ditto, Glenn!

Precha1
08-24-2009, 03:50 PM
Well, I am very grateful that you are with BibleWorks, Glenn. I enjoy all of your helpful posts immensely. BibleWorks and BibleWorks users are blessed by your body of work with the company.

I want to echo this comment. I praise God for how He is able to knit together the lives of His children in very unique and different ways.

Adelphos
08-24-2009, 08:35 PM
One overriding component of the New Birth is the cleansing of the sinner by the blood of Jesus Christ. I remember when Jesus Christ personally introduced himself to me, and indwelt me, and made me a new creature, and washed me in his own blood, and in that moment how powerful was the washing away of my sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. I felt it; I experienced it. That's why the Holy Spirit calls it the "washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5).

And that's why Spurgeon correctly observed...

"People are not born again when they are in bed and asleep, so that they do not know it. They feel it; they experience it. Galvanism, or the power of electricity, may be mysterious; but they produce a feeling - a sensation. So does the new birth." C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume I, The Victory Of Faith

Bunyan, who likewise experienced his sins being washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, spoke the plain teaching of the Scripture about such an experience belonging to every truly born again believer, and his words are a powerful corrective against the false prophets who deny the blood of Jesus Christ...

"Therefore the man that comes to Christ, is one that hath had deep considerations of his own sins, slighting thoughts of his own righteousness, and high thoughts of the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ; yea, he sees, as I have said, more virtue in the blood of Christ to save him, than there is in all his sins to damn him. He therefore setteth Christ before his eyes; there is nothing in heaven or earth, he knows, that can save his soul and secure him from the wrath of God, but Christ; that is, nothing but his personal righteousness and blood." John Bunyan, Come And Welcome To Jesus Christ

It is not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of antichrist, that denies the blood of Jesus Christ, and denying the blood of Jesus Christ has been at the forefront of heresy from Paul's day to this. Moreover, there is nothing more dangerous in this world or the world to come than denying the blood of Jesus Christ, for, as Clint noted in his brave testimony, the Holy Spirit HIMSELF testifies that without the blood of Jesus Christ there is no remission.

"Now, therefore, consider of it, and take the counsel of the apostle, which is to examine thyself whether thou art in the faith, and to prove thy ownself whether thou hast received the Spirit of Christ into thy soul, and whether thou hast been converted, whether thou hast been born again, and made a new creature, WHETHER THOU HAST HAD THY SINS WASHED AWAY IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, whether thou hast been brought from under the old covenant into the new; and do not make a slight examination, for thou hast a precious soul either to be saved or damned. And that thou mayest not be deceived, consider that it is one thing to be convinced, and another to be converted; one thing to be wounded, and another to be killed, and so to be made alive again by the faith of Jesus Christ." John Bunyan, The Doctrine Of Law And Grace Unfolded

At one time it was commonly held that John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" was second only to the Bible in publication. They tried to silence Bunyan by confining him to a dank dungeon, but all they did was loose his pen so that Jesus Christ through him spoke to the world.

And yet, if Bunyan could speak to us on earth, he would not have us commemorate his death.

Bunyan, who has a far greater "world impact" than most, would sternly say, "Let the dead bury the dead. Follow Jesus Christ, for he ALONE is worthy."

SCSaunders
08-25-2009, 07:33 AM
I never met Col. Theime, nor was a taper. But I did pastor a church whose previous pastor was ordained at Berachah. Some of the people in the church were tapers. It was difficult sometimes to help them grow. They accepted various doctrines and weren't always able to grow from the Scriptures in the places where the Scriptures contradicted their theology or practice.

But I am thankful for the emphasis upon the Scriptures. They wanted the Word. Without going into many details of God's working, I became acquainted with BibleWorks because of the previous pastor. He bought BibleWorks (v.2.3c), and persuaded some in the congregation to buy BibleWorks. When I became the pastor, one of the members in the congregation traded BibleWorks to me for an Online Bible CD that I had. It was a good deal for both of us. That was my being of a relationship with BibleWorks. And now I am part of the team. God's plans have no time limit.

Glenn

Hey Glenn,

You're experience is very similar to mine.

My dad was in the Air Force, during which time he became a taper, though never quit qoing to church - as is often the accusation.

While attending a church, during my young years, he had a taper group in his house. Great friends. Great time. While at time, there were some tough cases, far and away the folks were absolutely salt of the earth. Salt and light.

The church that we attended at this time, merely because my dad, having transitioned from the Air Force into the air lines, flying out of the LA hub, the church we attended at the time was pastored by Bob Thieme's brother in law.

His name was Ridge Ryan. God used him to grow the church from a small bible study in his home library to a large sized church with its own property. He pastored Coast Bible Church for about 18 years or more, then went on to a very success support role in J. Vernon McGee's ministry. A ministry that has grown, BTW, since his departure to be with the Lord. At this church, while there were problem tapers from time to time, there where many wonderful, solid, dear people. Many of whom are still friends with my folks, still in email and prayer contact. Wonderful people. You've never heard of any of them, they aren't problems.

Ridge Ryan's wife was the sister of Bob's wife. Both are wonderful Christian women. You'll never hear of them, they aren't problems.

While at seminary, I attended a church lead by a pastor on Bob's tapes. North Dallas Bible Church, should any of you want to check. During this time we, as a church body, removed this pastor from office. The elders aloud a group of seminary students to be in on the process. Therefore, I was aloud to be in on the process, admittedly, in a peripheral way. Bitter split. Friends lost. Everything associated with splits.

But at this church and during this time I most some of the most wonderful people of my entire life. They were so good to my wife and I. People we will never forget. People who have still helped us from time to time and kept in contact. People who every single one of them tapers. Tina and I will go to the grave loving these folks. Their lives could be examples to most academicians I know to follow. Some of the key folks went into key roles at a local church that was planted at the time. A church in Frisco TX. Others stayed on and North Dallas and have been fighting the good fight. Both groups, solid Christians.

The problem cases that I referred to above are those that fancy themselves "well read" and "scholarly." Every accusation that I've seen labeled against the rebel tapers, the only ones that ever seem to get any head lines, can totally and fairly be labeled against well read, scholastic, academic types. These too become impossible at times to take directly to a page in Scripture and let the word of God speak for itself, without having to first run it past their "pope." Academia, Scholarship, Etc. is just as guilty of bringing people to saying, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," "I am of Cephas," "I am of Spurgeon," "I am of Bunyan," and so on.

As for "specialized" vocabulary. Are any of you degreed types kidding me?! Seriously!? You didn't learn gobbledy gook vernacular jargon at Bible College, Seminary and in all your required reading. Come on. Be honest. If not here, for the sheep you minister to.

My point is, it's only the problem kids that every get commented on. There are so many good, good Christians that Bob's ministry has impacted - but none of you, more than likely, will ever comment on any of them. Many are in strategic ministries right now, but none will ever say, "Hey, there's someone who was a taper at one time or still is and wow!, God has been and still is using them in a powerful way. Thanks be to God."

Personally, I thank God for Col. Thieme. While his theology caused problems form some, for many it did not.

SCSaunders
08-25-2009, 07:39 AM
One overriding component of the New Birth is the cleansing of the sinner by the blood of Jesus Christ. I remember when Jesus Christ personally introduced himself to me, and indwelt me, and made me a new creature, and washed me in his own blood, and in that moment how powerful was the washing away of my sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. I felt it; I experienced it. That's why the Holy Spirit calls it the "washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5).

And that's why Spurgeon correctly observed...

"People are not born again when they are in bed and asleep, so that they do not know it. They feel it; they experience it. Galvanism, or the power of electricity, may be mysterious; but they produce a feeling - a sensation. So does the new birth." C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume I, The Victory Of Faith

Bunyan, who likewise experienced his sins being washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, spoke the plain teaching of the Scripture about such an experience belonging to every truly born again believer, and his words are a powerful corrective against the false prophets who deny the blood of Jesus Christ...

"Therefore the man that comes to Christ, is one that hath had deep considerations of his own sins, slighting thoughts of his own righteousness, and high thoughts of the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ; yea, he sees, as I have said, more virtue in the blood of Christ to save him, than there is in all his sins to damn him. He therefore setteth Christ before his eyes; there is nothing in heaven or earth, he knows, that can save his soul and secure him from the wrath of God, but Christ; that is, nothing but his personal righteousness and blood." John Bunyan, Come And Welcome To Jesus Christ

It is not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of antichrist, that denies the blood of Jesus Christ, and denying the blood of Jesus Christ has been at the forefront of heresy from Paul's day to this. Moreover, there is nothing more dangerous in this world or the world to come than denying the blood of Jesus Christ, for, as Clint noted in his brave testimony, the Holy Spirit HIMSELF testifies that without the blood of Jesus Christ there is no remission.

"Now, therefore, consider of it, and take the counsel of the apostle, which is to examine thyself whether thou art in the faith, and to prove thy ownself whether thou hast received the Spirit of Christ into thy soul, and whether thou hast been converted, whether thou hast been born again, and made a new creature, WHETHER THOU HAST HAD THY SINS WASHED AWAY IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, whether thou hast been brought from under the old covenant into the new; and do not make a slight examination, for thou hast a precious soul either to be saved or damned. And that thou mayest not be deceived, consider that it is one thing to be convinced, and another to be converted; one thing to be wounded, and another to be killed, and so to be made alive again by the faith of Jesus Christ." John Bunyan, The Doctrine Of Law And Grace Unfolded

At one time it was commonly held that John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" was second only to the Bible in publication. They tried to silence Bunyan by confining him to a dank dungeon, but all they did was loose his pen so that Jesus Christ through him spoke to the world.

And yet, if Bunyan could speak to us on earth, he would not have us commemorate his death.

Bunyan, who has a far greater "world impact" than most, would sternly say, "Let the dead bury the dead. Follow Jesus Christ, for he ALONE is worthy."As usual, no Scripture quoted. I get it. Your a Bunyan and Spurgen taper/reader.

Scott, you want to know, since you can't in all honesty say that you do, you want to know what how a problem taper is viewed by most people - READ THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF YOUR POSTS. Seriously Not only in this forum but others. You are a stellar life example of what outsiders have grown to hate about certain pugnacious tapers. You are one - by way of copious example.

Scott "not the adelphos one"

Glenn Weaver
08-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Hi Scott and Scott,

O.k. Your points are noted. Can we all be friends again? :-)

For whatever it is worth, I find that a scholarly mindset, whether found in college, seminary, university, or church, can be spiritually deadly. Knowledge can lead to pride, if it is not acompanied by an even larger dose of humility and submission to Christ. I have seen many people who have a little knowledge for whom pride has made them think they know more than they really do, and people who have great knowledge but have serious failings in how to live a godly life. Everything is worthless without humility and submission to Christ.

You know what is odd about this posting about Bob Thieme's death? I was talking with a fellow at church on Sunday morning, August 16. I found out that he had been a taper. I asked if he knew if Bob Thieme was still alive. He didn't know. How ironic that Bob Thieme would pass away that very evening.

SCSaunders
08-25-2009, 09:15 AM
Hi Scott and Scott,

O.k. Your points are noted. Can we all be friends again? :-) Hugs 'n' kisses. Hugs 'n' kisses. The holy kind. Goes without saying.


For whatever it is worth, I find that a scholarly mindset, whether found in college, seminary, university, or church, can be spiritually deadly. Knowledge can lead to pride, if it is not acompanied by an even larger dose of humility and submission to Christ. I have seen many people who have a little knowledge for whom pride has made them think they know more than they really do, and people who have great knowledge but have serious failings in how to live a godly life. Everything is worthless without humility and submission to Christ.Thank you. Very biblical. Sound.


You know what is odd about this posting about Bob Thieme's death? I was talking with a fellow at church on Sunday morning, August 16. I found out that he had been a taper. I asked if he knew if Bob Thieme was still alive. He didn't know. How ironic that Bob Thieme would pass away that very evening.The 23rd anniversary of my first wife and I. Two wonderful daughters. Still in love. Hugs 'n' kisses. Hugs 'n' kisses. The blissfully marital kind. Goes without saying.

Adelphos
08-25-2009, 10:18 AM
Whenever the cult leader is not highly spoken of, the cult followers get agitated and begin to make personal attacks, as the foregoing clearly demonstrate.

The content of the above posts clearly reveal the personal attacks against the commenter who doesn't hold Thieme in high esteem -- and the personal attacks are of course a complete disconnect with what was actually written.

But this is classic with the cults.

I did not start this thread, nor have I made a personal attack against any of the posters. The same cannot be said of he who started this thread.

ISalzman
08-25-2009, 10:59 AM
Hey Glenn,

You're experience is very similar to mine.

My dad was in the Air Force, during which time he became a taper, though never quit qoing to church - as is often the accusation.

While attending a church, during my young years, he had a taper group in his house. Great friends. Great time. While at time, there were some tough cases, far and away the folks were absolutely salt of the earth. Salt and light.

The church that we attended at this time, merely because my dad, having transitioned from the Air Force into the air lines, flying out of the LA hub, the church we attended at the time was pastored by Bob Thieme's brother in law.

His name was Ridge Ryan. God used him to grow the church from a small bible study in his home library to a large sized church with its own property. He pastored Coast Bible Church for about 18 years or more, then went on to a very success support role in J. Vernon McGee's ministry. A ministry that has grown, BTW, since his departure to be with the Lord. At this church, while there were problem tapers from time to time, there where many wonderful, solid, dear people. Many of whom are still friends with my folks, still in email and prayer contact. Wonderful people. You've never heard of any of them, they aren't problems.

Ridge Ryan's wife was the sister of Bob's wife. Both are wonderful Christian women. You'll never hear of them, they aren't problems.

While at seminary, I attended a church lead by a pastor on Bob's tapes. North Dallas Bible Church, should any of you want to check. During this time we, as a church body, removed this pastor from office. The elders aloud a group of seminary students to be in on the process. Therefore, I was aloud to be in on the process, admittedly, in a peripheral way. Bitter split. Friends lost. Everything associated with splits.

But at this church and during this time I most some of the most wonderful people of my entire life. They were so good to my wife and I. People we will never forget. People who have still helped us from time to time and kept in contact. People who every single one of them tapers. Tina and I will go to the grave loving these folks. Their lives could be examples to most academicians I know to follow. Some of the key folks went into key roles at a local church that was planted at the time. A church in Frisco TX. Others stayed on and North Dallas and have been fighting the good fight. Both groups, solid Christians.

The problem cases that I referred to above are those that fancy themselves "well read" and "scholarly." Every accusation that I've seen labeled against the rebel tapers, the only ones that ever seem to get any head lines, can totally and fairly be labeled against well read, scholastic, academic types. These too become impossible at times to take directly to a page in Scripture and let the word of God speak for itself, without having to first run it past their "pope." Academia, Scholarship, Etc. is just as guilty of bringing people to saying, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," "I am of Cephas," "I am of Spurgeon," "I am of Bunyan," and so on.

As for "specialized" vocabulary. Are any of you degreed types kidding me?! Seriously!? You didn't learn gobbledy gook vernacular jargon at Bible College, Seminary and in all your required reading. Come on. Be honest. If not here, for the sheep you minister to.

My point is, it's only the problem kids that every get commented on. There are so many good, good Christians that Bob's ministry has impacted - but none of you, more than likely, will ever comment on any of them. Many are in strategic ministries right now, but none will ever say, "Hey, there's someone who was a taper at one time or still is and wow!, God has been and still is using them in a powerful way. Thanks be to God."

Personally, I thank God for Col. Thieme. While his theology caused problems form some, for many it did not.

Hey SC, by now I've got to ask the question, "What, pray tell, is a "taper?" I've always understood it as another word for a candle (Old English), but that gloss doesn't seem to fit its frequent occurrences in this thread. Grateful for your explanation of a "taper." Thanks.

Adelphos
08-25-2009, 12:09 PM
I notice that I simply offered my testimony, followed by a short discussion of the blood of Jesus Christ, without reference to any person in particular, and yet another personal attack against myself ensued.

In spite of the fact that I have made no personal attacks on anyone, but have only shared my testimony of how Jesus Christ washed me in his own blood, and offered -- not a single unorthodox figure to back up my testimony, but several persons, whose doctrine is known to be in complete accordance with the Scripture by all who are truly deemed orthodox -- it was nevertheless suggested that "submission" to Christ was apropos here, the implication being that perhaps my testimony of the saving of my soul through the blood of Jesus Christ might not have been in accordance with "submission" to Jesus Christ.

Hmmmm....

With all due respect, there is a pandemic of false teaching on the subject of humility and submission to Christ, which is nothing less than a reflection of the false Jesus and the false gospel that so pervades professing Christendom today, so let this excerpt from George Sayles Bishop serve as yet another corrective against this modern heresy and massively misunderstood subject...

"To employ soft words and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance; to deal with errors that strike at the foundations of all human hope as if they were harmless and venial mistakes; to bless where God disapproves, and to make apologies where He calls us to stand up like men and assert, though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause in a sophistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those who on such subjects attach more importance to the rules of courtesy than they do to the measures of truth do not defend the citadel, but betray it into the hands of its enemies. Love for Christ, and for the souls for whom He died, will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers by which men’s souls are ensnared." George Sayles Bishop, Sermon, June 7, 1885

He who thinks that the doctrine of the blood of Jesus Christ is not absolutely foundational has never read the same Bible that I have read. Or that Spurgeon, Bunyan, Owen, ad infinitum has read.

Or that Peter, John, Paul and the others wrote about.

Precha1
08-25-2009, 01:18 PM
Hi Scott and Scott,

O.k. Your points are noted. Can we all be friends again? :-)



Spoken like a pastor (Ephesians 4:3) and appreciated by a brother like me who has benefitted greatly from the numerous threads and sharings of Scott and Scott.

SCSaunders
08-26-2009, 09:31 AM
Whenever the cult leader is not highly spoken of, the cult followers get agitated and begin to make personal attacks, as the foregoing clearly demonstrate.

The content of the above posts clearly reveal the personal attacks against the commenter who doesn't hold Thieme in high esteem -- and the personal attacks are of course a complete disconnect with what was actually written.

But this is classic with the cults.

I did not start this thread, nor have I made a personal attack against any of the posters. The same cannot be said of he who started this thread.This thread is reason enough for anybody whose ever been grateful to God for someone's ministry as to why they'd get just a little upset and want to speak in their defense.

You attacked and continue to attack Col. Thieme. Your accusations are inflammatory. You know it. You can lie to yourself and act as if you are a martyr and beg the audience to see you as taking the spiritual high ground.

Replace Bob's name with any other that I consider whose ministry has been a gift from God to me and my family and I will probably say something. In their defense.

There are friends who will stick closer than a brother, who will stick closer than, permit me to use some Greek here, who will stick closer than an adelphos.

Keep going Scott. We tapers, those who ever were or still are, I happen to be of the former group, we are use to being called cult members. We are use to having Bob called a cult leader. We are used to being accused of Bibliolatry. Whatever else you can dig up. We're use to it. Especially by those really never gave the 50 year ministry any kind of a chance. (Boy, that last statement is grist for a comment. I've teed it up for you. Swing away!)

SCSaunders
08-26-2009, 09:35 AM
Hey SC, by now I've got to ask the question, "What, pray tell, is a "taper?" I've always understood it as another word for a candle (Old English), but that gloss doesn't seem to fit its frequent occurrences in this thread. Grateful for your explanation of a "taper." Thanks.Prior to the internet and MP3s and downloads and such. You could order and listen to cassette tapes of Bob's ministry. Listeners of these cassette tapes is where the term "taper" got coined. We were known as "tapers."

Bob never charged for his materials. All of them, for over 50 years, were given away for free. It was a grace ministry. He didn't want to have his materials sold at a bookstore. Though, many did "borrow" his material and made a very good living doing just that, selling them at Christian bookstores.

Adelphos
08-26-2009, 10:05 AM
You attacked and continue to attack Col. Thieme. Your accusations are inflammatory. You know it. You can lie to yourself and act as if you are a martyr and beg the audience to see you as taking the spiritual high ground.

This is yet another demonstration of your very confused mental state. You better wake up, son, and start paying attention to your own convoluted delusions of the actual facts.

I did not attack Thieme. Rather, I offered my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with him, along with EXAMPLES of what he said and did, unlike your disconnected diatribes. Nor have I had a SINGLE harsh word to say about Thieme personally, unlike yourself concerning me.

Moreover, there is another FORMER taper here who has had FAR HARSHER things to say about Thieme in this thread than I have.

All you've managed to do with your selective memory and false projection is confirm the cultic quality of Thieme's ministry.

And since you are determined to keep beating this horse in a thread which YOU started, and in which YOU have made personal attacks against me in, (even though the gargantuan log in your own eye is utterly invisible to yourself), I will now therefore put the truth to rest for all who are of the truth, and the simple truth is this...

Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is sheer blasphemy, and it is a blasphemy which no man who has ever been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ could make, and he who will not vigorously defend the historic orthodox doctrine of the blood of Jesus Christ is likewise he who has never been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Nor is that my testimony alone, but the testimony of a great many, such as a Spurgeon, or a Bunyan, or an Owen, or a Goodwin, or a Baxter, or a Boston, ad infintum.

All cults think they have discovered new territory, new doctrine.

But they are all deluded. Thieme's foul doctrine of the denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is almost two thousand years old. Thieme did not invent it or discover it, and it is a doctrine that has been denied by true men of God in virtually every generation, including the above names, and many more.

Moreover, it is doctrine that is denied today by every single soul who has ever had his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, and he who cannot so testify is he who is deluding himself if he thinks he's heaven-bound.

SCSaunders
08-26-2009, 10:19 AM
I did not attack Thieme. "Cult" is an attack and you know it.


Rather, I offered my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with him,Very, very limited.





I could continue along with this, going line upon line, but it's a waste of time, time that I actually need to be purchasing.



Scott, you are not one to ever say that you haven't personally attacked nor attack. You of all people especially. That is your delusion son.

I'm done. I started this post as a thank you to God for a man that recently passed away. A man who I don't hate. A man who I don't see as a cult leader. A man with whom you've had little, very little personal experience. It didn't take you too long to start commenting in a way that would blemish that thanks. You are free to see and view Col. Thieme however you want. It would have been nice if it could have been in a different thread, one in which I wasn't honoring his life at the time of his death.

Chow.

ISalzman
08-26-2009, 11:39 AM
Prior to the internet and MP3s and downloads and such. You could order and listen to cassette tapes of Bob's ministry. Listeners of these cassette tapes is where the term "taper" got coined. We were known as "tapers."

Bob never charged for his materials. All of them, for over 50 years, were given away for free. It was a grace ministry. He didn't want to have his materials sold at a bookstore. Though, many did "borrow" his material and made a very good living doing just that, selling them at Christian bookstores.

Thanks for the explanation, Scott. Believe me, I go back to the days of cassette tapes too! The man who taught me the system of the Masoretic accents and their chants (in my pre-Bar Mitzvah days, if you will) would typically record chanted portions of the Hebrew Bible on cassette tapes for his students to learn. Now that I do the same thing for my students, I have perpetuated his methods and his preferred storage media types (cassette tapes).

bobvenem
08-26-2009, 06:39 PM
I'm confused. Which one of you is named "Scott?":cool:

Dan Phillips
08-26-2009, 08:06 PM
We're all Scott. It's an entrance-requirement.

Clint Yale
08-26-2009, 08:09 PM
I have related in this blog something that I experienced 40 years ago. I was introduced to Dr. Thieme in basic training at Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas by another Airman in my flight. When I went to England I ordered tapes from Berachah Church after I had purchased my Reel to Reel tape player. I can honestly say that his teachings appealed to me and I felt like I was experiencing Christianity in a new way. I was more knowlegeable and became puffed up to the point of being arrogant.[1 Cor. 8:1,2] I thought I had it all together. I could not have been more wrong. This is the first time I have really shared about what happened to me those many decades ago. I can say that I am a different person after having set at the foot of this man. I did not how much it had affected me until I finished College and enrolled in Seminary. I found it very difficult to trust what was being said without examining the Scriptures.[Acts 17:11] I have a greater appreciation of the Scriptures. I have a greater appreciation for godly men and women who give themselves holy to the discipline of learning and teaching the Scriptures. I do not consider my comments regarding Dr. Thieme as being harsh. I just related my personal experience in regards to his impact on my life. Others have related their experiences with Dr. Thieme's ministry and how they have benefited. I do not share that same sentiment.
This all I have to say on this thread.
Clint Yale
Bellingham,WA

Adelphos
08-26-2009, 08:48 PM
I do not consider my comments regarding Dr. Thieme as being harsh.

And since I applied that statement, I must clarify and say that neither did I ever consider your statements harsh. I used the terminology simply as a reference in comparison with my own statements, which I also did not consider harsh, because they were far from being so.

To be clear, your statements and my statements were simply the relation of our experiences.


I just related my personal experience in regards to his impact on my life. Others have related their experiences with Dr. Thieme's ministry and how they have benefited. I do not share that same sentiment.

Ditto. I also related my experience, and like you, nor do I share that same sentiment. In fact, now that I've had time to think about it, I remember that in addition to listening to at least a tape or two, I had also read some material by Thieme, which I also found problematic.

And as I said, it only took the one time for me seeing him personally to convince me I was in the presence of a heretic. And I don't make that charge lightly.

Either way, as I said before, Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is sheer blasphemy, and I don't really care whether that's considered harsh or not.

bobvenem
08-27-2009, 08:39 AM
Either way, as I said before, Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is sheer blasphemy, and I don't really care whether that's considered harsh or not.

Scott,

Did Thieme's denial amount to the "blood=death" theory? Just curious.

Bob (pretending to be a Scott for membership purposes):D

Adelphos
08-27-2009, 10:53 AM
Did Thieme's denial amount to the "blood=death" theory? Just curious.

I don't know what you mean by that. What I do know is that Thieme denied that the physical blood of Jesus Christ had anything to do with the atonement. Like all cults, Thieme spiritualized the Scriptures, including the blood of Jesus Christ.

The fact that his heresy could be so widely accepted today is a sign of the times. Nobody born of the Spirit, which means nobody who has been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, would stomach that heresy for one second. I mean, not for one SECOND.

As Bunyan noted, EVERY man who has ever been washed in that blood, in the blood of Jesus Christ, which means EVERY man who has ever been genuinely born again, will give his life before he will give up the doctrine -- the TRUTH -- of being washed in that blood.

The blood of Jesus Christ is THE foundational doctrine of the atonement, and he who has been washed in that blood by EXPERIENCE, which the Scripture designates as the "washing of regeneration", which all who are regenerated have EXPERIENCED, (with regard to EXPERIENCING the washing of regeneration, just read the testimonies of a Bunyan, or a Spurgeon, or a Whitefield, ad infinitum), indeed, he who has been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, is absolutely INCENSED at such a foul, unregenerate, despicable heresy like that of Thieme, which, as I stated before, is not new, but is as old as Christianity itself. Thieme only nuanced it and gave it a slightly different terminology, and his feeble-minded followers bought into it as if it were a new thing.

Those who don't consider this matter to be absolutely foundational are those who have never been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who are not absolutely INCENSED at such a blatant blasphemy are those who have never been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ by EXPERIENCE, and who will therefore not set foot in the kingdom of heaven. Not unless they repent with a mighty repentance and beg Jesus Christ to indwell them and make them new creatures.

The false Jesus of modern professing Christendom lets almost everything slide in the name of peace and compassion.

But the true Jesus of the Bible has eyes like a flame of fire, and he is a Spirit of TRUTH, and he -- the TRUE Jesus of the Bible, will SPUE OUT OF HIS MOUTH this generation of lukewarm professing Christendom.

Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is a murderer of souls, and those of us who have seen people born again on the spot, just like in the New Testament, know just how deadly his foul doctrine is.

Only those who haven't a clue as to what constitutes true spiritual warfare, and what constitutes true regeneration, are not incensed at Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ.

But then, the very Jesus that Thieme denies by his foul doctrine stated that the gate is STRAIT, and the way NARROW, which leadeth unto life, and that there be FEW, FEW, FEW that find it.

Not my words, but the words of the TRUE Jesus. Not the FALSE Jesus of modern Christianity, but the TRUE Jesus of the Bible, who said...

"Many are called, but FEW chosen."

Fair warning to all.

THE GREAT APOSTASY (http://lamblion.net/)

acacia
08-28-2009, 05:03 AM
Just wanting to clear something up.
I have read people refer to the late Thieme Jr. as 'Dr. Thieme' or even 'professor Thieme'. Also I have come across a few advertisements over the years mentioning the same.
Thieme never did obtain this award.

bobvenem
08-28-2009, 07:02 AM
Sounds like the same teaching. Always wondered how that got so popular.

SCSaunders
08-28-2009, 10:29 AM
Wow! I knew this post would get comments, but the magnitude! :eek:

As a Scott, I would like to - right now - nominate this thread for the year 2009 "Turd In the Punchbowl Award."

In December, as we come to years end and are looking to January 2010 and reflect on all that happened, please search your hearts and consider nominating this thread for the honor, and I do mean honor, of "Turd In the Punchbowl Award."

If any of you will commit to that, I will commit to writing an acceptance speech now. I would like it to be an elocutionary doosie, a thing of quote-filled speakery.

Thank you Scotts, each and every one of you. Amen.

*Gotta run now. Overrun by emotions. I hate it when people see my like this. (insert sound of one of those pitch-whistle-horn things and then my voice fighting back sobs to clear itself) "When we've been there 10 thousand years, bright shining as the sun ......"

brainout
08-30-2009, 04:05 AM
I've spent the last 8 years (often in 60-hour weeks) using BibleWorks in an attempt to audit the Colonel's teachings, whether right or wrong. I needed to account for them from the Word that I could prove.

Result? I've not found one of the teachings wrong, but have been able to find refinements, i.e., in the Blessing by Association Doctrine, him teaching that believers were used to BUY TIME (i.e., in the Genesis tapes). It's a much bigger doctrine than he taught, and maybe he knew it, but didn't have time to teach.

I've spent the last two years or so posting videos demonstrating from the Hebrew and Greek, many of the doctrines he taught. BibleWorks is a tremendous help in getting the proof visible to even a neophyte in just a few minutes.

So for all the Thieme naysayers, I would caution they revisit the extensive exegesis behind what he taught. It's there. I feel sorry for any of his detractors. They will indeed prove to be poor scholars.

So thanks for posting this, Saunders.

brainout
08-30-2009, 04:49 AM
I don't know what you mean by that. What I do know is that Thieme denied that the physical blood of Jesus Christ had anything to do with the atonement. Like all cults, Thieme spiritualized the Scriptures, including the blood of Jesus Christ.

The fact that his heresy could be so widely accepted today is a sign of the times. Nobody born of the Spirit, which means nobody who has been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, would stomach that heresy for one second. I mean, not for one SECOND.

As Bunyan noted, EVERY man who has ever been washed in that blood, in the blood of Jesus Christ, which means EVERY man who has ever been genuinely born again, will give his life before he will give up the doctrine -- the TRUTH -- of being washed in that blood.

The blood of Jesus Christ is THE foundational doctrine of the atonement, and he who has been washed in that blood by EXPERIENCE, which the Scripture designates as the "washing of regeneration", which all who are regenerated have EXPERIENCED, (with regard to EXPERIENCING the washing of regeneration, just read the testimonies of a Bunyan, or a Spurgeon, or a Whitefield, ad infinitum), indeed, he who has been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, is absolutely INCENSED at such a foul, unregenerate, despicable heresy like that of Thieme, which, as I stated before, is not new, but is as old as Christianity itself. Thieme only nuanced it and gave it a slightly different terminology, and his feeble-minded followers bought into it as if it were a new thing.

Those who don't consider this matter to be absolutely foundational are those who have never been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who are not absolutely INCENSED at such a blatant blasphemy are those who have never been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ by EXPERIENCE, and who will therefore not set foot in the kingdom of heaven. Not unless they repent with a mighty repentance and beg Jesus Christ to indwell them and make them new creatures.

The false Jesus of modern professing Christendom lets almost everything slide in the name of peace and compassion.

But the true Jesus of the Bible has eyes like a flame of fire, and he is a Spirit of TRUTH, and he -- the TRUE Jesus of the Bible, will SPUE OUT OF HIS MOUTH this generation of lukewarm professing Christendom.

Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is a murderer of souls, and those of us who have seen people born again on the spot, just like in the New Testament, know just how deadly his foul doctrine is.

Only those who haven't a clue as to what constitutes true spiritual warfare, and what constitutes true regeneration, are not incensed at Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ.

But then, the very Jesus that Thieme denies by his foul doctrine stated that the gate is STRAIT, and the way NARROW, which leadeth unto life, and that there be FEW, FEW, FEW that find it.

Not my words, but the words of the TRUE Jesus. Not the FALSE Jesus of modern Christianity, but the TRUE Jesus of the Bible, who said...

"Many are called, but FEW chosen."

Fair warning to all.

THE GREAT APOSTASY (http://lamblion.net/)

Isaiah 53:10-11 says He paid for our sins with His THINKING, not His Physical blood. Hebrew keywords are me amal naphesho and bedato yatsdiq . The Chapter started off (really in 52:13) by saying through the mastery of knowledge He will do these things. Then you also have Matt4:4. As for the dual deaths on the Cross, that is also in Isaiah, baldly connecting the dots from Genesis 2:7's plural lives (hayyim), to Gen2:17's plural deaths (muth-tamoth), to 53:8's plural lives again (hayyim), an appositive the translators missed; then to 53:9's plural deaths (bemotayw). I'm transliterating roughly as BHT does, so you should be able to see these things in BibleWorks if you look up the verses. I did videos on them also (using BibleWorks), but presume you can see it more quickly from BibleWorks.

In short, the support to say He paid spiritually by THINKING is Biblical. Souls sin, and therefore thought must be paid by thought while still living, tetelestai. Hope this short explanation helps.

bobvenem
08-30-2009, 08:53 AM
Isaiah 53:10-11 says He paid for our sins with His THINKING, not His Physical blood. Hebrew keywords are me amal naphesho and bedato yatsdiq . The Chapter started off (really in 52:13) by saying through the mastery of knowledge He will do these things. Then you also have Matt4:4. As for the dual deaths on the Cross, that is also in Isaiah, baldly connecting the dots from Genesis 2:7's plural lives (hayyim), to Gen2:17's plural deaths (muth-tamoth), to 53:8's plural lives again (hayyim), an appositive the translators missed; then to 53:9's plural deaths (bemotayw). I'm transliterating roughly as BHT does, so you should be able to see these things in BibleWorks if you look up the verses. I did videos on them also (using BibleWorks), but presume you can see it more quickly from BibleWorks.

In short, the support to say He paid spiritually by THINKING is Biblical. Souls sin, and therefore thought must be paid by thought while still living, tetelestai. Hope this short explanation helps.

Your explanation reads like the teaching of a guy who bought the lexicon but forgot the grammar. For example, "by His knowledge" does not have to be the act of justification (i.e., saved by knowledge), but the ground upon which the Servant performs His act of justification (He knows, therefore He sheds His blood on the cross).

The Genesis 2:7 thing is taken out of context: "breath of lives"..."living soul." Adam didn't have multiple lives; the breath allowed (and allows) multiple lives to come forth through reproduction; he was only one living soul. "Plural deaths" in Genesis 2:17 ("muth-tamoth") is listed as singular in BW.

The same ideas hold in 53:8-9--"land of the lives," as you would translate it, does not refer to multiple lives in each person, but to the aggregate of individual lives in the land; and, again, verse nine's "bemotayw" is singular in BW.

If I've got any facts backwards, somebody let me know. However, this whole thing smells like week-old tuna.

brainout
08-30-2009, 09:19 AM
Your explanation reads like the teaching of a guy who bought the lexicon but forgot the grammar. For example, "by His knowledge" does not have to be the act of justification (i.e., saved by knowledge), but the ground upon which the Servant performs His act of justification (He knows, therefore He sheds His blood on the cross).

The Genesis 2:7 thing is taken out of context: "breath of lives"..."living soul." Adam didn't have multiple lives; the breath allowed (and allows) multiple lives to come forth through reproduction; he was only one living soul. "Plural deaths" in Genesis 2:17 ("muth-tamoth") is listed as singular in BW.

The same ideas hold in 53:8-9--"land of the lives," as you would translate it, does not refer to multiple lives in each person, but to the aggregate of individual lives in the land; and, again, verse nine's "bemotayw" is singular in BW.

If I've got any facts backwards, somebody let me know. However, this whole thing smells like week-old tuna.

In a short forum, one must succinctly state the sources. I see you didn't think over the fact that many other verses tie to those cited. I cover those verses in the roughly 3 hours of videos I did tracing all of the above terms to show how Bible uses them -- which is not as you state here. Sadly, people engage in soundbyte exegesis, and thus overlook the importance of the plurals here.

The plurals resolve centuries-old theological conundra about body, soul, spirit, how sins got paid on the cross, the nature of physical death, the spiritual maturation process post-salvation, and how you can actually become Christlike in your soul, yet remain a fallible human at the same time. Over the next 10 years, others who notice the importance of these plurals will be able to reconcile the conundra. As for the hoi polloi who reject anything new, well.. for them, it will take longer.

Adelphos
08-30-2009, 11:43 AM
"...AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD..." Revelation 5:9

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION." Hebrews 9:22

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

"Unto him that loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD." Revelation 1:5

Those Scriptures (and many more) thoroughly refute the blashphemy of Thieme.

And only those who are ignorant of history think that Thieme's doctrine is new.

brainout
08-30-2009, 12:01 PM
"...AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD..." Revelation 5:9

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION." Hebrews 9:22

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

"Unto him that loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD." Revelation 1:5

Those Scriptures (and many more) thoroughly refute the blashphemy of Thieme.

And only those who are ignorant of history think that Thieme's doctrine is new.

I notice you didn't research the Isaiah 53 connections either, to understand the metaphorical meaning of Blood as CIRCULATING TRUTH, a theme in the Bible from Genesis forward. He can't say tetelestai and be dead at the same time, and mindless corpuscles can't pay God Who Has No Body for sins made by thought while alive in a body. Thought sins. Thought of Truth Pays for Sins.

This is Bible, not Thieme. Thieme just happened to be one (now a group) of pastors who recognized what the Bible means by 'blood' with reference to the Cross. But even if there were no one, the Bible is plain when it talks about the 'heart' circulating thought. Thought is the 'blood' of the soul, and me amal naphesho, Isaiah 53:11, not me amal ha damah.

So the one blaspheming, is not the Bible, surely. :)

Time for soundbyte theology to end, and now that we have fabulous software like BibleWorks, for deep theology to begin. We can now prove in minutes what took past scholars months to even collate. So let's stop standing pat on kindergarten answers which in past times were necessary due to limited research capability. And above all, let us go back to the Bible, rather than what A versus B human said. Bible has its own way of phrasing things. If one pastor gets some things right, that's nice, but not to be deified, as Calvinism does Calvin. Nor as some Thieme people do Thieme.

It's about God and only about Him. And Bible says Christ paid for sins with His Thinking Word, which He lived on, Matt4:4. Not, mindless corpuscles.

Adelphos
08-30-2009, 12:10 PM
I notice you didn't research the Isaiah 53 connections either...

What I notice -- and what everyone else will notice -- is that you didn't research the PLAIN statements of the Scripture references that I just quoted.

All you've just done is demonstrated the mind of a cultist in technicolor.

I quoted a host of actual PLAIN Scriptures dealing with the blood of Jesus Christ.

Instead of dealing with the PLAIN Scriptures on the blood of Jesus Christ, you attempt to divert the truth with a halluncinogenic parlor trick by focusing on a GENERAL attribution of Scripture made hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah and which only fortifies the SPECIFIC statements that were made by the Holy Spirit AFTER the Messiah came.

Let me clue you in on something...

Isaiah 53 doesn't NEGATE the Scriptures I've quoted.

Go and learn what that meaneth.

brainout
08-30-2009, 12:30 PM
What I notice -- and what everyone else will notice -- is that you didn't research the PLAIN statements of the Scripture references that I just quoted.

All you've just done is demonstrated the mind of a cultist in technicolor.

I quoted a host of actual PLAIN Scriptures dealing with the blood of Jesus Christ.

Instead of dealing with the PLAIN Scriptures on the blood of Jesus Christ, you attempt to divert the truth with a halluncinogenic parlor trick by focusing on a GENERAL attribution of Scripture made hundreds of years before the coming of the Messiah and which only fortifies the SPECIFIC statements that were made by the Holy Spirit AFTER the Messiah came.

Let me clue you in on something...

Isaiah 53 doesn't NEGATE the Scriptures I've quoted.

Go and learn what that meaneth.

No, I researched this issue years ago, and wrote a webpage on it, tracing 'blood' throughout the Bible to prove it's a metaphor for thinking. You don't understand Biblical metaphors. Alas, in a short forum, I don't have time to explain it.

This is about God. How He got paid for sins. It is not a topic for sniping. And with that, I will not reply to you further. Good bye.

Adelphos
08-30-2009, 12:41 PM
This is about God. How He got paid for sins.

Actually, your statement is telling yet again, for it's more about Jesus Christ and how HE paid for our sins, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:25-26

Enough said for all who are actually loyal to Jesus Christ, and not to a mere man, and who can sing with those who are truly redeemed...

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, AND HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." Revelation 5:9-10

bobvenem
08-30-2009, 03:06 PM
Brainout,

I don't know. A straightforward reading of Scripture in context strikes me as more profitable than multi-hour audio and video word studies proving a theory.

Thanks for the quick reply, though.

Dan Phillips
08-30-2009, 03:30 PM
So, Brainout, the communion cup ("is my blood") is a metaphor for a metaphor?

There is a simpler, more grammatico-historical explanation.

Adelphos
08-30-2009, 05:56 PM
There is one thing that Thieme and his followers and I agree on...

I have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Thieme and his followers, by their own admission, have not been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

On that we TOTALLY agree.

brainout
08-30-2009, 08:09 PM
So, Brainout, the communion cup ("is my blood") is a metaphor for a metaphor?

There is a simpler, more grammatico-historical explanation.

Wine is a metaphor for blood everywhere in the Bible, you know that well. Thinking is a metaphor for blood as it depicts a circulation in the soul. That too is demonstrated well in Bible. I wrote a long webpage on it, with several lists of verses. Since you're a very busy man, I'd only suggest skimming the first section until you finish the first list of bullets. You'll see the metaphorical descriptions quickly, that way.

Link: http://www.brainout.net/Grail.htm . Page needs editing (I wrote it five years ago) but I don't have time to make it more succinct. So again, just skim the first section, if you want to read it at all. If not, that's fine too. I'm just trying to answer your question quickly. :)

Oh, one more thing: a cardinal hermeneutical faux pas is to always read a word as if it only had one meaning. That you know quite well. When Bible says 'baptism', for example, it doesn't only mean the water kind, but rather 'baptism' is a metaphorical umbrella for at least seven different kinds of identifications which either change a person undergoing them, or witness to a change. Same for 'salvation' (you can be saved from temporal disaster, not only saved to heaven), 'door', 'spirit' (is it human or Holy), 'life' (three kinds, body soul and spirit). This you also know well.

So 'blood' is a metaphorical umbrella also. Important to determine which 'picture' is represented by 'blood'. To solely interpret it as literal each time is eisegesis, as a quick search pan-Bible on the term, will reveal.

Dan Phillips
08-30-2009, 09:01 PM
Thanks, but I think my question was simpler.

Jesus says this cup is my blood. But, pace Rome, we don't believe the cup is really His blood. We believe it represents His blood. It is a metaphor.

But if you agree with Thieme, you don't think His blood means His blood, either. It is, to you, a metaphor.

So the cup is a metaphor of a metaphor. Which, if true — and I robustly believe it isn't — is I think unparalleled.

Were that Christ's meaning, why not say "This cup is My death"?

But the Thieme view makes the cup a symbol of a symbol.

I'm thinking Occam's razor, here.

brainout
08-30-2009, 10:42 PM
Thanks, but I think my question was simpler.

Jesus says this cup is my blood. But, pace Rome, we don't believe the cup is really His blood. We believe it represents His blood. It is a metaphor.

But if you agree with Thieme, you don't think His blood means His blood, either. It is, to you, a metaphor.

So the cup is a metaphor of a metaphor. Which, if true — and I robustly believe it isn't — is I think unparalleled.

Were that Christ's meaning, why not say "This cup is My death"?

But the Thieme view makes the cup a symbol of a symbol.

I'm thinking Occam's razor, here.

What I wrote you had nothing to do with Thieme. It was about what the Bible says and doesn't say. So Occam's razor, since the Bible depicts thinking as the 'blood' of the soul, and says flatly that His Thinking made us righteous in Isaiah 53:11's bedato yatsdiq and 53:11's me amal naphesho -- then 'blood' operates as a metaphor for thinking.

Wine then as a metaphor of 'blood' depicts STILL His Thinking, which indeed we are to drink, metaphor of Water of the Word.

And frankly, after 35+ years of being under Thieme daily (and I have everything he taught on tape right here in this room) -- that's what he taught. What you think or some other person thinks of what he taught, or even what I think, is really besides the point.

Bible is clear on the meaning. It's very straightforward. I don't understand how people can be so confused. Sheer common sense would tell you that mindless corpuscles cannot pay for sins. That's a pagan idea which the RCC adopted early on.

The 'cup' is also a metaphor pan Bible. Idea of a set amount to 'drink' (i.e., suffer), an apportionment. A share, Greek merizw, Romans 12:1-3 tie-in, which ties back to the Greek of Isaiah 53:12, the SHARE OF HIS THINKING, which is the 'booty'. He is our portion, we are His. You know those verses, I don't have to list them. Then you have metron merous (typing from memory, quickly) in Ephesians 4:16. Since you are a pastor, you have a share of 'thinking booty' to teach your congregation, which as it were they 'inherit' from you. So that is your cup which they are to drink.

Have I threaded in enough metaphors? I'll stop now, again so as to not waste your precious time.

Dan Phillips
08-30-2009, 10:54 PM
So... the cup is a metaphor, the wine it contains is a metaphor - of blood, which itself is a metaphor.

Passing strange from a dispensationalist, who would say (as I do say, and try to practice) that his system rests on grammatico-historical exegesis, taking every word at its primary, ordinary and usual literal sense unless context, related passages, or axiomatic truths demand otherwise.

As the words do not so demand, in this case. None of the animals in the Levitical system shed metaphorical blood; the blood given on the altar (Leviticus 17:11) was not metaphorical blood, and the blood Jesus shed on the cross was not metaphorical blood. It may have (and did) signify more; but it did not signify less.

And BTW, I haven't complained of your use of my time, nor do I think I've been personally insulting to you nor to the late Col. Thieme. I simply disagree, and that very strongly.

brainout
08-30-2009, 11:12 PM
So... the cup is a metaphor, the wine it contains is a metaphor - of blood, which itself is a metaphor.

Passing strange from a dispensationalist, who would say (as I do say, and try to practice) that his system rests on grammatico-historical exegesis, taking every word at its primary, ordinary and usual literal sense unless context, related passages, or axiomatic truths demand otherwise.

As the words do not so demand, in this case. None of the animals in the Levitical system shed metaphorical blood; the blood given on the altar (Leviticus 17:11) was not metaphorical blood, and the blood Jesus shed on the cross was not metaphorical blood. It may have (and did) signify more; but it did not signify less.

And BTW, I haven't complained of your use of my time, nor do I think I've been personally insulting to you nor to the late Col. Thieme. I simply disagree, and that very strongly.

NO, you haven't complained about your time, I was trying to be polite and deferential because I respect you and am a subscriber to your blog. I see my comment was taken the wrong way.

As for the metaphorical use of cup, that is well attested by a simple Word search, as in the cup of reeling, cup He is to drink at the Cross, etc. None of those were literal. The literal cup we drink is metaphorical of what He suffered.

You know all this well. So I'm baffled at your text, above. This is sheer Bible terminology, not a denominational issue at all. Bible uses metaphors. Cup, Blood, etc. are all metaphorical. Cup means portion, blood means suffering (i.e., He didn't bleed to death to pay for sins), etc.

It doesn't seem wise to recap what I said in earlier posts. So what, if anything, remains unanswered to your satisfaction? I'm not saying the suffering wasn't real. Metaphors denote real things, but the item depicted is itself not the thing. So a cup is literal, but He didn't literally drink our sins from a cup. 'Blood' is thinking, and that is worse suffering than if He merely died physically, as I tried to explain in my Grail.htm . So if this isn't clear, I don't know what bothers you. It is NOT my intent to cause trouble, but to explain and from Bible, since God alone is important.

ISalzman
08-31-2009, 11:23 AM
What I wrote you had nothing to do with Thieme. It was about what the Bible says and doesn't say. So Occam's razor, since the Bible depicts thinking as the 'blood' of the soul, and says flatly that His Thinking made us righteous in Isaiah 53:11's bedato yatsdiq and 53:10's me amal naphesho -- then 'blood' operates as a metaphor for thinking.



Brainout, for the record, both phrases, "bedato yatsdiq" and "me amal naphesho" occur in Isa 53:11 (neither occurs in 53:10).


(Isaiah 53:11 WTT) מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃

Second, we ought not be troubled at all that God's righteous servant would, by his knowledge, justify the many. The entire section is introduced by the preamble found in Isa 52:13-15. Even there, it says, "My servant yaskil, will deal wisely." It was by his knowledge that he accomplished our justification. However, the actual means or agent, if you will, was by the (his) blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17:11 established that principle early in God's revelation.


"(Leviticus 17:11 NAU) 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'"


Sin had to be paid for by a death. Under the Levitical, Old Covenant system, it was an animal which paid for the sin of the sinner with its life. But even these sacrifices ultimately pointed forward to the eventual and ultimate ransom price: the death of the Messiah himself. God had told Adam and Eve, "in the day you eat thereof (the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), you shall surely die." Sin demanded payment of one's very life (or death, as it were). Messiah Jesus was our ultimate vicarious substitute sacrifice.


Incidentally, the phrase bedato yatsdiq can also be rendered "by the knowledge of him, shall my righteous servant justify the many." As we come to know him intimately, we are justified (cf, they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, Jer. 31:31ff; Knowing is often used to portray salvation). Bedato can be an objective genitive. In other words, he himself is the object of the knowing. I think there's certainly merit to this interpretation. But the entire context of Isaiah 53 must be taken into account and considered here. It is quite obviously talking about the willing substitutionary and vicarious atonement that God's righteous servant makes by laying down his life. It is not his thinking which effects our redemption, but his sacrificial death on our behalf.


Irving

Adelphos
08-31-2009, 11:40 AM
...It is not his thinking which effects our redemption, but his sacrificial death on our behalf.

Very well done, Irving. Your last statement is spot on.

ISalzman
08-31-2009, 11:45 AM
Very well done, Irving. Your last statement is spot on.

Thanks Scott!

bobvenem
08-31-2009, 12:04 PM
Bravo, gentlemen. Much more reasoned responses.

Adelphos
08-31-2009, 12:27 PM
Notice the inescapable connections in just two (out of many) SCRIPTURAL examples...

Example 1:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

Pay attention to the context -- "BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS... THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH"

Here the context demands a linking of the BLOOD of Jesus with his PHYSICAL body, that is, HIS FLESH.

Example 2:

"But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, NOT WITHOUT BLOOD, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people... Neither by the blood of goats and calves, BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:7, 9:12

Once again we see that the context demands a linking of the PHYSICAL blood of animals with the PHYSICAL blood of Jesus Christ -- "NOT WITHOUT BLOOD... BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD"

That's why Bunyan, Whitefield, Owen, ad infinitum, all asserted, and which I also assert -- and all of us in accordance with the actual Scripture -- that once a man has seen himself in the light of the Holy Spirit, which means once a man has seen what he is by nature, which means once a man has seen how utterly, deplorably sinful he truly is, the ONLY thing that can succor him is the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, and he who hasn't seen that truth is he who, as Whitefield stated, has never even been convicted, much less born again.

The above Scriptures, along with all the others I've quoted, can only be denied by one who is WILLFULLY blind.

ISalzman
08-31-2009, 12:41 PM
Notice the inescapable connections in just two (out of many) SCRIPTURAL examples...

Example 1:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH." Hebrews 10:19-20

Pay attention to the context -- "BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS... THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH"

The author couldn't have been more clear. As if someone could possibly miss and misinterpret "the blood of Jesus," comes to tell us the author, "that is to say, his flesh." It is as if both the human and divine authors wanted no one to miss that connection! Notice too, that the author doesn't say, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS THINKING." Hebrews 10:19-20.


Here the context demands a linking of the BLOOD of Jesus with his PHYSICAL body, that is, HIS FLESH.

Example 2:

"But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, NOT WITHOUT BLOOD, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people... Neither by the blood of goats and calves, BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:7, 9:12

Once again we see that the context demands a linking of the PHYSICAL blood of animals with the PHYSICAL blood of Jesus Christ -- "NOT WITHOUT BLOOD... BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD"



Good job, Scott!

Adelphos
08-31-2009, 12:45 PM
The author couldn't have been more clear. As if someone could possibly miss and misinterpret "the blood of Jesus," comes to tell us the author, "that is to say, his flesh." It is as if both the human and divine authors wanted no one to miss that connection!

Exactamundo.

brainout
08-31-2009, 01:22 PM
Brainout, for the record, both phrases, "bedato yatsdiq" and "me amal naphesho" occur in Isa 53:11 (neither occurs in 53:10).


(Isaiah 53:11 WTT) מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשׁוֹ֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתּ֗וֹ יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃

Second, we ought not be troubled at all that God's righteous servant would, by his knowledge, justify the many. The entire section is introduced by the preamble found in Isa 52:13-15. Even there, it says, "My servant yaskil, will deal wisely." It was by his knowledge that he accomplished our justification. However, the actual means or agent, if you will, was by the (his) blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17:11 established that principle early in God's revelation.


"(Leviticus 17:11 NAU) 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'"


Sin had to be paid for by a death. Under the Levitical, Old Covenant system, it was an animal which paid for the sin of the sinner with its life. But even these sacrifices ultimately pointed forward to the eventual and ultimate ransom price: the death of the Messiah himself. God had told Adam and Eve, "in the day you eat thereof (the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), you shall surely die." Sin demanded payment of one's very life (or death, as it were). Messiah Jesus was our ultimate vicarious substitute sacrifice.


Incidentally, the phrase bedato yatsdiq can also be rendered "by the knowledge of him, shall my righteous servant justify the many." As we come to know him intimately, we are justified (cf, they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, Jer. 31:31ff; Knowing is often used to portray salvation). Bedato can be an objective genitive. In other words, he himself is the object of the knowing. I think there's certainly merit to this interpretation. But the entire context of Isaiah 53 must be taken into account and considered here. It is quite obviously talking about the willing substitutionary and vicarious atonement that God's righteous servant makes by laying down his life. It is not his thinking which effects our redemption, but his sacrificial death on our behalf.


Irving

I said it was 53:11. Maybe you read my post before I corrected the typo?

As to the rest of your post, "By means of HIS Thinking Truth Knowlege" is what bedato means: it can NEVER mean by 'knowledge of him', that would require different Hebrew phrasing. So you can't be physically dead and thinking Truth knowledge at the same time. There is no way around that. If His Physical Death paid for sins, then it would be some version of muth plus yatsdiq, not bedato. Very clear. So it's dishonest to claim that physical death paid for sins, as well as illogical, silly, a holdover from pagan belief in magical properties of blood. Period.

There are other errors in your post, but I'll restrict my reply to 52:13 and 53:11. Greek LXX makes it clear with suneisis, which is also used in 52:13, so the tie between 53:11 and 52:13 is intended. Which of course it is, because in 52:13 you have yaskil, the hiphil of sakal. So He is decreed in 52:13 to BE thinking in order to pay for sins, and 'deal wisely' is a pitiful translation. It should be, 'caused by means of mastery of knowledge to prosper'. BY MEANS of is then repeated with the buh in 53:11.

End discussion. This is basic Hebrew, and there's no doubt about its meaning. The vague politically-correct English translations obscure His Dual Deaths, His Dual lives (just like the first Adam, soul and spiritual life), and there's no excuse for such bad scholarship on what should be the most important issue in theology.

Pagan magical blood properties are believed instead, and perpetuated because someone respected but WRONG, believed in such junk (i.e., it started with the RCC). It's as if the FAR HARDER TRUTH of Him matching every incoming imputed sin with counter-thought of truth, pattern of Matt4:4, was somehow worth less than mindless corpuscles. What a degrading mistranslation of how Our Lord paid for sins.

He RECEIVED the imputed sins IN HIS BODY while still ALIVE, and had to counter-think to pay for sins. That is why 'His Flesh' is an important statement in the NT. It wouldn't be an important statement if He were dead, as being dead already wouldn't pay anything. So too, His blood is mindless and cannot pay for sins, whether alive or dead. So the Bible Hebrew is precise, the NT is precise, and it's only muddled translations and theologies which are wrong. The lack of correction over the centuries is a travesty. No excuse for it. More on the insanity of claiming His Physical Death paid for sins is in the link I gave before, here repeated: http://www.brainout.net/Grail.htm . The page goes into other aspects of the magical-blood myths in history and present (i.e., that stupid Da Vinci code nonsense), so only its first section is relevant to this thread.

Pastors who realize the English Bibles obscure His THINKING to pay will grow up and nourish their congregations. There are many of them now, and they aren't necessarily related to Thieme. Those who cling to the old lie that He had to die physically for sins because they eisegete 'blood' as always being literal despite the clear Bible evidence to the contrary, will be stunted pastors, with stunted congregations. Can't mess up the most important doctrine in the Bible and spiritually advance.

I came into this thread because someone emailed me about it. The person couldn't believe the incompetent claim that Christ paid for our sins via Physical death, since the Hebrew so clearly indicates He paid by means of His Thinking. That person wasn't under Thieme, but knew I was, and wondered how anyone could fault him on that interpretation. But I've seen this kind of incompetence for 30 years, and frankly it's disgusting. So with this I leave the thread, having done my due diligence in reply.

ISalzman
08-31-2009, 01:45 PM
Wrong. By means of Thinking Truth Knowlege is what bedato means, and you can't be physically dead and thinking Truth knowledge at the same time.

Really now, is that what da'at means? What do you do with Gen 4:1 then, "And Adam knew Eve, his wife ...?" Was he just "thinking truth" about her? It must have been some creative thinking session because the result of that was that Eve conceived Cain. This is definitely news to me. I don't know if my wife will like this new and novel interpretation. So if she ever complains to me that we haven't been intimate lately, I'll say, "Oh no, honey, I was just thinking truth about you yesterday!" I'll let you know how that works out for me!

There are other errors in what you posted, but this one is enough.

Yes, you're right, I stand corrected now. You've converted me! :) Oy, twice in one life yet!




All kidding aside, I don't mean to be belittling Brainout. I respect you. But one of the major errors of the cults is that they read strange meanings into words; meanings which those words never had. I would encourage you to do a word study of da'at and yada'. Please excuse my ribbing above.

Adelphos
08-31-2009, 02:15 PM
Notice that there is not a SINGLE attempt to confront the Scriptures I quoted. That's because the cultist knows they can't be confronted. I would just LOVE someone to try to come in with the "Greek" on those passages. I can't wait.

The cults all have this (among other things) in common... They set their whole erroneous doctrine on one or two general, or obscure, Scriptures, and then view all other Scripture through the prism of that one or two verses.

They are clueless -- and I mean CLUELESS -- of the SIMPLE axiom that if an intepretation of one Scripture diametrically contradicts other passages of Scripture, then that interpretation is FALSE.

In Brainout's posts, we have seen an extreme example of eisegesis, as well as an extreme, WILLFUL blindness to the rest of the Scriptures.

I've seen this before with other cults. Same old story.

The Scripture says, "The wall is BLACK"

The cult leader then says, "See, my little followers, the Scripture says the wall is WHITE."

And his feeble-minded followers buy into his diametric contradictions wholesale.

It is a documented fact that the Apostle John, who walked with Jesus for those years of his ministry, who saw Jesus transfigured, who saw Jesus resurrected, who saw Jesus ascend into heaven, indeed, it is a documented fact that the Apostle John read the book of Isaiah, for he quoted Isaiah in his Gospel.

And thus we KNOW that the SAME JOHN did not agree with Thieme's blasphemy, for the VERY SAME JOHN wrote --

"...the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST his Son CLEANSETH us from all sin."

Only a willfully blind cultist would accept another man's interpretation of Isaiah over John's, of whom there is not a shred of doubt that he wrote under the unction of the Holy Spirit, who HIMSELF applies that blood to all who truly belong to Jesus Christ.

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-01-2009, 01:20 PM
No, I researched this issue years ago, and wrote a webpage on it, tracing 'blood' throughout the Bible to prove it's a metaphor for thinking. You don't understand Biblical metaphors.

This connection is so far-fetched that I wouldn't even begin to guess how you arrived at such an esoteric connection. Of course, an immediate connection is clear throughout Scripture: Blood generally means bloodshed, thus death. In the sacrificial context, that indicates atoning substitutionary death. See Alan M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word “Blood” in Scripture, Tyndale Monographs 1.12 (London: Tyndale Press, 1947).

Dale A. Brueggemann
09-01-2009, 01:30 PM
it's dishonest to claim that physical death paid for sins, as well as illogical, silly, a holdover from pagan belief in magical properties of blood. Period.

The classical view of substitutionary death/atonement will having nothing to do with a magical view of "life in the blood" transferred to someone else. Quite the opposite, the shed blood signfies substitutinoary death, a penal rather than magical conception. I think Stibbs very thoroughly demonstated that sense his Meaning of the Word “Blood” in Scripture.

acacia
09-03-2009, 01:15 AM
Indeed. "So far-fetched."Hebrews chapter 10 (as quoted previously) tells the reader plain and simple.P. Mitchell in his 1976 dissertation paper, The Soterological Significance of the Physical Sufferings and Death of Christ fully covers Thieme's teachings on this subject and reveals them to be exegesis turned into error and full of logical fallacies.

SCSaunders
09-04-2009, 07:28 AM
Back from the OBX. Wow! :eek:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FWIW - Nags Head is a great place to vacation. I recommend here (http://www.nagsheadinn.com/).

Get one of these (http://store.kittyhawk.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=114779&UnitCde=1&Desc=&VendorDesc=&Search=RegSearch) from KittyHawkKites (http://www.kittyhawk.com/hanggliding/introduction.cfm). I almost dislocated both shoulders on take-off. The on shore winds were howling!

We're definitely going back ASAP and tute sweet.

ISalzman
09-08-2009, 09:53 PM
Back from the OBX. Wow! :eek:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FWIW - Nags Head is a great place to vacation. I recommend here (http://www.nagsheadinn.com/).

Get one of these (http://store.kittyhawk.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=114779&UnitCde=1&Desc=&VendorDesc=&Search=RegSearch) from KittyHawkKites (http://www.kittyhawk.com/hanggliding/introduction.cfm). I almost dislocated both shoulders on take-off. The on shore winds were howling!

We're definitely going back ASAP and tute sweet.

Hey SC, OBX? Grateful if you would decipher.

Precha1
09-08-2009, 11:41 PM
Hey SC, OBX? Grateful if you would decipher.

OBX stands for Outer Banks. A nice resort area in North Carolina.

SCSaunders
09-09-2009, 07:45 AM
OBX stands for Outer Banks. A nice resort area in North Carolina.Thanks Precha1. For my family, it's one tank of gas away. We went to Duck last time and Nags Head this time. I bought an OBX sticker for my truck, same colors as ShrEdward's Frankenstein striped guitar. I'll have it on my back right window and a VH sticker on my back left. It's the simple things. :)

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 09:17 AM
OBX stands for Outer Banks. A nice resort area in North Carolina.

Yes, thanks Precha1.

I've heard about the Outer Banks. My wife sometimes suggests that we should go there for a vacation. From time to time, we like beach vacations, but, for the most part, we've confined ourselves to resort beach towns in our home state of NJ. But we always talk of breaking out of the "box" one year and going somewhere else. Typically, the options that come up in those discussions are the following three: Myrtle Beach, SC, Virginia Beach, VA, and the Outer Banks (or OBX, as you guys have so nobly put it).

I've actually been through Myrtle Beach in the past, though not for vacation and not more than a day. I thought it was beautiful and would make a fun family vacation spot, especially since it seems to be so kid-friendly.

I've not really experienced Virginia Beach, though I was once in the area for a conference at the Founder's Inn. And I've never been to the Outer Banks. I don't know much about the Outer Banks other than having heard that it is highly susceptible to hurricane damage and battering.

At any rate, I don't mean to trouble you too much, but is there anything you could tell me about these three destinations? And which would you choose for a family vacation and why? I would be quite grateful for any insight you might have. Thanks.

Adelphos
09-09-2009, 09:47 AM
And which would you choose for a family vacation and why? I would be quite grateful for any insight you might have. Thanks.

If you go to OBX, try to go to Manteo, and do so while The Lost Colony is playing. My sister, before she died, was in The Lost Colony and I used to fly into Norfolk and then drive south about an hour or so to arrive in Manteo. This is very near to Kitty Hawk, and there are a number of good attractions there. I remember seeing some good hotels/motels, but I of course stayed with my sister and friends. Anyway, it is an experience that everyone should avail himself of if given the opportunity, especially The Lost Colony.

http://www.thelostcolony.org/

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 10:15 AM
If you go to OBX, try to go to Manteo, and do so while The Lost Colony is playing. My sister, before she died, was in The Lost Colony and I used to fly into Norfolk and then drive south about an hour or so to arrive in Manteo. This is very near to Kitty Hawk, and there are a number of good attractions there. I remember seeing some good hotels/motels, but I of course stayed with my sister and friends. Anyway, it is an experience that everyone should avail himself of if given the opportunity, especially The Lost Colony.

http://www.thelostcolony.org/

Interesting. I'd never heard of the Lost Colony. I read about it on the website you linked to. In their own blurb, they say that the fate of the Lost Colony remains unsolved to this day. Does the stage show postulate on their fate? And, if so, does that detract some from the value of the show? The reason I ask this is because I've seen films and movies in the past about real life mysteries, and the films could only claim to speculate on what might have happened. As an example, when you see films or dramatic re-enactments of John F. Kennedy's murder, they can only be speculative at best. Perhaps we'll never truly know whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or as merely the front man for some other sinister group or individual. In addition, people still posit the possibility of there having been a second gunman. (I have no interest in opening this can of worms, trust me!) My point in all this is that one can't put much credence into how any film may portray John F. Kennedy's murder, since so much of it remains speculative. So, vis-a-vis the staged production of the Lost Colony, do they make suppositions about what might have been the fate of the disappeared colonists?

Adelphos
09-09-2009, 10:20 AM
So, vis-a-vis the staged production of the Lost Colony, do they make suppositions about what might have been the fate of the disappeared colonists?

It's been awhile since I last saw it. My sister played Queen Elizabeth the last time I was there. Anyway, as I remember it, the play is pretty straight-forward with the known facts, and only at the ending -- if I remember correctly -- do they leave it open for speculation.

It is a very professional play, with seasoned actors, including sometimes big names, and many times with New York, London, etc., stage actors. Andy Griffith made his home there, and he always associated with the group when the play was in season.

ISalzman
09-09-2009, 10:25 AM
It's been awhile since I last saw it. My sister played Queen Elizabeth the last time I was there. Anyway, as I remember it, the play is pretty straight-forward with the known facts, and only at the ending -- if I remember correctly -- do they leave it open for speculation.

It is a very professional play, with seasoned actors, including sometimes big names, and many times with New York, London, etc., stage actors. Andy Griffith made his home there, and he always associated with the group when the play was in season.

It looks like a great show. Thanks for the heads up. Sorry about your sister, by the way.

SCSaunders
09-10-2009, 07:17 AM
... As a Scott, I would like to - right now - nominate this thread for the year 2009 "Turd In the Punchbowl Award." ...Four more months and this award is all mine!

ISalzman
09-10-2009, 08:41 AM
Four more months and this award is all mine!

We sure are milking it (i.e., this thread) for all it's worth, that's for sure!

SCSaunders
09-10-2009, 09:21 AM
We sure are milking it (i.e., this thread) for all it's worth, that's for sure!Agreed. I really hadn't forgotten that Bob was a lightning rod: but what I had forgotten, was just how much of one.

Now that I've been reminded, I'll go back to sharing this part of my past much more selectively. Lesson learned yet again for the first time.

As for the award. I think I'll go with a crystal punch bowl; because you can get it engraved.

As for the turd, I'm going with a Baby Ruth bar, for longevity reasons. Plus, Caddyshack's turd in in the pool scene was classic.

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/images/oxypowder/caddyshack.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/2uz3zah.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PmMFaVzbzc)
*Best viewed in HQ.

ISalzman
09-10-2009, 09:32 AM
That is funny. I've never seen Caddyshack. I guess I'll have to do that one day, huh?

SCSaunders
09-10-2009, 09:55 AM
That is funny. I've never seen Caddyshack. I guess I'll have to do that one day, huh?

http://i29.tinypic.com/nyadl0.png
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg8lSyGavc4)

Adelphos
09-30-2009, 07:19 AM
A great man is a generous man. Giving and greatness go hand in hand. They are one & the same, because to give is to love, and to love is the supreme duty of man.

True love also hates, and that with a perfect hatred...

"Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Psalm 139:21-22

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Romans 12:9

To understand what true love is, one must understand this...

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." 2 Corinthians 5:10-11

Genez
10-26-2009, 06:12 PM
I notice you didn't research the Isaiah 53 connections either, to understand the metaphorical meaning of Blood as CIRCULATING TRUTH, a theme in the Bible from Genesis forward.

The "circulating truth" takes place only in the regenerate believer's human spirit. The human spirit is the spiritual blood of the believer. The spiritually dead can have no such given life (for circulating truth). They are only soul and body. That is why when Jesus spoke of unbelievers he said, "Let the dead bury their own dead." The spiritually dead bury their physical dead...



He can't say tetelestai and be dead at the same time, and mindless corpuscles can't pay God Who Has No Body for sins made by thought while alive in a body. Thought sins. Thought of Truth Pays for Sins.It impossible to reason with some on this one. Its like trying to tell an RC that Mary can not be the mother of God. Some traditional thinking just will not budge when it has been inculcated all their lives and they do not want to be bothered to shaken out of their comfortable world of acceptance by other traditionalists.


This is Bible, not Thieme. Thieme just happened to be one (now a group) of pastors who recognized what the Bible means by 'blood' with reference to the Cross.
F.F. Bruce in his New International commentary on Hebrews recognized that the term "blood" did not have to refer to physical in regards to Jesus on the Cross. He was hardly a novice at exegeting God's Word.


Grace and peace,

GeneZ
.

PeaceMaker
03-05-2011, 05:05 PM
1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins

http://kingjbible.com/1_corinthians/15.htm

The Hebrew mind clearly believed the literal shed blood was the actual life thereof. They are one in the same to the Hebrew mind. Simple - the blood is shed with the life and the body dies. So? the life is in the blood because that is what came out of the body as the body died. So? Now where does that life go? The blood goes into the hereafter - The afterlife. Blood is seen as literal blood and life - one in the same - and it is alive and the blood speaks and goes into the afterlife. Don't eat the blood because it is a life. That was probably Hebrew advanced science/belief at the time.

"For the life of the flesh in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11, also see Leviticus 17:12, 14; Hebrews 9:22; Genesis 9:4, etc...

The sacrifice for sin was not complete on the Cross as the Apostle Paul clearly states in I Corinthians 15:17 "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." If Jesus had only died that was not enough. Since the "Blood of Christ" purifies/cleanses against sin (I John 1:7, etc ...) then the Blood of Christ clearly is not representative analogy of "death" alone, as so many such as Stibbs, Morris, Nazi Gerhard Kittle, Nazi Johannes Behm et al. claim. see Blood of Abel speaking from the ground, see Blood of Jesus speaketh better things than Abel Hebrews 12:24, Genesis 4:10, etc...

Therefore I Corinthians 15:17 proves CONCLUSIVELY the Blood of Jesus (synecdoche) partly as the Ressurected Life of Jesus continues after the Death on the Cross, because only the Blood of Jesus can purify against sin AND IF sin would have continued after the Death of Jesus if Jesus had only died without Ressurection, THEN clearly the Ressurected life/Blood of Jesus was necessary to cleanse against sin after the Death of Jesus on the Cross.

Thieme's teacher Dr. Chafer(who Thieme reversioned) would have considered Thieme a cult leader for denying the efficacy literal Shed Blood of Jesus.

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?



DR. Wall on the "Blood of Jesus" synecdoche http://withchrist.org/thieme_by_joe_wall.pdf:

[I]Thieme's position evaluated. Thieme is correct in observing that the term blood of Christ is a pregnant term with figurative significance. The problem with Thieme's interpretation is that he restricts the term solely to the spiritual death of Christ and fails to see that it includes not only his spiritual death but also his physical blood and the whole act of dying physically. Such a use of the term is a common literary device in the New Testament known as a “synecdoche,” that is “a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole.”28 Acts 27:37 (A.V.) furnishes an example: "We were in all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls." Here souls is a synecdoche for the whole person. The "blood of Christ" is a synecdoche for the entire event of the crucifixion of Christ on Golgotha, which included the nailing of His hands and feet, His bleeding, His blood, all of His physical suffering of the cross, His separation from the Father as He bore the sins of the world, His physical death, and the piercing of His side. Similar synecdoches are the terms cross, stripes and Calvary. On the one hand, it should be observed that blood of Christ cannot be used solely of the fluid that once flowed in Jesus veins as Walter suggests; otherwise, there are two means of reconciliation: the cross, as stated in Ephesians 2:16, and the blood of Christ, as stated in Ephesians 2:13. Obviously such is not the case; both cross and blood of Christ are synecdoches for the same thing, Christ's suffering and violent death. 29 On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the term blood of Christ is used solely of Christ's spiritual death as Thieme suggests; since New Testament figurative usage of blood includes physical death. In the New Testament the term refers to the total event of death by violent means. In Matthew 23:3 5, Jesus speaks of the "blood of righteous Abel" and "the blood of Zechariah." Obviously death by violent means is in view not spiritual death. Blood is used because the normal violent taking of life in those days was by blood-letting with the sword, spear or other weapon. As such, blood is used as a synecdoche that includes physical blood, not a "representative analogy" that excludes it.




Therefore Dr. Chafer would call Thieme a cult for denying the efficacy of the literal Shed Blood of Jesus.



http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,13233,page=192

Genez
03-05-2011, 08:45 PM
1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins


That is simply meaning that if Christ be not raised from the dead? Then what was heard about his sacrifice was a myth and a lie.

PeaceMaker
03-05-2011, 09:20 PM
That is simply meaning that if Christ be not raised from the dead? Then what was heard about his sacrifice was a myth and a lie.

No what Thieme said about the "Blood of Jesus" was a myth and a lie. You calling the Apostle Paul a liar about all christians sinful condition merely because of rumors that Jesus was not raised. Why would Apostle Paul lie about the chrisitans condition because of untrue rumors? Lol

But? Your irresponsibly dismissal of the clear truth is obvious to anyone and everyone.

But? Regardless EITHER The Apostle Paul is a liar or not.

If the Apostle Paul was NOT a liar then he is telling the whole truth THAT IF Jesus was not raised THEN all christians are still in their sins REGARDLESS of fickle RUMOR. The Apostle Paul told the truth about the Christians condition regardless of rumors.


1 Corinthians 15:17 is really simple if Jesus was not raised then all christians are still in their sins. It's either true or not true. If the Apostle Paul is not a liar then the Blood of Jesus defeating sin goes past the Cross into the Ressurected life.

And the last enemy defeated is death which has not occured even yet!

Genez
03-05-2011, 09:49 PM
No what Thieme said about the "Blood of Jesus" was a myth and a lie. You calling the Apostle Paul a liar about all christians sinful condition merely because of rumors that Jesus was not raised. Why would Apostle Paul lie about the chrisitans condition because of untrue rumors? Lol


Good to see you again, TT. I realize that the RR forum thread has long gone dead. Guess you came here trying to steer others to the other forum? :o

PeaceMaker
03-05-2011, 10:34 PM
Good to see you again, TT. I realize that the RR forum thread has long gone dead. Guess you came here trying to steer others to the other forum? :o

Well I see genez hasn't forgotten how to dodge a straight forward question.

Actually, rickross heated up as of late since Truthtesty smacked down zeebrook, Morris, Kittle, Behm et al. Well it is quiet now that thiemites can no longer defend Thieme's myths there. That's fixin to happen here. Rickross is just a reference.

So whether the Apostle Paul was dispelling a rumor, why would he lie about christians still in sins if Jesus was not risen? Why would he lie that "death only with no Ressurection" would result in christians still being in their sins? He wouldn't. The obvious answer is because "Death alone" was not sufficient. The life from death (Blood of Jesus synecdoche) defeats sin AFTER Death on the Cross.

Now folks watch the infamous Georgia genez "dodge bob and weave". You might want to put on a little Charlie Daniel's music about "the devil went down to Georgia" when reading genez's dodge bob and weave reply.

You can lay that golden fiddle at my feet genez.

"Johnny" PeaceMaker

SCSaunders
03-06-2011, 10:19 AM
Thanks for resurrecting this thread gents. I do love the man (Oooh! That statement ought be a red flag. Oooh! "flag." That almost rhymes with "***"! I had my suspicions.).

50+ years in ministry - at the same locale. I respect that - totally respect that.

And yet, from that one locale so many folks globally, even now posthumously, can come up with reasons to hate that messenger, one who planted a flag (Oooh! He said it again. Is he trying to kiss me?!) solidly in the systematic theology side of biblical ministry. God knows that are still waters.

50+ years. Pastor. Messenger. Systematic Theologian. Local and global. And one solid legacy of provoking perpetual kerfuffle by those that call themselves defenders of Jesus Christ. Do it in the name of heaven girls, you'll by justified in the end (Billy Jack, One Tin Soldier Rides Away).

Ah ladies. Cluck, Cluck Cluck till your estrogen hearts are full. I'm switching from Charlie to Trace though. Fair Warning (Van Halen). With homage songs like "Arlington" and "Til The Last Shot's Fired" - makes me proud that a Colonel had such a spiritual impact in my life.

Dan Phillips
03-06-2011, 11:22 AM
No idea what your blanks mean. Not even dead-sure what the last few comments mean.

But it seems to me that a ministry marked by producing arrogant acolytes cut off from all Biblical Christians of all ages by idiosyncratic terminology, harmful doctrines, and the deadly notion that you can sit at home listening to a tape and call that "church," is hardly a ministry to rejoice over.

SCSaunders
03-06-2011, 11:50 AM
No idea what your blanks mean. Not even dead-sure what the last few comments mean.

But it seems to me that a ministry marked by producing arrogant acolytes cut off from all Biblical Christians of all ages by idiosyncratic terminology, harmful doctrines, and the deadly notion that you can sit at home listening to a tape and call that "church," is hardly a ministry to rejoice over.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Does Polly want a cracker?

You honestly think that all these years later those parroted cliches apply to every single taper. For someone whose forte is intelligence, and you've demonstrated that yours is, I fully concede that; but, it escapes me how it has escaped you.

As for the last few comments, get a fuller life. Leave the cloistered halls once in a while. Thank you for all the work that you do while there (I'm looking forward to your Proverbs project - I recollect you mentioning working on one, one that you had citation price concerns about); but for your own sake, spend some time elsewhere too.

Maybe that elsewhere can be meeting up with me. Will I fit your Thieme paradigm? (I don't completely care, my Christian love for him is not based on your acceptance.) I'll let you vent. I can take it. You'll say nothing I haven't heard ad nauseum. Then when the gales cease, however much spittle was whipped up, I'll squeegee my face and then maybe we can move to something more copacetic, more loving. Certainly bigger miracles have happened.

Realistically, I know this will more than likely never happen, but maybe it will. I can always hope.

Dan, you are a brother and I love you. Colonel Thieme is also my brother and I love him. I look forward to seeing him in heaven. I will thank him. I look forward to seeing you, much sooner - that is my hope. I will thank you too.

Go listen to Trace Atkins "Arlington".....
http://i55.tinypic.com/2jv77o.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOih0MHNmZU)

and "'Till The Last Shot's Fired".......
http://i53.tinypic.com/11uvy48.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqjpG9xYjOc)

Both are moving. Both honor the military, to include veterans such as the Colonel proudly was.

Stephanos
09-19-2011, 06:01 PM
And since I applied that statement, I must clarify and say that neither did I ever consider your statements harsh. I used the terminology simply as a reference in comparison with my own statements, which I also did not consider harsh, because they were far from being so.

To be clear, your statements and my statements were simply the relation of our experiences.



Ditto. I also related my experience, and like you, nor do I share that same sentiment. In fact, now that I've had time to think about it, I remember that in addition to listening to at least a tape or two, I had also read some material by Thieme, which I also found problematic.

And as I said, it only took the one time for me seeing him personally to convince me I was in the presence of a heretic. And I don't make that charge lightly.

Either way, as I said before, Thieme's denial of the blood of Jesus Christ is sheer blasphemy, and I don't really care whether that's considered harsh or not.

Col. Thieme denied that Christ's physical blood was efficacious for our spiritual regeneration. Colonel Thieme did not deny that Christ bled on the cross or during His suffering prior to His crucifixion, but taught emphatically that it is Christ's spiritual death that secured our salvation. His physical death and subsequent resurrection insures our ultimate sanctification at the resurrection of the Church. This is very sound doctrine. References to the Blood of Christ in Hebrews and elsewhere help to clarify that Christ's death on the cross for the sins of the world fulfilled O.T. sacrifices, and clarified that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the Lamb of God prophesied in the Old Testament.

Stephanos
09-19-2011, 10:07 PM
Your explanation reads like the teaching of a guy who bought the lexicon but forgot the grammar. For example, "by His knowledge" does not have to be the act of justification (i.e., saved by knowledge), but the ground upon which the Servant performs His act of justification (He knows, therefore He sheds His blood on the cross).

The Genesis 2:7 thing is taken out of context: "breath of lives"..."living soul." Adam didn't have multiple lives; the breath allowed (and allows) multiple lives to come forth through reproduction; he was only one living soul. "Plural deaths" in Genesis 2:17 ("muth-tamoth") is listed as singular in BW.

The same ideas hold in 53:8-9--"land of the lives," as you would translate it, does not refer to multiple lives in each person, but to the aggregate of individual lives in the land; and, again, verse nine's "bemotayw" is singular in BW.

If I've got any facts backwards, somebody let me know. However, this whole thing smells like week-old tuna.

If Christ's physical blood atoned us, we would not have to die physically, for he would have made us immortal in so doing. He died spiritually for all sin, for all sin begins in the mentality. His physical death secured our "ultimate sanctification"- a resurrection body for every believer, through His resurrection.(Romans 6:5) He then dismissed His spirit when the work of salvation was done- He didn't bleed to death and no man took His life. He gave it up freely on His own initiative (John 10:18)

"breath of lives"- Man was created trichotomous- soul, spirit, and body . After the fall, man is no longer born in the image of God (body, soul, human spirit) but in the image of Adam (dichotomous- soul & body). Each person is born spiritually dead at physical birth.
Man's human spirit is regenerated at the moment of faith in Christ - he once again possesses the "lives"- spiritual and physical life.

jimofbentley
09-20-2011, 06:04 AM
I must admit that I have never listened to one of R.B.Thieme's sermons or read one of his books.

My only connection to him is through my wife's Uncle Jack.

Judging by the account of every member of the family, Uncle Jack was a humble, loving man until he started listening to Thieme.

He ordered Theime tapes. He listened to them constantly. He sought to push them on to his relatives. He suggested that all churches should shut down and everyone should listen to Thieme instead. And, as the story goes, humble and loving Uncle Jack turned into an obnoxious, self-righteous, arrogant man.

This, of course, was not the fault of Thieme, but solely the responsibility of Uncle Jack.

I can only recall meeting Uncle Jack once, and this during the early days as pastor of my first church. Uncle Jack mentioned something (which I cannot recall now) that Thieme was teaching.

To be polite I said, "that sounds interesting, I'll read up more on that when I get home".

Uncle Jack growled at me, "what do you have to read up on it for? Thieme already has it all sorted out"!

You will not hear a good word about Thieme from my wife's family. But this has little to do with his teaching, but solely with the change that came over Uncle Jack as he listened to his teaching.

But, as I said, this was the reponsibility of Uncle Jack, not of Thieme.

Genez
10-23-2011, 07:17 PM
I must admit that I have never listened to one of R.B.Thieme's sermons or read one of his books.

My only connection to him is through my wife's Uncle Jack.

Judging by the account of every member of the family, Uncle Jack was a humble, loving man until he started listening to Thieme.

He ordered Theime tapes. He listened to them constantly. He sought to push them on to his relatives. He suggested that all churches should shut down and everyone should listen to Thieme instead. And, as the story goes, humble and loving Uncle Jack turned into an obnoxious, self-righteous, arrogant man.

That can easily happen to some. To them its like finding a buried treasure chest in a field, and nobody wants to go back with him to see it. So, he over reacts. All the while, seeing others living on pennies a day and accepting it as normal.

That may not sound complimentary, but its what can easily become the perception of the newly baptized into the teachings. They can cause such a reaction. I find Thieme is only for those who are very serious in studying the Word of God. God raised him up for such a person. The casual Christian will often time find Thieme offensive if given enough exposure.

Uncle Jack needs to grow up and listen to some lessons on "people testing." Also, lessons on "impersonal love." If he ever masters the truths contained in these lessons I am sure Uncle Jack will balance out.

If you show Uncle Jack this post I believe he will connect with what I just wrote...


Grace and peace, GeneZ

bkMitchell
10-24-2011, 01:27 AM
The only thing I know about Thieme Jr. is that He helped Mr. SCSaunders(and his family) who started this thread therefore,
Whither I agree with or disagree with Theime's doctrine is irreverent.


I think we can all understand SCSaunders' was expressing his feelings of loss and gratitude.
Sure, we may not personal have those feelings but we who post here could at least be sensitive to SCSaunders who was probably was seeking some form of closure and in need of comfort at the time he started this thread.



"This is the Thread that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on my friend,
Some people started posting here not caring what it was
But they'll continue posting here forever just because...(Repeat)"
Sing to the tune of Lamb Chop's Play-Along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_Chop's_Play-Along), This is the Song that Never ends

Genez
10-24-2011, 02:14 AM
Brian K. Mitchell
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
http://www.mitchellbk.com/backtothesources/

I, having been born a Jew, found Thieme's teaching from the Hebrew texts to be fascinating. While in Bible college a retired Harvard professor who taught ancient languages at the school recommended Thieme to me. I was also told by a black pastor from the ministry, that Berachah church on certain nights could have resembled a synagogue. Apparently, other Jews besides myself found his teachings to be of the highest order. Even my Jewish parents who at one time mocked my Christian faith had a change of attitude after hearing messages by R.B. Thieme. To me it was like seminary training at times coming straight from the pulpit. He is worth checking out. He's not for everybody, but with the sound of some of the critics he has, some folks would not know Thieme is worth checking out.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

bkMitchell
10-24-2011, 10:17 AM
Grace and peace


Genez,

בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר מכל מלמדי, השכלתי

"Ben Zoma says: Who is is wise? One who learns from every one, as it is said: From all my teachers have I gained understanding."

ISalzman
10-24-2011, 11:15 AM
Ah ben Zoma. A source of many good and wise sayings. Thanks Brian. One too many yods at the end of melameday though.

Irving

Genez
10-24-2011, 12:19 PM
Genez,

בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר "מכל מלמדיי, השכלתי

"Ben Zoma says: Who is is wise? One who learns from every one, as it is said: From all my teachers have I gained understanding."




I have teachers. And, I have a teacher. And, I have had teachers. Some taught me what not to do. Some taught what is said. Others taught me what can be.

Grace and peace, GeneZ