[Home Page] [Due Diligence Disclosure on God's Design] [Site Purpose (Bias disclosure)] [Surprising Conclusions from my website research.]
Note to my fellow RBT congregation members and tapers, Cont.

Update (February '09),
where my webpages seem to 'differ' from Thieme:
click here.

Pastor is to teach you to THINK DOCTRINE. Any teacher's purpose is to teach thinking, really. So it's not wrong to take what you learn, and play with it. It IS wrong to take what you learn as a catechism, rotely repeating it as if you honored your teacher/ parent/ authority that way. Yet man imagines that with reference to God, he should engage in rituals and taboos, memorize Bible, parrot his teacher; and, those who don't do those things, must be evil. Hence some feel that if one independently uses what was learned, draws further conclusions, or even (seemingly) contrary ones, such 'unauthorized' use of the material 'undermines authority.'

    This childish idea pervades all academic endeavor (it's really bad in science, seminaries, and local churches); and especially, any learning about God. It's pathetic: hence no one really learns anything; what passes for knowledge and wisdom is like bobbing in front of the Wailing Wall; like Trivial Pursuit; like flashcards.

    On the other hand, God wants us to SYNTHESIZE from what He teaches us, out from the pastors He appoints for us: Isa53:11 (LXX) and Matt4:4 & Eph4:11-16, not Zech7:3-6. One demonstrates the efficacy of that authority by independent USE of what was learned.

So I must synthesize in writing what I'd learned under the Col. to test my own comprehension and the overall doctrinal fit. So the purpose of these sites is to extrapolate, not summarize or repeat what he teaches, especially since his material is copyrighted, and I feel there's no substitute for hearing the audiotapes sequentially. So I'm rabidly addicted to RBT; but the Lord won't exactly give me any brownie points for that: do I really understand what His Son's Thinking, Bible Doctrine, ADDS UP to? Not just, do you know what Operation Z is, or hamartiology, the Cross components, the Essence of God, etc. in the vocabulary we RBTers, all know. But, what do all those facts, mean in sum? The whole realm of doctrine adds up to a Picture: Him. Who, ideally, the Christian lives on. We are held accountable for what doctrines WE buy, not for who teaches us. Teachers are themselves individually accountable; but they are NOT to blame, for what WE buy. Caveat emptor.

    Hence all this writing, a good 1500+ printed pages of it: consider it my own "due diligence", like analysis one must do before buying stock, property, a business. 'Buying' a doctrine is so much more critical, impacts one forever! Whether anyone else ever reads anything written here, cannot and should not, matter. We are individually accountable to the Lord. Therefore, it also doesn't matter if the material seems to or does agree with the material taught, in the eyes of another reader. What matters instead: did GOD lead me here to read anything? And if so, what and why? The matter is between the Lord and the reader, only.

Thus 'my' websites include side research, so the writing won't ape what he teaches. As a consequence the websites not only synthesize what I've learned, but also the research results. That's why they are heavy and (usually) long. The research resoundingly corroborates what he teaches, what a royal surprise. Still, the objective is to get the Mind of Christ.

    Hence, each of 'my' webpages uses a secular discipline's vocabulary slant, akin to the Colonel's analogies from Scripture to football, science, history, military science. So, some webpages have an accounting/actuarial pension/ (Angelic) Trial legal/historical/ military slant (Dedicated.htm, "Thinking" series, Paradox.htm); a politico-diplomatic slant (DueDisclosure.htm); math/ physics/ science slant (Evolshort.htm, Fixes.htm, parts of DueDisclosure.htm and SatStrat.htm).

    You know: when he talks the Civil War, football or military science, don't you have to sometimes go running to a history book, military dictionary or ask a football expert, so you can better get what was taught? In addition to those resources, the many good encyclopedias and BibleWorks 5 have proven valuable. BibleWorks 8 has even more collateral reference material, plus the Targums, Peshitta, Mounce, Wallace, and little Kittle. Tim Dowley's The Atlas of Bible and Christianity (which you can purchase at Amazon) is also a helpful addition.

    Therefore, please do not deem my website vocabulary to be 'New Age', etc. Rather, classical theology terms are often fuzzy. So I try to rephrase the same ideas, with clearer language that is not loaded with legalism.

Still, the webpages stem largely from hearing his tapes, since I'm turning over what I learned. It's surprising how easy it was to corroborate class material in Scripture. For what it's worth, I've heard '81 Revelation, PPG, '85 Ephesians, David, Colossians, 1991 Israel, Jas4, Romans (not all), Hebrews, 1980 1Jn (not all), '92SD (through 2001, currently in it); others are partial series, or really old ones, like GAP, Genesis, Assyrian Crisis, etc. I have almost all of his recorded teaching through the year 2001; I haven't yet heard it all, of course.

    The older series are valuable background for the post-1985 material; you can see how he grew in understanding, why he made the revisions; further, the older tapes are much more exegesis-heavy; '85 et. seq. tends to be post-graduate-level speed: i.e., very advanced, refined, corollaic, so if you don't know how he 'got there', you won't as well understand what he says. Hence my bias that the tapes should be heard sequentially. You see his own spiritual understanding burgeon, so the process of that understanding, also burgeons in you.

    This is particularly true with reference to the development of what became his "Love is the Integrity of God" theme from May 2000, onward. You can trace how it began and developed if you start in the 1977 Romans series, and then listen sequentially. From Romans, came 1Jn and then Revelation, then 85 Ephesians, then 91 Israel and James 4, then 92 Spiritual Dynamics. In that latter series, beginning at the tail end of 1996, the Love-is-the-Integrity-of-God doctrine is laid out. I actually learned the doctrine itself from the 1997+ tapes, and wrote LordvSatan1.htm's "Integrity Properties" section as a result, back during the year 2000. Four years later, I heard what he was teaching back in 2000. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to see that the "Integrity Properties" in LordvSatan1.htm already summarized what he said! So the flow of development, is discernible.

    Far as I'm concerned, his "Love is the Integrity of God" answers all the theological conundra which have plagued Christianity for centuries: simple circle of Love from the Love contract of Isa53:10-12, referred back to over and over again in the NT, by the subjective-and-objective genitive of agape. Awesome economy and deft expression, in God's Word. Will take mainstream theology perhaps a century, to discern and expatiate on how this "Love is the Integrity of God" is the capstone answer to all theological debate, apparent discrepancies, contradictions, etc. in our understanding of Bible. Can't put my spiritual life on hold waiting for credentialed folks to discover what the Word of God already perfectly says, however. So much about 'Thieme's Theme', as I like to call it, pervades my websites.

Of course, RBT teaches so well he makes it easy to find the proof. You can tell exactly why a translation he renders, is apt, especially now with Bible software tools. Unfortunately, you can thus also tell 'Christianity' is downright incompetent, i.e., Bible translation/interpretation errors would flunk first-year Greek/Hebrew, in seminary. Some things, one would rather not know. Because this incompetence is so great, a lot of webspace is spent on it (in a broad-brush, impersonal way): I have to account for the divergences between what the Col. says and what the others say about Bible. Yet past teachers and theologians didn't have Bible software. Thanks to their very hard work, we can get Bible and their commentaries, on computer. So: if those who made mistakes had the same tools we do -- would they have made those mistakes? I doubt it, don't you? So to honor them, seriously -- let's find the mistakes and CORRECT them before the 21st century ends. They'd surely do that favor for us, were we the ones who made the errors. Caveats and "Testing" section on this page thus focus on the incompetences; though every site is sprinkled with stuff on this problem.

BONUS: the vast incompetence yields an empirically-testable pattern of satanic involvement which -- if you know what the Colonel has taught on the Angelic Conflict -- exactly matches what he's taught. Hence my "Thinking" series' Appendix (SatStrat.htm) was born from the pattern of the incompetence being so evident. Satan's attacks all have a "DIOS" pattern, to make God 'foreign' to us: Derision, Imbalance, Obfuscation, Substitution. Satan&Co. follow this pattern religiously (heh) in everything from politics to how they get Bible verses to be mistranslated. So once you know the pattern, you can empirically test it on anything. Predictable like the sunrise. So the larger issue is not man's incompetence, but demonic involvement to 'encourage' us hapless humans, to be goofy about God. Hence I'll sound critical, and often: to point out how stupid and blind we have been -- thus the only possible explanation for such stupidity and blindness, is the 'help' our negative volitions get, from Satan&Co. In which case, the motive to blame anyone for anything, dies: for who of us isn't blind? Hence the reason for dissecting error, is to learn how to spot Satan&Co.'s attacks in our own lives; to find our own landmines of negativity; not, to point fingers at others.

    It's vital to empirically test Satan&Co.'s strategy and tactics. The pattern is always the same, so is covered in detail within SatStrat.htm. Consequently, one soon forgets 'who' made errors, for we ALL are targets! Once you can identify each 'Corvette' they fly -- so you can spot "Incoming!" when it happens.. rather than afterwards. Thus your fallen comrades did not fall in vain.

Ergo, I shy from using the Col.'s nomenclature, to avoid aping him. For, it's not about the Colonel; it's about WHAT BIBLE SAYS.

    See, most who will read these webpages are clueless as to his vocabulary; they have at most heard of some old book or short-term student's personal reaction to him or the church. As a consequence there is a thoroughly baseless rancor against either him, or others of the church. So one shouldn't sound denominational, since it's Scripture which matters. Not, the teacher's packaging OF that Scripture.

    People both within and without the church have long been trying to turn Col's teaching into a denomination; surely that movement will continue, and at length, 'succeed'. Which movement, is amply demonstrated on the internet: instead of competently analyzing his teaching with respect to its content, a website writer often makes the Col. himself the focus, whether pro- OR con- his ministry. Nor can they well summarize or refute any content he's taught.

    On the other side of the ledger, too many RBTers just parrot the Col.'s teachings and vocabulary; they are trying to be faithful, of course. But it comes off as slavish and non-thinking, as if promoting the teacher, rather than learning what was taught; which gives those who seek to vilify him, even more (unwarranted) fuel.

    This is how Satan religifies: he sets up attackers, which makes those under a teacher, constrained to evidence doglike loyalty.

Since the Colonel died, there's been an increase in the tendency of those who heard his teaching, to coalesce into a new denomination. This tendency is abetted by those opposed, the so-called Thieme-bashers of the 1960's and 1970's, who like bad pennies, always turn up when Thieme gets attention. This accentuates polarization, which kills theological advance. So another flavor of Revelation 17 harlotry will result, replaying what Acts wryly records as Christianity's first-century foibles. Instead of learning from the Lord, the dippy Jerusalem Christians went back to the Mosaic Law and morphed what they were given, into the religion that culminated in Catholicism and Protestantism, today. Demon nations. Not, Bible.

    So if we under RBT likewise tighten into a denomination, we will fail what Thieme taught as "the tandem": b) learn Bible, in order to a) learn to Love GOD. Failure means having b) but not a), thus becoming legalistic: that's the history of Christianity. Yet a) but not b), creates emotionalistic religiosity: that too, is the history of Christianity. You see both failure types all over Bible, especially in Acts, Corinthians, Galatians.

    Many within the RBT-taught groups now illustrate b) without a corresponding a), hence our excessive focus on how DOCTRINAL we are. Even if we get all the doctrine right but don't have Love, we are nothing, says 1Cor13:1-3.

    Now if b) is too divorced from a), then even b) corrodes. So notice that some RBT pulpit practitioners, slowly morph teaching toward false doctrines, i.e., faith-plus salvation ideas, a delay between Rapture and Tribulation; a claim Temple practices post-Crucifixion, Daniel 9:27, Revelation 11, are valid; that Christ's literal blood paid for something; that (lol!) He had to TAKE HIS BLOOD to heaven for His Payment to be efficacious, etc.

    Among these creeping falsehoods, the notion of a valid Rev 11 Temple, is most frightening. Satan has tried to get Temple rebuilt ever since its 2nd demise, for he knows -- even if we Christians do not -- that God will never authorize its rebuilding until the 2nd Advent. Thus any rebuilding will be used to Herd And Kill Jews. It's not as if the Bible didn't warn of this, in Matt24, whole book of Hebrews, pointing back to Ezekiel 39. It's not as if Revelation 11's sarcasm were subtle, John being given a REED for writing, not the actual tool for a real Temple foundation one has to use.

    Ergo, those who teach Temple in Rev 11 as valid, abet the destruction of the Jews. Those who think the 1948 foundation of Israel was a fulfillment of Ezekiel, alike abet the destruction of the Jews. There are hundreds of pastors and maybe a million believers who believe like this. They mean to accommodate the Jews. That's the problem. To soften the harsh statements of the Bible, some Christians in pulpits and elsewhere, downplay its meaning of No Temple Means No Contract Hence No Nation Israel Is Yet Covenantally Valid. Thus they not only excuse disbelief in Christ, but they abet the destruction of the Jews by claiming a legitimacy to Temple rebuilding. This same 'accommodation' resulted in many rebuilding attempts over the last 2000 years. Each time, the Jews were hurt, caught in the cross-fire between contending 'friends', or pogromized by the conquering 'friends'. Upshot Warning? Do Not Trust Your Friends, trust only GOD!

    Doesn't mean God has abandoned the Jews. Doesn't mean polity named "Israel" is forbidden. For Israel was forced by pogroms to be formed -- but that doesn't mean God ordered it. The distinction must be made, lest the Jews think They Are Again In Divine Favor And Don't Need The Messiah. We defend Israel wherever she is, to be sure. But let's not convey a Biblical legitimacy to the Temple or the re-convening of a polity, which the Bible flatly contradicts. If we give out that this activity is a fulfillment of prophecy as if it were right, then we are to blame for millions of future Jewish deaths. Prophecy foretells negative things, too. In that sense, it is a Warning Against the thing prophesied. That's what Daniel 9:27 and the Lord's commentary on it in Matt24, are about. So anyone claiming a pre-Millennial Temple is valid, contradicts Christ's Warning, and thus helps kill Jews. Unwittingly, of course!

    What's most frightening about the misapprehension is the blindness to God's sarcastic markers IN Revelation 11. If the teachers in the movement and the students in the movement can't recognize the sanctified sarcasm, it means they are refusing the Spirit on this topic, so on this topic revert to carnality. It's not a case of a "genuine difference of opinion" in Bible. It's a life-or-death matter for the Jews. You'll see that, in what follows.

    Clearly the temple of Daniel 9:27 isn't valid. The "daily sacrifices" were only valid in the OT Temple. They stopped, at God's order when the Temple was razed. You don't see any authorized sacrifices again, until the Millennial Temple. Duh. So lookie here, in Revelation 11, we have eleven WRONGS to warn us this is a FAKE TEMPLE:

    1. WRONG AUTHORIZATION: God isn't authorizing this Temple. Even the voice giving the command, isn't identified. In Roman and even modern culture, an "anonymous" speaker is NOT to be considered an authority. Here in Revelation 11, were it GOD's order we'd know about that, because in other verses care is taken to say it's an order from God. Of course, if it's a sarcastic order, then it's not a REAL order and the namelessness makes a point of that fact. Bitingly. Here, the one who gives John the 'reed' sarcastically says 'you go measure'. So it's the WRONG authorization, and John should not obey it. As you'll see later on in the Chapter, he never does. Instead, he keeps obeying Revelation 10:11.. prophesy again...
    2. WRONG TYPE OF BEING: John is given an order which should have gone to an angel -- for all 'measure' orders go to angels, not humans. By contrast, man gets the Lord's warning not to measure (judge), Matt7:1-5. The Millennial Temple is the last such order Eze 40:3 -- and an angel, does it. For the Temple represents God's Rule On Earth, get the pun?
    3. WRONG COVENANTAL PERSON: John is doubly the wrong person to get that order, since it's about Israel, but John represents Church. See the clever sarcasm? Church will judge angels at the Second Advent, 1Cor6:3. But never, Jews.
    4. WRONG INSTRUMENT: John is given a REED, not a rod. You write with reeds (same Greek word, kalamos, sarcastic wordplay in Rev11). A reed which is "like" (Greek homoios) a rod, is still not a rod, notice the distinction? So: a Fake Temple gets a Fake 'Rod' for its foundation command! Could God be more sarcastic?
    5. WRONG ACTION: hence John never measures anything. In Rev 10, he's commanded to 'eat' the book, and records himself doing so. Revelation 11 et seq., is the output. Notice that here, he's commanded to measure with the wrong instrument something treated as if it didn't exist, so what does he do to 'obey'? Nothing. Because, nothing is treated as EXISTING atop the Temple Mount. Of course, the pun is that just as at the very moment John is alive, no Temple exists, so also the Fake Temple in Revelation 11, is like the ground 'now' at the time of writing. God is nothing, if not punny. Rev11 piles one pun on another, in the chapter.

        Contrast with Ezekiel 40, where in another period where there was no Temple, Ezekiel is taken to WATCH its reconstruction and TELL of its dimensions. Here in Revelation you see no construction, and no dimensions are given. Yeah, because NO VALID TEMPLE IS THERE! Could God be more obviously sarcastic, parallelling John to Ezekiel (parallel started in Chapter 10 with the 'eat' command) -- but then God is suddenly SILENT about the Temple? You realize, I hope, that a good 50% of OT text is spent ON the Temple in one rhetorical way or another, for the Temple depicts Christ-Come-in-the-Flesh. So how come, silence here?

    6. WRONG TIMING: with a real rod, you'd then measure a FOUNDATION, which means any building standing there, is Treated As If It Didn't Exist. For PRIOR to building, you must first dig the foundation FOR that building. So God's treating the alleged "Temple of God" building that's there, as Having No Foundation, get it? So John's reminding everyone of
      • Jeremiah 7:4 (that whole chapter forecasts what Israel will fail to remember, giving rise TO Revelation 11); Matt24 is the NT parallel.
      • The Lord's warning not to build except on Him, Matt7:24-29 (remember, Matthew 7's 'fruits' and 'works' relate to Doctrines Believed, never deeds).
      • See also 1Cor3:11.
      • And Christ doesn't return until the 2nd Advent, so no Temple until then, Isaiah 61-63, Ezekiel (parallel) 39ff.
      • Thus here in Revelation 11, you have a baldly offensive advertisement of God's DISapproval. Treating the building as 'dead', aka "get" (divorce, disinheritance) in Jewish law.
    7. WRONG CLOTHING: Hence Two Witnesses are instead there -- rather than the Lord -- dressed in Mourning-For-Temple Sackcloth. So they're treating the Temple as DEAD, also.
    8. WRONG AREA: Moreover, the Witnesses only cover the Temple Mount, the Holy Of Holies, into which no one but the High Priest could even enter.
    9. WRONG ENTRY: 11:1's "worshippers" in the "Temple of God" should NOT be where God is ordering the measure. So then they don't know the Law, or don't care about the Law, and thus aren't worshipping GOD, but some hallucinated idea of 'god'.
    10. WRONG ACCESS: If they are outside that area as they were forced to be per the Mosaic Law, then lookie here: the outer court (the rest of the area) is given into enemy hands. So then the enemy controls ACCESS, get it? The enemy is forbidden from the Holy of Holies, which is the Temple Mount -- of course today, everyone's trampling the Temple Mount in contravention of the Law (i.e., the Muslim pilgrims inside the Dome). So the Witnesses end that access. And the enemy, the Gentiles -- have all other access for the next 42 months. So then -- No Worshippers Are Valid, get it?
    11. WRONG 'INVITATION': So what are the Two Witnesses doing there? Warning Everyone Away. So clearly if the Temple was valid, they'd a) not be in sackcloth, and b) not be blocking the entrance at the Temple Mount. Duh.

    It's no wonder, then, that the Two Witnesses CAN be killed. They shouldn't have had to be there, in the first place. They ARE there -- I bet -- as two of the 144,000 evangelists who suddenly come to exist at the beginning of the Tribulation. (Again, there is no evidence in Bible that these are resurrected believers from the OT; rather, it's a traditional Dispensational conjecture made from Zechariah 4's two olive trees. Since God doesn't identify them as resurrected believers, we shouldn't, either. "Olive tree" and "lampstand" are used pan-Bible for REPRESENTATIVES for God, i.e., pastors or local churches in Rev 1-3, the near context. Contemporary, is more in keeping with the passage, rather than 'resurrected' like Moses and Elijah.)

    In my pages, the historical attempts to rebuild the Temple, show Satan actually plays on a schedule keyed to the 70AD destruction: click here. There you'll also see a four-part video series, titled "How Satan deploys Islam". Temple rebuilding is Satan's 'shub' plan, in 'answer' to God's Orchestration of Time in 490-year increments, and in particular, Satan plays on Exodus 12:40-41's 430-year time span: for his invasions of Jerusalem aim at 'keeping' to that 'schedule': 638AD, 1073AD, 1517AD, and 1948+AD. (More on the 490-year Time Grants is in the last section of this page, on how my webpages seem to differ from Thieme.)

    Revelation 11 is examined here, here, and here in my webpages. Christians are so blubbery about the Rapture they think that if the Bible says a thing, it must be okay with God. NO, Bible often tells you things that are BAD, so you can learn to AVOID them. This is bad, to rebuild the Temple. It's Satan's Chanukah II, playing off the Lord's Birthday, just as was done back in 164BC. But we didn't listen to Haggai 2, so we didn't listen to Daniel 7 and 8, so we won't listen to Daniel 9-12, as echoed here in Revelation 11 (and 12).

    The history of Temple rebuilding attempts can also be found many places on the internet as well. That people are so clueless about the Bible's BALD advertisement that NO TEMPLE WILL BE AUTHORIZED UNTIL THE SECOND ADVENT, per Daniel 9:26's "until the end", Matt 24, Isaiah 63, and Ezekiel 39, tells us that when we don't want to accept what God says, we won't. Even, when we regularly use 1Jn1:9. It's frightening.

    Thus 'the doctrinal movement', swayed as it is by human approbation, contradicts Bible. Its practitioners use RBT vocabulary, so you are fooled into thinking that

      a) Thieme taught those falsehoods (i.e., he instead stridently explained how the 1948 Israel formation was not from God, and that the Temple should not be rebuilt); and

      b) BIBLE says those falsehoods.

    Your big hint 'the doctrinal movement' people are way off the mark: their bios and websites also appeal to you on the grounds of how respectable, in-demand/popular, how much-travelled they are. In short, the TRUTH CONTENT of what they say -- which is the only valid criterion, discernible from anyone in under five minutes -- is not the appeal made. Warning, Bill Robinson!

    Again, history repeats itself. By the 90's AD you had the beginning of the bilious "Church Fathers", whose apostacy was so bad, you need Pepto-Bismol to read even 1 Clement, for example. So should you wonder that a 'movement' with its human-viewpoint 'consensus' standards, would result in those silly "councils" of Constantine's day?

    Now, since "the doctrinal movement" is going off in the wrong direction, you shouldn't be surprised to know that it has critics. You can view these critics simply by Googling "The Doctrinal Movement". And oh, when you read their critiques, you realize the critics are even more off-base, even more anti-Bible. Thus Satan works his own tandem: 1) distort the Truth and then 2) advertise the distortion by raising up another even more distorted view, as a critic of the first distorted view. Thus 1) the truth becomes too complicated to know, and 2) one ends up picking one or the other, false 'sides'. This too, has been the history of Christianity.

    By contrast, Thieme constantly harped on using Bible to "apprehend the exact thought of the WRITER". Not, to make the Bible fit into one's prescribed doctrinal classifications. For, BIBLE is first, not our doctrines from it. Once the process of learning Bible is reversed into making it corroborate what you believe, you make what you believe the god instead of God. That's precisely how Catholicism got started: a bowel movement. Let's not ruin the teaching we got by denominizing it, k? For then we demonize and deminimize it.

    So I'm not trying to 'sell' the Col.'s ministry, as God needs no help -- remember when the Colonel said we don't get out and "push the plane"? Nor do I mask the fact I'm merely a student under him, writing webpages so to understand his teaching of Bible Doctrine better.

To sum up, my websites synthesize and extrapolate from RBT, but do not parrot; the goal is to account for what BIBLE says, not to ape or even defend a teacher. If the teacher is corroborated, then God did that, and I'm glad to see it. But the first goal is Christ first.. in me. In you. For, we all must account for what we learned down here, when we go 'up there', at the Revelation 4:1 Rapture Trumpet. Hence if you see something in these sites you feel is wrong or unhelpful, please email me: I assume God means me to read carefully whatever you say. No one but me writes these pages.. so mistakes must exist.

Update Note, February '09:
where my websites seem to 'differ' from Thieme.

From what I can tell, my website material corroborates and extrapolates from the 50 years of classes R.B. Thieme Jr. It wasn't really my intention to corroborate, so much as to vet the data myself. But corroboration has largely been the result.

Bear in mind that GOOD teachers constantly revise what they've taught in the past, to upgrade. So if you're familiar with, say, classes from 40 years ago, much of that material was revised in 1997 et seq. of 1992 Spiritual Dynamics (Series 376, running 12 years total). Teaching is an ongoing process, very academic, always pressing forward.

Good teaching never stands pat on past lessons. It always upgrades.

Having said this, my website material does seem to differ from the teaching in these key advanced respects:

More specifically, my webpage 'differences' versus Thieme are as follows. The videos and webpages listed in 1-5 above, show extensive Bible backup and explain how these 'differences' were derived. I want to stress that every 'difference' ends up vindicating something he taught. He himself was always seeking to refine and correct what he taught, as you can repeatedly hear him say from 1985 onward, in class.

Now, it's possible that Thieme knew all this already, but as yet I can't find it in the lessons. Hence I try to extensively document all this accounting from Bible; plus you'll find an Excel spreadsheet timeline using ONLY the Bible's method of dating from Adam through 2007, so you can vet 'my' claims. This information is totally unknown to Christendom, so there is nothing like this material on the internet; PLEASE be skeptical of 'my' material until you see it for yourself. The primary webpage is: Mirroring.htm, and within its first table are several other links to assist in vetting. So just read that first table in Mirroring.htm for more details, plus the associated links. On the Passover dating, you'll want to review PassPlot.htm, which 'fits' the Lord's Chanukah 4BC Birthdate (covered by the Colonel in the year 2000 92SD classes) with His Death date, proving from Bible how Bible exactly predicted both to the very day. So we have no excuse to not know when He was born, and when He died. ONLY the Bible's dates are used (i.e., I didn't use outside sources, but only Bible).

Upshot: what the Colonel said in Lessons 25-29 of Isaiah 53 series, and what he said in the Daniel series Lesson 45 (on Daniel 9:25) are corroborated, but with a different and much more elaborate accounting than those lessons provide. So while the website material contradicts Thieme's statements of the accounting, yet the material corroborates his conclusions.

  • There is NO Star of Bethlehem. Initially, in 1965 Matthew when covering Matthew 2 exegesis, the Colonel stated that the magi didn't actually see a star, but used "see" in the sense of prophecy. Yet if you go over the Greek of Matthew 2 compared to Luke 1-2, you find that the so-called 'star' is likely a GUARDIAN ANGEL for the Royal Family during that first year. It cannot be a literal star, given the Deut 18 proscription against using stars for divination. The verbs used of the 'star' itself (i.e., not what Matthew records people saying about it), are all verbs used for conscious, sentient beings. All this, with notes on the Greek in the verses, is in the "Nativity Narrative" link of LvS4a.htm.

  • In my webpages, Thieme's 1992 Spiritual Dynamics Series on spiritual maturation, was condensed into a six-page chart, with the five LXX infinitives of Isaiah 53:10-11, neatly 'driving' the process. This chart and the process itself -- including videos -- is the focus of Part Three of my Thinking series: click here for LordvSatan3.htm. The chart can be downloaded either there, or click here for SMP.doc. If your version of Word is not compatible, try downloading this one: SMPdocforOlderWordprograms.doc.

    Basically the chart summarizes the 1992 Spiritual Dynamics series, which is absolutely fabulous. Thieme didn't teach the SMP.doc's five LXX infinitives from Isaiah 53:10-11 as the process; but as you hear what these infinitives do, you'll be amazed how well they 'dovetail' to what he said. What happened to Christ, were those infinitives. What happens to us, are those infinitives. So once more, what seems like a 'difference' in the webpages, only ended up confirming what we RBTers, have heard all these years. If you are an RBTer and you've not gotten (Series 376) 1992 Spiritual Dynamics, I heartily urge you start getting it now, and listen sequentially. Series begins with Rebound and its Bible backup, and goes forward through all "10 Problem-Solving Devices" as you'll see in the chart. Takes him 12 years to cover the material, and when he hits PSD#10, he goes on a tangential discovery of what "Love of God" means, which as said earlier, is likely the most important theological clarification for the 20th century.

    Beyond these things, I can't think of any conclusion in the webpages which materially differs from what the Colonel teaches. Everything else seems mere extrapolation, corollaic. I make a big stink about how the Trinity should be described as "Three AND One" rather than "Three IN One" as the badly-worded Westminster Confession claims. But really I got that from the Colonel's many upgraded explanations of Trinity, especially when He called Them "Triplets" (I forget which class that was, but it was somewhere around 1997-2000 of Spiritual Dynamics). So THREE PERSONS AND ONE ESSENCE. Much easier to understand, than the goofy Hydra-headed definitions in either Westminster Confession or "Unicity" in the Catholic Encyclopedia. If you're interested in this, click here for the LordvSatan2.htm explanation or click here for the Due Diligence Disclosure "Trinity" explanation, which is more detailed.

    Again, it wasn't my intent to corroborate, but to vet the information myself, before the Lord. What ended up happening, was an extreme extrapolation, corroboration -- even where contradicting them -- with the result that I'm very surprised. Ergo this disclosure. Nonetheless, please exercise caution as you read, using 1Jn1:9 as needed, so you don't waste God's or your own, time.