Should we make the sign of the cross?

Pastor Lassman's Lesson 10 - Baptism
http://www.messiahseattle.org/education/aic/videos/lesson_10/
Videos from the Adult Information Class on basic christian teachings at Messiah Lutheran Church in Seattle, Washington.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• christian
• God
• Jesus
• Holy
• Spirit
• lutheran
• lcms

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103

cont. He may go over it. But, remember the first bible that was canonized they can't even find a list of it. They know a few books that was in it by some early writings. But if you say all modern bible version stemmed from the canon which the dates you stated. I'd say yup. I myself would remove the book of John then make it apcryphal. Then add a couple of apocryphal books and canonize them.

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103

I am not going to argue about this. My notes on this subject are long gone. I wish you would do as I did and study the subject in depth. It was a stressful subject. I never seen a subject that people(scholars) was so misleading to plain lying as this subject. I went to find the pure line of the bible. The information about bible sources are extremely hard to find(truthful). I am going to be reading "lost Christianities" And "lost scriptures" by Bart Ehrman.

[cburton103]

@onemarktwoyou That isn't correct. The Catholic Bible has the exact same canon today as it has ever since it was promulgated in 382, 393, 397, 417, 1546. (Those are the dates of various councils or synods that proclaimed the exact same canon of the Bible). There weren't Catholic councils that ever proclaimed a different canon than the one Catholics use today. I don't doubt that scholars looked to various texts to ensure they had the truest Bible possible, but the canon has always been the same.

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103

I will put it this way. There was a canonized bible in the early church. We know not which books that were in it. But we know it existed because of writings that indicated it did exist. They do know it couldn't be the same books that any bible today would contain exactly. Also one needs to recognize all the modern bibles are not the same as the origins, they have literally evolved. As more texts have been found. Remember the catholic bible holes were filled with MT text

[cburton103]

@onemarktwoyou Well I don't have the book, so I guess I won't be able to see the source.

It's interesting you bring up the Codex Sinaiticus. Are you aware that this Bible had many books you don't consider to be inspired as a part of the canon of the Bible? How do you reconcile this with the canon of the Bible you use?

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103 2/2

How close was that document was from being lost. Admittedly it was a poorly scribed and many considered corrupted. Considering how long, how many, and how many rewrites there was to it. None the less it was only days from being out of sight and placed to become dust. There was one thing in it that may truly could contribute to. And that was a very small and interesting part in revelation. Almost lost to time!

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103 1/2

There are sources in it to reference. It is acknowledge that the greatest crime is NOT preserving the old writings. Which I believe is how they rid themselves of the vast majority. Although there in church history been banned books by the church. I still hold fast that majority of the old writings just became dust, and thought not worthy of replication. As simple proof the lack of writings that survived the centuries. Also which writings survived. Example sinaiticus.

[cburton103]

@onemarktwoyou A religious leader's book isn't a credible source to prove a historical event happened. You need (preferably multiple) historical sources - writings about the practice of "not preserving" documents selectively to weed out proof of certain early beliefs.

As an analogy, consider this: What if I were to make a claim about the practices of the early Church that completely contradicted what you believe to have happened? Would you accept quotes from a relatively modern author as proof?

[onemarktwoyou]

@cburton103

Ellen G. White "The great controversy" Page 61.

I knew it was there. I had time to find the a source. I should have taken better notes.

This deals with books ect.. that was in the control of the vatican.

[cburton103]

@onemarktwoyou I couldn't clearly understand your accusations - I was honestly doing my best to understand what you're claiming. Regardless of what you're claiming, please provide some proof for me.