What does God look like?

In order to know what God looks like you would first have to find God. Heaven must be pretty far away because our telescopes and space probes haven't found God or Heaven yet.

I think the answer to this question will be post mortem and that nobody has ever seen or spoken with God. The very existence of God is doubted by most of the scientific community, at least publicly as I think it could even earn you some ridicule to a point.

Jack Parsons believed in God and gods, claimed to have successfully summoned the devil, though that is not likely he did have highly advanced scientific knowledge of chemistry and was I believe the inventor of a solid rocket fuel used by NASA at one point. He also cofounded JPL which was jokingly called Jack Parsons Laboratory by some. And was a disciple of Aleister Crowley, practitioner of sex magick and with, at one point, with Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard who bilked him out of the last of his cash and absconded with his wife earning the disgust of Crowley. Then went on to write Dianetics and you know the rest.

Parsons was admired by Warner von Braun the NAZI scientist of NASA fame for his genius. I think scientists know more than they can say about the overall nature of the Universe.

But not what God looks like.

originally posted by: Seede
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

This has nothing to do with our conversation at all.

This is from Paul, or one of his pseudepigraphers in the Latin Church and the Nazarenes didn't like or trust Paul, it is easy to see how much Paul hated the Nazarenes in his Epistles as he calls them false Apostles and compares them to Satan masquerading as an angel of light. Judaizers, the circumcision faction.

Safe to say Paul was the first Christian and not a real Nazarene at all. He taught, in his own words, a Gospel not from the Apostles or any man, but he alleged secret revelations from Christ, though his doctrine is nothing like and opposed to Christs actual teachings.

Which Christ forewarned in Matthew 24 to ''Do not believe" so I don't.

But seriously that quote was pointless.

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."

Yeah, James, not John or Peter and we already agreed on this.

Just James. I already knew this we already agreed on this it doesn't have anything to do with John who didn't outranke Peter according to any scripture.

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?

After you quoted the Gospel of Thomas you made a claim in your words to back up your previous claim of the same thing previously in your words.

You did not demonstrate scripture saying that John was second to James you just said it with no source whatsoever.

I am afraid that doesn't qualify as evidence.

I don't know what to tell you but Peter outranked John, James outranked Peter and was James successor.

Peter was appointed by Christ and according to Acts by God to be the Apostle to the goyim. You need to stop telling people to use their heads because you aren't using yours.

Peter was the Chief Apostle.

James the Chief of the Apostles.

John was one of the ''3 pillars" and one of the 12, and no scripture says he outranks Peter, who was appointed by Jesus himself. Simon Cephas, the Rock, i.e. foundation stone he will build his Church on.

You try so hard for someone who is just plain wrong in every way. Church tradition doesn't agree with you and calls him first Pope, the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions disagree with you and have him also second to James but as much an authority to teach as Jesus chosen Chief to go abroad and establish a Church, and they were written by an anti Catholic Jewish Christian community.

No existing scripture or testimony of the Church Fathers agrees with you. Not even Paul or your Timothy quote, I don't know why you even quoted it.

Give up.

a reply to: Seede

I am mystified why you think Simon called Cephas, meaning Rock in Aramaic, was outranked by John when the Gospel tells the story why he is called Rock or Cephas, it's a very famous story and why Peter is called the first Pope traditionally, being chosen by Jesus to be the foundation of his movement after he was gone.

James is revealed through Paul's Epistles and Acts, Thomas and Homilies and Recognitions, all the oldest texts as well as the writings of the Ante Nicene fathers, as being the Nasi (Prince) or "Bishop" of Jerusalem and was the successor to his brother Jesus. Peter was next in rank and practically equal and John is the third "Pillar" of the 12 Apostles but not superior to Peter.

With no scripture to back up your statement about John even in Apocrypha I think you said it in haste and don't want to admit you were wrong.

You quoted Paul saying scripture is God breathed to make the argument that Thomas is scripture, you don't need to quote Paul to tell me that because I believe it's as legitimate as anything in the New Testament, more so even.

But it doesn't say ''John outranked Peter" it just says James is Jesus successor and we agreed on that already.

You tried saying in your own words that certain things happened that have no support from scripture, Canonical or otherwise, and hiding among some unrelated half thought out quotes not mentioning the name ''John" as though it amounts to a logical form of reasoning and telling me to use my head.

I have been, you just made a mistake and can't admit it is not a tradition that is supported by scripture.

But I have had to teach you the contents of the arc of the Covenant and the story of the Golden Calf in the past week so maybe it is time to realize you are relatively uneducated in the most known of stories so you stop wrestling with things that are not even in the Bible that aren't facts and learn what is actually in the Bible.

a reply to: Malocchio

TextYou did not demonstrate scripture saying that John was second to James you just said it with no source whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance again and again. You seem to not have the mind to comprehend what i try to teach you. So in order to make it more simple for you I will take one point at a time.

Now read and then sleep on it so that you can understand.

I did not reference a biblical scripture to show that John was second to James simply because it is not in the biblical scriptures that show anyone of the apostles were ranked above or below the others. I also did not reference biblical scripture that shows James had a church. Why? Because it is not in the biblical scriptures that James had a church nor that Peter had a church nor that John had a church. There is nothing in the biblical scriptures that show Peter succeeded James either as you so profoundly proclaim.

James had a synagogue. Not a church. James never ever had a church. Peter never succeeded James in any synagogue of any any sort as you state. In fact it was Simeon ben Clopas who succeeded James The Just in 62 CE..

The Roman church adopted Peter as their pope many years after the death of all apostles. Peter had no influence in the Roman church as a living apostle.

You simply do not understand what I have posted and I have explained all of this to you numerous times. I posted my source two times in previous posts and will not do so again. You had best stay with the Quran. It is more simple for your mentality.

a reply to: Seede

How am I ignorant?

Because you can't provide any scripture to support your claim but insist it's true?

Sounds like you are the ignorant one.

Peter being Chief Apostle is in the New Testament, as is James as Chief of the Apostles and John being one of three pillars.

What is not in the Bible is your claim, that you refuse to drop even though you have nothing to support it, of John outranking Peter.

And your words have no authority in the matter so forgive me if I regard your repeatedly calling me ignorant as no more than a projection of your personal inadequacies.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

TextYou did not demonstrate scripture saying that John was second to James you just said it with no source whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance again and again. You seem to not have the mind to comprehend what i try to teach you. So in order to make it more simple for you I will take one point at a time.

Now read and then sleep on it so that you can understand.

I did not reference a biblical scripture to show that John was second to James simply because it is not in the biblical scriptures that show anyone of the apostles were ranked above or below the others. I also did not reference biblical scripture that shows James had a church. Why? Because it is not in the biblical scriptures that James had a church nor that Peter had a church nor that John had a church. There is nothing in the biblical scriptures that show Peter succeeded James either as you so profoundly proclaim.

James had a synagogue. Not a church. James never ever had a church. Peter never succeeded James in any synagogue of any any sort as you state. In fact it was Simeon ben Clopas who succeeded James The Just in 62 CE..

The Roman church adopted Peter as their pope many years after the death of all apostles. Peter had no influence in the Roman church as a living apostle.

You simply do not understand what I have posted and I have explained all of this to you numerous times. I posted my source two times in previous posts and will not do so again. You had best stay with the Quran. It is more simple for your mentality.

Your attempts to insult me for being a Muslim are despicable, your claim that I have a simple mentality is laughable and born out of anger from the fact that a Muslim corrected you.

But you were wrong. Despite numerous attempts to argue that John outranked Peter you have produced no evidence from scripture or history or the Apocrypha.

But I am ignorant? I actually have evidence from the Bible, the Bible you apparently know little about, to use to refute that claim.

You have used nothing outside of your words, that's not evidence it's error.

And your attitude is what's simple, not my mentality. I understand it sux that a Muslim knows more about your religion than you but that only makes YOU ignorant, not me.

Because other than being wrong you've done nothing but angrily insult me for correcting you on an error YOU MADE.

You need to get a grip and stop insulting people for knowing things you don't. My being a Muslim has nothing to do with your lack of knowledge.

SEEDE:

This debate has been absurd, I only corrected a legitimate mistake you made saying John outranked Peter.

You could have ended your embarrassment long ago by producing the evidence that what you said was true.

You have not been able to, at all. Not a word other than your own.

If I am so ignorant why are you unable to support your claim?

Because you were wrong, and you being wrong is me being ignorant in your fantasy world.

But the fact is you were wrong and insulted me to relieve the pain.

THAT'S ignorant.

a reply to: Malocchio

You have not been able to, at all. Not a word other than your own.

From page 4 - 1st post --
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

That makes the third time that I have given you the source --
-----------------------------------------------------
You wrote - "I don't know what to tell you but Peter outranked John, James outranked Peter and was James successor. - I think you mean that Peter succeeded James but nevertheless you are completely wrong as usual.

I answered "In fact it was Simeon ben Clopas who succeeded James The Just in 62 CE.."

Need I say more ???

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

You have not been able to, at all. Not a word other than your own.

From page 4 - 1st post --
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

That makes the third time that I have given you the source --
-----------------------------------------------------
You wrote - "I don't know what to tell you but Peter outranked John, James outranked Peter and was James successor. - I think you mean that Peter succeeded James but nevertheless you are completely wrong as usual.

I answered "In fact it was Simeon ben Clopas who succeeded James The Just in 62 CE.."

Need I say more ???

Yes, you need to stop pretending I didn't already call you out for not having a scriptural way of proving John outranked Peter.

And that I do have evidence in the Gospels that Peter was chosen by Jesus.

And stop using nothing but your own words, and prove that John outranked Peter WITH scripture, because that was the one thing you said I cared enough about to correct and still all I care about.

I asked you for scripture to prove that one claim and you gave me your words, even though I said that doesn't count.

So SCRIPTURE SAYING JOHN OUTRANKED PETER, WHICH YOU CLAIMED AS A FACT, IS ALL THAT YOU NEED TO PRODUCE.

So I don't care about your garbled nonsense, you said ONE THING that I care about, you said John outranked Peter.

I said it was incorrect, which is true, and you went on a rampage trying really hard and failing to prove that it was true but could not produce a shred of evidence that says it is and your little rampage was all YOUR WORDS.

YOU CAN'T DO IT, I KNOW, END OF CONVERSATION.

a reply to: Malocchio

wasn't John the "beloved" disciple?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Malocchio

wasn't John the "beloved" disciple?

That is not provable either, but if it was true or provable that doesn't make him of higher rank than Peter the Rock aka Simon Cephas.

The Gospel of John mentions but does not name a beloved disciple and doesn't explain the meaning leaving it open for everyone to assume or guess the identity.

But John was an Apostle so if it was him it'd be beloved Apostle, and it's not, so I doubt it was John, or that John wrote the Gospel of John.

Regardless, beloved disciple doesn't have anything to do with rank, it's affectionate not titular.

And nobody knows who the beloved disciple is because it doesn't say.

So no, John is not the beloved disciple (most likely).

The beloved disciple doesn't have anything to with rank anyway though, it's a mystery, and not relevant to the topic of discussion.

a reply to: Malocchio

Well it seems to me "family" comes first in most cases...

then close friends.... beloved?

Then others... perhaps those that deny you in some sense?

a reply to: Akragon

I would have to imagine that you are familiar with the scene where Jesus says about Peter on this rock I will build my church.

And that even Protestant churches recognize the supremacy of Peter among the 12 Apostles.

Why would you think that an unnamed character in the Gospel of John would serve as evidence that John outranked Peter?

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

a reply to: Malocchio

Only because it kinds sounds right...

peter really didn't understand Jesus... Nor did the rest of his followers....

And im not saying john(s) were any different... the comment is narrative... but its there

John... whoever he was... was a beloved person of Jesus...

Peter was the rock... but more or less a pebble... easily rolled away as we can read...

*shrug*

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Malocchio

Only because it kinds sounds right...

peter really didn't understand Jesus... Nor did the rest of his followers....

I would have to disagree with statement, and agree with Jesus that Peter well understood his teachings and suggest maybe you don't understand Peter. I am always telling people about the so called Clementine Homilies and Recognitions which are as legitimate as anything in the New Testament, because they show exactly what Peter actually taught. It was an important book of Jewish Christian origins that would suggest that Jewish people in the first three centuries also disagree with your statement that the Apostles didn't understand Jesus.

It's rather absurd to suggest that his 12 chosen Apostles didn't understand him when they were in reality the recipients of the true meaning of his parables and not the masses.

Maybe when he first recruited them they didn't understand but that is just naturally how it works.

Post ressurection and ascension they very much understood his mission, and even had to deal with false teachers like Paul, whom they identified for what he was and rejected, as instructed by Jesus.

And im not saying john(s) were any different... the comment is narrative... but its there

John... whoever he was... was a beloved person of Jesus...

Peter was the rock... but more or less a pebble... easily rolled away as we can read...

*shrug*

That's your personal opinion, not Jesus. I would not be very bright if I adopted your opinion when the Gospel narrative doesn't.

Probably you think that his denials were a form of weakness, but he was essentially told he was going to do it by Jesus, and not warned in order to stop him but so he did it.

Because it would have cost him his life and Jesus plan to build his Church on Peter would have failed, not because Peter was a coward.

Peter was the one who was willing to protect Jesus from arrest and cut off the Centurion's ear earning a rebuke of adversary from Jesus, so at what point does Peter show he is unreliable, is it when he defended Jesus or did what he was told to do?

a reply to: Malocchio

Peter was the one who was willing to protect Jesus from arrest and cut off the Centurion's ear earning a rebuke of adversary from Jesus, so at what point does Peter show he is unreliable, is it when he defended Jesus or did what he was told to do?

Just after that actually...

And He told peter it would happen

3 x

a reply to: Whaler

He's a bit elusive, they called him a lofty mountain god,

a reply to: ChemicalAli

Judgement is gods business, not your's. Besides according to the NT the only sin that is unforgivable is that against the Holy Ghost.

I'm glad I'm not you - living in fear of a petty Old Testament mountain god

a reply to: Akragon


The scraps of what the Apostles genuinely knew and did that we have are unfortunately unreliable as they have been tampered with by the Romans.

But regardless, the non Pauline portions of the New Testament like the so called general epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude and the Gospel of Thomas, Homilies and Recognitions and whatever else you want to add to that list show a very clear understanding of what Jesus taught, naturally more than you and I ever will.

You might personally not regard the Recognitions of Clement as a Canonical work, not many do, but it's oldest known manuscript is as old (roughly) as the oldest New Testament and is likely from the Ebionites who rejected Paul and held up James and Peter as the ultimate examples of Wisdom and representatives of his true teachings.

The book is written because Peter's teachings were being abused and things he didn't teach were being said to have come from him, an obvious reference to Saul who appears early on and assaults James, nearly killing him and later cloaked under the identity of Simon Magus.

Whoever wrote this book understood the true teachings of the True Prophet or Christ as it refers to him, and credit Peter with this understanding. If not really Clement himself then a close disciple.

This ancient MS. portrays a wise and sober Peter who commands respect and not your tainted by misunderstanding view of Peter as a "pebble."

They were a lot closer to the source than you or I and would not represent Peter in such a way in a clearly sacred writing that is just not chosen by the Romans but was no less true than the New Testament.

a reply to: Rex282


Bad analogy _Walt Disney as god...

www.ocweekly.com...
New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Gay Pedophile

There's lots of bizarre lore surrounding the legend of Walt Disney. Just off the top of our heads, we've heard he's a Communist (despite him being a founding member of the anti-communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals), a Nazi, a fascist, a racist, a homosexual, a cryogenically frozen head--and now, thanks to a new book by Darwin Porter, Hollywood Babylon Strikes Again, we can add pedophile to that list. Reports GaySexBlog.net, the book alleges that Disney was "fond of trying on his mother's make-up, clothes and high heels" as a child and that he could uh, "never get an erection for women."