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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What does God look like?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede





posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

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 E
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 he 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.



That was not what we were even talking about so this is not relevant to the known fact that Peter is the Chief Apostle while James is the successor to Jesus in Jerusalem.

John was the third pillars so that would make him on par but not of higher rank than Peter.

It's that simple, if you wanted to quote the Bible you should have used when Jesus appointed Peter calling him "the Rock", i.e. foundation stone of the Nazarene Church abroad.

There is simply nothing scriptural about the erroneous statement that John was of a higher rank than Peter, not even Church history supports the notion.

So my point was all those words prove nothing and I say the same to you if you even know what we were talking about in the first place I'd be very surprised, your quotes don't support or oppose or address the topic.

You want it to be that all disciples were of equal status bug that isn't correct, there where 12 Apostles and James was leader of the whole movement.

Equality is a concept that should be preached but in the early days you had James, the 12 Apostles and the 70 disciples with 3 "Pillars" aka Tsaddiks, James, Peter and John.
So there is a concept of leadership but humble leadership, they were righteous men held in high esteem, special, but humble.

And Paul had a separate movement.
edit on 10-11-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Jesus is very clear concerning the topic of equal rank. Calling someone the Chief Apostle contradicts that teaching and teaches that that apostle is of higher rank than the other apostles which would include John.

"There is simply nothing scriptural about the erroneous statement that John was of a higher rank than Peter" and neither is it scriptural to suggest that Peter was of higher rank than any of the other apostles by calling him the "Chief Apostle".

"It's that simple, if you wanted to" argue or further promote the doctrine/teaching that "Jesus appointed Peter calling him "the Rock", i.e. foundation stone of the Nazarene Church abroad." Perhaps "you should have used" quotations from "the Bible". I can already tell you that the bible teaches no such thing and that that is a manmade doctrine with another origin:

Apostolic Succession

Definition: The doctrine that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the Roman Catholic Church, the bishops as a group are said to be successors of the apostles, and the pope is claimed to be the successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole Church. Not a Bible teaching.

Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?

Matt. 16:18, JB: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (Notice in the context [vss. 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of Jesus.)

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?

Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.”

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)?

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Did the other apostles view Peter as having primacy among them?

Luke 22:24-26, JB: “A dispute arose also between them [the apostles] about which should be reckoned the greatest, but he said to them, ‘Among pagans it is the kings who lord it over them, and those who have authority over them are given the title Benefactor. This must not happen with you.’” (If Peter were the “rock,” would there have been any question as to which one of them “should be reckoned the greatest”?)

Since Jesus Christ, the head of the congregation, is alive, does he need successors?

Heb. 7:23-25, JB: “Then there used to be a great number of those other priests [in Israel], because death put an end to each one of them; but this one [Jesus Christ], because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

Rom. 6:9, JB: “Christ, as we know, having been raised from the dead will never die again.”

Eph. 5:23, JB: “Christ is head of the Church.”

What were “the keys” entrusted to Peter?

Matt. 16:19, JB: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.”

In Revelation, Jesus referred to a symbolic key used by himself to open up privileges and opportunities to humans

Rev. 3:7, 8, JB: “Here is the message of the holy and faithful one who has the key of David, so that when he opens, nobody can close, and when he closes, nobody can open: . . . I have opened in front of you a door that nobody will be able to close.”

Peter used “keys” entrusted to him to open up (to Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles) the opportunity to receive God’s spirit with a view to their entering the heavenly Kingdom

Acts 2:14-39, JB: “Peter stood up with the Eleven and addressed them in a loud voice: ‘Men of Judaea, and all you who live in Jerusalem . . . God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.’ Hearing this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the apostles, ‘What must we do, brothers?’ ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered ‘and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God will call to himself.’”

Acts 8:14-17, JB: “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, and they went down there, and prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not come down on any of them: they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Verse 20 indicates that Peter was the one taking the lead on this occasion.)

Acts 10:24-48, JB: “They reached Caesarea the following day, and Cornelius [an uncircumcised Gentile] was waiting for them. . . . Peter addressed them . . . While Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit came down on all the listeners.”

Did heaven wait on Peter to make decisions and then follow his lead?
...
Is Peter the judge as to who is worthy to enter the Kingdom?

Source: Apostolic Succession: Reasoning

Missing information in next comment.
edit on 10-11-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

Did heaven wait on Peter to make decisions and then follow his lead?

Acts 2:4, 14, JB: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak foreign languages as the Spirit gave them the gift of speech. . . . Then [after Christ, the head of the congregation, had stirred them up by means of the holy spirit] Peter stood up with the Eleven and addressed them.” (See verse 33.)

Acts 10:19, 20, JB: “The Spirit had to tell him [Peter], ‘Some men have come to see you. Hurry down, and do not hesitate about going back with them [to the home of the Gentile Cornelius]; it was I who told them to come.’”

Compare Matthew 18:18, 19.

Is Peter the judge as to who is worthy to enter the Kingdom?

2 Tim. 4:1, JB: “Christ Jesus . . . is to be judge of the living and the dead.”

2 Tim. 4:8, JB: “All there is to come now is the crown of righteousness reserved for me, which the Lord [Jesus Christ], the righteous judge, will give to me on that Day; and not only to me but to all those who have longed for his Appearing.”

Was Peter in Rome?

Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Holy Scriptures; none of these say that Peter was there. First Peter 5:13 shows that he was in Babylon. Was this a cryptic reference to Rome? His being in Babylon was consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews (as indicated at Galatians 2:9), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.

Has an unbroken line of successors been traced from Peter to modern-day popes?

Jesuit John McKenzie, when professor of theology at Notre Dame, wrote: “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.”—The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “ . . . the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate . . . ”—(1967), Vol. I, p. 696.

Claims of divine appointment mean nothing if those who make them are not obedient to God and Christ

Matt. 7:21-23, JB: “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

See also Jeremiah 7:9-15.

Have the claimed successors to the apostles adhered to the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and his apostles?

A Catholic Dictionary states: “The Roman Church is Apostolic, because her doctrine is the faith once revealed to the Apostles, which faith she guards and explains, without adding to it or taking from it.” (London, 1957, W. E. Addis and T. Arnold, p. 176) Do the facts agree?

Identity of God

“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), Vol. XV, p. 47.

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

“There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 295.

Celibacy of the clergy

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (Priestly Celibacy, 1967), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that “the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles . . . does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers . . . Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities.”—The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (Falls Church, Va.; 1981), p. 204.

1 Cor. 9:5, NAB: “Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (“Cephas” is an Aramaic name given to Peter; see John 1:42. See also Mark 1:29-31, where reference is made to the mother-in-law of Simon, or Peter.)

1 Tim. 3:2, Dy: “It behoveth, therefore, a bishop to be . . . the husband of one wife [“married only once,” NAB].”

Before the Christian era, Buddhism required its priests and monks to be celibate. (History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, London, 1932, fourth ed., revised, Henry C. Lea, p. 6) Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to The Two Babylons by A. Hislop.—(New York, 1943), p. 219.

1 Tim. 4:1-3, JB: “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from the devils; ... they will say marriage is forbidden.”

Separateness from the world

Pope Paul VI, when addressing the United Nations in 1965, said: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace; We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute of honor and of hope.”—The Pope’s Visit (New York, 1965), Time-Life Special Report, p. 26.

John 15:19, JB: “[Jesus Christ said:] If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because my choice withdrew you from the world, therefore the world hates you.”

Jas. 4:4, JB: “Don’t you realise that making the world your friend is making God your enemy?”

Resorting to weapons of war

Catholic historian E. I. Watkin writes: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war ... Whatever the official theory, in practice ‘my country always right’ has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops.”—Morals and Missiles (London, 1959), edited by Charles S. Thompson, pp. 57, 58.

Matt. 26:52, JB: “Jesus then said, ‘Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.’”

1 John 3:10-12, JB: “In this way we distinguish the children of God from the children of the devil: anybody . . . not loving his brother is no child of God’s. . . . We are to love one another; not to be like Cain, who belonged to the Evil One and cut his brother’s throat.”

In the light of the foregoing, have those who claim to be successors to the apostles really taught and practiced what Christ and his apostles did?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio
To close with your comment that I was responding to again with some minor alterations:

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 [almost] everything you said.

To conclude, John never outranked Peter, [and] James [never outranked John, and Peter never outranked James or John, they were all "brothers", ranking wise and otherwise* except genetically, it's still figurative language obviously. *: there's a little more to it than just ranking wise or greatness].


Talking about the subject:

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

In your case because of Roman Catholic doctrine as well as other doctrines of men in other parts of Babylon the Great. Even though I'm well aware you are not a Roman Catholic (and perhaps could be described as someone who is expressing himself to stand against their false doctrines) you still believe and teach their doctrine regarding Peter for example, as I've just demonstrated in my previous commentary and you demonstrated with your own argumentation by making the same arguments and claims regarding Peter. That appears a bit ironic to me as well. But then again the way you claim what the bible is teaching (often without quotations but even when you use quotations) often appears ironic to me (and other descriptions could apply there as well), so it's keeping in line with that pattern at least.
edit on 10-11-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChemicalAli
Little do you guys know that your blasphemous comments will be presented to you on judgement day, never think your actions on 'the internet' are not witnessed.


My faith in God is much stronger than yours. You see, my conviction is that God will use omnipotent powers of forgiveness to allow me through the gates of heaven to experience eternal heavenly bliss regardless of my earthly sins, how I practice my religion, or anything I post on the Internet. This is because God is omnipotent and needs absolutely nothing from us. And since my faith in God includes God is a God of love and forgiveness, the good news is I will be saved. I will experience eternal heavenly bliss regardless of how little faith you have in God's willingness to forgive me. That is why my faith is stronger than yours!
edit on 10-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
God looks a lot like you. According to the bible God is light and we are created in his image. What do you see? An image of light that reveals your body and the world around you.

FlyOnTheWall has it right, God is the life force within you.


I've always questioned the idea that we are created in his image. If that were true, then we would have been given omnipotent powers. I would imagine the Almighty has infinite creative powers able to create realities simply by imagining they exist. Not be able to control the choices you are allowed to make brings up an interesting question about sin and morality. If you do not have omnipotent powers, then how can anyone be judged on their choices when they have so little control over the menu?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Michet
I always wondered if God has lips...




That is a great song and awesome album!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seede


Firstly the literature of the Apostle John is Aramaic and Hebrew. It was totally Jewish and not Greek. The Hebrew concept of Word or Logos was not borrowed from any Greek philosophy as you h

The earliest fragments that we have of the Gospel of John were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.


I've often wondered based on the teachings of Jesus if he was actually anti-monarchy. And that the King James translation was completely rewritten to be pro-monarchy based on King Jame's ideas about the divine rights of kings.
edit on 10-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Malocchio
To close with your comment that I was responding to again with some minor alterations:

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 [almost] everything you said.

To conclude, John never outranked Peter, [and] James [never outranked John, and Peter never outranked James or John, they were all "brothers", ranking wise and otherwise* except genetically, it's still figurative language obviously. *: there's a little more to it than just ranking wise or greatness].


Talking about the subject:

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

In your case because of Roman Catholic doctrine as well as other doctrines of men in other parts of Babylon the Great. Even though I'm well aware you are not a Roman Catholic (and perhaps could be described as someone who is expressing himself to stand against their false doctrines) you still believe and teach their doctrine regarding Peter for example, as I've just demonstrated in my previous commentary and you demonstrated with your own argumentation by making the same arguments and claims regarding Peter. That appears a bit ironic to me as well. But then again the way you claim what the bible is teaching (often without quotations but even when you use quotations) often appears ironic to me (and other descriptions could apply there as well), so it's keeping in line with that pattern at least.


Do you have a point because I don't see one, I can deduce from the Bible alone that James and Peter both technically outranked John?

And I was correcting someone who claimed John was second to James which you apparently don't even disagree on, so what point are you trying to make, that you can randomly quote Bible passages not relevant to the discussion you are involving yourself in?

If I say something about the Bible without quoting it that is true then it's not a problem or ironic as it just means that I am familiar enough with it that I don't need to quote it word for word to say what it says.

And I wasn't the one making unbiblical statements and arguing with no facts something that is not true, Biblically or Ecclesiastically historically.

So I am not obligated to back up what I don't say and did use the Bible as my source, so quit butting in conversations that you don't know the subject and taking it out on me for calling you on the pointlessness of your comments.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

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?

read Robert Wrights' book "The Evolution of God."
IT IS GOD'S BIOGRAPHY.


It was just okay for me. Pretty standard stuff. Nothing I haven't seen or read before.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
Really fit with red hair.


And female! Don't forget the tits!



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Malocchio
To close with your comment that I was responding to again with some minor alterations:

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 [almost] everything you said.
To conclude, John never outranked Peter, [and] James [never outranked John, and Peter never outranked James or John, they were all "brothers", ranking wise and otherwise* except genetically, it's still figurative language obviously. *: there's a little more to it than just ranking wise or greatness].

Talking about the subject:
"Because you are confused and confusing the Bibles actual statements and happenings with information not even in the Bible."
In your case because of Roman Catholic doctrine as well as other doctrines of men in other parts of Babylon the Great. Even though I'm well aware you are not a Roman Catholic (and perhaps could be described as someone who is expressing himself to stand against their false doctrines) you still believe and teach their doctrine regarding Peter for example, as I've just demonstrated in my previous commentary and you demonstrated with your own argumentation by making the same arguments and claims regarding Peter. That appears a bit ironic to me as well. But then again the way you claim what the bible is teaching (often without quotations but even when you use quotations) often appears ironic to me (and other descriptions could apply there as well), so it's keeping in line with that pattern at least.


Do you have a point because I don't see one, I can deduce from the Bible alone that James and Peter both technically outranked John?


Nietzsche said, "In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross." If you think about it, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi talking about God. And the disciples were talking about Jesus who was talking about God. All modern day Christians do is talk about the words the disciples were using talking about Jesus. So the modern day Christian worships disciple words more than they worship God.

Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority.

But this thread is about the face of God. Not Jesus. You could argue the way people worship the words in the Bible is a kind of idol worship. Jesus is a false idol. There is only one true all-powerful all-loving God and that God is God. There is only one word for God and that word is God. And there is only one God and that God is God.


edit on 10-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: typos



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio


Do you have a point because I don't see one, I can deduce from the Bible alone that James and Peter both technically outranked John? And I was correcting someone who claimed John was second to James which you apparently don't even disagree on, so what point are you trying to make, that you can randomly quote Bible passages not relevant to the discussion you are involving yourself in?

According to Nazarene accounts,

2nd Timothy_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 1611 KJV

Now when most people reads this, in most Christian bibles, they automatically assume that this means the NT as it is in front of them. Not so. This NT of letters did not exist when Timothy said the above statement. It was later included in the collected works of the Gentile bible but as Timothy was saying this he was talking about the scriptures of the then known writings of the Hebrew prophets, sages and other literature which they used such as Enoch.

Gospel of Thomas –
12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Now that is not in the NT at all and yet it is as worthy as other biblical literature to many people. It reveals the fact that the first Nazarene organization was voted upon by the congregation of this movement and that the man chosen was James The Just. The same congregation then voted John as his second in charge of the synagogue and Peter as the third in charge of this very first movement. This has not one thing to do with greatness or who sits on the left of the Creator or any other such thing. It is the establishment6 of earthly order of the very first Jesus movement and nothing more. These three men were chosen according to their qualifications and nothing more. How can I say this? Because Jesus said that no man was greater than John the Baptist. Now that includes the three pillars who were James, John or Peter.

This is not the church or rock that Jesus was talking about. Now stop and think for a moment. The Roman Catholic Church claims that the first pope was ordained as Peter by Jesus and that Peter then chose the next pope and so on and on till present day. Show me that in the NT Bible. You can't because it is not in the NT Bible. It is the RCC organization rule book which they have voted upon. Nothing more. It amounts to their order the very same as the Nazarene's had their order. In fact the original question from the apostles was who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and not some one hundred years later in the coming of a church. A church was not even thought of then. Now if that is true then why do pope's today have a vote to become pope? For that matter why do any of the RCC organization have votes for cardinals popes etc. ??? Something got lost in the mix don't you think?

What is my point? My point is that as we read the OT or NT we should always place the author in the correct place and time and circumstance of his or her intent. Simply because it has not been approved to be biblical means nothing in the sense that it can be as profound and revealing as anything in the Christian bible. That is dividing the word of truth with the apostles as the keys given to us. Now if you refuse to accept The Gospel Of Thomas as profitable history then so be it but simply because it is not in the Bible does not make it untrue.

What I do not understand is that you cannot understand that the Jewish synagogue of James was not the Gentile Church as was formed in the second century by the Roman Catholic organizations? It is as plain and simple as an apple from an orange. The real question is which is valid and which is invalid or are both valid or both invalid? That is the matter which should be discussed. Are they both valid because both Jew and Gentile are born into the same spirit? And what has all of this to do with what God looks like?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio
You are arguing against your own points that I merely applied to you with additional explanation why that is justified to do so (unlike merely throwing it out there and leaving it at that). I'm quoting the bible verses relevant to what you are saying about it demonstrating that you are "confusing the Bibles actual statements and happenings with information not even in the Bible." (quoting you) On top of that the bible contradicts what you're teaching. If it's not relevant to the discussion then why complain to me about things you brought up that contradict bible teachings? I'm merely responding to what you and Seede were discussing and you seem to either make no attempt to realize that or prefer to pretend that you can't see the relation. I can't tell.

The bible quotations are clear that no apostle outranks any other apostle, they are all brothers. And no one apostle is the greatest or first in that sense or rank. That was also clear from my quotations so I don't understand why you would say:

And I was correcting someone who claimed John was second to James which you apparently don't even disagree on...

Unless it's on purpose, then it makes sense to pretend that I didn't disagree with that. But like I said, I can't tell.
I also shared bible quotations and additional information where this whole desire or pattern you and Seede demonstrate to debate who outranks who comes from (in essence debating who is the greatest) and who (Jesus) already settled it long ago and his definitive answer*.

*: see point 10, subpoint 2 at the start of this video:

edit on 10-11-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The Bible was not written by God. The Bible was written by men. It is not the word of God. It is an interpretation of what God might say. Nothing more. For example, if you are going to say the Bible is the absolute word of God, how do you reconcile these evil gems:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Exodus 21:20-21 – "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Ephesians 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

1 Peter 2:13 - "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority."

1 Peter 2:18 - "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

1 Timothy 6:1 - "1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Leviticus 25:44-46 – Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver ($0.26). He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Exodus 12:28-30 - "The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead."

Isaiah 13:15-18 - "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children."

Leviticus 24:13-16 - "Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."

Exodus 22:20 - "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."

1 Corinthians 16:22 - "If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him."

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Matthew 18:9 “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”

Matthew 10:34-36 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”

John 14:26 ”Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”

Matthew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

====================================================================================

Slavery, misogyny, murder, filicide, sex slaves, killing of innocent children, killing infants, killing the non-believers, psychopathic statements, oy vey!

The Bible may be the inspired word of God but it must be read with a grain of salt, taken as metaphor, and not out of the historical context in which it was written. BUT DON'T QUOTE THE STUFF YOU LIKE AS IF IT'S FROM GOD'S MOUTH.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I think the thread lost it's way. What does God look like is such a great question.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't think the Word of God needs stories about rape, infanticide, genocide ordered by "God" or any of the things you mentioned with the addition of salvation based on human sacrifice and human deification.

Abraham twice pimping out his sister/wife while lying about not being her husband.

Human sacrifice to God of Jephthah's daughter by Jephthah because he promised to sacrifice the first person to come outside of his house after returning victorious in battle.

That's mythology from a very xenophobic people of antiquity that thought themselves the Chosen People of the only God.

Jesus words are philosophically sound but Paul is an egomaniac who says nothing of value and much that leads people to error and the same bigotry of the "Chosen People."

The Apostles Epistles are OK, the so called general epistles and Revelation is fascinating but leads many to insanity.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whaler
What is God's appearance?


What is God's appearance is a great question!

Any discussion on the face of God needs to begin how the idea of God is so far beyond our comprehension.

The Universe is a very big place. Time is so much longer than anything we could ever imagined. When you consider the current Multiverse string theory our Big Bang is an inflationary result of a star collapsing to black hole from a previously existing space-time dimension. The Universe we are in is not even the center of time. If you consider there are billions of stars in our Universe capable of collapsing into black holes, wow, that's a huge amount of time. And each new black hole is creating billions and billions of more stars capable of the same Big Bang inflationary result. My God that's a huge thought to hold in one's head!

So the larger Universe which includes the Multiverse is really big. Time is really long. Any creator God must be revered from the perspective of just how mind boggling it is to imagine something so big and so long can ever be created. Assuming the realm or mind of God exists everywhere and for all time, and independent of whether you believe in a personal anthropomorphic type God or a pantheistic type God, the extent and depth of God's mind is extremely humbling in the most absolute sense imaginable.

The Universe is composed of endless swirlings of energy and mass. Mass is just energy patterns swirling around in tightly coupled orbits. All the energy making up the Universe comprises the consciousness of God. Consciousness arises from the swirling patterns of energy and mass experienced through self-awareness.

Each of us is a bungle of energy and mass, a subset consciousness experiencing the mind of God. We are made of the very stuff we are experiencing. But unlike God, our consciousness is limited by the scope of our physical boundaries. And although we have lots of mathematics representing the many patterns of nature's behaviors, we have no concrete idea on what energy really is and why it exists at all. Energy is a process giving rise to experience.

So it is with this context, the appearance of God can now be considered.

I think when we die is when we will see the appearance or face of God. At the moment of our death, our imagination becomes our primary reality. Every nerve in our body fires at once creating the God experience of light that is very commonly reported by people who have NDEs. Your eyes become completely full of light. Your ears become completely full of sound. You feel everything you are capable of feeling all at once.

When you look at the face of God, you are so enamored, you are completely incapable of thinking about anything else. Your mind is so completely full of experience that you have no time for any other conscious thoughts. The God experience is greatest possible experience one can have by definition. No other experience is so fulfilling and complete than the God experience, again, by definition. Even though this only happens for a few nanoseconds before physical death, with the brain operating at 100% heightened neural capacity, it feels like eternity to the conscious self.

Once you look into the face of God your consciousness becomes one with God's consciousness. All your life experiences as consciousness are transferred to the mind of God. All the energy that flowed through your mind is part of the cosmic swirl and is preserved by the Universe's memory of hard determinism.

So what God looks like is more than just a vision. God's appearance is so fulfilling that the experience of it eliminates the experience of time. God's appearance eliminates the experience of conscious self. The experience of God's appearance is so deep and profound it cannot be adequatedly expressed with words.

I guess some people might think my post is slightly imaginary speculation. But maybe not.

edit on 11-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join