It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rabbi's Compare Trump To "Cyrus The Great"

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

It’s impossible to lie to god. Only men are deceived by Satan.

Jesus spent a lot of time with Satan in the wilderness. Forty days and forty nights of temptations. Not with things that belongs to god.




posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22939849]ketsuko

I asked god for forgiveness and got baptized to show my repentance. It was a humbling experience.

Job was not killed because it would have changed the outcome Satan wanted. Satan wanted Job to curse god. He had to be alive to do that.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Deetermined

It’s impossible to lie to god. Only men are deceived by Satan.


Uh, maybe you forgot that Jesus came in the flesh and was half man/half God. You speak as though Jesus never experienced human emotions, pain or a human death, which we know he did.


Jesus spent a lot of time with Satan in the wilderness. Forty days and forty nights of temptations. Not with things that belongs to god.


Once again, I'll remind you that while Satan may be allowed to rule over the world and the kingdoms in it, it is not his to give or keep because God will cast him out of it, just like he cast him out of Heaven.

John 12:31 - 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

This may be Satan's temporary habitat, but that's it. Earth and everything in it will come to an end and Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Jesus experienced love and empathy and anger at money changers. He did not lie and Satan knew it useless to lie to him, like Judas. If the stories handed down are true he was an extraordinary human. They do come along every once in a while.

I don’t believe or take the Lake of Fire literal. That’s a different thread tho.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


Jesus experienced love and empathy and anger at money changers. He did not lie and Satan knew it useless to lie to him, like Judas.


Do you even realize how silly it sounds to say that Satan knew it was useless to lie to Jesus about whether he had authority to give him earthly kingdoms when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was the Son of God, and the Creator of all things to begin with?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

The point of Jesus going into the wilderness was to be tempted. If Satan never tried, then there was no point. If Jesus could not be tempted, then there was no point.

Jesus had to experience in full measure the temptations humans undergo in our everyday lives in order for his sacrifice to be acceptable. He had to be tempted in full measure and still able to turn away. He was in the flesh and subject to all the sensations and weaknesses that implies.

You can tell yourself all you want that Satan rules it all here, but he ultimately does not. At the end of it all, God casts him out.

However, to the mortal in the flesh with a short span of mortal days, he may as well seem to rule it all, and that's the deception so many fall for. We think in terms of the finite span of days on earth rather than in terms of our eternal souls. In those terms, Satan owns nothing.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Yes. That’s my point. Satan claims the kingdoms and riches are his to give. He knows Jesus is the son of god so why lie to the son of god.

“Thy kingdom come....”.

I do agree trump is being used.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It wasn’t much of a temptation if Jesus was tempted with kingdoms and riches that already belong to his father and him.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ketsuko

It wasn’t much of a temptation if Jesus was tempted with kingdoms and riches that already belong to his father and him.


Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "can't take it with you"?

This earth will pass away. There is nothing here that has lasting or permanent value or meaning.

Satan tempts with fool's gold.
edit on 9-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Interesting how this thread is evolving, as Christians of different stripe are arguing theology.

I would remind everybody here, that the bible, or at least it's content, is a work of collection over hundreds of years, showing political expediency and open to influence from other faiths around the Mid East. And they(different faiths) were abound. In Cyrus's time, Zoroastrianism was the state religion with a cosmology/ theology that dates back to the second millennium BC.

Greek Philosophic thought also has influenced religious thought within Judaism and Christianity.

Today, modern philosophical thought also influences Christianity. O yes it does. Look at the text that whereislogic flags:
"It is far better for each individual personally to choose wisely what he will feed his mind. It is said that "we are what we eat" and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind." (quotation marks mine")

Note the passive. This is a hallmark of the writing style of the theologist of the Watchtower Society, F. Franz. And since his death, his writing style is kept on record, as it conveniently deflects attention away from who it has said.

Well, if you can read some German, you'll find "Der Mensch ist was er ißt", which actually is a sly joke because ist and ißt are pronounced the same, is a quote from Ludwig von Fuerbacher from his essay: Das Geheimnis des Opfers oder: Der Mensch ist, was er ißt. Von Feuerbacher was actually writing against Christianity and a proponent for atheism, liberalism and materialism.

Those who use this line, may think it sounds good, but are using a line without thinking it through. At any rate, it goes to show that an element of thought from non-christian origin can easily penetrate Christian thought. Hence, it makes actually no sense to argue from scripture about certain intricacies.

As to Trumps asking for forgiveness. Some people hold the view that this should be done every time God is addressed in prayer. Others, feel adherence to such traditions to be less helpful. What I also appreciated from the interview in which he actually does not answer that question directly, he actually says that he thinks about what he did wrong and tries to make amends and right a wrong.

I am not sure how he got to such ideas, but I can see where it might come from. As in Christian thought, Jesus sacrifice has forgiven all sins, and men must die because of the inherited state of sin, there is really no need to be on your knees to ask forgiveness for every issue.

Personally, I kind of like that view. It comes across as the typical sons whom were ordered to work in the vineyard. One said: yes, I'll go, but did not go. The other said, no, changed his mind and went. Jesus then asks the question: who do you think did according to his father's will?

Yet, many people do, obsessed with sin as they are, incapable of forgiving themselves, the hope for a sense of forgiveness from an external source. Thus perpetuating an unnatural, and psychologically damaging circle of irrational guilt. Feelings of guilt are natural, until such time you righted the wrong.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Yvhmer

You do not understand Christian dogma. Before you attain forgiveness, you must ask. The only unforgivable sin, is the one you didn’t ask to be forgiven. It is a show of humility to a jealous god. Trump would rather reside in darkness than be humbled by god. Jesus said His Way would not be the easy road.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

To be sure if Trump gets too proud of his achievements of his "Great America", he can be humbled just like Nebuchadnezzar was over his "Great Babylon"

Danial Chapter 4

28 “All this happened to Nebuchadnezzar the king. 29 Twelve months later he was walking on the upper level of the royal palace of Babylon. 30 The king said thoughtfully, ‘Is not this the great Babylon which I myself have built as the royal residence and seat of government by the might of my power and for the honor and glory of my majesty?’ 31 While the words were still in the king’s mouth, a voice came [as if falling] from heaven, saying, ‘O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: “The kingdom has been removed from you, 32 and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the animals of the field. You will be given grass to eat like the cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you know [without any doubt] that the Most High God rules over the kingdom of mankind and He bestows it on whomever He desires.”’ 33 Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails were like birds’ claws.


God drove him insane for seven years to humble him, we don't know if in private Trump is thanking God for his improbable success or not. But we do know God is not one to be mocked, so we will see what happens. Humiliation via impeachment would be the modern equivalent. But he could also stay as Teflon Don if God wants him there for a certain duration, and if that is true everything will turn to dust that is thrown at him, and it will continue to confound and perturb the mostly atheistic Alt-left.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Personally, I don’t want trump impeached. He and the Christians won, its all theirs.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You are exactly right. I do not understand dogma, as I neither do not deal in dogma nor adhere to it. Consider me a spiritual atheist. That being said, I come from a Christian background and have studied quite a number of directions on the "anti lutron" question. And every creed has it's own inclination. Considering your own creed to be the ultimate last call on a matter which for 2000 years has garnered major discussion, it is safe to say it is not a settled issue.

On top, you seem to not take into account a few things in relation to the development of Christian thought over those 2000 years. You only have to consider what is authoritatively pushed down our throats what should be considered scripture. From the top of my head, Jude or James even quote from the book of Enoch, which is not considered canonical. The gospel, letters and Revelation, attributed to John are deeply gnostic. Barely made it into the canon. By whom? By a bunch of guys, under the flag of state unity in 325 AD came to consensus while suppressing equally genuinely held beliefs and started to prosecute those not within "orthodoxy". Not content with prosecution alone, the books held in high esteem by different Christian groups were burned. Nag Hammadi is simply exemplifying the thoroughness of that black page period as this monumental find of pure happenstance, changed our view of early Christianity.

Is it not interesting that gnostic concepts are by sheer luck preserved in the canon although they do not harmonize well with the type that is attributed to st. Paul? And even the internal harmony of the Paulian type is quite questionable. More on that later.

The OT has it's own problems. once you start tracing the points of collection, alteration, addition, it becomes clear that Hilkiah "found" the law of Moses a couple of decades before the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. And here too you'll find the ulterior motive: to use religion for political purposes. this is the motif throughout mankind's history.

The best, I feel, you could say is:" this is how I understand scripture and this or that reverberates with me". I can and will buy and respect that. And what does it all boil down to, the essence, the spirit? Is it not contained in these words:
"Love God above all and your neighbor as yourself. This is the fulfillment of the law?" Where does forgiveness come in, when the price for sin has already been paid in full for everybody?

Or is it simply the message from John 3:16? Or all of them together? Why not add the Nag Hammadi library to it?

Forgiveness is a public matter in a community, as "Paul" argues in his two letters to the Corinthians. He first describes the situation of a man who married the wife of his father, called a form of porneia "not even seen among the gentiles". (right, Paul clearly was abreast of everything going on within the gentile universe). Later, in his second letter, the community had to forgive the man after showing remorse upon ostracizing the man from the community that deeply saddened the man for a long time. Note, that it is recorded as reportedly, and we have to take his word for it. (1 Cor 5) And how did that man hurt those poor disciples in Corinth? Just because people in town were discussing the issue? There is nothing in the Gospels that calls for such cutting off. And, is it not true that Paul argues that the Law is impaled and Christians are free of the law of Moses?

I imagine circumstances in which that man, out of the goodness of his heart did not want her to be destitute and proposed to marry her, for her husband has left/ divorced her and she would not be dependent upon the goodness of their fellow Christians. (1 Cor 7 gives you the clue to this story) However, Paul espouses an opinion here, not law, yet, it has become law. I am not arguing in favor of what the man has done, only showing that Paul simply makes things up that is used as a power tool to keep people in line, in a situation where Christians were not very popular. (also take note of 2 Cor 2:5 and 2 Cor 7:12 the latter being the leitmotif) I am sure this man has begged for forgiveness on his knees for having rocked the boat.

Once you start to exchange spiritual for literal for the sake of control, all kinds of acts of violence, narrow mindedness and cruelty ensues. What you are missing are the clear words: Where Gods spirit is, is liberty, so who are you to judge your brother? Is it not that each and every person should be convinced in his own mind and bend the knee to Christ? Is that not what you learned? (Also Pauline doctrine) And is it not true that Pauline doctrine establishes the elder- diakonos structure?

At best, as I said earlier, you are arguing from a system that has become more unified in the second century CE and codified after 325.

In effect, you could be a Christian solely based on the John Gospel. He says so in his chapter 19. But then you would be a Christian of a sort of gnostic type and not at home in either an orthodox, roman catholic or protestant/ evangelical type of group. ;-)

The possibility of simply adhering to several creeds and still be a Christian is astounding. And when you look at the situation regarding faith/religion in Galilee in those days, it becomes quite logical.

Bringing it back to the current day: being a Christian at all is not a prerequisite of being a Potus. However, considering the role religion or rather faith played in the war of southern secession on both sides to arouse the mases, it simply amazing. Both sides claiming an almost messianic role. And the leftover is that for to become Potus, professing to be Christian is a politically wise move. And so through the back door, faith has become an almost litmus test for holding public office.

Just a quicky from Wikipedia:



The religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States can affect their electability, shape their stances on policy matters and their visions of society and also how they want to lead it. Speculation of Thomas Jefferson,[2] Abraham Lincoln,[3][4] and William Howard Taft[5] being atheists was reported during election campaigns, while others, such as Jimmy Carter,[6] used faith as a defining aspect of their campaigns and tenure to hold the office. Almost all of the presidents can be characterized as Christian, at least by upbringing, though some were unaffiliated with any specific religious body. Protestants predominate, with Episcopalians and Presbyterians being the most prevalent. There has been a single Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. No president thus far has been openly an atheist.[7] However, it has been acknowledged that two US Presidents—Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Johnson—had no religious affiliation.[8]


It would seem that there is some pause to think about it. And I will leave you a few quotes from Napoleon:



-The religious zeal which animates priests, leads them to undertake labors and to brave perils which would be far beyond the powers of one in secular employment.
-Man loves the marvelous. It has an irresistible charm for him. He is always ready to leave that with which he is familiar to pursue vain inventions. He lends himself to his own deception.
-A general must be a charlatan.
-In politics, an absurdity is not an impediment.


Entertainment.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Yvhmer

I am basing my argument on the personal experience of being born into 13th generation Mississippi Baptist. Preachers, deacons, and missionaries. I don’t adhere to my religious roots anymore, but have never forgotten the teachings.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3




13th generation Mississippi Baptist.


Wow your ancestors must have come over on the Mayflower



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

My mother’s people landed in Maryland in 1693. They were ministers for the Church of England then. Then Methodists preachers when mom’s ancestors migrated to the appalachians, then by 1830 migrated south to Mississippi and became baptist preachers. Her people were always ministers and farmers. There a family genealogy book with the history of each generation.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
His behavior is arrogant, lies a lot, materialistic, unkind, and ungenerous and people see him as a Christian and a great leader?

Sounds more like an anti-christ to me.

Jesus Christ is better he taught to turn the other cheek, love, and give to others. Jesus is The Greater God.
edit on 12-10-2017 by lightofgratitude because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Absolutely..

Agree with all of that except two things..

A) that most Christians know that..

B) I would need to look it up again , but I’m pretty sure the only people who consider messianic Jews, Jewish are Christians..

Once you believe that the Jewish religion is wrong and Christianity is right, then your not really Jewish anymore now are you????

If I call myself a pagan but believe in the judeochristian god and Jesus are the only real gods.. I’m not really pagan anymore now am I??

I am a Christian claiming I am pagan..

(Unless you are referring to Jews in the genetic sense , because I am only referring to it in the religious sense. )

Looked it up..

Yup..Israel and their Supreme Court both recognize messianic Jews an a branch of Christianity, not Judaism..


“Jewish organizations and the Supreme Court of Israel have rejected this claim in cases related to the Law of Return, and instead consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[18][28]”

Messianic Jews wiki


Now back to where I agree completely..

That is kinda the whole point of Jesus.. to point out the things the Jews had gotten wrong, or needed to be changed..

So knowing that doesn’t inherently discredit Christianity for that to be the case.

HOWEVER, I bet you are in the minority..

I have personally argued that point with countless Christians in RL and on ATS over that fact..

The truth is less than 1% of Christians have ever read more than a few verses and most have a “Sunday school “ view of Christianities history or modern/ancient Jewish beliefs..

Most assume the Jews predicted a son of god messiah and the only reason the Jews didn’t believe is because he wasn’t a warrior king.

However, from the ancient/modern Jewish INTERPRETATION Jesus didn’t match the prophecies at all, nor were they even predicting anyone divine..

It is 100% reasonable to say they misinterpreted the phrophecy, it is not ok to retroactively assign your views to the Jewish religion..

edit on 10-12-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



However, from the ancient/modern Jewish INTERPRETATION Jesus didn’t match the prophecies at all, nor were they even predicting anyone divine.. It is 100% reasonable to say they misinterpreted the phrophecy, it is not ok to retroactively assign your views to the Jewish religion..


Yeah well Jesus fit the prophesy like a DNA match

353 Matches

Yet, the people would have accepted him if their clergy class did, rather they planned to kill him because they were selfish and scared, they never cared even if he was the promised Messiah, which showed they had once again devolved into a false hypocritical religion from God's viewpoint.

John 11

47 So the chief priests and Pharisees convened a council [of the leaders in Israel], and said, “What are we doing? For this man performs many signs (attesting miracles). 48 If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our [holy] place (the temple) and our nation.” 49 But one of them, [Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year], said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50 Nor do you understand that it is expedient and politically advantageous for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this [simply] on his own initiative; but being the high priest that year, he [was unknowingly used by God and] prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation, but also for the purpose of gathering together into one body the children of God who have been scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.


Jesus never even blamed the Romans, and asked God to forgive those pagans, but he did fully condemn the Jewish clergy of his day that manipulated the situation behind the scenes, because he knew they knew better and did extreme evil anyways. And in the end they lost their nation in 70 AD anyways, and everybody was punished collectively for their evil, they even willing condemned themselves when Pilate challenged that mob just before Jesus died.


edit on 10-12-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join