Question: 27 books...

He was banned for lying ... multiple times.

 

I suppose that could be true --

But the Webmaster has clearly stated a much more "general rule" that is being followed currently -

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3526/2.html#000021

 

He was not banned for being Catholic. He was banned for lying. Had he been truthful, he would never have been admitted to the board.

What is interesting is that a Catholic was willing to be dishonest. The first time was perhaps an honest mistake. The second and third times were outright intentional sin.

Does that seem strange to anyone else here?

 

You are absolutely right. However, there are parts of the NT which quoted a few parts from those non-canonical book such as 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. For some other parts of the NT we do not have a clue where they were quoted from.

The LXX contains those some of those non-canonical books. The pseudepigrapha and apocrypha total about 100 books not incluidng the NT and OT.

 

The Maccabbees (sp?) are also quoted in the NT.

 

So is a pagan Greek poet, does that make his writings Scripture?

Where are the Macabees quite - I'd like to look into. - Thanks

 

I should have said "cited", not "quoted".

BTW, I wasn't trying to say they are Scripture, I was just mentioning that they were around then.

In John 1, when they ask him if he's Jeremiah, that reference is to one of the Maccabees. The other references are to OT prophecy.

 

How did PeterMeansRock lie when his very first post was a “Catholic answers” post where he admitted to being a Catholic and wanted to just have the opportunity to defend his faith?

PeterMeansRock didn’t lie, he was honest….He was banned for being Catholic…

Show the board here where he lied!

 

When you apply for the board, you have to list a denomination. He listed one, and then later changed it to Catholic. When he applied a second and third time, he listed one denomination, even though he wasn't that denomination. That is lying.

This was a clear cut case. You are defending the indefensible.

 

IMO, no.

Not Roman Catholicism as we know it today with its paganistic practices (veneration of statues, Marianism, transubstantiation, holy water, etc, etc). These practices and doctrine developed slowly over the centuries, particularly the 5th though the 9th centuries,

Shortly thereafter began the 1000 year reign of terror with the emergence of the "Holy" Roman Empire (Crusades, Spanish and Latin Inquisitions, Waldenses/Huegenot massacres, etc). A blood bath.

Today we have a peaceful Church of Rome with popes who do contribute to the well-being of mankind in terms of pro-life and human rights issues.

Being a former Catholic I see the Church of Rome as a one time valid local church but one which over time has sunken ever deeper into the darkness of paganism. One may find salvation in the Church of Rome but in spite of it not because of it (IMO).

It is difficult to draw a "line-in-the-sand" as to the departure from the pure Gospel by the Church of Rome. Probably started in ernest at the Edict of Milan although no doubt the mystery of iniquity had been at work all along.

IMO, the death of the first martyr "in the name of Christ" by the Church of Rome (around 900-1000AD) was the point of no return.

HankD

 

A. Provide the quote please.

B. Paul quotes pagan sources and identifies them as such... HOWEVER IF the Bible writers of the NT had said of the pagans or of Maccabee "ALL of those writings are inspired by God" you might have something. But Peter does not say that for those documents -- as HE DOES say that of the prophets and of Moses.

NOtice that in Acts 17 the Apostles thenselves (their teaching in the NT) was being "JUDGED" based on the content of scripture "SEARCHING the scripture daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO"

Do you have that with ANY quote of Maccabees?? No.

Do you have that with ANY example from pagan authors?? No.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is not the best I agree. But the current policy is such that ONLY those Catholics that engage in that "sin" may now post here!!

In other words the policy cuts out those Catholics that would try to sign up "From the start" admitting that they are Catholic!

And the only way to stop one of those "Sinning" Catholics under the new policy is if THEY themselves choose to "Stop sinning" and admit they are Catholic. Then they can be banned as that is found out.

The new policy "filters in favor of" the very kind of Catholic it wants to avoid by cutting out the honest ones up front.

I don't see the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When you apply for the board, you have to list a denomination. He listed one, and then later changed it to Catholic. When he applied a second and third time, he listed one denomination, even though he wasn't that denomination. That is lying.

This was a clear cut case. You are defending the indefensible. </font>[/QUOTE]Does the agreement being signed when registering for a profile with BB say anything about being Catholic and not being able to participate?

All I am speaking of is PeterMeansRock, you can’t prove that the others were him, only speculate, but that’s another issue. The issue is, is the agreement that one accepts. This agreement states NOTHING about being Catholic.

PMR again started a thread titled “Catholic Questions…” PMR, proclaimed that he was Catholic. WHY would someone lie on their application and then call himself or herself a Catholic in a Tread started by them, if he knew Catholics were not welcomed here?

It doesn’t make sense.

The Webmaster has stated his prejudice towards Catholics and it is clear that PMR was banned, not for lying, but being Catholic.

 

Agreed. But in the cases of those second or third time attempts - if there is NO effort on his part to declare himself as Catholic - then you could only know about his "sin" by comparing IP addresses or machine names. That means that as soon as he uses a different ISP or switches machines -- he is back in without a trace.

The very kind of person you want to keep out is now the "only kind" of Catholic that can come in!

If the policy were reset back to the old one - that "bad kind" might come in -- see some other Catholics posting freely and then joyfully say -- "hey guys I am with you I am catholic too I was just insecure about saying it before because I thought Baptists might not tolerate a Catholic here" at some point. And you would have them exposed and ready to be banned.

(of course even then - the could simply switch IP or Machine name values and come in with a starting application saying they are Catholic)

In Christ,

Bob

 

How did PeterMeansRock lie when his very first post was a “Catholic answers” post where he admitted to being a Catholic and wanted to just have the opportunity to defend his faith?

PeterMeansRock didn’t lie, he was honest….He was banned for being Catholic…

Show the board here where he lied! </font>[/QUOTE]You are 100% in error in your attacks and accusations. He lied when he signed up. After he was approved he changed his profile to relfect the truth. It doesn't make any difference how often you repeat your false statement. He was banned for lying on his application to join.

 

How did PeterMeansRock lie when his very first post was a “Catholic answers” post where he admitted to being a Catholic and wanted to just have the opportunity to defend his faith?

PeterMeansRock didn’t lie, he was honest….He was banned for being Catholic…

Show the board here where he lied! </font>[/QUOTE]You are 100% in error in your attacks and accusations. He lied when he signed up. After he was approved he changed his profile to relfect the truth. It doesn't make any difference how often you repeat your false statement. He was banned for lying on his application to join.


There is a simple solution to dealing with forums which you don't think are run properly.

 

Since you don't have his application in front of you -- I don't know how you can know that for certain.

It is quite reasonble to assume that given the history of this Board a Catholic Christian might come here and not state that they are Catholic on their application. I don't see why that is so unbelievable riverm.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let's get on with the discussion about 27 books in the New Testament and how they came about.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Since you don't have his application in front of you -- I don't know how you can know that for certain.

It is quite reasonble to assume that given the history of this Board a Catholic Christian might come here and not state that they are Catholic on their application. I don't see why that is so unbelievable riverm.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob,

I sent PMR a PM the day he joined before he was banned and welcomed him here and even warned him, to not be surprised if he is banned. Well, he was banned. He e-mailed me and I responded and PMR was never told why he was banned. He said that he was not aware the Catholics were not allowed and that he never lied on his application.

I believe him, because if he knew Catholics were not allowed on the BB, PMR would have NEVER started a tread titled: “Catholic questions” and proclaim he was Catholic for all the Moderators, Administrators or Webmaster to see. That would surly get him banned….and it did!

See where I’m going with this?

 

I would love to get on with the topic of the thread, but unfortunately the OP has been banned for being Catholic and if the word “Catholic” is mentioned of having anything to do with the NT, we’re liable to get caught up in the witch-hunt and get banned as well.

All non-Baptists have to now be extra careful, not to seem like a Catholic sympathizer or we’ll get banned.

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...
Neal Pert of Rush