homeagain wrote: ACTUALLY, the topic is how the Bible is interpreted...and the GNOSTIC GOSPELS are part of
that discussion (also).....BB seems to concur with a MIS interpretation,perhaps I am in error.
No... you're topic is how the canon bible was constructed, not interpreted. You're confusing terms, and concepts.
Interpretation has nothing to do with how the canon of the Hebrew or Greek scriptures were put together. Interpretation has nothing to do with why the Gnostic Gospels were not included in the canon. I don't understand how you can even attempt to discuss this with me if you don't even have your terminology straight.
LadyJazzer wrote: I DON'T CARE that one nut-job took one phrase out of a book that I personally believe to be nothing more than proof that the people who wrote it were ignorant savages, and used it to justify his stupid behavior.
I stand by my statement that the world is a slightly better place when someone that stupid removes himself from it.
Any sentence started with "The Bible tells us ...." is ridiculous in the first place. Apparently, the "Bible told HIM" that he should let poisonous snakes bite him. No one else is responsible for his interpretation of such a book but himself.
Oh go gloat over the death of some baby or something. You're sick.
Let me be VERY CLEAR.....when you OMIT something, you change the content/or intent.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR.....critique for The Gnostic Gospels......"Groundbreaking, The first
direct look at texts termed HERETICAL by early church fathers".
"In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, the
sacred book of one of the EARLIEST Christians Sects. ....."the FIRST Christians and an examination of DIFFERENT ways in which both Gnostics and the orthodox constructed God,
Christ and the Church. "Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Was there only ONE God and
could He be BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER? WHOSE version of Christianity came down to us and
WHY did it prevail?"
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE OMISSION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE
BIBLE????
homeagain wrote: Let me be VERY CLEAR.....when you OMIT something, you change the content/or intent.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR.....critique for The Gnostic Gospels......"Groundbreaking, The first
direct look at texts termed HERETICAL by early church fathers".
"In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, the
sacred book of one of the EARLIEST Christians Sects. ....."the FIRST Christians and an examination of DIFFERENT ways in which both Gnostics and the orthodox constructed God,
Christ and the Church. "Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Was there only ONE God and
could He be BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER? WHOSE version of Christianity came down to us and
WHY did it prevail?"
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE OMISSION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE
BIBLE????
No... not right now. We are talking about snake handling and how certain churches use canonized scripture to support their practice. We are not talking about extra-biblical writings, or whether they should have been included in the canon, or how the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were canonized.
The topic of this thread was about this practice and whether that is a practice sanctioned by scripture (well, the thread started out as gloating over a person death, but BB quickly brought that around to and interesting topic).
I said it before. If you want to talk about extra-biblical writings and whether they should or should not have been included in the canon, then start a thread on it.
Now... can we get back to the subject at hand. BB said "I think it's sad people mis-handle the Bible the way he did." And I ask, did they?
homeagain wrote: Let me be VERY CLEAR.....when you OMIT something, you change the content/or intent.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR.....critique for The Gnostic Gospels......"Groundbreaking, The first
direct look at texts termed HERETICAL by early church fathers".
"In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, the
sacred book of one of the EARLIEST Christians Sects. ....."the FIRST Christians and an examination of DIFFERENT ways in which both Gnostics and the orthodox constructed God,
Christ and the Church. "Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Was there only ONE God and
could He be BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER? WHOSE version of Christianity came down to us and
WHY did it prevail?"
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE OMISSION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE
BIBLE????
No... not right now. We are talking about snake handling and how certain churches use canonized scripture to support their practice. We are not talking about extra-biblical writings, or whether they should have been included in the canon, or how the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were canonized.
The topic of this thread was about this practice and whether that is a practice sanctioned by scripture (well, the thread started out as gloating over a person death, but BB quickly brought that around to and interesting topic).
I said it before. If you want to talk about extra-biblical writings and whether they should or should not have been included in the canon, then start a thread on it.
Now... can we get back to the subject at hand. BB said "I think it's sad people mis-handle the Bible the way he did." And I ask, did they?
What say you?
Your obliqueness is ASTOUNDING...... :Thud: ...What does MISHANDLE mean
to you???
homeagain wrote: Let me be VERY CLEAR.....when you OMIT something, you change the content/or intent.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR.....critique for The Gnostic Gospels......"Groundbreaking, The first
direct look at texts termed HERETICAL by early church fathers".
"In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, the
sacred book of one of the EARLIEST Christians Sects. ....."the FIRST Christians and an examination of DIFFERENT ways in which both Gnostics and the orthodox constructed God,
Christ and the Church. "Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Was there only ONE God and
could He be BOTH FATHER AND MOTHER? WHOSE version of Christianity came down to us and
WHY did it prevail?"
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE OMISSION OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE
BIBLE????
No... not right now. We are talking about snake handling and how certain churches use canonized scripture to support their practice. We are not talking about extra-biblical writings, or whether they should have been included in the canon, or how the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were canonized.
The topic of this thread was about this practice and whether that is a practice sanctioned by scripture (well, the thread started out as gloating over a person death, but BB quickly brought that around to and interesting topic).
I said it before. If you want to talk about extra-biblical writings and whether they should or should not have been included in the canon, then start a thread on it.
Now... can we get back to the subject at hand. BB said "I think it's sad people mis-handle the Bible the way he did." And I ask, did they?
What say you?
Your obliqueness is ASTOUNDING...... :Thud: ...What does MISHANDLE mean
to you???
BB said "I think it's sad people mis-handle the Bible the way he did."
The Bible = the received canon (has nothing to do with extra-biblical writings that were omitted)
Mishandled = using scripture that is in the received canon (the Bible) to develop a dogma or practice that was never suggested by those scriptures or that history can rectify.
He did = the pastor and they way he understands certain passages in the received canon (the Bible)
"He" (the pastor) was not responsible for the Gnostic Gospels being excluded from the Bible. "He" was not using anything other than the Bible to justify his practice. The subject and intent of BB's statement was in reference to the BIBLE and the pastors use of it.
You're misunderstanding of BB's statement and you're insistence that any of this has something to do with excluded books of the Bible is ASTOUNDING.
We will just have to agree to DISAGREE, because I believe we are speaking of the SAME thing
MISHANDLING (MIS-interpretation) and MISHANDLING (by omission)...Why don't we allow BB
to explain HIS statement,rather than depending upon OTHERS for an explanation....JMO
homeagain wrote: We will just have to agree to DISAGREE, because I believe we are speaking of the SAME thing
MISHANDLING (MIS-interpretation) and MISHANDLING (by omission)...Why don't we allow BB
to explain HIS statement,rather than depending upon OTHERS for an explanation....JMO
The pastor had nothing to do with what was or was not included in the Bible he was using.
We are not speaking of the same thing. You are not even in my ball park (or Bailey Bud's ballpark). You misunderstood what Bailey Bud was saying and now your going to insist that what you think you read was what he meant.
You just can't bring yourself to admit to the plain and simple language of Bailey Bud's statement and the fact that you misunderstood what was said.
And then you go off on a tangent on extra-biblical books, pseudepigrapha and apocryphal works.
I bet you dollars to donuts that Bailey Bud was talking about the pastor mishandling of material that was in his Bible.
Not your over reaching concept that all "sacred" works were mishandled and should have been included in the received canon.
You are PURPOSELY being oblique and NOT addressing the glaring issue....the interpretation of
the Bible is what is being discussed (from my POV).....BOTH in the pastor's understanding of
his "religion's" practices(according to the Bible) AND my assertion that the Bible, in it's PRESENT
FORM has OMITTED information that would CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION......you are avoiding
the obvious....JMO...you can ATTEMPT to minimize/AVOID that fact,but the issue is STILL
THE SAME....the Bible's INTENT is what is in question.....I am awaiting BB's response and will
NOT comment until then....... :Whistle
homeagain wrote: You are PURPOSELY being oblique and NOT addressing the glaring issue....the interpretation of
the Bible is what is being discussed (from my POV).....BOTH in the pastor's understanding of
his "religion's" practices(according to the Bible) AND my assertion that the Bible, in it's PRESENT
FORM has OMITTED information that would CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION......you are avoiding
the obvious....JMO...you can ATTEMPT to minimize/AVOID that fact,but the issue is STILL
THE SAME....the Bible's INTENT is what is in question.....I am awaiting BB's response and will
NOT comment until then....... :Whistle
...What does MISHANDLE mean
