Re: OT: Hey God Boy (n5hsr)

Dear Dumb F*ck:

I happen to have to be connected to CrumbCast to reply to the newsgroup. I was out of town on business for the weekend. I do have a life of sorts, unlike you.

Yes, if one says they are a Christian but do not believe the Bible, then they are not what they say they are. Jesus himself believed the whole Bible. If they claim to follow Jesus but don't believe what Jesus believed and what He Himself taught, then "the truth is not in them." Unlearned Richard being the case in point.

You cannot claim that you are a disiple of anyone unless you follow what they taught. This is mere common sense.

Charles of Schaumburg

Really? Perhaps you could provide some information, hithertofore unknown to Biblical Scholars, that would enlighten us as to the timeline you're using to support this revelation?

If they claim to follow Jesus but don't believe what Jesus believed

Of course Jesus believed the teachings of the Old Testament as we call it today. He preached it in the synagogue from the time he came of age through the end of his ministry. He claimed he did not come to replace the Word, merely to validate it. He used countless passages to confound the religious authorities and to prove he was the real deal.

The inclusion of the The New Testament and subsequent letters was not done until after Jesus' death of course. Charles' usage of the word "Bible" is in reference to the known bible of the time which was just a collection of scrolls.

I think Bible includes both Old and New Testament, If Charles wants it to be other, perhaps he could include his definition when leaving the commonly understood definition of what is and isn't in his version.

You mean the King James version wasn't around then?! ;-P

Esp. since he said "whole Bible". Granted, Jews might well consider that to be (just) the Old Testament (anyone here Jewish?), but considering that Christianity was being discussed...

Cathy

A bible does not necessarily include the Old and New Testaments. Those two together are collectively known as the Holy Bible.

Definitions of bible:

P.S. To forestall any rebuttal re: communication misunderstanding... yes, I know Jesus was Jewish; but contemporary Christianity was the topic, hence "whole Bible" could need a definition.

I believe JoeSpareBedroom is of Jewish heritage. Ask him to ask his Mom.

If you want to get specific about Charles' assertion that Jesus believed the "whole Bible" it can be viewed many different ways.

1) Jesus believed the "whole Bible" of the time. 2) Jesus believed everything that was included in the New Testament that was written about him after his death. 3) Jesus believed everything he said that has been attributed to him.

Based on Charles' use in his post and your citations above, He would need to have referenced his use of Bible as the Old Testament, Hebrew Bible, or Hebrew Scriptures. He didn't, hence the question.

1. Jesus believed in the whole Sacred Scriptures as they were known at the time, e.g. the Old Testament.
2. The New Testament is about Him and His followers. Why wouldn't He believe what He said about Himself and His Church?

No one has yet proved any part of the Bible to be not true. Many have said that certain parts are fables, but they can't prove that, either.

Charles of Schaumburg

Yet, between the 18th and the 23rd, you did post to this newsgroup, but did not respond to my inquiry. So "I was out of town" is NOT a valid excuse.

Umm... Why did you not directly answer ANY of my questions, God boy?

How about just this one:

Approximately how old is our planet, God Boy?

In God's time it is only a blink of His eye.

I'll take a wild guess, four billion years old. Now that you know you can stop asking the question.