But they went off on a tangent and made a new religion by adding all sorts of new stuff, not by adhering to what was already present.

Does that mean that anyone can be a prophet if they just add bits on to the existing documentation?

Nope, I don't think anyone could.

Just to clarify, technically speaking, the fact there is scripture actually negates the idea of prophets.  The scriptures were used as a way for everyone to interpret hot they could follow God's commands.  Although the high priests of the temple were looked to for interpretation, the idea of a canonized scripture was to eliminate the problem of false prophets, or of multiple prophets with clashing views.  Of course, the intent might be different from the reality, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention.

Scripture would come from the prophet. Meaning that the prophet would get the message, while scripture is simply that message. Anyone can read scripture, and a prophet is someone who has the message given to him by God.

Actually, until the book of Samuel, prophets never wrote down a word of what they preached.  They brought the word of God, and that was enough.  The first canonized scripture was the 5 books of Moses in the 4th century BCE, and people turned to works that were established as the word of god to Moses rather than listening to people who may or may not have been prophets.

When you sayu first cannonized, you mean the church organized the writings, correct? Because they were written long before that. That's what you're saying, right? I just want to clarify they did write them before being cannonized.

This was the source of this part of the debate, that a prophet can only repeat what is written.

But this view then makes any real prophets impossible, cos they either parrot preexisting material or they are fakes by changing things.

This can't be what you mean Rogue, as you then disprove christ.

What I mean by canonized is that Ezra the Scribe, who if I remmber correctly was not only Governor of Israel, but also a priest in the Temple, Took the scrtolls, or tablets, or whatever the 5 books of Moses were written on, copied their information into one place and said "Look, here's all the stuff that God told Moses, including the laws by which we all should live our lives.  Listen to the collected edition.  Everything else won't necessarily count".

The books of Kings 1 and 2, Samuel 1 and 2, Judges, and Chronicles weren't canonized as a part of the Old Testament until around the 1st century BCE by a commitee of Rabbis in Greece
This message was last edited by the player at 05:08, Tue 20 July 2004.

Alright GHo, I'll bite. Go on. finish your idea. How is anything I said somehow showing Jesus didn't follow scripture?

As he added to it, basically. The christian church goes off in a different direction from the original Judaic one.

So therefore he had to have diverged from the original scripture of the time, and by the definition of a prophet you gave above can't be a real prophet.

Basically what I said last time.

I don't call it a reasonable argument, but then I don't subscrbe to these definitions of prophet either.

I meant to finish your point of where Jesus didn't follow scripture.

Everything in the New Testament (and as someone else said earlier, a large part of the old testament was 'added later') is an addition to the 'original' scripture.

More specifically, God having avatars/offspring.
The opening of the religion away from those of gods chosen people (geneologically determined) to anyone who wants to accept it.

I believe a large number of 'prophecies' also have their origins in the new testament.

Well, that really doesn't touch on Jesus not following prophecy.

As for the "addition" to the Old, and the New Testament being added, that was in reference to the original 5 books by Moses. Everything after Moses of course is "added" to the original. But there's no choice, the rest had to be added. Moses died, and there's no way Moses could witness the life of Jesus when he was born of the flesh. There's an actual need to add to the first 5 books.

So whenever you have a discrepancy, let me know. Saying there is a difference, isn't the same as showing one. I can't just guess what you have in mind. The bible is hundreds of thousands of words.

Please consider second Timothy- timothy and his mother were both Jewish and converted to Christianity under Paul's guidance. When Paul is answering Timothy's question as to how to tell what is right and what is made up between the competing ideologies within christianity at that time Pauls answer is to believe the things his mother raised him with, and that everything else is false.
Not, Timothy was raised Jewish and Paul was aware of this. This leads to a couple of interesting conclusions 9at least for me)
1) there was no doctrine at this point, rather varrious doctrines that were changeing as they got copied and retold. Thus anyone who might have noticed a descrepancy between prophecy and story may well have 'corrected' the problem whe they copied the story, and only the 'corrected' versions made it into the final canon.
2) Paul is telling Timothy *not* to believe in Christianity. Considering that Paul was the one who took Christinaity to the gentiles, it is possible that Paul did not fully believe (see my comment in the dead sea scroll thread) and felt some degree of guilt over leading Jews away from thier faith, but felt no such reservation about gentiles.

Based on your information, isn't it plausible that Timothy was raised with christian teaching? I mean the letters come after Jesus had a major effect on the area.

Jesus preached in 30 AD, and as I noted earlier, Timothy and his mother converted *together*.
Also Timothy was raised in Athens and first heard of Jesus through Paul...

Hmm, are you sure that is what it says in 2nd timothy? I just skimmed over it, and couldn't find any thing along those lines you speak of.

I did find this in 2nd timothy 3:10-17

It may have been first, or elsewhere in second Timothy, it's been a while since I discovered that little issue...
However as the bible was not codified when that was written I find it also interesting that he would say *all scripture* is God-breathed, since this would, by implication, include non-Christian scriptures...
Then again maybe Paul was just a little more open minded about these things than the modern adherants to that religion...

Well, I'd have to go on a limb here, but obviously all wrtings are not God breathed, so it can't mean that. When you look at meaning, then you have the answer.

An example. I write a book, it bites big time, and people use the book as fuel for a campfire. Does that mean I was writing that book for fuel? No, just because they use it to fuel their fire, does not mean I meant it that way.

And yet at the time many 'branches' of christianity were incorporating scriptures from other religions. Many of the orriginal Catholic Saints are Roman Gods and Goddesses fressed up in different words. The Koptics were considered a Christian sect at the time and were more incorporating Christian text into Egyptian mythology than the other way arround. So where is the line that you see so clearly? What marked it before there was a canon?

The line I see is the bible. It's fairly clear that Jesus is the only way to God.

But as for the other comments, really now, what other religion has the trinity, 1 God, but three forms of the same God. What other religion has a God who dies for them? What other religion that God is a friend, and has a personal relationship with you? I'm positive that your reasoning is the same as for the fish symbol, one used for other religions, and somehow Christians copied the fish. There is no copywright on these kind of things.

The trinity is found in multiple religions, though ussually a goddess trinity- mother maid and crone. many Egyptian Godesses had three aspects in the same method as you describe which are the goddess represented in different phases of her life.
Personal relationship and friendship is a bit of a modern thing really in my opinion, it certainly wasn't part of the Catholic dogma which required a priest to communicate between man and God via the pope. For those who claim they have a close personal relationship with God please tell me, what is his favorite color? To me that claim is a made up line to make the average worshiper feel inadequate and scared to reveal that they don't share the close personal relationship that all the *other* people in the church claim to feel, and notably the first person to claim that relationship was Joseph Smith, founder of the Morman faith, and I guess others picked up on the claim to establish their own credibility as part of the revivalist movement. It is definitely an American thing, exported by evangelical missionaries. It definitely is not an intrinsic part of all Christianity.

Edited by GM for langauge. Please Silveroak, this forum is open to those who are underage.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:42, Sun 25 July 2004.

Multiple religions? Are you sure. I think they may call themselves trinity, but they are using the word to more accurately mean triad. Or three seperate gods.

As to the relationship, no that's a misconception. The mormons were not the first to recognize Jesus as a personal savior. Some people in the bible recognized this from the start, as they literally walked beside God. Sothat would definitely be an said in error.

It is part of christianity. Jesus cannot be seperated from christianity.

Yes, I am certain, as I *belong* to one such religion, and have delved into the history of pagan religions for over a decade now. The three godesses are both seperate and the same, just as in Christianity. The only difference is that being female the trinity was natural (mother, maid, and crone) where christianity had to adapt the natural male duality (father and son) and 'tack on' a non-relative role (holy ghost).

As to the relationship issue, check your history book sometime- Catholic doctrine for centuries litterally dominated western though and did *not* embrace the concept of a personal relationship. If a personal relationship is an intrinsic part of chrisitianity then real christianity died out millenia ago and the modern recreation is younger than neo-paganism. Kind of hard to tie that together with "If it is of man it will not survive, if it is of God we cannot stop it".

Hmm, I never knew about any other religions that has One God, but three personas. Either way, God is God.

No, I see what you mean by looking at it in that perspective. But it was always meant to be a persoanl relationship. Jesus was physically there beside us in those day, and now He is with us spiritually, which is what he said when he was there physically. He will always be with us in our heart. That is not a mormon verse, that is Christianity from the start.