2 Saviors?

[Margee]

To pass some time tonight while waiting to hear about a very dear friend who is in the hospital (and to keep me from fretting!) - I am watching the documentary by Karen Armstrong on 'The History of God'.

 

Now, I'm not sure that I'm getting this right, but it seems to me that she is saying that for every prophet that came along in the old Testament - they created a different version of god to suit them better. I could be wrong - but that's what I think I'm hearing?

 

One very interesting scripture that was brought up was Isaiah 45- verse 21.

 

 

Verse 21

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

 

What the????????? :scratch:

 

If it is true, that they made 'God' as they went along to suit their purposes - 'Isaiah' s god' was also the Saviour God?

 

This is the first time I heard this????

 

I ALWAYS thought the OT God was the same God throughout the OT!!!

 

So we have Isaiah's Saviour and Jesus the Saviour

 

Didn't the OT god send us a Saviour later, named Jesus? Do we have an OT Saviour and a NT savior?? HELP!!

 

 

For anyone interested in this documentary: 1 hour - very good!

 

http://video.google....887275399093528#

 

 

 

 

[Knetti]

Margee, I'd take what Armstrong says with a grain of salt. For a class I had to read a book of hers (will post if I remember the title) but it was obviously very biased. From what I understand, she was Catholic, became atheist, then became Christian again. The book I read was when she wasn't Christian and she was obviously, not resentful, but had some issues with religion. I guess that's the best way to put it. But that would be an interesting thing to look up. I don't know how good her other work is.

[Margee]

just for tonight - and maybe tomorrow - I am going to give up asking myself all these 1,000's of questions. It's just too mind boggling. I am going to take a 'rest' from all the questions and just relax with where I am right now - don't even know where that is - but I am going to try and relax.

 

Many of you have suggested that to me. And tonight, I am going to take your advice. Tonight I don't even care if this question gets discussed. I say that with love in my heart. I really do. I am just tired of trying to figure all of this out. Nighty- night everyone.

 

 

[dB-Paradox]

Good night and have a well deserved break! I've often haggled over this question or that, or over this concept or that, but in the end I have to ask myself...is it really worth it? And would a loving god really want me stressed over not knowing? If there were a god, it would be either a god who cares not, so basically no heaven or hell (or only heaven) or a god who does care, and made itself known. Hmmmmm, what do we see in the world today....

 

Anyway, goodnight and good rest!

[Guest I Love Dog]

just for tonight - and maybe tomorrow - I am going to give up asking myself all these 1,000's of questions. It's just too mind boggling. I am going to take a 'rest' from all the questions and just relax with where I am right now - don't even know where that is - but I am going to try and relax.

 

Many of you have suggested that to me. And tonight, I am going to take your advice. Tonight I don't even care if this question gets discussed. I say that with love in my heart. I really do. I am just tired of trying to figure all of this out. Nighty- night everyone.

 

Margee, when you have recovered, lol, you may like to research the Seventy Sons of El. It seems that Yahweh, the Canaanite/Hebrew?Jewish?Christian/Islamic god may well have been one of the seventy, one of many gods that the Hebrews originally worshipped. Even in the bible there is a record of the many sons of god marrying humans. Christians believe that god only had one son, but there in the bible, the inerrant truth of god, is writing of the many sons of god. Go figure!

[Margee]

just for tonight - and maybe tomorrow - I am going to give up asking myself all these 1,000's of questions. It's just too mind boggling. I am going to take a 'rest' from all the questions and just relax with where I am right now - don't even know where that is - but I am going to try and relax.

 

Many of you have suggested that to me. And tonight, I am going to take your advice. Tonight I don't even care if this question gets discussed. I say that with love in my heart. I really do. I am just tired of trying to figure all of this out. Nighty- night everyone.

 

Margee, when you have recovered, lol, you may like to research the Seventy Sons of El. It seems that Yahweh, the Canaanite/Hebrew?Jewish?Christian/Islamic god may well have been one of the seventy, one of many gods that the Hebrews originally worshipped. Even in the bible there is a record of the many sons of god marrying humans. Christians believe that god only had one son, but there in the bible, the inerrant truth of god, is writing of the many sons of god. Go figure!

 

 

I love dog - you say that there is possibly 70 different gods in the old testament? lord have mercy - This is just getting worse by the minute!

God - I should have just stayed in church and obeyed the angry OT god! Things were so much easier when I believed as 'a little child'.

 

I'm going to try and not get confused today. If there is a god out there somewhere - surly 'he' will give me some peace over this!

 

I probably will look into the seventy sons of El - I just love making myself more crazy! LOL

[Eugene39]

I'm sure someone will disagree with me, but here's my opinion. There may be a god, there may not be a god; there seems to be no real evidence either direction. As a result, for those who need a god, they have to generate a god suitable to their liking. That is why you have so many different, contradictory views of god from the Bible, and people pick out of it what is suitable for them. The Bible is more of a mirror of humanity than it is of god, because we don't know even if a god exists, much less what his personality traits are, etc. You may find this interesting.

 

http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/polytheism-and-human-sacrifice-in-early-israelite-religion/

 

[walker]

Margee -

 

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

 

I hope your friend is doing well.

[Margee]

Margee -

 

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

 

I hope your friend is doing well.

 

Thanks for mentioning my friend Walker - she is doing fine tonight.

 

I see that this is your 2nd post. You sound like a really nice Christian , by the answer you gave me.

 

I must warn you though - if you aren't prepared to be attacked, you may want to try to be very careful giving us the 'pat' answers out of the bible.

 

This is an EX-Christian site and we reveal the bible for all the nonsense that is in it.

 

You sound like a nice person - so I thought I would just give you a 'heads up.' I was a Christian for 30 years and I heard all the answers you give, for 30 years.

 

Thanks friend. Seriously - I am not being mean - You are welcome here - it's just that we are x-christians - We are not looking to be 'encouraged' by other christians - I hope you realize that.

thanks for trying anyway.

[walker]

Margee -

 

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

 

I hope your friend is doing well.

 

Thanks for mentioning my friend Walker - she is doing fine tonight.

 

I see that this is your 2nd post. You sound like a really nice Christian , by the answer you gave me.

 

I must warn you though - if you aren't prepared to be attacked, you may want to try to be very careful giving us the 'pat' answers out of the bible.

 

This is an EX-Christian site and we reveal the bible for all the nonsense that is in it.

 

You sound like a nice person - so I thought I would just give you a 'heads up.' I was a Christian for 30 years and I heard all the answers you give, for 30 years.

 

Thanks friend. Seriously - I am not being mean - You are welcome here - it's just that we are x-christians - We are not looking to be 'encouraged' by other christians - I hope you realize that.

thanks for trying anyway.

I have some experience in discussion with non-believers (from whatever background). If I don't know someone I usually start by assuming that their question is sincere. So, often I give a basic (brief) reply and see where things go. Sometimes people really don't know the basics - sometimes they do. I also feel that many typical church teachings are a bit off so sometimes I'm maybe presenting a different perspective. I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago - I find that incredibly problematic (so no wonder they have problems!). And those who know better but insist on such an approach - well, that's just not good, honest scholarship. But thanks for the "heads up". I'll see what happens. I'm not under any delusions of converting anyone - I've been in discussions too long for that! (I also don't believe any human can "convert" another anyway.) I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ... but you've probably heard that before. : )

 

O-K - so, were your questions in your original post serious/sincere ... or other?

 

Anyway, I'm glad your friend is doing better.

[mwc]

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

Haha!

 

It says in the NT that "jesus" was in the beginning. Sooo...as we can see this means he is found in the OT from this NT reference.

 

mwc

[MagickMonkey]

...

 

I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago ...

 

 

Huh???

 

 

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ... but you've probably heard that before. : )

 

 

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian. I can't speak for Margee, but it certainly seems that she doesn't particularly want christianity to be false. It seems she simply cannot ignore the evidence that it is.

[dB-Paradox]

I'm responding to your quotes, walker, in agreement with MagickMonkey. So first this one.

I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago - I find that incredibly problematic (so no wonder they have problems!).

I think most ex-Christians actually have more knowledge about the bible's origins than most Christians do. In fact, in some cases, it was this knowledge that led to questions that led to deconversion. What you might be referring to, walker, are unbelievers who have never believed, nor had the desire to learn anything about the faith. But if you're interested in learning more about the bible's origins and how it came to us in its present form, just ask someone here, or do some research. We'll gladly set you on the straight path.

 

This next quote is interesting, because it reveals a cognitive dissonance in the Christian.

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ...

You've interestingly used the word "logical", implying that you yourself have logically thought through the doctrines of the faith and that it's this logical conclusion that makes you Christian, rather than a matter of your heart. In other words, we're the ones who have less rational thought, but instead more powerful emotions while you have less powerful emotions but more rational thought. This statement goes completely against what Paul teaches. Instead, a Christian ought to have faith (which I would consider a matter of the heart) over rational thought. Faith continually trumps logic in the bible. And that's something that we have a problem with. Because, as John Loftus' states in his book The Christian Delusion, faith fails. There are many reasons for this, which I won't get into here. But the reason we don't believe is precisely the opposite of what you've stated. Again, that's possibly not true of all unbelievers, but certainly rings true for communities like this one.

[mwc]

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ...

Wouldn't this just be a statement of the heart as well? So who cares?

 

mwc

[walker]

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

Haha!

 

It says in the NT that "jesus" was in the beginning. Sooo...as we can see this means he is found in the OT from this NT reference.

 

mwc

 

Actually, I don’t think it’s wise to decide anything based on just one verse. My response was “brief”, as I said. There are many verses which support this concept, but of course one who doesn’t consider scripture valid would have to start with examining its possible validity and not with how it reveals that Jesus *was* in the beginning. That only makes good sense.

[mwc]

Actually, I don’t think it’s wise to decide anything based on just one verse. My response was “brief”, as I said. There are many verses which support this concept, but of course one who doesn’t consider scripture valid would have to start with examining its possible validity and not with how it reveals that Jesus *was* in the beginning. That only makes good sense.

Lots of talky but no proofy.

 

mwc

[walker]

...

 

I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago ...

 

 

Huh???

 

I find that many/most people read the Bible with little to no understanding of the way its authors wrote, thought, etc. For example, not understanding Hebrew idioms can lead to strange (literal) ideas. (That's just a simple example.)

 

 

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ... but you've probably heard that before. : )

 

 

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian. I can't speak for Margee, but it certainly seems that she doesn't particularly want christianity to be false. It seems she simply cannot ignore the evidence that it is.

 

Well, everything I know and have experienced leads me to continue to believe that it's a heart-matter. But I don't yet know anyone here very well. It might be interesting to have those people who really would like Christianity to be true to sometime post THE biggest reason why they can't believe (their TOP reason). But I will also say that often we don't know ourselves very well. There are some who don't want Christianity to be true, some who do, and some who think they do but don't. (And there are some who think they believe but really don't!)

[MagickMonkey]

...

 

I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago ...

 

 

Huh???

 

I find that many/most people read the Bible with little to no understanding of the way its authors wrote, thought, etc. For example, not understanding Hebrew idioms can lead to strange (literal) ideas. (That's just a simple example.)

 

 

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ... but you've probably heard that before. : )

 

 

Trust me, dude, if disbelief were a matter of the heart, I and many of my fellow ex-christians would still be christian. I can't speak for Margee, but it certainly seems that she doesn't particularly want christianity to be false. It seems she simply cannot ignore the evidence that it is.

 

Well, everything I know and have experienced leads me to continue to believe that it's a heart-matter. But I don't yet know anyone here very well. It might be interesting to have those people who really would like Christianity to be true to sometime post THE biggest reason why they can't believe (their TOP reason). But I will also say that often we don't know ourselves very well. There are some who don't want Christianity to be true, some who do, and some who think they do but don't. (And there are some who think they believe but really don't!)

 

It might be helpful to read the threads in the "Testimonies of Former Christians" forum. I know that for me, the evidence supporting evolution was a big deal. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is older than the bible says it is. Not that the bible gives an exact age, but it is certainly not compatible with an Earth that is a few billion years old. There are many other problems with the claims made by christianity. When I finally admitted that I no longer believed, I was not very happy about it. I simply had to admit to myself that no matter how much I wanted god to exist, I could not wish him into existence. I couldn't wish an afterlife into existence either. I was momentarily devastated. What my "heart" wanted to believe did not fit what my rational mind knew to be true.

[walker]

I find so often that non-believers approach the Bible as if it were written by some American guys a few years ago - I find that incredibly problematic (so no wonder they have problems!).

I think most ex-Christians actually have more knowledge about the bible's origins than most Christians do. In fact, in some cases, it was this knowledge that led to questions that led to deconversion. What you might be referring to, walker, are unbelievers who have never believed, nor had the desire to learn anything about the faith. But if you're interested in learning more about the bible's origins and how it came to us in its present form, just ask someone here, or do some research. We'll gladly set you on the straight path.

 

You are most likely right that ex-Christians usually have more knowledge about the Bible's origins than most Christians. But I wasn't really speaking of Bible origins - I was speaking about how people interpret the actual text. To best understand an author we need to understand how he uses language, literary forms - and we need to know about his culture, thought/perspective, etc. We can't read the text as if an American just wrote it - it won't make sense.

 

I do believe that disbelief is a matter of the heart and not of logical information ...

You've interestingly used the word "logical", implying that you yourself have logically thought through the doctrines of the faith and that it's this logical conclusion that makes you Christian, rather than a matter of your heart. In other words, we're the ones who have less rational thought, but instead more powerful emotions while you have less powerful emotions but more rational thought. This statement goes completely against what Paul teaches. Instead, a Christian ought to have faith (which I would consider a matter of the heart) over rational thought. Faith continually trumps logic in the bible. And that's something that we have a problem with. Because, as John Loftus' states in his book The Christian Delusion, faith fails. There are many reasons for this, which I won't get into here. But the reason we don't believe is precisely the opposite of what you've stated. Again, that's possibly not true of all unbelievers, but certainly rings true for communities like this one.

 

For me it's logic plus heart ... and I'm really speaking about will, not emotions. Faith is involved because no one can know everything about anything - we all have some "faith" in many areas. Paul was a very educated Hebrew and he spent much time logically showing how Jesus was spoken about in the first testament. Often faith is believing through changing emotional moods - holding on to what the mind knows is true. Being a Christian in Paul's time wasn't easy - he encouraged people to stick with what they knew. But no, faith should never trump logic - faith should not be "blind". But honestly, faith probably is pretty blind and emotional for many who claim to be Christian.

[dB-Paradox]

...faith should not be "blind".

 

But walker, religious faith is blind. That's precisely the nature of religious faith...to believe in something in which there is no evidence. There is absolutely no external (non-Christian) evidence for the life of Jesus as portrayed in the bible...or at all, for that matter! A follower of Christ needs to use the bible as their guide. No bible, no Jesus. Since he's not in any secular history records, the Christian is required to have blind faith in the bible. Just as the Muslim has blind faith in the koran, or the Jew in the torah.

[walker]

It might be helpful to read the threads in the "Testimonies of Former Christians" forum. I know that for me, the evidence supporting evolution was a big deal. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is older than the bible says it is. Not that the bible gives an exact age, but it is certainly not compatible with an Earth that is a few billion years old. There are many other problems with the claims made by christianity. When I finally admitted that I no longer believed, I was not very happy about it. I simply had to admit to myself that no matter how much I wanted god to exist, I could not wish him into existence. I couldn't wish an afterlife into existence either. I was momentarily devastated. What my "heart" wanted to believe did not fit what my rational mind knew to be true.

I've read some testimonies a while ago, but you're right that it would be good to read the threads again. But for right now let me ask you this: IF somehow you came to see that science did not stand in the way of a belief in God, would you believe? I know I asked you for your top reason, but now I'm asking if it is your only reason. Image that this problem of science were removed ... would there be other reasons you couldn't believe?

 

Why did you want to believe in God and an afterlife? Was it maybe because you grew up believing? Why did you ever have the idea that God and an afterlife existed?

[MagickMonkey]

It might be helpful to read the threads in the "Testimonies of Former Christians" forum. I know that for me, the evidence supporting evolution was a big deal. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is older than the bible says it is. Not that the bible gives an exact age, but it is certainly not compatible with an Earth that is a few billion years old. There are many other problems with the claims made by christianity. When I finally admitted that I no longer believed, I was not very happy about it. I simply had to admit to myself that no matter how much I wanted god to exist, I could not wish him into existence. I couldn't wish an afterlife into existence either. I was momentarily devastated. What my "heart" wanted to believe did not fit what my rational mind knew to be true.

I've read some testimonies a while ago, but you're right that it would be good to read the threads again. But for right now let me ask you this: IF somehow you came to see that science did not stand in the way of a belief in God, would you believe? I know I asked you for your top reason, but now I'm asking if it is your only reason. Image that this problem of science were removed ... would there be other reasons you couldn't believe?

 

Why did you want to believe in God and an afterlife? Was it maybe because you grew up believing? Why did you ever have the idea that God and an afterlife existed?

 

It's not simply a matter of removing evidence against god, though that would certainly be a requirement. But also, one must have credible evidence that there is a god. In fact, christianity has several levels of premises. Everything rests on the base premise that there is a god. Then there are other premises that deal with who god is and what he expects from us, etc. Proving the existence of god is the first step. In fact, while one may find plenty of evidence that the claims in the bible are false, there is no actual evidence that no gods exist. There is simply a lack of any reason to believe that there is one.

 

I first believed in god and an afterlife because I was taught as a child that there was a god. I even thought I could feel god calling me to be saved. I "accepted jesus" at a young age, even before getting baptized like good church of christ christians should. Just in case that wasn't good enough, I later on, as a baptist, prayed again for god to save me and to have a personal relationship with him and all that. I felt like I could feel his presence. I wanted to live with him eternally after I died. I also looked forward to spending eternity with family members, some of which, including my dad, had already died. Perhaps you could imagine the sense of loss I felt when I realized it could not be true.

 

If I saw truly compelling evidence that god existed, I would do my best to make an honest and objective assessment of that evidence. In the course of doing so, I might come to the conclusion that he does exist. I would then look at any credible information about what he might expect from me.

 

If you want, you can check out my deconversion testimony here.

[walker]

...faith should not be "blind".

 

But walker, religious faith is blind. That's precisely the nature of religious faith...to believe in something in which there is no evidence. There is absolutely no external (non-Christian) evidence for the life of Jesus as portrayed in the bible...or at all, for that matter! A follower of Christ needs to use the bible as their guide. No bible, no Jesus. Since he's not in any secular history records, the Christian is required to have blind faith in the bible. Just as the Muslim has blind faith in the koran, or the Jew in the torah.

I would say there isn't full evidence, but there is evidence. There isn't full evidence for the theory of evolution either. People who intelligently believe in evolution do so because they accept standard scientific interpretation of data and observations, and theories developed from the interpretations. To the evolutionist his theories are logical conclusions - but not everything is concretely known. There are also accepted methods of examining ancient manuscripts (texts) and authors for authenticity. The Bible should be examined just like any other ancient text - that's merely honest scholarship. If the text is proven accurate then we look at what it communicates and make internal judgments - is its revelation consistent? What were the motives of its authors? Is the culture described accurate for the area and time period? Does known history contradict the text? etc. This is all apart from a "blind" faith based on no foundation.

 

Scripture is the main source of revelation, but there are other sources.

[florduh]

It might be interesting to have those people who really would like Christianity to be true to sometime post THE biggest reason why they can't believe (their TOP reason).

Well, I do know some people here and I venture to say that the vast majority would like Christianity to be true. That's why we were Christians in the first place. Who wouldn't want a magical solution to life's problems, supernatural comfort and immortality?

 

I'll also say that the most prevalent reason (not the only reason) people left the faith is because under scrutiny, it falls apart. It all hinges on the Bible, and that book doesn't hold up under honest study. That's why some of the most outspoken atheists are former Biblical scholars, preachers and theological students. Prayers go unanswered and in general the whole concept is illogical and self contradictory.

 

Having been a devout Christian at one time myself I realize these answers will be found lacking, but there they are for your information.

[Guest Valk0010]

There are also accepted methods of examining ancient manuscripts (texts) and authors for authenticity. The Bible should be examined just like any other ancient text - that's merely honest scholarship. If the text is proven accurate then we look at what it communicates and make internal judgments - is its revelation consistent? What were the motives of its authors? Is the culture described accurate for the area and time period? Does known history contradict the text? etc.

 

I agree with most of what you said outside of which I will address below.

Methods of examining ancient manuscripts, normally apply to reasonable claims like, ceaser crossed the rubicon, for example, not say the supposed miracles of him or apollonius of tyana, or Shabbat zevi or the magical stuff in the life of the twelve ceasers.

 

Point is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence even in the ancient times. You would need more the average evidence for a miracle claim then you would for say, a guy visited a place and had lunch there.

 

The second part I will address more glibly, say a reliable person says they saw the virgin mary or aliens, but your reasoning you would have to believe them. They were reliable in other areas, so you have to believe them there. A consistent batshit crazy thing (though I wouldn't call the gospels consistent) is still a batshit crazy thing.