Jesus, the Good Shepherd, Voluntarily Lay Down His Life for His Sheep
Apr 22, 2021 18:54:58 #
That "insulting attitude" seems to be the best known feature of Peter S. Ruckman (deceased in 2016), known as fanatically "KJV Only" uniquely combined with "Ultra-Dispensationalism," and of those who choose to adopt his biblically indefensible beliefs, which qualify as a form of Gnosticism, always irresistible to those who need to believe there are two, rather than one body of Christ; consisting of 1) those zapped with superior knowledge and 2) the unzapped...
Below is an organization that defends the KJV of the Bible, yet denounces Ruckmanism as unbiblical, and borderline cultism:
https://www.ruckmanism.org/
"Our mission is to warn about the dangers of Ruckmanism while upholding the trustworthiness of the KJV."
"At Ruckmanism.org we believe it is proper to refer to the KJV as trustworthy, reliable, proven and faithful but not infallible, inspired or innerrant, which are terms to be reserved for the original manuscripts. We explain the reasons in The KJV..."
They have various quotes by Ruckman:
"Peter Ruckman reveals the only reason he did not join the KKK, but otherwise agrees with everything they say:
"The Ku Klux Klan’s like that. I’ll tell you why I never joined the Ku Klux Klan. It’s because they’re anti-semitic. And that’s the only reason I didn’t join. [laughs heartily] I mean, I agree with everything else they say."
Entertaining this man's beliefs as 1) Christian and 2) worthy of sharing is, as an understatement, unBerean (Acts 17: 10-15).
TexaCan wrote:
Always the insulting attitude! 👿
I’m curious! Did your partner ever rope you instead of the steer......accidentally of coarse? 😱🤷🏻♀️
I’m curious! Did your partner ever rope you instead of the steer......accidentally of coarse? 😱🤷🏻♀️
Apr 22, 2021 20:28:18 #
Thanks, Rose,
The King James Bible has 800 obsolete words, the meaning of which have completely flipped since their last printing, for this is what all languages do.
Language is a continuum, thus constant revisions are required, in order that the common man who seeks God may readily apprehend His rudimentary gospel message with their mind, in order to accept and receive the priceless gift of the salvation offered them, and the indwelling Holy Spirit who will lead them into the deep things of God...
for "it is God's wish that no man should perish" (2nd Peter 3:9).
If I could elaborate on Oleg's confusion:
Jesus was born into the world as a Jew, the blood He shed was Jewish blood, for Mary's bloodline extended backward to King David and to Abraham, thus, the blood of these men who were much loved by God, flowed through His veins, - the blood by which all the world's believers in Him are eternally saved, which seems almost to be a bonus, although we know "God shares His glory with no man."
Jesus was born of Mary in order that He would be fully human, i.e., born flesh, blood and bones, as well as fully God.
The Triune God is "spirit," no flesh, no blood, no bones. That is true of Yahweh, it was true of Yeshua before He became incarnate, just as it is true of the Holy Spirit.
Mary wasn't physically impregnated, but spiritually... miraculously, she conceived through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no physical father, thus He had no inherited sin nature.
That is why, in Genesis 3:15, He is called "the seed of the woman."
Only the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) believe that God the Father and Mary cohabited... for one of their main themes reflects their belief that God ascended to Godhood through obeying the tenants of Mormonism, from his beginning as a mortal human being:
"As man is God once was, as God is man may be,"
which is Biblically NOT true, for the Triune God has been from time eternal, God, neither can man ascend to the status of being God.
It is an impossibility, for the Triune Godhead has always existed:
From the beginning, the Christian church has proclaimed its fundamental belief in the Triune God as He has revealed Himself to be.
The theological doctrine of the Trinity states that God has interacted at various times in history with His creation, as three distinct, independent persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - while simultaneously existing as a single, unified being.
For most of us (myself included), this notion defies human logic and exceeds our comprehensive ability. Although the fundamental elements of this doctrine have been carefully stated by church leaders, teachers, and theologians throughout the history of the body of Christ, the question of how the Trinity operates or functions in reality must be received and accepted by faith.
It is then, with a sense of reverential awe and wonder that we contemplate the words of Reginald Heber's famous hymn:
"Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God almighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity."
How much blood is required for Jesus to present to Yahweh/God the Father?
Based on the procedures for the "sin offerings" in the Jerusalem Temple (a copy of the Holy place in heaven), sacrificial offerings, although they had to be consistently repeated, because of the inadequacy of the blood of oxen, sheep, goats and sparrows, there was no need to envision "painting an entire room," or even the entire sacrificial altar with blood...
(Hebrews 9:12) "With His own blood - not the blood of goats and calves - He entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever."
“For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a {mere} copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;” (Hebrews 9:24)
He "sprinkled" His blood on the mercy seat of the sacrificial altar in the holy place.
"The mercy seat" had become a common term for the kaporet (Hebrew: הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת ha-kappōreṯ), the gold lid on the Ark of the Covenant. The triliteral root (root containing a sequence of three consonants) of the verb "to atone" and the noun "atonement" kapor (כפר) also the root word in Yom Kippur.
Jesus, our High Priest sprinkled "the seat" once only, for all time, with blood from His sacrifice signifying the reconciliation of God and all of mankind who would believe on Him, and would accept His precious gift of salvation, for He had already declared His sacrifice "finished," i.e., the sin debt of all men "paid in full" while on the cross, though each must individually accept this precious gift to receive it.
All offerings of blood sacrifice were "sprinkled," on either the Ark itself or on the base on which it sat, in the Holy place.
Peter wrote, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver and gold... but with the precious blood of Christ” (1st Peter 1:18-19).
Peter wrote that election is “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1st Peter 1:2). The “sprinkling of the blood” once for all, permanently sealed the New Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:1-18).
The King James Bible has 800 obsolete words, the meaning of which have completely flipped since their last printing, for this is what all languages do.
Language is a continuum, thus constant revisions are required, in order that the common man who seeks God may readily apprehend His rudimentary gospel message with their mind, in order to accept and receive the priceless gift of the salvation offered them, and the indwelling Holy Spirit who will lead them into the deep things of God...
for "it is God's wish that no man should perish" (2nd Peter 3:9).
If I could elaborate on Oleg's confusion:
Jesus was born into the world as a Jew, the blood He shed was Jewish blood, for Mary's bloodline extended backward to King David and to Abraham, thus, the blood of these men who were much loved by God, flowed through His veins, - the blood by which all the world's believers in Him are eternally saved, which seems almost to be a bonus, although we know "God shares His glory with no man."
Jesus was born of Mary in order that He would be fully human, i.e., born flesh, blood and bones, as well as fully God.
The Triune God is "spirit," no flesh, no blood, no bones. That is true of Yahweh, it was true of Yeshua before He became incarnate, just as it is true of the Holy Spirit.
Mary wasn't physically impregnated, but spiritually... miraculously, she conceived through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no physical father, thus He had no inherited sin nature.
That is why, in Genesis 3:15, He is called "the seed of the woman."
Only the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) believe that God the Father and Mary cohabited... for one of their main themes reflects their belief that God ascended to Godhood through obeying the tenants of Mormonism, from his beginning as a mortal human being:
"As man is God once was, as God is man may be,"
which is Biblically NOT true, for the Triune God has been from time eternal, God, neither can man ascend to the status of being God.
It is an impossibility, for the Triune Godhead has always existed:
From the beginning, the Christian church has proclaimed its fundamental belief in the Triune God as He has revealed Himself to be.
The theological doctrine of the Trinity states that God has interacted at various times in history with His creation, as three distinct, independent persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - while simultaneously existing as a single, unified being.
For most of us (myself included), this notion defies human logic and exceeds our comprehensive ability. Although the fundamental elements of this doctrine have been carefully stated by church leaders, teachers, and theologians throughout the history of the body of Christ, the question of how the Trinity operates or functions in reality must be received and accepted by faith.
It is then, with a sense of reverential awe and wonder that we contemplate the words of Reginald Heber's famous hymn:
"Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God almighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity."
How much blood is required for Jesus to present to Yahweh/God the Father?
Based on the procedures for the "sin offerings" in the Jerusalem Temple (a copy of the Holy place in heaven), sacrificial offerings, although they had to be consistently repeated, because of the inadequacy of the blood of oxen, sheep, goats and sparrows, there was no need to envision "painting an entire room," or even the entire sacrificial altar with blood...
(Hebrews 9:12) "With His own blood - not the blood of goats and calves - He entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever."
“For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a {mere} copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;” (Hebrews 9:24)
He "sprinkled" His blood on the mercy seat of the sacrificial altar in the holy place.
"The mercy seat" had become a common term for the kaporet (Hebrew: הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת ha-kappōreṯ), the gold lid on the Ark of the Covenant. The triliteral root (root containing a sequence of three consonants) of the verb "to atone" and the noun "atonement" kapor (כפר) also the root word in Yom Kippur.
Jesus, our High Priest sprinkled "the seat" once only, for all time, with blood from His sacrifice signifying the reconciliation of God and all of mankind who would believe on Him, and would accept His precious gift of salvation, for He had already declared His sacrifice "finished," i.e., the sin debt of all men "paid in full" while on the cross, though each must individually accept this precious gift to receive it.
All offerings of blood sacrifice were "sprinkled," on either the Ark itself or on the base on which it sat, in the Holy place.
Peter wrote, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver and gold... but with the precious blood of Christ” (1st Peter 1:18-19).
Peter wrote that election is “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1st Peter 1:2). The “sprinkling of the blood” once for all, permanently sealed the New Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:1-18).
Rose42 wrote:
Its called Christianity. How you came to the conclusion that she is saying Jesus’s father was human is beyond me.
Perhaps you keep flailing because people don’t buy into your opinion that the KJV is the one true translation.
Perhaps you keep flailing because people don’t buy into your opinion that the KJV is the one true translation.
Apr 22, 2021 20:31:39 #
Apr 22, 2021 21:02:35 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
Zemirah "Oleg, for your soul's sake, read the Bible through your own eyes."
Be glad to do that, perhaps you might direct me to the Biblical passage saying Jesus had human blood.
Oh yes, I really don't believe my souls in danger because I do believe in how He died, was buried for 3-12 hr days and 3-12 hr nights, then rose from the dead.
Be glad to do that, perhaps you might direct me to the Biblical passage saying Jesus had human blood.
Oh yes, I really don't believe my souls in danger because I do believe in how He died, was buried for 3-12 hr days and 3-12 hr nights, then rose from the dead.
Apr 22, 2021 21:24:29 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
Rose42 "Its called Christianity. How you came to the conclusion that she is saying Jesus’s father was human is beyond me. "
It's called deductive reasoning, that's when on the basis of a statement you make a logical conclusion.
Zemirah said Jesus had human blood, which is something I've never heard claimed before.
Now one must ask: Where does one get human blood if not from another human?
And since science tells us the blood of a baby comes from the male rather than the female.....Well what can I say, 2+2 generally equals 4.
You say it's called Christianity, however many Bible students would term most thoughts I've read here as a Christianity based on traditional teachings rather than scripture.
Rose42 perhaps you can answer this dilemma of how Jesus could have human blood when He was conceived through the Holy Spirit.
Some religious sects see no power in the blood. Since no one here, save one, has ever revealed what group they follow, I'm just wondering? Christian Science maybe?
It's called deductive reasoning, that's when on the basis of a statement you make a logical conclusion.
Zemirah said Jesus had human blood, which is something I've never heard claimed before.
Now one must ask: Where does one get human blood if not from another human?
And since science tells us the blood of a baby comes from the male rather than the female.....Well what can I say, 2+2 generally equals 4.
You say it's called Christianity, however many Bible students would term most thoughts I've read here as a Christianity based on traditional teachings rather than scripture.
Rose42 perhaps you can answer this dilemma of how Jesus could have human blood when He was conceived through the Holy Spirit.
Some religious sects see no power in the blood. Since no one here, save one, has ever revealed what group they follow, I'm just wondering? Christian Science maybe?
Apr 23, 2021 10:35:54 #
olegig wrote:
Rose42 "Its called Christianity. How you came to the conclusion that she is saying Jesus’s father was human is beyond me. "
It's called deductive reasoning, that's when on the basis of a statement you make a logical conclusion.
It's called deductive reasoning, that's when on the basis of a statement you make a logical conclusion.
Based on previous posts of hers its not a logical conclusion.
Quote:
You say it's called Christianity, however many Bible students would term most thoughts I've read here as a Christianity based on traditional teachings rather than scripture.
Nonsense. Ruckmanism explains many of your posts.
Quote:
Some religious sects see no power in the blood. Since no one here, save one, has ever revealed what group they follow, I'm just wondering? Christian Science maybe?
Do you understand what non denominational means?
Apr 24, 2021 08:30:24 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
Rose42 "Nonsense. Ruckmanism explains many of your posts."
Well here is your great chance. From what little I know of Ruckman's life many debated him and tried to prove him wrong, the problem was he knew more scripture than them and they never succeeded.
BUT ROSE42 here's your chance.
All you have to do is prove with scripture that Jesus had human blood!!!
So far the only basis for theology I've seen here is traditional phrases. Some traditions are scriptural, but many are not.
Why am I demonized when a non-scriptural tradition is exposed? You say your non-denominational, however most non-denominational churches I've visited are generally pretty scriptural. They have left the denominations to escape traditional teachings found in denominations.
Do you regularly attend a physical gathering of members of the Body to fellowship and discuss the word of God?
Sometimes non-denominational means a bunch of mis-fits have gone off on there own and have a feel good religion permitting everyone to just believe what makes them feel good.
Saying Abraham was saved just like us is one thing, many folks have never deeply studied what God's word says about the method of OT salvation. Scriptures presented on the subject are just ignored and the messenger is attacked.
If I'm wrong I want to know it, but I want the scriptures showing I'm wrong; not just someone saying I'm wrong based on traditional teachings.
However saying Jesus had human blood is quite a DIFFERENT matter. This degrades and belittles the deity of Christ!
Rose42 this is your chance to shine! The only place to get human blood is from a human.
Show with scripture which human impregnated Mary.
Do you honestly believe the Holy Ghost implanted human blood in Jesus?
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:20
A true theology is based on the word of God, not on the sayings of a group leader.
Someday we are all going to stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ and give account of how we handled the Word by the way we handled the word of God, not by how well we defend something spoken by another human.
Well here is your great chance. From what little I know of Ruckman's life many debated him and tried to prove him wrong, the problem was he knew more scripture than them and they never succeeded.
BUT ROSE42 here's your chance.
All you have to do is prove with scripture that Jesus had human blood!!!
So far the only basis for theology I've seen here is traditional phrases. Some traditions are scriptural, but many are not.
Why am I demonized when a non-scriptural tradition is exposed? You say your non-denominational, however most non-denominational churches I've visited are generally pretty scriptural. They have left the denominations to escape traditional teachings found in denominations.
Do you regularly attend a physical gathering of members of the Body to fellowship and discuss the word of God?
Sometimes non-denominational means a bunch of mis-fits have gone off on there own and have a feel good religion permitting everyone to just believe what makes them feel good.
Saying Abraham was saved just like us is one thing, many folks have never deeply studied what God's word says about the method of OT salvation. Scriptures presented on the subject are just ignored and the messenger is attacked.
If I'm wrong I want to know it, but I want the scriptures showing I'm wrong; not just someone saying I'm wrong based on traditional teachings.
However saying Jesus had human blood is quite a DIFFERENT matter. This degrades and belittles the deity of Christ!
Rose42 this is your chance to shine! The only place to get human blood is from a human.
Show with scripture which human impregnated Mary.
Do you honestly believe the Holy Ghost implanted human blood in Jesus?
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 1:20
A true theology is based on the word of God, not on the sayings of a group leader.
Someday we are all going to stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ and give account of how we handled the Word by the way we handled the word of God, not by how well we defend something spoken by another human.
Apr 24, 2021 08:57:22 #
TexaCan
Loc: Homeward Bound!
olegig wrote:
Rose42 "Nonsense. Ruckmanism explains many of... (show quote)
Glad to see you’re following the Ruckman playbook! 👍😉
“A true theology is based on the word of God, not on the sayings of a group leader.” Excellent advice from you......... And yet your words are the same as your leader!
Apr 24, 2021 09:45:58 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
TexaCan wrote:
Glad to see you’re following the Ruckman playbook! 👍😉
“A true theology is based on the word of God, not on the sayings of a group leader.” Excellent advice from you......... And yet your words are the same as your leader!
“A true theology is based on the word of God, not on the sayings of a group leader.” Excellent advice from you......... And yet your words are the same as your leader!
Yet more off-handed disparaging remarks. Does no one here have any knowledge of the scriptures?
It matters not who one follows or reads, what matters is scripture!
TexaCan prove you can discuss scripture, so far all I've seen is TexCan't.
The subject at hand is whether or not the blood of Christ is human or from God. Can you prove with scripture that Mary was impregnated by a human? That's from where human blood comes.
Do you have anything of scriptural substance to offer at all?
Many comment saying I am abrasive, while all I get is negativity. Heritage and heresy are close cousins.
Christ was very abrasive with false teachings.
Have you ever had an original thought, or are you just a parrot for the group leader?
Apr 24, 2021 10:31:04 #
olegig wrote:
Yet more off-handed disparaging remarks. Does no ... (show quote)
You reap what you sow. Are your thoughts original or are you a Ruckman parrot? See how silly that is?
No one has suggested Mary was impregnated by a human. You just like to make things up. According to your reasoning then Jesus could not have taken on human form unless his father was human. Thats how silly you are being.
There is no group leader here. We have all disagreed at some point. No one here thinks they are above anyone else - except you.
Apr 24, 2021 18:13:22 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
Rose42 "You reap what you sow. Are your thoughts original or are you a Ruckman parrot? See how silly that is?"
Yes I do think it very silly. Have I ever written "Ruckman says......"? No
Have you ever given me a list of commentaries I should read. Yes
Have things been written here that are "outta" the Bible? Yes because they sure aren't in the Bible.
Rose42 "No one has suggested Mary was impregnated by a human."
Zemirah said Jesus had human blood and no one but me disagreed.
Tell me Rose42, or anyone else for that matter; how does Jesus get sinful human blood from the Holy Ghost?
Rose42 do you believe Jesus had human blood?
Man is inherently a sinner. Man is not a sinner because he sins, man sins because he is a sinner.
Rose42 "There is no group leader here. We have all disagreed at some point. No one here thinks they are above anyone else - except you."
Why is it that no one here besides me takes exception to the statement that Jesus had human blood?
Does no one have any respect for the deity of Christ?
Yes I do think it very silly. Have I ever written "Ruckman says......"? No
Have you ever given me a list of commentaries I should read. Yes
Have things been written here that are "outta" the Bible? Yes because they sure aren't in the Bible.
Rose42 "No one has suggested Mary was impregnated by a human."
Zemirah said Jesus had human blood and no one but me disagreed.
Tell me Rose42, or anyone else for that matter; how does Jesus get sinful human blood from the Holy Ghost?
Rose42 do you believe Jesus had human blood?
Man is inherently a sinner. Man is not a sinner because he sins, man sins because he is a sinner.
Rose42 "There is no group leader here. We have all disagreed at some point. No one here thinks they are above anyone else - except you."
Why is it that no one here besides me takes exception to the statement that Jesus had human blood?
Does no one have any respect for the deity of Christ?
Apr 24, 2021 18:33:36 #
TexaCan
Loc: Homeward Bound!
olegig wrote:
Yet more off-handed disparaging remarks. Does no ... (show quote)
I do have a group leader.........Jesus Christ! My study manual is the Bible........I use my NIV most of the time, but often compare with my husband’s choice of a KJB!
We don’t have a Bible Study group on this forum, so we have no group leader!
I don’t know that I would call you abrasive, just a man that has been fooled by a false teacher and is convinced that if he uses the same tactics as his teacher that others will follow just as he followed!
This tactic has been used since the beginning! The sad truth is that it works for weak folks that are easily lead and are looking for something to fill a need and have little knowledge of the Bible. The rest know better!
I have no need to butt heads with you and play your foolish game! Others have attempted to have a discussion but you returned insults and claimed superiority..........How’s that going for ya? 😈
Apr 24, 2021 18:37:43 #
olegig wrote:
Rose42 "You reap what you sow. Are your thoug... (show quote)
I’m not going to argue with you. You want to make things up and put words in people’s mouth. Its very odd you choose to play games.
Apr 24, 2021 19:09:39 #
olegig
Loc: Texas panhandle
TexaCan"I do have a group leader.........Jesus Christ! My study manual is the Bible........I use my NIV most of the time, but often compare with my husband’s choice of a KJB!"
Great! Do you agree with Zemirah that Jesus had human blood?
If not, why not disagree with such a statement?
If you do, please supply any scriptural proof from any version you wish.
This is not a tactic or foolish game, it's the normal way the Bible is discussed.
Why is asking for scriptural proof a foolish game?
Rose42 "I’m not going to argue with you."
Why is asking for scriptural proof of a Biblical matter arguing?
Why is asking a question arguing?
Why is carrying something to its logical conclusion putting words in someone's mouth?
God gave us a mind, are we to just blindly accept a statement without following it to it's conclusion?
IF JESUS HAD HUMAN BLOOD, IT HAD TO COME FROM A HUMAN!
Looking back on other threads seems the normal thing here is to just "amen" anything someone says.
Great! Do you agree with Zemirah that Jesus had human blood?
If not, why not disagree with such a statement?
If you do, please supply any scriptural proof from any version you wish.
This is not a tactic or foolish game, it's the normal way the Bible is discussed.
Why is asking for scriptural proof a foolish game?
Rose42 "I’m not going to argue with you."
Why is asking for scriptural proof of a Biblical matter arguing?
Why is asking a question arguing?
Why is carrying something to its logical conclusion putting words in someone's mouth?
God gave us a mind, are we to just blindly accept a statement without following it to it's conclusion?
IF JESUS HAD HUMAN BLOOD, IT HAD TO COME FROM A HUMAN!
Looking back on other threads seems the normal thing here is to just "amen" anything someone says.
Apr 24, 2021 22:05:40 #
TexaCan
Loc: Homeward Bound!
olegig wrote:
TexaCan"I do have a group leader.........Jesu... (show quote)
Yes, I agree with Zemirah! If you didn’t understand her explanation I suggest you go back and read it again!
She’s always quite clear in her explanations! Her knowledge of the Bible is unequal on this forum.......and I’ve been here 7 years! IMHO
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.