Dear Moderator:

I think you should do one of two things with this site.

1. Either change the name to: TRUTHTESTY'S SOAPBOX.

OR

2. Block Truthtesty from any more posts.

The fact that this person keeps posting the same argument over and and over ad naseum is really wearing thin. I have noticed that virtually no posts from new individuals has taken place for some time. Anyone coming to this site expecting help with the Thieme Cult will soon find themselves embroiled in a ridiculous confrontation with this person.

Synergy and Orthodox:

I am sure Rick Ross is used to hearing cult members "in thier last throes" trying to defend cults and hearing thoses cult members excuses while those cult members are trying to stop the truth.

The truth is that I am here presenting facts. It is really not personal. Here's a new truth.

To the Forum:


Thieme BOC 1972: "Christ "delivered us out from our sins by means of his blood" ("haima").While the word "blood" usually refers to literal blood, there is also another usage. Arndt and Gingrich, famous German linguistic scholars, were the first ones to get a breakthrough on "haima." On page 22 of their Greek Lexicon, there is a dissertation on how they discovered it. They conclude: " 'Haima' refers to literal human blood on the one hand; but on the other hand, it refers to blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice." So "haima" in this passage is used in the sense of the spiritual death of Christ."

Truthtesty: This is totally irrational as I shall show you. Arndt and Gingrich are saying that the figurative sense usage of haima is not just literal blood of Jesus, but that it is literal blood of Jesus and the literal life of Jesus as an expiatory sacrifice.

Thieme falsely concludes that the figurative sense usage is:
Thieme BOC 1972: So "haima" in this passage is used in the sense of the spiritual death of Christ."

Truthtesty:
This is the erroneous conclusion of Thieme, not Arndt and Gingrich. No where are the words "spiritual death" used in Arndt and Gingrich's definition of "haima" on page 22 or 23. Also, be clear Arndt and Gingrich do use the words "spiritual death" on page 351 under the term "thanatos", but not on pgs 22 or 23. So Arndt and Gingrich are familiar with the term "spiritual death", but they do not use it or conclude with it under the term "haima" on pgs 22 or 23.

Arndt and Gingrich "haima":
haima
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)

3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...

(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)


Truthtesty:
So here's the definition in question:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

1 Clement 55:1 says

1Clem 55:1
But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions.


Truthtesty:
You can understand the true figurative usage meant by Arndt and Gingrich. In this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents[/u] literal blood and literal life sacrificed. The figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" being used to figuratively point to the ruler's own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Arndt and Gingrich are saying the figurative usage of haima in this case is that "haima" represents more than just literal blood it also represents literal blood and literal life sacrificed.

Arndt and Gingrich goes on:

Arndt and Gingrich: b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:1---Esp of the blood of Jesus as means of expiation Rom 3:25...

So comparing the Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage properly as in comparison with Cl 55:1 we see that the figurative usage of "blood" by Arndt and Gingrich is the word "blood" "haima" being used to figuratively to point to Jesus' own literal "blood and life" as an expiatory sacrifice. Thieme is jumping to a false conclusion to provide false evidence for his false theory of "spiritual death only". Ardnt and Gingrich are not saying what Thieme is falsely stating.

You can compare and see that Arndt and Gingrich's figurative usage haima in both cases 1Cl 55:1 with Rom 3:25, is the same figurative usages, although obviously used in different contexts.

Therefore Thieme's conclusion that this in some "sense" supports Thieme's false theory of "spiritual death only", is not substantiated by the evidence.




Truthtesty

To the Forum:


To reverse test what I have said try fitting "spiritual death only" into 1 Clem 55:1. "Spiritual death only" doesn't work for the rulers case. Although, the contexts are different what is figurative and literal usages are same.


Truthtesty

To the Forum and synergy:


Dr. Hymers:
And joining this chorus of cult leaders is Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, who said that she alone was unveiling some "hidden" truth about the atonement. She also said:

The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious (effective) to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than it was when it was flowing in his veins (Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health, 1910, p. 330).

Now we come to the teachings of a peculiar old man named Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., the person I saw teaching John MacArthur his strange doctrines about the Blood in 1961. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists, Colonel Thieme believes that he has discovered a new doctrine that no one knew, that was "buried in ignorance" for centuries. He says of Christians,

Since childhood they have heard the blood mentioned in hushed, reverent tones; they have vigorously sung the hymns about the "wonder working power in the blood." Still, the subject of the blood of Christ is almost totally buried in ignorance…There is an old dogma which says that Christ carried His blood with Him to heaven in a bowl. Without ever knowing its source, evangelical Christianity clings to that specious [flimsy, illusory, false] idea from the Dark Ages by perpetuating a form of mysticism around the physical blood of our Lord. We have seen in some detail that His mortal body fluids have absolutely nothing whatever to do with salvation (Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Blood of Christ, Houston: Bible Ministries, 1989, pp. 5, 31).

Dr. Hymers: I saw John MacArthur taking notes as Colonel Thieme taught these doctrines, in the fall of 1961. I rejected Thieme's doctrines, but MacArthur seems to have swallowed them whole - as the following quotation from Dr. MacArthur shows. MacArthur begins his argument against the literal Blood of Christ by saying that belief in real Blood is "the same kind of mystical view" held by the Catholic Church. Thus, like the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and Colonel Thieme, Dr. MacArthur tars and feathers belief in the literal Blood by saying it's an old dogma, and implying that he, himself, has superior "new" light on the subject. As we have seen, this is a typical tactic of the cultists I have mentioned.

Dr. Hymers: Like Colonel Thieme, Dr. MacArthur puts great emphasis on the "spiritual" death of Christ, and downplays His physical death. This is the reason Dr. MacArthur deemphasizes the literal Blood of Christ. If the physical death "was not a means of salvation," as Thieme said, then the literal Blood of Christ is not necessary. Dr. John F. Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote that he disagrees with Colonel Thieme on this false teaching. But sadly Dr. MacArthur believes it and repeats it.


Dr. Hymers In point three, Dr. MacArthur says, "Not Every Reference to Jesus' Blood is Literal." He then shows several passages (like John 6:53-54) where the Blood of Christ is not to be taken literally. Then he mentions the false Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and says, "Trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error." This, of course, is true. Correct hermeneutics demands that the preacher determine, in context, which passage is to be taken literally and which one is to be taken figuratively.

Dr. Hymers: But Dr. MacArthur never deals with the other side of the issue. While it is true that "trying to make literal every reference to Christ's blood can lead to serious error," it is also true that trying to make every reference to Christ's Blood figurative can lead to serious error!

Dr. Hymers: It is a very serious error to make the Blood of Christ merely figurative in such passages as Hebrews 12:24, I John 1:7; Romans 3:25; I Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5, etc. The Roman Catholics went to one extreme, and Dr. MacArthur goes to the other extreme, making every reference to the Blood figurative, merely a metonym (another word meaning the same thing) for Christ's death, which he does repeatedly in his writings and in the notes in The MacArthur Study Bible (see, for instance, his note on Hebrews 9:14, "Blood is used as a substitute word for death").

[www.rlhymersjr.com]


Truthtesty:
It's logical to me(Truthtesty) that if what Jesus was as physical sinless man(including sinless blood) were not necessary for salvation and spiritural death were the only thing necessary for salvation, as Thieme suggests, then Jesus could have simply spiritually died(separated from the Father) as the Angel of Jehovah.



Truthtesty

synergy quote:

Dear Truthtesty:

Your analogy of the hypothetical rape trial is actually the only post of yours that has ever revealed who you really are. I don’t think you know how profound your post was.

Basically you are saying that you are as mad as a rape victim that would have to point out his or her aggressor in a courtroom.

So, you are still mad at Thieme. Therefore how can you say that you are objective? Anyone who is mad can only be subjective. You are 100% biased in your debate

Truthtesty: You don't know who I really am. Leave that job to me. I tell you who I am, if I choose to. And No synergy my point was that even though someone has been criminally wronged, that doesn't mean that they cannot be objective and tell truth. The moral message of the hypothetical rape trial was to show the hypocrasy of someone saying that just because someone is angry that they cannot be objective.

Imagine further - imagine the jury at the rape victims trial after hearing the angry crying sobbing of the rape victim's testimony, just saying to one another "No she can't be telling the truth-she's just angry-she needs to become christian-no she can't be telling the truth-even though she pointed the guy out in the courtroom-but what about the DNA?-no she's angry-no the guys innocent" That is the "salem witch trial" jury logic you are supporting and use to try to say that I am not telling the truth.

To the Forum:

As I have stated many times look at the evidence. Don't trust me. Do your own work. It is very diifficult for Thiemites to hear the truth, seeing how Thieme has covered his tracks, but if people go slow and take thier time. Take each sentence Thieme says and research it for yourself. Do you own thinking, judging, and decision-making. Comparing what Thieme said to what Dr. Chafer said is very helpful, because it is Chafer's words who Thieme twisted.

The personal family tragedy occurred over 30 years ago, but it is justice to see that Thieme is wrong. It is justice because Thieme is being exposed to the truth of the light. That is justice.



Truthtesty

Part of synergy's quote to Thiemite Posted: 09-28-2007 11:35 AM:
You seem to be a fan of CARM.org, and as I pointed out in a previous post, CARM’s stance on whether a church is a cult or not is based on simple salvation, and in Thieme’s case, and Berachah’s and other Thieme clone churches they are not cults even though they score quite a good amount of yes’s on CARM’s cult checklist.


Truthtesty:
Incorrect. Thieme corrupts the gospel of salvation by denying the efficacy of the literal shed blood. Also, synergy's description of CARM'S definition of a cult is incorrect and misleading.

CARM'S DEFINITION OF A CHRISTIAN CULT

What makes a church or group non-Christian?

In Christian bookstores, there are almost always 'cult' sections which include the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. So, I am not alone in describing what a non-Christian, bible-based cult is. Nevertheless, what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible.

The Deity of Christ, which involves The Trinity
the Resurrection, and
Salvation by Grace

Note at the bottom it says

1. This definition of "cult" is not sufficient to cover all that needs to be discussed in cult theologies and practices, nor is it broad enough to address the topic of world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam which are do not fall under the definition I've employed.

The term "cult" can range from any group of worshippers of any God who pay no attention to the Bible, to a small, highly paranoid, apocalyptic people who gather around a charismatic leader that uses the Bible to control them. Nevertheless, I've chosen a definition. I'll probably modify it as I learn more.

[www.carm.org]

Carm says "what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible". Dr. Chafer considered doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ very essential and Thieme denies the efficacy of the shed literal blood of Christ in the blood redemption.

Dr. Chafer Vol. 2, Page 108 All teachers are to be judged by their attitude toward the doctrine of the blood redemption of Christ, rather than by their winsome personalities, their education, or their sincerity. Since the blood redemption of the cross is the central truth and value of the true faith, it being the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23–24), any counterfeit system of doctrine which would omit this essential, must force some secondary truth into the place of prominence.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:



Thieme BOC 1979:

"Christ anticipated that Satan would attack the Cross by perverting the meaning of the blood in an attempt to obscure the importance of spiritual death."


Truthtesty:

This is not true, if anyone is trying to pervert the meaning of the blood and pervert the teachings of Dr. Chafer, it is Thieme. Spiritual death is simply not emphasized in the bible.

Summarizing Dr. Chafer (Vol 2 pg 199 Systematic Theology) Of all many references in the Bible to death, only a very same amount concern spiritual death, most references concern physical death.

You see it's just simple biblical fact that the bible itself does not emphasize spiritual death.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:

I apologize I should have said only a "very small amount" instead of "very same amount" in the above post.



Thieme BOC 1979:

"Christ anticipated that Satan would attack the Cross by perverting the meaning of the blood in an attempt to obscure the importance of spiritual death."


Truthtesty:

This is not true, if anyone is trying to pervert the meaning of the blood and pervert the teachings of Dr. Chafer, it is Thieme. Spiritual death is simply not emphasized in the bible.

Summarizing Dr. Chafer (Vol 2 pg 199 Systematic Theology) Of all many references in the Bible to death, only a very small amount concern spiritual death, most references concern physical death.

You see it's just simple biblical fact that the bible itself does not emphasize spiritual death.



Truthtesty

To the Forum:


syn's post on 10-09-2007 09:02 John MacArthur, Jr of “Grace to You” ministries view:

Macarthur:
The literal blood of Christ was violently shed at his crucifixion.

Truthtesty:
True

MacArthur:
Those who deny this truth or try to spiritualize the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel message.

Truthtesty:
False. Macarthur has shown no proof that spiritualizing the death of Christ are guilty of corrupting the gospel.

MacArthur:
Jesus Christ bled and died in the fullest literal sense, and when He rose from the dead, he was literally resurrected.

Truthtesty:
True.

MacArthur:
To deny the absolute reality of those truths is to nullify them

Truthtesty:
No no no Which truths? because MacArthur has inclused a "false truth" as I have pointed out.

MacArthur:... Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid.

Truthtesty:
True (But notice it doesn't mean less than the literal shed blood)

MacArthur:
Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement ...

Truthtesty:
True but only to a point. Chafer says the blood of Christ as infinite meaning including the literal shed blood.

MacArthur:
We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood.

Truthtesty:
False conclusion. Macarthur has not proven that.

MacArthur
Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers.

Truthtesty:
False. There is indication.

Dr. Chafer [Vol. 5, Page 266] (Summarizing) Types (a) two birds, the second of which is dipped in the blood of the first bird and released, all of this a type of Christ rising and ascending into heaven and taking His blood with Him; (b) the high priest on the Day of Atonement going into the symbolic holy of holys. The priest sprinkles the blood to the mercy seat. In both types the blood is either carried either into the sky by the bird or into the typical earthly sanctuary by the high priest.


Macarthur:
When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood (I Peter 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven.

Truthtesty:
Macarthur has no proof.

Dr. Hymers:
And joining this chorus of cult leaders is Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, who said that she alone was unveiling some "hidden" truth about the atonement. She also said:

The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious (effective) to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than it was when it was flowing in his veins (Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health, 1910, p. 330).

Now we come to the teachings of a peculiar old man named Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., the person I saw teaching John MacArthur his strange doctrines about the Blood in 1961. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists, Colonel Thieme believes that he has discovered a new doctrine that no one knew, that was "buried in ignorance" for centuries. He says of Christians,

Since childhood they have heard the blood mentioned in hushed, reverent tones; they have vigorously sung the hymns about the "wonder working power in the blood." Still, the subject of the blood of Christ is almost totally buried in ignorance…There is an old dogma which says that Christ carried His blood with Him to heaven in a bowl. Without ever knowing its source, evangelical Christianity clings to that specious [flimsy, illusory, false] idea from the Dark Ages by perpetuating a form of mysticism around the physical blood of our Lord. We have seen in some detail that His mortal body fluids have absolutely nothing whatever to do with salvation (Colonel R. B. Thieme, Jr., The Blood of Christ, Houston: Bible Ministries, 1989, pp. 5, 31).

I saw John MacArthur taking notes as Colonel Thieme taught these doctrines, in the fall of 1961. I rejected Thieme's doctrines, but MacArthur seems to have swallowed them whole - as the following quotation from Dr. MacArthur shows. MacArthur begins his argument against the literal Blood of Christ by saying that belief in real Blood is "the same kind of mystical view" held by the Catholic Church. Thus, like the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and Colonel Thieme, Dr. MacArthur tars and feathers belief in the literal Blood by saying it's an old dogma, and implying that he, himself, has superior "new" light on the subject. As we have seen, this is a typical tactic of the cultists I have mentioned. Then Dr. MacArthur goes on to say:

We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus' literal blood. Christ' literal blood is not preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we're redeemed by the blood, it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven…It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins… (John MacArthur, letter received on September 8, 2002, entire letter posted on this web site as the end of my sermon, "My Answer to Dr. MacArthur's Letter on the Blood").

Now compare the words of Colonel Thieme and John MacArthur. It sounds almost like Dr. MacArthur copied them from the Colonel!



(1) Debunking "old dogma"

Thieme: Evangelical Christianity clings to an idea from the Dark Ages.
MacArthur: Fundamentalists hold the mystical view of the Catholic Church.



(2) Debunking a "bowl of blood"

Thieme: "There is an old dogma that Christ carried
His blood to heaven in a bowl."
MacArthur: "[Scripture] is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven."



(3) Debunking "salvation by the Blood"

Thieme: "His mortal body fluids have absolutely nothing whatever
to do with salvation."
MacArthur: "It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins."



Strangely, I must defend the pre-Reformation Catholics against these attacks on their belief that the Blood is in Heaven (cf. Hebrews 12:24). They were more Scriptural on that point than the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, the Mormons, Colonel Thieme, or John MacArthur! They were also right about the eternal Sonship of Christ (which Dr. MacArthur has only discovered quite recently). Yes, the old Catholics were right about some very important things. They were right about Christ's eternal Sonship, and His Blood being in Heaven! It's a shame that those Catholics had a better understanding of the Blood than Thieme or MacArthur!

A bowl of Blood? Why not? There are seven golden bowls in Heaven according to Revelation 15:7. Since "eye hath not seen" all that is in Heaven (I Corinthians 2:9), there may very well be a golden bowl there containing the Blood of Christ! Since Revelation 15:7 tells us that there are seven golden bowls in Heaven, why couldn't there be an eighth one? How do Thieme and MacArthur know there isn't such a bowl in Heaven? Just how do they know this? They are extremely dogmatic in their rejection of this bowl - but what is their dogmatism based on? It seems to me that their shrill cry against even the possibility of such a bowl is really based on philosophical rationalism. It seems to me that they are pandering to the materialists and rationalists in their audiences. Since the Bible says nothing one way or the other, no one can Scripturally deny the possibility of such a bowl.

How about Thieme's "mortal body fluids" and MacArthur's "actual liquid"? I say that these two men have a Docetic view of the Blood, drawn from the roots of Gnosticism in the first century. Their Docetic view of the Blood prejudices them against "mortal body fluids" and "actual liquid." And their Gnosticism on the Blood places them squarely in the same position as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons on this important issue of the Blood of Christ.

I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable taking the same position as the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons! The religion of Colonel Thieme and John MacArthur is cold and bloodless. Mary Baker Eddy described their beliefs perfectly:


The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than when it was flowing in his veins (Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 1910, p. 330).

I don't believe you, Mrs. Eddy! I don't believe you, Judge Rutherford! I don't believe you, Brigham Young! I don't believe you, Colonel Thieme! And I don't believe John MacArthur either! Away with false doctrine on the Blood! Spit it out of your mouth - lest He spit you out of His mouth on the Last Day! You do not need phantom blood! You need real Blood!

Don't let Christian Science, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons, or Colonel Thieme, or John MacArthur take the true Blood, remembered in the cup, away from you at the Lord's Supper! When you drink from the cup, remember that it points to the real Blood of Sprinkling in Heaven (cf. Hebrews 12:24). Every time you take the Lord's Supper, the two elements, reminding us of two realities in Heaven, should make you doubt those cultists, and Colonel Thieme, and Dr. MacArthur.

You need real Blood to wash away real sin, so you can go to a real Heaven!


Macarthur:
It means we're saved by Christ's sacrificial death ... It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out. That is not heresy; .

Truthtesty:
False. It is the actual liquid that was shed because God said it was necessary to be shed (Divine will said the blood to be efficacious). Marthur concludes falsely. We are saved by Christ's sacrificial death, but also with the shed efficacious literal blood.

Macarthur: it's basic biblical truth

Truthtesty: Only in satanic cult circles. The only way you can attack the efficacy of the literal shed blood of Christ is if you have the satanic intent of attacking it. There is no verse in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic that says the literal shed blood is not efficacious.


Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science cult: The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious [effective, powerful] to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon "the accursed tree" than when it was flowing in his veins.

Who said that? Was it John MacArthur? Was it his teacher, Colonel Thieme? No! No! It was Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science cult! (cf. Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 1910, p. 330). Mrs. Eddy was a neo-gnostic who believed that "Jesus, as material manhood, was not Christ" (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 84).

[www.rlhymersjr.com]




Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Thieme BOC 1979:

The innocent animal's blood was an apt representation of a life given on behalf of others because the animal's blood is its life. When the Scripture states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:10—14), it refers to animal flesh only. The Hebrew word nephesh sometimes means "life" and sometimes "soul," but when used of animals it obviously refers to animal life — not to human life. The seat of man's physical life is his soul resident in his body, but the animal does not have a soul. Therefore, such passages as Leviticus 17:10—14 teach us that the life of animal flesh is in the animal's blood. ...Remember that the soul is located in the cranium. Therefore, the heartbeat is not a reliable and conclusive sign of the presence of life. Medically speaking, instead of the electrocardiogram (EKG), the electroencephalogram (EEC), which measures the electrical impulses generated in the brain, is the true indicator of life or death. The heart can stop completely even though the soul is still in the body! When a patient's heart ceases to function, a physician will often try electrical shock, heart massage or some other technique to reactivate the pulse — often with success. But once the EEC registers negative, the soul has vacated the body, and the person is dead.



Truthtesty:
False. Life is in the blood of both humans and animals. Thieme is just trying to confuse the issue with wordplay to attack the efficacy of the blood of Christ. What's obvious to us and to the Levites is that when blood is drained from animals, then life is removed from animals. When blood is drained from humans, then life is removed from humans. Thus the logic animal or human - life is in the blood. This was common knowledge to all people at that time. No one can create human or animal life from dust, only God can. We do not know the exact physical/spiritual details of God's soul/life-connection to animals and humans. The animal does have a soul/life in his body, as a human has a soul/life in his body. The greater refinement of human life is obvious, to a degree.

Truthtesty: It took Thieme at least 7 years to correct his medical information. Thieme mistakenly used the acronym EEC for EEG. The error was finally corrected in 1979 manual. Remember now this is "Bible Doctrine" being taught here. In Thieme's words - "Absolute Truth = Word of God = Thieme's Bible Doctrine"

Thieme is saying the "the criterion" for human life is the "impulse in the brain" and that the EEG is proof and is a medical indicator of the soul being located in the brain. Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain that to the Veternarians and Veternarian departments at universities all across America and the world, who use EEGs on animals. Here's an example University of Tenneesse Veternarian clinical department:
[www.vet.utk.edu]

ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES
The Electrodiagnostic Laboratory is a full service facility of the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, offering a complete range of clinical diagnostic procedures. The following procedures or areas of study are available:

electroretinography
oscillatory potentials
visual evoked responses
electromyography
nerve conduction studies
electroencephalography
auditory evoked responses
acoustic reflex studies
otoacoustic emissions
tympanometry
somatosensory evoked responses
urethral pressure profilometry
cystometry



Animals have EEG brainwave activty - "impulse in the brain", therefore Thieme has not proven that the human soul is in the brain. When the animal dies his brainwave activity stops, just as in humans. Thieme's theory is a fraud. No one knows where the soul is. Thieme did not prove that the soul of life is not partially in the literal blood. No one can. This was Thieme's best attempt at trying to prove his fallacious theory that human life is not in the literal blood, in support of his other fallacious theory that the "Blood of Christ" (figure of speech) specifically does not refer to the literal blood of Christ. Thieme couldn't do it. He tried.




Truthtesty