genez:
Pastors are not called for peer review.
end genez

that is not true. the apostle paul tells us that scripture is not for private interpretation. interpretation is in fact subject to review by the body of christ, and through the working of the spirit an interpretation is generally accepted which is faithful to the intent of the of author and consistent with christ's own words. of course there is epistemlogical challenges to that, but within the one true holy catholic and apostolic church there is a process of working through the possible interpretations of given passages within a communal and ecumenical setting. we also have the tradition passed to us from christ himself for safekeeping of the truth once for all deposited with the saints. (please save any regurgitation of thieme's blasts about ecumencity for another time. my comment has nothing to do with that loaded term.)

thieme's claims about his "break throughs" based upon his esoteric and superior knowledge of greek is pure laugh-in material. not only was his greek understanding impaired, but his insistence that he and he alone had divined lost and undiscovered truths speaks to his cultish behavior. he claimed numerous times that he was not trying to win popularity contests and had no use for any other biblical scholars because he was on a martyr's mission to save the truth and those who would follow him and him alone. how anti-social and how condescending.

this is all of a disturbed mind. the very fact that he was unwilling to interact with other clergy and scholars speaks volumes about his disturbed sociology and psychology. and what pray tell is someone going to discover after 20 centuries of biblical scholarship? it boggles the mind that he would think that some material new information would emerge. but my oh my how he could split the hairs on a gnat's ass to find pregnant meaning in an aorist passive participle.

he struggled so hard to be noticed, to be regarded as important. in the end he was nothing more than another snake oil salesman who conned many and led them to destruction. and that is giving him credit as a "pastor" rather than a hack for the government.

may the lord have mercies on us all especially to bob thieme if he truly believed all of the distortions which he taught. his legacy is grim. may the lord continue to rescue others caught in that web of deceit. lord have mercies, lord have mercies, lord have mercies in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit....

If anyone would like to read through one or more of Thieme Jr's old published books and ideas, you can download individual books from the following website, which also includes a 4 minute promotional video:-

[www.mustseethisone.com]

Quote
tonyatl
genez:
Pastors are not called for peer review.
end genez

that is not true. the apostle paul tells us that scripture is not for private interpretation. interpretation is in fact subject to review by the body of christ, and through the working of the spirit an interpretation is generally accepted which is faithful to the intent of the of author and consistent with christ's own words. of course there is epistemlogical challenges to that, but within the one true holy catholic and apostolic church there is a process of working through the possible interpretations of given passages within a communal and ecumenical setting. we also have the tradition passed to us from christ himself for safekeeping of the truth once for all deposited with the saints. (please save any regurgitation of thieme's blasts about ecumencity for another time. my comment has nothing to do with that loaded term.)

Peer review is a term for something specific.

Engineers may submit to an assigned committee of engineers, concepts for design for evaluation inj engineering journals. Scientists will submit their theories to other scientists in scientific journals.

Peer review in this case would have been Biblical scholars submitting their ideas to a specific journal for review by other scholars of equal standing.

Pastors have not been called to do that. The fact that some cried out for Thieme to submit to peer review? Right there says something of the level of his teaching. And? If all pastors were to do that? There would be only one denomination as a result. Pastors have not been called to do that.

Of course he was reviewed by who ever wished, as far as all members of the body of Christ. Anyone who wanted to, was free to criticize his teachings and to prove him wrong to others. That is not peer review. That's simply how the body of Christ functions as a whole. His books and tapes were always offered to all without charge to anyone who asked. He was not limiting his teachings for distribution within a controlled closed loop of his church, so no one else could see what he taught.


In Christ, GeneZ

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:


tonyatl: and from personal experience i remember thieme's dogmatic and hysterical assertions about the aorist tense as being "once for all" when it is nothing of the sort. fortunately christianity is more than greek grammar.

gene: That is not what the aorist tense is. Nor, did Thieme teach that. Aoarist tense has to do with something taking place in a point in time. Modifiers to the word can alter at what point, and if its to continue, etc. But, it is never intended in itself to be once and for all. You are possibly confusing the perfect tense, I believe. I attended another church where a Dallas graduate (one of Woolvard's prize students) did criticize some of Thieme's teaching. But, he never said what you are trying to tell others here. He also teaches from the Greek as his norm.


Truthtesty: gene your wrong. tonyatl you are correct. I remember Thieme saying that about the aorist tense. Also evidence from Dr. Wall:

Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation: However, at times he tends to overstate the relevance of etymology28 and the significance of Greek grammar.29

28 For example, he presses the meaning of the Hebrew words for faith beyond their contextual meaning; see his book, The Faith-rest Life, pp. 53, 54.

29 For example, frequently Thieme emphasizes that the aorist tense always means "once-for-all" action. See article by Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aorist," The Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (June 1972): 222-31, for documentation that the aktionsart of the aorist tense is simple past action and does not necessarily demand "momentary, singular, or once and for all" significance. Stagg supported his conclusions with both specific scriptural examples and quotations from grammars by Ernest De Witt Burton and A. T. Robertson.




Truthtesty

Well? Why did I learn from Thieme what I just said? Maybe it was an error in publication. He had taught many times on the aorist tense. I am sure you can find plenty of examples to see that he did not teach that.

There are variations of the aorist tense. In certain contexts (aorist passive) it can indicate a 'once-and-for-all' effect. I have other Greek scholars in my library. The one I am getting this from studied under Greek scholar, Dr. Julius Mantey.



Take a peek at those credentials. And the one teaching this? Teaches Greek at a Seminary. He studied under Dr. Mantey at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary... Ernest R.Cambell. He shows this one example while exegeting 1st Corinthians 6:11.

Looks like we got a problem here. Who's telling the truth?



In Christ, GeneZ

To gene:


Have you ever seen or heard Thieme teach anything that was wrong? If so, will you provide the evidence. Also, can you tell us 3 things that you just simply don't like about Thieme?


Truthtesty

<sub>Quote:
Truthtesty
To the Forum and gene:

Truthtesty: Not exactly. You can run, but you can't hide. You "corrected that" yourself to a point, but you have not apologized for your falsely accusing me of being "absolutely wrong"

gene: If that what you want?

Ok... I'm sorry for falsely accusing you of something you did not say.

Now, let's move on.


Truthtesy: I can apreciate your apology. And I can see why you want to move on. However, what still may not be clear and the Forum should note is that gene accused me of being "absolutely wrong" before and without her fact checking of the sources within Kittle Vol I and the internet article. She stopped short of the necessary sound fact checking with only the internet article about Johann Behm (Königsberg) and illogically jumped and attacked me with a politically motivated false accusation, and did not soundly compare and contrast Johann Behm (Königsberg) and Johannes Behm (Göttingen), with her information from the internet article on Johann Behm (Königsberg) contrasted with information on Johannes Behm (Göttingen)) in Kittel. This shows her irresponsible, incompetent, false research method and her unnatural willingness to make illogical, politically prejudiced, and false accusations which sacrifice truth and reality, to defend Thieme.

Now she has embarassed herself, she was wrong, and she only has herself to blame for it. This is what she should have done as I did:

HERE'S THE PROOF!
In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, on page XV of of Volume I (1964) it has a list of contributing authors. The title is Contributers. Gerhard Kittel is listed as editor from Tübingen. The 3rd on the list of contributing authors is Johannes Behm, Göttingen. Johannes Behm is the only Behm listed FOR THE ENTIRE VOLUME. So as I said previously and now have proven it, It is the same J. Behm that was the author of "Das Neue Testament Deutsch"
As Stated previously on November 04, 2007 04:05

Behm, Johannes
(1883–1948). Prot. theol.; b. Doberan, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Ger.; prof. Königsberg 1920, Göttingen 1923, Berlin 1935. Coed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Other works include Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum; Der Begriff Diatheke in Neuen Testament; Die Bekehrung des Paulus; Die mandäische Religion und das Christenturn.
[216.88.180.29]

Kittle makes many references to Behm. I identified the correct Behm from Kittle's TDNT page 124 Vol VI references Behm Apk. (NT Deutsch I) (Das Neue Testament Deutsch). Kittle's TDNT page 500 Vol IV references J. Behm, NT Deutsch III 1935 (Das Neue Testament Deutsch). It might be possible, however, I have not had the time to research to see if Kittle makes any references Johann Behm (1686-1753).


gene: Now you owe me an apology...

Gene, is masculine gender. Jean, is feminine. In the United States, that is. If I were French, Jean could be masculine.
Now? Apologize for your ignorance, please. You were absolutely wrong on what you assumed. And? So I do not make the same mistake with you? Are you male? Female? Truthtesty is ambiguous. I really do not know what you are.
In Christ, GeneZ
(like in - Gene Kelly.. Gene Autry.. and, Gene Krupa)</sub>



Truthtesty:
Have you ever heard of Gene Tierney? The female American actress? [en.wikipedia.org]

(like in Gene Eliza Tierney)
Born November 19, 1920(1920-11-19)
Brooklyn, New York, U.S.

Who's ignorant? You can't even research your own name. Gene is also a female name, in the United States. Again it is you who is wrong. If you are so sensitive about your name, then you should "drop a hint" to everyone ahead of time.


In any case, what are you doing here? You are trying to start a fight over an issue that's not even related to R. B. Thieme, because I proved you wrong. You seem attack anyone's opinion or "theory" which is not pro-Thieme. It is very rare that you provide evidence to support any of your opinions. Your research methods are poor at best. You run around telling me that I am absolutely wrong, when AGAIN it is you who is wrong. Gene is also a female name in the United States.



Truthtesty

genez:
(like in - Gene Kelly.. Gene Autry.. and, Gene Krupa)
end genez

i thought i was going to have to bring up bob thieme on culture ex nihilo but i have been afforded this lovely segue. and it is pure thieme. who wants hear what bob thieme thought of pop culture? i do! i do! NOT...

bob was always wallowing in the past and finding a "doctrinal" commendation in the big bands and yesteryear's entertainment....not sure if anyone remembers his denigration of glenn miller in favor of benny goodman - that was a doozy....i truly don't care who he liked and i think it speaks to diminished ego that so many patterned their lives and music tastes based on his bombastic pronouncements about who one could and could not like musically....of course bob stated that he did not care but his language and tirades spoke otherwise.

after getting over his domineering dictats on tastes, i was soon able to see his silly pronouncements on "doctrinal" music to be ludicrous. if anyone thinks that moonlight cocktail is more doctrinal than up up and away, i can only suggest that you have "issues". the lord never addressed the subject nor did the apostles except to say to be not conformed. but unfortunately thieme never caught on that there is not a hair's bit of difference between his big band era and the rock and roll era in terms of its claims upon christian virtue and priorities. a life wasted stompin at the savoy is still as much a waste as at woodstock.

the problem here is that thieme was so insecure about life that he equated his pop cultural preferences with "doctrine." the implication and explicit statement was that if you did not have thieme's tastes then you were an inferior christian or in some stage of "reversionism." how sick that he could confuse the mundane with the other wordly. his drive to dominate was so severe and narcissistic that he had to project this view of reality on his mindless and cowed followers who did their best to emulate their fuhrer. again, in classic cult fashion, thieme used violent, vitriolic, and abusive language to conform others into his mold.

and of course he would never let subsequent generations ascend. they were always belittled, ridiculed, and demeaned in the way that only an insecure bully can do.

maybe bob thieme really needed for someone to tie him up and drag him to woodstock. :--O....

i do believe that one could have many constructive conversations about the state of culture but bob thieme was the last person with whom to have it.

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

i had responded to this comment earlier but do not see it posted. perhaps my comments were too controversial or it simply has not been processed for posting yet or did not make it to the moderator inbox. but since this has started my hobby horse to rock, i thought i would make another attempt to comment on this important subject.

i do believe strongly that bob thieme was a cia asset. without "smoking gun" evidence i believe that a reasonable prima facie case can be made that thieme was either directly a cia agent or explicitly cooperative in their aims. once you know how the cia operates, especially in its murder of jfk, it becomes easy to connect the dots between thieme, the military and the cia.

i remember vividly bob thieme's endless lectures about how so vital "doctrinal inculcation" was in light of the purported massive breakdown of american gi pows in korea prisoner camps by their korean and chinese captors. the chinese had superior brainwashing and psyops capabilities which the united states needed to match. indeed the cia started before that time to massively investigate that capability even going into the occult in an attempt to gain an edge over communist abilities.

another point to remember is that the cia made use of many and diverse religious groups to recruit as well as to manipulate opinion. it is my conclusion that berachah church was a military and cia recruiting station. thieme's many innumerable comments about leading cia operations and cold war era figures cements for me those ties.

among the key points: 1. thieme was highly defensive of the cia and big military. eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex was to be laughed off as the foolish comments of a doddering old war hero who did not understand the treacherous times in which we lived. 2. thieme was highly laudatory of the many cold war archie bunkers such as curtis lemay, edwin landsdale, et. al. it is a miracle that we avoided nuclear war with half wits such as these. i think that the defending argument is that they never really meant it because it was for direct soviet consumption. ugh 3. thieme was contemptuous of democracy and although i will grant his distinction between republicanism and democracy he also thought republicanism passe as the usa had outgrown that form of government just as republican rome did when augustus caesar established imperial rome. at the beginning of the roman series thieme went ape#%@& over the foolishness which democracy sends to washington and the need for an enlightened monarchy or oligarchy. this was a leading cia theme during the 1950s and especially 1960s when the kennedys came to power.... 4. thieme bragged frequently how he could become a general any time he wanted but chose to "study and teach doctrine" i mean brainwash the religiously inclined. this speaks of thieme's powerful connections at the time...5. thieme spent massive amounts of energy blasting jfk and spoke of his death as divine discipline. as nixon ineptly alluded on his own tapes, the texas crowd and the bay of pigs fiasco were in a lot of deep doodoo.....clearly thieme's views of the cia and his satisfaction with kennedy's ouster provides another pre-connected dot in my mind. bob thieme was also an inveterate defender of texas oil interests.

the sum total of the foregoing points is that bob thieme's thoughts were so well aligned with the cia AND his connections were so good that it is reasonable that he was not just a cia dupe but an active agent for them.

dear mr moderator - if you did indeed receive a previous post following a similar outline, there is no need to post this version. just let me know that we crossed in the mail so to speak.

Quote
GeneZ

Quote
mile2
GeneZ:

Because several members of my family were followers of Thieme I was exposed to his teachings for over 30 years. I also attended 3 of his conferences as a favor to my family members. I realize that Thieme was more angry in some teachings than in others, but always there was an excessive and unreasonable anger displayed. As I pointed out in my earlier post, even when he read scripture the tone and inflection of his voice was filled with a bitter anger.

Anger in and of itself is not a bad thing. After all, it is a God given natural emotion. But there is an appropriate time and place to show anger. And it should be under our willful control. When children are toddlers they often lose control of their anger and throw temper tantrums. But with maturity they learn to keep their emotions in check. If used in the proper way the emotions God gave us should always serve a purpose and be profitable in some way. Unhealthy people use excessive anger as a means to intimidate and instill fear. (I did notice when I attended Thieme's conferences that those I went with were so fearful that they or someone in our group would accidentally cough loudly or move too much in their seat that they gave several warnings regarding the acceptable behavior. During the teaching they sat totally motionless outside the constant taking of notes, fearing they might offend Thieme and draw down his public wrath on them.)

Thieme's excessive angry rants and sarcastic humor degrading the "fundy preachers who taught subjective nonsense to religious self righteous believers" among other groups was shockingly inappropriate to many listeners. This isn't a matter of personality type. In any group of believers there are a variety of personality types, from the more outspoken to the more reserved and quiet, from the enthusiastic and humorous to those of a more serious bent. But excessive, inappropriate displays of anger are a sign of a personality disorder.

Being in the military does not excuse this behavior in any way. I realize that many soldiers who have been in combat later suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome and have problems controlling their anger, a condition for which they are urged to seek help. But Thieme never served in combat. I grew up in a military family where my father made it his career. I have observed and heard many high ranking officers speak on TV and elsewhere about extremely critical matters, and I am always struck by the one personality trait they all seem to have. And that is a tremendous mental discipline over their emotions and the ability to stay calm when facing very serious threats. These are true patriots. You mentioned the political degeneration of the Carter era and the Cold War, but every period of our history has had its trials and evils to overcome, including the present time.

You mentioned that Thieme was an answer to your prayer. Well, I have heard that said by other followers of Thieme, and strangely enough by another group. Almost every Morman who comes to my front door says they found the Morman faith after prayer and they always encourage me to pray and see if I will be led to recognize the truth of the Book of Morman. I really feel compassion for those young, smiling faces because they are very sincere. But they are sincerely wrong.

Thieme's childhood was, as a matter of fact based on court papers taken under oath, a psychological pit of quicksand. I am sorry for that, but I think it helped produce in Thieme a person of great character flaws. (See my posts on p.62 and p.65.)

mile2

You are all going to believe what you want to believe. The fact that many a pastor in the United States was listening to Thieme means nothing to you. Professor Stan Ashby means nothing to you because he does not serve your desired outcome. The man was Professor of Ancient Languages - Harvard.


Like I said before, he did not always agree with Thieme. But, he recommended him to me. Who agrees 100% with another in the same field? Its healthy when we do not.

Now, as far as that biography? NOTHING was verified.

I contacted the author directly. Here is his response.






Thank you for your email. In answer to your question let me say first of all I believe that for men and women who significantly impact a segment of our society it is beneficial to chronicle their lives for the historical record. The purpose of my biography of Robert B. Thieme Jr. was to record as accurately as possible the facts concerning his life and those of his ancestors. I did not evaluate or comment on his character or Biblical teachings in any way. I also decided not to include personal interviews in order to eliminate any biased viewpoints, either for or against Col Thieme.

My aim was to present all the factual data available, thoroughly documenting their sources, which were for the most part newspaper accounts, other books and articles, and official documents of public record. I'm sure every person reading my book, such as the reviewer you mentioned, will form his or her own opinions, which will be many and varied. But the book itself does not present any opinions or make any judgments on the factual data.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

C.G. Hunt







> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:10:18 -0700
> From: .............
> To: cg-hunt@hotmail.com
> Subject: Contact Us Requested
>
> You have received a contact request from a visitor to your storefront:





Now. if that man was a reporter for a newspaper? He'd be fired for publishing before verifying his facts.

He said he did not do any follow ups, or interviews. The data he collected he did find any verification for.


If Robert Thieme did not have Alzheimer's and his wife in a nursing home, this man most likely would be sued.

And? If this man is so concerned about "men" who impact Christianity? Has he published any other books about other such men? Any other books at all? NO.






In Christ, GeneZ

GeneZ:

You are correct in saying that the fact that many pastors listen to Thieme means nothing to me. There are many more pastors who do not agree with him. Stan Ashby also means nothing to me just because he was a Professor of Ancient Languages at Harvard. There are equally distinguished men who strongly disagree with Thieme. But most important, we should not be followers of men, but followers of our Lord as revealed in Scripture.

Gene, did you even read C.G. Hunt's book? You said nothing was verified. EVERYTHING was verified. I can't believe we are reading the same email from C.G. Hunt. As he said, everything was thoroughly documented, all references were given, nothing was presented as truth outside the factual data. He said he didn't do interviews to eliminate personal bias. You are making false assumptions about this man and his book without even seeing it. How can you impugn his motives and integrity? How can you suggest that he is worthy of a law suit? What has he said that is untrue? I can see no rational reason for your attack on him. But I do know that when someone brings unwelcome news there is a great temptation to fall into the "kill the messenger" syndrome. That is what you are doing here and it is unfair to C.G. Hunt and to yourself, if you are really seeking to know the truth.

mile2