What does God look like?

a reply to: Malocchio

I must again correct you for saying after James in authority was John, because It well known that Peter was second to James and that James was replaced by Simeon, I believe his brother.

I do not see your sources nor the sources of your stars. You need not argue with me in matters of the scholars as it will not prove your sources. I do try to help you understand but your closed mind will not let the true sources in.

Quote
1. the High Priest was called the Nasi,
2. his Deputy High Priest was called the Sagan, and the
3. Chief Office of the Religious Court was called the Ab Beth-Din.

1.Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings”
2.The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3.The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.

source - (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
Unquote

You are mistaken once again. Just follow the numbers and you will understand.

James The Just was murdered in 63 CE. Just shortly before the final destruction of the temple. For over three decades the apostle John was the Sagan of the synagogue of James. After the murder of James and well after the destruction of the temple was the tradition that Peter became the leader of the movement in Jerusalem. Even at that it is strictly tradition which was adopted by the Roman organizations who founded the RCC.

This.....




This. ^^^

Contrasted with the gods of the nations. The true God, the Creator of the glorious heavenly bodies, has glory and brilliance beyond the ability of fleshly sight to endure, for “no man may see [God] and yet live.” (Ex 33:20) Only the angels, spirit creatures, have vision that can behold his face in a literal sense. (Mt 18:10; Lu 1:19) Nevertheless, he does not expose men to such an experience. In loving-kindness he enables men to see his fine qualities through his Word, including the revelation of himself by means of his Son, Christ Jesus.—Mt 11:27; Joh 1:18; 14:9.

God gives us an idea of the effect of his presence in the book of Revelation. The apostle John had a vision that approximated seeing God, in the sense that it revealed the effect of beholding him on his throne. God was not like a man in appearance, for he has not revealed any figure of his to man, as John himself said later: “No man has seen God at any time.” (Joh 1:18) Rather, God was shown to be like highly polished gems, precious, glowing, beautiful, that attract the eye and win delighted admiration. He was “in appearance, like a jasper stone and a precious red-colored stone, and round about the throne there [was] a rainbow like an emerald in appearance.” (Re 4:3) Thus, he is lovely in appearance and pleasant to look at, causing one to lose oneself in wonderment. About his throne there is further glory and an atmosphere of calmness, serenity; the appearance of a perfect rainbow of emerald indicates that, reminding one of the enjoyable quieting calm that follows a storm.—Compare Ge 9:12-16.

How different the true God is, therefore, from the gods of the nations, who are often depicted as being grotesque, angry, fierce, implacable, merciless, whimsical as to their favors and disfavors, horrifying and fiendish, and ready to torture earthly creatures in some kind of inferno.

Source: God: Insight, Volume 1

See also this comment in this thread: One myth leads to another.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If men didn't know what rain was until Noah, do you think they reacted that way in seeing those first rains?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If men didn't know what rain was until Noah, do you think they reacted that way in seeing those first rains?

No. It is preposterous to suggest that until Noah no humanoid had ever reacted to rain.



WOW.

Oh god. We've already had this chat, I think. Or maybe it was Rageddyman......

read Robert Wrights' book "The Evolution of God."

For godssake....seriously - for God's Very Sake.!!!!...Chet!

PLEASE READ IT!

IT IS GOD'S BIOGRAPHY.

Please. Just please click or bing or whatever you allow yourself to do. Ask the sentenarianlibrarian (trademark....going to buy that domain).....but seriously, the librarian gentlefolk who love being asked questions and can show you how to navigate the Dewey Decimal System....... those old ladies ------ those tweed-elbowed gentlemen ----- THEY will be the most helpful.

Yeah.




AVOID Hammsters.

Be batman.

(LOL!! Hammsters....*chuckles* )

evolutionofgod.net...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

why the young earthers claim that man saw no rain and didn't even know what it was until the flood.

I begged to differ with them, stating that once there was a man to till the ground rain began. They teach that no rain until the flood and whole crops of wheat, corn and eggplants all grew on just the morning due.

It only had to dew for a few days before Adam started tilling the ground along with his son Cain. Read Genesis chapters 2-4.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No, I'm not going to waste my time reading genesis today. Thanks.

It's still a preposterous claim, and obviously untrue. Do you really really really not see that?
You Bible guys are like Trekkies....or LOTR fans...you know all the details of your favorite book -
and that's admirable if that's your hobby to do it. But please realize, Chet, that you are talking about it as though it was real. It wasn't.

Thanks anyway. I prefer to stay as real as possible, and keep myself busy and honest just living my life believing in what's real and speculating on the unseen. I can guarantee you that Genesis is not real. It is not history. It is myth. Pure myth.

Love,
wigs

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I begged to differ with them, stating that once there was a man to till the ground rain began.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ^ It will always be ridiculous, no matter how many times you say it, you will be deserving of correction and, well, ridicule. Because it's ridiculous.

*head-desk*

a reply to: Seede

I don't really care about your unsupported claims, I know that the Bible clearly places James as the leader and Peter is second, not John.

You really make a simple fact into a twisted jumble of nonsense. Everyone knows Peter is the Rock, outside of Jerusalem and James he is top dog and according to Acts appointed by God to represent the Church abroad.

Peter is the true Apostle to the goyim, Paul is a fraud and imposter, self appointed.

And you hate being corrected so much so you should stop saying incorrect things like John was #2 when even the Bible disagrees.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

I must again correct you for saying after James in authority was John, because It well known that Peter was second to James and that James was replaced by Simeon, I believe his brother.

I do not see your sources nor the sources of your stars. You need not argue with me in matters of the scholars as it will not prove your sources. I do try to help you understand but your closed mind will not let the true sources in.

Quote
1. the High Priest was called the Nasi,
2. his Deputy High Priest was called the Sagan, and the
3. Chief Office of the Religious Court was called the Ab Beth-Din.

1.Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings”
2.The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3.The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.

source - (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
Unquote

You are mistaken once again. Just follow the numbers and you will understand.

James The Just was murdered in 63 CE. Just shortly before the final destruction of the temple. For over three decades the apostle John was the Sagan of the synagogue of James. After the murder of James and well after the destruction of the temple was the tradition that Peter became the leader of the movement in Jerusalem. Even at that it is strictly tradition which was adopted by the Roman organizations who founded the RCC.

Yeah, and yet not a single quote from the Bible.

Because you are confused and confusing the Bibles actual statements and happenings with information not even in the Bible.

Which is everything you said.

To conclude, John never outranked Peter, though James did. Why you try and complicate matters with non scriptural words is because scripture proves the one single point I made.

That Peter was technically above John in authority and only outranked by James the Tsaddik.

I don't what your source is or why you can't accept that Peter was appointed by Jesus as the Rock, the Chief Apostle.

James technically wasn't an Apostle only joining after the ressurection but was the leader of everyone and succeeded by Simeon.

According to pre-nicene tradition that is, so even extra Biblical sources don't agree with you.

John was a pillar, one of the three. But Peter was chosen by Jesus and by God to lead the Church outside of Jerusalem.

The real Apostle to the Gentiles/Goyim.

I think you might be thinking of Carl (Sagen). JK.

But seriously I don't think you should be so upset about me correcting you on something that I am right about.

Simply, Peter was of higher rank than anyone but James.

A well known fact actually.

originally posted by: Malocchio
Yeah, and yet not a single quote from the Bible.

Because you are confused and confusing the Bibles actual statements and happenings with information not even in the Bible.

Which is everything you said.

To conclude, John never outranked Peter, though James did.

The bolded part seems to go around a lot, allow me to break with that trend or tradition (these teachings are from Jesus who says these things "just as the Father has taught" him, quoting from the bible).

Mark 9:33-35:
33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.”
Luke 22:24
24 However, there also arose a heated dispute among them over which one of them was considered to be the greatest.
Matthew 18:1-5
18 In that hour the disciples came near to Jesus and said: “Who really is greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens?” 2 So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.
Luke 9:46-48
46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.”
Mark 10:43-45
43 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 44 and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of all. 45 For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
Matthew 23:6-12
6 They [the scribes and the Pharisees] like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi* [*: Or “Teacher.”] by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Matthew 20:24-27
24 When the ten others heard about it, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.

“All You Are Brothers”

1. What matter is worth our consideration?

“WHO deserves more honor, a missionary or a Bethelite?” a Christian woman in an Oriental country innocently asked a missionary from Australia. She wanted to know who should be respected more, a missionary from another country or a local minister serving in the branch office of the Watch Tower Society. That innocent question, reflecting a class-conscious culture, took the missionary by surprise. The question of who is greater, however, stems from a desire to know where people stand in the ranks of power and influence.

2. How should we view our fellow worshipers?

2 This concern is by no means new. Even Jesus’ disciples had an ongoing argument about who was the greatest. (Matthew 20:20-24; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 22:24-27) They too came from a rather class-conscious culture, that of first-century Judaism. With such a society in mind, Jesus counseled his disciples: “Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers.” (Matthew 23:8) A religious title such as “Rabbi,” which means “Teacher,” “tends to engender pride and a sense of superiority in those who obtain it, and envy and a sense of inferiority in those who do not; and the whole spirit and tendency of it is contrary to the ‘simplicity that is in Christ,’” noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. Indeed, Christians refrain from addressing overseers among them as “Elder So-and-so,” using the word “elder” as a flattering title. (Job 32:21, 22) On the other hand, elders living up to the spirit of Jesus’ counsel honor other members of the congregation, just as Jehovah honors loyal worshipers and Jesus Christ honors loyal followers.

The Example of Jehovah and of Jesus

...

7. Why is Peter’s role at Pentecost 33 C.E. significant?

7 Jesus Christ is another fine example of showing respect for others. Jesus had told his disciples that “whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father.” (Matthew 10:32, 33) On the night of his betrayal, however, all his disciples deserted him, and the apostle Peter disowned him three times. (Matthew 26:34, 35, 69-75) Jesus looked beyond the outward appearance and took note of Peter’s innermost feelings, his profound repentance. (Luke 22:61, 62) Only 51 days later, Christ dignified the repentant apostle by letting him represent Jesus’ 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost and use the first of “the keys of the kingdom.” (Matthew 16:19; Acts 2:14-40) Peter was given a chance to ‘return and strengthen his brothers.’—Luke 22:31-33.

Luke 22:32:
32 But I have made supplication for you that your faith may not give out; and you, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers.”

a reply to: Malocchio

Yeah, and yet not a single quote from the Bible.

Why are you expecting a quote from the Bible you don't believe that the Bible is without error, true or without corruption, so why do you want people to quote it?

If you don't believe it is true, without error and without corruption then even the verses you think are may not be. You have no assurance of truth or solid ground to stand on when it comes to the Bible.

God is seeing his glory - so cannot be seen - God is ever present and is all seeing and knowing.

No man can see the face of God and live.

I think God appears however you want Him/Her/It/They to. We might not be sufficiently evolved to evaluate the true image of God.

a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Seede I don't really care about your unsupported claims, I know that the Bible clearly places James as the leader and Peter is second, not John. You really make a simple fact into a twisted jumble of nonsense. Everyone knows Peter is the Rock, outside of Jerusalem and James he is top dog and according to Acts appointed by God to represent the Church abroad. Peter is the true Apostle to the goyim, Paul is a fraud and imposter, self appointed. And you hate being corrected so much so you should stop saying incorrect things like John was #2 when even the Bible disagrees.

My claims? I made no claims. What I did do was give you my sources as I always try to do. Your rebuttals are not sourced nor are they true.

You say that Peter is the true apostle to the gentiles? Yet you believe not the same scriptures that show you plainly that Saul/Paul was enlisted into apostleship by the Christ Jesus Himself. Yet again by your own admission of your own faith you believe not that the Jesus of Christianity is the Christ nor do you profess that the entire account is true. Being of the Muslim faith how can you argue that which you cannot believe?

Peter was a true apostle of both the synagogue of James and embraced into the Roman Christian movement. Saul/Paul was a true apostle to the gentiles according to the same NT. [Acts 9:15] - Now if you wish to rewrite the NT to suite your own ideology then at least get NT theology in the correct order.

You also imply that Peter was second in command of the church of James. Yet James had no church and was not Nasi of any church. James was the Nasi of the synagogue of the Christ Jesus and John was his Sagan. Once again you want to rewrite the history of the Nazarene’s which is not related in the NT. You must use the history of their order which is given in the Nazarene’s accounts. That would be to say that I could compare your Quran with my NT or somehow connect the two with your bridge of your choice. That is insanity.

Now I will give you my source once again with the hope that you will try to learn instead of being so cantankerous and unteachable.

Source - (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)

The synagogue of James was not established while Jesus was alive and therefore neither was there any sort of authority established in any church. You see, the church did not even exist till long after James was dead and Jerusalem destroyed. In fact the RCC church was not established till long after the same Romans butchered Jerusalem in 135 CE.

Before the Roman Catholic Church was instituted there was the Jewish Nazarene movement with James as the Nasi and John as his deputy Sagan in a synagogue – Not a church but a synagogue. From the death of Jesus till about 63 CE this synagogue flourished as a Jewish Nazarene movement.

Years later Christianity was embraced by the Romans and the Roman Catholic Church was instituted. This was well after James was dead and John was now evangelizing. Peter was then declared the head of the Roman Catholic institution as their first pope by tradition. The church was established by the same Romans who took it and butchered the Jews in 135 CE.

Going back to Peter in Rome. It was both Peter and Paul who were teamed together and went to Rome to evangelize. Not simply Peter but both Peter and Paul. Even at that there is ample evidence in Christian Church history that Christianity had been flourishing before Peter and Paul came to Rome. Congregations were already established and a bishop already established and in lite of this contention Peter was instituted as a traditional papa to the Italians. I fail to see where you can point this out in your Quran.

a reply to: Seede

by the fact of his own words he is not a Christian, not saved and surely not one to teach Christians anything about the Bible via the Quran.

He believe the Quran to be accurate and without error but the preserved by God Holy Bible he does not.

He believes Allah and Jesus Christ, God Almighty, the Lord of Hosts to be the same person.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

He believe the Quran to be accurate and without error but the preserved by God Holy Bible he does not.

He believes Allah and Jesus Christ, God Almighty, the Lord of Hosts to be the same person.

Don't you believe that the Holy Bible is without error? That it is the preserved word of God?
What's the difference? They're both the scribblings and primitive ideas of people who had no idea of anything we know now --

There is a HUGE disconnect from the dark ages (3rd - 12th centuries) to now.

Neither of you are correct. Do you really not see that?


You see, before Rome invaded and conquered all those people and stole their land and forced them to conform and "assimilate" to 'Christianity', those people were pagans. They did stuff like seasonal festivals (harvest, spring equinox, dead of winter, midsummer)......

you know, maypoles, and yule logs, and samhain (halloween), and imbolc (easter)........

all of that was deliberately included in the Roman Catholic Church's RITUALS, because that was the only way they could attract customers -------

BUT YET in the Bible they don't explain one tiny shred of why those things are traditional and constant since the dawn of civilization ------- Or WHY THEY ARE PRACTICED BY "CHRISTIANS" NOW.....

so - lots of you don't know that.

You aren't aware that pagan festivals and rituals are the very things you honor when you do christmas and easter bunnies and eggs and palm sunday and groundhog day and the fourth of july and maypoles and harvest hayrides and haunted houses and jackolanterns and witches

You have NO IDEA where those things came from.

And you know what else came from the same place??????????

BIRTHDAYS.

Yeah. Chew on that.
If you all want to be ever-so-pious, you need to become JWs. If you reject the JW thing, then just dump religion altogether. It's all fantasy.

AGNOSTICISM FOR THE WORLD.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

.....continued....
and NOW, the Muslims are trying to replay their own conquest and victory over "the west" -----

so. We have two out-of-control and rogue "religious" movements having a proxy war, at the expense of millions of civilians. MILLIONS.....women, children, men, youths, etc. You all want to "turn their homeland into a sea of glass" ----- (pillar of salt, anyone? limited time only: pillar of salt at auction to highest bidder!) ------ and at the same time force them to have the children conceived by their captors, refuse to house them or feed them or show any sort of mercy to them.

The other side is propping up such tyranny via the GOP and Trump. The pro-lifers and the FOXNews victims. Kim Davis and al-Baghdadi.

Assad and Putin. Erdogan and Netenyahu.


DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT A MESS THIS IS????

RELIGION IS BEING (and rightly so) ENDED.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

maybe religion was invented for the sake of war...a perpetual war device that just so happens to reap profit worldwide...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

a reply to: Seede by the fact of his own words he is not a Christian, not saved and surely not one to teach Christians anything about the Bible via the Quran. He believe the Quran to be accurate and without error but the preserved by God Holy Bible he does not. He believes Allah and Jesus Christ, God Almighty, the Lord of Hosts to be the same person.

Yes I agree Chester John. Another thing that I have noted in the Islamic teaching is in their anger and bitterness. When one reads of Muhammad and Jesus, it is reading two entirely different concepts of life. I have also noted that the Muslims who parrot the Quran never seem to give sources of the Quran in their rants. If you note the pattern of almost every Muslim you will note they attack both Greek and Hebrew Christianity using the literature of the Greek and Hebrew. I have yet to note their use of the Quran as source material.

Now that is clever in this respect. Attack and destroy is their purpose in life. Not embrace and share but attack and destroy both mind and cultures. The entire purpose of Islam is to destroy and control by force. That is why the attack on Christianity and targeting Saul/Paul. If they can destroy the credibility of Paul then they have completely destroyed the NT as he is the single most read of the scriptures of the NT.

The most amazing truth of Christianity is The Begotten Son of The Most High EL. [Jesus] and that is the thorn that pricks their minds. Allah is not The Most High EL. and the reason that Islam cannot present this is that it is not in their Quran. If a Muslim professes The Most High of Christian concept then they would have to show this in Quran. It is not in Quran and is frustrating to most all dwell on this. So they then attack that of which is shown in thousands of MSS of both Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. That thorn which Jesus chose is Paul. The man of God who did not hide his sins, as most of us do, but wrote them through his hand to help those of us understand.
Seede