Festival '23: The Splits, Splinters and Slivers Flee to The Place of Safety and Final Training...

...but then rethink their faith in the insane

 

Crackpot Prophet Makes New Hilarious Claims About His Education And Divine Right To Apostolic Succession

Eastern Orthodox Christian.com: a gold mine of information about Eastern Orthodoxy

 

When it comes to the vanity and narcissism of the Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel, there is no end to the surprises or lunacy he comes up with.

Never in the history of the last 2,000 years of Christianity has there been such superfantabulous man sent by God to this earth! Even Jesus Christ pales in comparison to the mighty works of this man. Since he was part of the divine plan of the universe when the Godhead was sitting around the kitchen table planning on the future salvation of humankind, the subject of having a latter-day prophet return to save the church and its few remaining people so that they could become future gods just like Jesus. They knew that in those perilous end times, a mighty voice would need to be heard in the remnant church and the world to set it straight and to ring the final bell when it is time for the true believers to flee to Petra. After all, in those perilous end times, everyone will be too stupid to know the times are bad and they need to flee.

Only the greatest man ever to walk this earth could pull off such a mighty stunt as this and the Godhead worked diligently to craft the Might Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel to come in the perilous end times.

Knowing that 99.99999999999999999% of humanity would laugh at the great savior to come, they knew they needed to give him impeccable credentials that would be beyond reproach.

And so, today in 2023 we have the Great Bwana Bob Mzungu Thiel talking in our midst delivering the truth as it never has been before. These are the credentials that our Great Bwana Bob Mzungu lays at our feet.

Notice how deceptive he is with the last sentence as tries to bamboozle potential Catholic readers that he is carrying on the faith he had been taught in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a deceptive lie!

The author, Dr. Bob Thiel, was baptized, took cathechism classes, confirmed, and raised Roman Catholic as a child. He also attended Roman Catholic school for part of his elementary school years and studied Latin in high school. From his youth, he has always striven to hold to the original Christian faith. 

Following is one of the stupidest things Bob Thiel has ever said about himself and his right to apostolic succession. He gained that right through the Dibar Apartian! Screw Gaylyn Bonjour! Apartian is the man!

After seeing shockingly major scriptural issues with Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings, he was later baptized by a Church of God (COG) minister in 1977. He was confirmed as a member of the “original catholic church” in 2008 by formerly Armenian Apostolic Orthodox catholic, but then original apostolic catholic Church of God clergyman evangelist, Dibar Apartian in France. Dr. Thiel later had hands laid on him related to ordination in 2011 and 2017 from other long-time ordained COG ministers (Gaylyn Bonjour, Evans Ochieng, and Samuel Gyeabour). 

Dibar Apartian had no more light to pass on apposolic succession than Gyloyn Bonjour supposedly did allowing Bwana Bob to start a new church. Both claims are absurd and without merit. Gaylyn Bonjour did not lay hands on Bob to ordain him. Evans Ochieng and Samuel Gyeabour had no ability to ordain Bob as a church leader either. The lies and deception that surround Bwana Bob Mzungu are appalling! 

Though interested in church history all his life, this interest intensified after one of his numerous trips to Vatican City, which then led to his formal studies in church history. Dr. Thiel also made numerous trips to other locations (such as Greece, Israel, and Turkey) where he also learned about early Christianity as well as aspects of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He has a graduate degree in information systems (M.S., USC) along with doctorates in nutrition science (Ph.D. UIU) and early Christianity (Th.D., TGSAT).  Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?

Bwana Gob Mzungu's TGSAT is a total farce. It is from an online diploma mill out of India that is NOT accredited and carries no weight anywhere in the world, except in the eyes of his few faithly leaders and some members in his little church. Bwana Bob Thiel's Th.D. is NOT a real doctorate in Theology that can be obtained in REAL seminaries but a distance by learning from college in India, now known as a hotbed of Christian theological education but for deceptive manipulation and con games against Westerners.

This is what they say about themselves:

Accreditation is a totally voluntary process, and it is not compulsory or mandatory for Bible Colleges and Seminaries that operate without government or federal funds. Since we have chosen not to seek or receive any government funds, we have taken a totally independent and biblical stand in these matters which is explained below. 

TGSAT has been established by an international group of committed, theologically conservative, Bible believing, Christians to impart high quality spiritual, bible-based, theological education and training to Christians worldwide. The purpose of such training in Bible and theology is personal spiritual enrichment and also equipping of born-again Christians for spiritual ministry. 

Here is an "international group of committed, theologically conservative, Bible-believing," Christians that the Great Bwana labels as "so-called" Christians. It's interesting how much he needs the validation of these "so-called" Christians to prove his ministry is right and yet has no respect for them.

The group that established the free theology training programs at TGSAT strongly feels that no external agency (private or government) should be allowed to regulate or control Bible-based spiritual activities. Thus, we have never sought accreditation by private or government agencies. 

Contrary to popular belief, Accreditation of a theological institution is not based upon quality of spiritual instruction alone. Rather, a large number of other factors are also taken into consideration. Most people who examine such things (for granting accreditation) may not be conservative Christians. Many of them may not even be born-again. Thus they often may demand that the syllabus conform to their policies and doctrinal position. 

As a result TGSAT might have to compromise on its theological stand in many areas if we opt for accreditation. Moreover, we firmly believe that secular governments have NO jurisdiction to examine/accredit bible-based theological programs. That is the reason why we wish to operate without accreditation. 

Many people think that studying an accredited program will increase their job-prospects. Such people should notice that TGSAT is not meant for theological training for the sake of getting jobs. Applicants whose primary purpose is to seek a job after their studies should look elsewhere for a Bible Seminary that trains people for jobs and should not look to TGSAT to meet such a requirement. That is simply not part of our mission or vision. 

The Great Bwana Mzungu did not need to worry about this. He had dreams and visions and that was the start button for his new splinter group. 

TGSAT is here to train people who are looking for spiritual self-enrichment and also for those who wish to use such a formal training in Bible and Theology for Christian ministry-related purposes. Such people look for spiritual quality of instruction and not for government accreditation of biblical and theological training programs. 

Was Bwana Bob Mzungu actually getting a "spiritual quality of instruction" or did he go into all of this with his Armstrognite blinders thinking he was going to educate them? You and I both know for a fact Bwana Bob entered this program knowing that he had all the answers. There wasn't much knew any of these Indian Christians could ever teach him. After all, they were deceived and blinded Christians.

What is more, it is a wrong notion that all accredited institutions maintain spiritual quality. On the contrary, you need to know that ALL theologically radical and liberal Bible seminaries worldwide tend to be accredited. This means that accreditation is not the same as spiritual quality. With that made clear, let us took at how TGSAT maintains its quality. 

Well, Armstrongism and Bobism are not known for "spiritual quality" and yet here we are. 

We have built a system of multiple checks-and-balances to ensure that TGSAT maintains the highest possible spiritual, theological, and academic quality. This includes a strong Statement of Doctrine, regular review of the syllabus, and also a very large international group made up of faculty members and graduates who keep assessing TGSAT quality on a periodic basis. This feedback is analyzed periodically by the core group so as to ensure that quality is maintained. Thus you can be assured that we will always maintain the highest spiritual, biblical, and academic quality at any cost. What is more, all TGSAT programs shall remain totally free of tuition fees. 

If these men in this Indian distance-by-learning site were real Christians you know that in addition to the many statements of belief they required, the big one would be the belief in the Trinity. Did the Great Bwana lie to them about his belief in the Trinity? 

Summary: Join TGSAT only if your primary interest is in theological/biblical instruction. If you wish anything more than that [such as a government job, any other kind of job, government scholarship] then Trinity is not the right institution. Bear this clearly in mind before you apply. What is more, since no institution can unconditionally guarantee acceptance of their degree by other institutions worldwide, Trinity offers no such guarantee. We guarantee only an international-quality theological/biblical training. Posted in: Accreditation. About the Author: Kochi_Admin_2013

Here we have a man who despises the Trinity and lies about it yet signed up for an online diploma from Trinity School! The hypocrisy drips loudly on the enlarged head of the Great Bwana Bob Mzungu. 

Never has the Church of God seen such a deceptive man in its midst. He is our own Judas and Simon Magus all wrapped up into one. Even as deceptive and manipulative as Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack and Ron Wienland are, they represent themselves as themselves. Bwana Bob Mzungu presents himself as someone he is not. Never has been. And, never shall be.

The Elhanan Hermeneutic: Jesus, Goliath and Armstrongism

 

The Elhanan Hermeneutic

Jesus, Goliath and Armstrongism

By Scout

An observant scholar wrote that Jews regard the Bible as a problem to be solved whereas Christians believe it is a message to be proclaimed. The former view results in midrash and the latter view tends toward Biblical Literalism. Armstrongists have long held the Biblical Literalist view, often citing the statement of Jesus where he says in John 10:35: “… And the scripture cannot be broken”. In whatever context, whether midrash or literalism, there is a need to figure out who killed Goliath. Was it David or Elhanan? Or does it matter? The slaying of Goliath is much more than a children’s story. It is about how the Bible was curated and how we interpret it.

The Biblical data that must be examined looks like this (ESV):

1. The Traditional Account in 1 Samuel 17:50: “So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him…” (Part of the Deuteronomistic History and was composed roughly 630-540 BCE. Samuel 1 and 2 were originally one book that was divided later in copies of the Old Testament.)

2. The Alternate Account in 2 Samuel 21:19: “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite…”.

3. The Attempt at Reconciliation in 1 Chronicles 20:5: “And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” (Chronicles probably reached its final form in the 4th Century BCE.)

 

 

Curation and Interpretation 

It will be apparent to anyone who reads closely that the account of David in the OT is assembled from a number pericopes and is internally disjointed. First, we have an account of David in Samuel with a curious story arc. Did Saul know or did he not know David at the time of the contest with Goliath, for example? Several different traditions seem to have been documented by the scribes. Further, two different descriptions of the death of Goliath are recorded in Samuel, with victory being ascribed to David in a highly theatrical account and the victory ascribed to Elhanan in a passing comment.

The David-Ellhanan persisted in scripture for a very long time. Then a couple of centuries later, an attempt at reconciliation was made where an unknown scribe recounted that Elhanan really killed Goliath’s brother. And then the King James translators went back and inserted language (in italics in our modern print versions) in 2 Samuel 21:19 to make it appear to reflect the statement in Chronicles. An important point in understanding the curation of the Bible is that the Book of Samuel was not edited to make a smooth story arc. Both David and Elhanan are recorded as the slayers of Goliath. And the ancient compilers of the scripture knew this. They read and copied the material over and over again down through time. That the scribes did not edit out the contradictions is a compelling point. They have given the account a plausible timeline but they did not remove these contradictions.

It is as if the early scribes had a collection of inconsistent pericopes that were at parity with regard to provenance. So, they decided to just publish the whole body of material and let subsequent generations of scholars and readers sort it out. Then some later scribes decided that the discrepancies were too glaring and edited in a statement (I Chronicles 20:5) intended to give consistency. My guess is that this was an ad hoc rescue attempt and does not evidence that sometime in the passing of two centuries, the Jews discovered in a jar in a cave somewhere yet another pericope that suddenly cleared up the picture.

The upshot is that the Bible has been curated by people. It conveys valid principle without being accurate in every detail. The scribes did not stress over discrepancy. If the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984 had curated the Bible, it would be smoothly consistent from beginning to end, however inauthentic. The story of David does contain object lessons that we can all benefit from. But his slaying of Goliath might have been political theater. Post-Exilic Israel needed a hero. As Dr. Peter Enns stated, “God let his children tell the story.”

And in this, we have a broad hermeneutic, what I called The Elhanan Hermeneutic, for understanding scripture: The Bible may contain inconsistencies at the story detail level but it retains valid principle. This is an important issue of faith. If you want to place your faith on a foundation of textual inerrancy, you will die a miserable rhetorical death in battle with people like Bart Ehrman and Dennis Diehl. Some of the inconsistencies they cite are really there. Further, Biblical literalism will drive you to a rigorous Phariseeism that will harden your understanding against simple truth. The David and Goliath account is not a light topic for kids about a boy and a giant but about mature engagement with the Bible.

Jesus and the Law and the Prophets

 

When Jesus walked the earth, he did not have heartburn over the human curation of scripture even though this curation may have resulted in inaccuracies. It is worthwhile to ask why. If the Law and the Prophets as a body of writing is, as some maintain, God’s eternal moral law, the pathway to salvation, was never set aside, was only made more stringent and is now written on our hearts, would not Jesus have exercised more concern about its perfect rendering? Why were the disciples, like scribes, not busily engaged in updating the scripture to eliminate all the humanly introduced discrepancies in the Hebrew Bible so that this could be the inerrant foundation for salvation for the New Testament church?

Jesus knew the scriptures. At the age of twelve he spoke with the teachers in Jerusalem and they were amazed at his understanding of the scripture and the answers he gave to their questions. I don’t know if he had a memory of the scripture from prior to his incarnation, scripture that he himself inspired in its original, un-curated form or if he was studious and spent hours absorbing the scripture by reading in the local synagogue. The former view emphasizes Pre-existence and the latter Kenosis. Doesn’t make any difference. The point is, he knew the scripture exhaustively and made no attempt to put it all right. He did not settle the issue of whether it was David or Elhanan who was the slayer of Goliath. Or what to do about the Sabbath in Antarctica. Or many other fine points that fuel modern day controversy over the Torah.

This is because he fulfilled the scripture, it would be set aside and he would issue a New Testament that is based on principle and not letter. A message of love so profound that the David-Elhanan controversy withers away and nobody need care about the Sabbath in Antarctica. So, there was no need for careful preparation of the humanly curated Old Testament so it could continue to be used in pristine form in the New Testament Ekklesia. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets down to the jot and tittle level and issued a new legislation beginning with the Sermon on the Mount. The New Legislation bore similarity to the Old Legislation because both were instantiations of the eternal moral law of God but were custom tuned to time, place and people.

The Scripture Cannot be Broken

In John 10:35, Jesus stated that the “scripture cannot be broken.” Jesus is stating that the scripture as a body of writing has integrity. Based on the Greek, this means that the scripture cannot be loosed or dissolved. But at what level of meaning is this statement true? Does it extend down to the Elhanan or David level of detail? I think not. I believe this integrity of scripture resides at the level of principle. Most of us are able to read material and understand the principles behind the overt text. This reading-at-level hermeneutic means that we should exercise due diligence in addressing seeming inconsistencies in the Biblical text but there may be some sub-principle, detail level where some particular account might be inconsistent. Jews have wrestled with this and other issues throughout their history. Hence, the development of the midrash form of Biblical interpretation among the Rabbis. And it would be highly presumptuous for a group of people without any foundation in Judaism to decide that the Torah is binding and that they understand it completely from beginning to end. This presumption is implicit in both Biblical Literalism and the finely parsed criticisms of detractors of the Bible. The scripture is unbroken at the level of optimal meaning.

Closing Argument

The Elhanan Hermeneutic is a point of wisdom for those who study the scripture. All explanations of scripture are interpretations. HWA’s theological writing is an interpretation among other interpretations. Some explanations are quite interesting. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book based on the David and Goliath account titled “David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.” In his explanation he offers the novel idea that Goliath may have had acromegaly, a form of hormone induced gigantism. There is some hint in the scripture that Goliath could not see very well – a symptom of acromegaly. Maybe Goliath was not the great agile champion we all envision. Interpreting data varies and if you believe the scripture is certain, you will encounter challenges to your faith. You will find yourself engaging in implausible rationalization, including blatant denial of evidence. And the source of faith is not to be found in apologetics but in Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis writes of the Dwarves of Narnia who lost their faith: “They have chosen cunning instead of belief.” Relying on apologetics solely to shore up Biblical interpretation is relying on cunning. At some point cunning will prove inadequate – and the history of Tyre will not be what you think it is, for instance.

People who insist on the certainty of scripture, who do not factor in human curation, march in procession towards debacle. Walled redoubts of denial do not protect. Trust is the solution. A faith that can grapple with the complications of reality is the solution. A faith that is comfortable with the progress of science is the solution. For some people certainty is the prerequisite for faith. But as one scholar wrote, the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty.