I wonder if Johndeerefan ever took advantage of the 'ask an apologist a question' link on Catholic Answers?? Surely he did not just try a few of the forums. If you check the forums he did contribute on, they were questions mainly posed and responded to by many people new to the faith. Catholic.com even welcomes (invites) agnostics and people from non-christian backgrounds. Many people have been won over to Jesus by the wonderful ministry. The only requirement is that poster follow the simple rules of respecting that it is a Catholic site, BE POLITE (Johndeerefan), not be obnoxious or snarky, (Johndeerefan), don't make personal attacks (Johndeerefan) and so on.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
I wonder if Johndeerefan ever took advantage of the 'ask an apologist a question' link on Catholic Answers?
No. Why would I?
Many people have been won over to Jesus by the wonderful ministry.
Really? How can that be when they preach a false gospel?
The only requirement is that poster follow the simple rules of respecting that it is a Catholic site, BE POLITE (Johndeerefan), not be obnoxious or snarky, (Johndeerefan), don't make personal attacks (Johndeerefan) and so on.
And how was I "obnoxious"? When did I ever make personal attacks?
I never implied or said there was no evidence on Catholic Answers.
Here you go:
I have searched under the username Johndeerfan and there is no such user. Even being banned they would still include your post. I'm sure they haven't expunged your posts for 'revealing the true gospel'. You claim to have been banned for that reason. Anxious to check out those posts. So far, no one under 'Johndeerfan' seems to have contributed on the forums.
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=64194&page=2
Please note the underlined parts.
And here, you imply that I lied about the reason I was banned, after I even copied and pasted Rachel Malloy's message to me explaining why I was banned:
You claimed you were banned from Catholic Answers for 'sharing the "true" gospel of Christ when in fact anyone who reads through all your postings will see the real reason you were banned.
I feel sorry for your congregation.
And now who's making personal attacks?
Probably lots of empty pew space!
Actually, we're about to start on our third building because we've grown so fast. But in all fairness, that's to God's credit, not mine.
By the way, isn't it interesting that you repeatedly accuse me of "personal attacks" and yet, here you are, no longer content merely to attack me, you're now attacking my church.
Tell us, Lori, why do you hate Christians so much?
You make personal attacks and do not conduct yourself as a true born again Christian.
And yet, every time you make this claim and I ask you for an example of my having made "personal attacks", you're not able to provide any.
Your hatred of Catholics runs so deep...
If I really hate Catholics, then why am I always saying how much affection I have and how much I appreciated the priests and nuns who taught me? Why do I always talk about my step-family with such fondness? Why do I have so many Catholic friends? Why is the man I always credit with influencing me to become a teacher and such an influence in other areas a former Catholic monk???
No, I believe that anyone who reads my posts honestly will see that I don't hate Catholics at all, but that I love the word of God and that I love Catholics enough to tell them the truth about the futility of depending on the Catholic Church for their salvation.
I encourage all poster here to visit Catholic Answers are review Johndeerefans contributions. Notice the snarky, and impolite manner he posts. Look at his accusations of people lying, being idiots and fools. Johndeerefan know everything and can learn nothing.
Too bad, so sad!
Folks, Lori has made this claim several times and, each time I've asked her to give examples, she's refused. I believe that it's obvious the reason she's refused to provide any examples is that she knows that such examples simply do not exist. In fact, I feel so confident that I have not done those things that I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to go and read my posts there.
And, by the way, does anyone else see the irony in Lori's criticizing me for allegedly calling people "liars", when she, herself, has called me a liar?
However, you accused me of saying that Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation. Could you share with us the post in which I did so. No you can't.
Actually, if you go back and read my post, you'll see that I never "accused" you of anything. I just pointed out the difference in their beliefs. If you're really so insecure that you see that as an "accusation", then you probably shouldn't be posting on a board where you know people are going to disagree with you.
You lied!
Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical of you to criticize me for allegedly calling somebody a liar and then turning around in the very next breath and calling me a liar (again!)?
You also said Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Even DHK proved that was a fallacy.
Really? Could you please show us where he "proved that was a fallacy"
DHK said: The Apostles and the early church compiled the canon of Scripture before the RCC ever existed.
The apostles wrote them but they were not compiled until about the 4th century BY the Catholic Church. A Church you claim was apostate by that time. Athanasius was using most of the books that eventually ended up in the canon of the New Testament. I wonder why the ana-baptist (the true church) wasn't envolved in determining what books to include??
The apostles wrote them but they were not compiled until about the 4th century BY the Catholic Church. A Church you claim was apostate by that time. Athanasius was using most of the books that eventually ended up in the canon of the New Testament. I wonder why the ana-baptist (the true church) wasn't envolved in determining what books to include??
You are uneducated concerning the canon of Scripture.DHK said: The Apostles and the early church compiled the canon of Scripture before the RCC ever existed.
The apostles wrote them but they were not compiled until about the 4th century BY the Catholic Church. A Church you claim was apostate by that time. Athanasius was using most of the books that eventually ended up in the canon of the New Testament. I wonder why the ana-baptist (the true church) wasn't envolved in determining what books to include??
Do you think that the Apostles were foolish and ignorant men who didn't know which of their works were inspired and which were not? Of course they did! And they passed on that knowledge to first century believers. The last Apostle, John, wrote all of his books between 90 and 98 A.D., and then lived on into the early part of the second century, at which time the Scripture was canonized.
We have the Itala, a very early version by the Waldenses, written during that time--second century.
We also have the Syriac version and the Peshitta, also very early translations, and all three of these pre-date the fourth century Catholic Church. All three of these were composed by those whose beliefs were more in harmony with Baptists than Catholics. But the Catholics would not rather talk about that, so they don't usually bring these facts to the table, do they?
...N/T....
Here is a clarification:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/eucharis.htm
It is still very much different than the RCC view of transubstantiation.
The article re-affirms Lutherans REJECT consubstantiation and would rather use the word SACRAMENTAL UNION. They still believe in REAL PRESENCE which of course you think only applies to Catholic.
Actually, I love Christians. I just don't like the way some Christians behave (even Catholic Christians). You don't win any one over to Jesus with arrogance, mockery, and snide remarks.
I know why you wouldn't ask an Apologist for an answer regarding the Catholic faith. You don't want to hear it. You think you know it all already and after claiming and never addressing the fact that you lied when you accused me of saying Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation and will not apologize for the false accusation.
Should I post your false accusation again??
Actually, Lori, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.
...says the person who claims that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation.
Here is it, want to apologize or continue to deny??
WalkswithJesus
New Member
You are uneducated concerning the canon of Scripture.
Do you think that the Apostles were foolish and ignorant men who didn't know which of their works were inspired and which were not? Of course they did! And they passed on that knowledge to first century believers. The last Apostle, John, wrote all of his books between 90 and 98 A.D., and then lived on into the early part of the second century, at which time the Scripture was canonized.
We have the Itala, a very early version by the Waldenses, written during that time--second century.
We also have the Syriac version and the Peshitta, also very early translations, and all three of these pre-date the fourth century Catholic Church. All three of these were composed by those whose beliefs were more in harmony with Baptists than Catholics. But the Catholics would not rather talk about that, so they don't usually bring these facts to the table, do they?
Are you refering to the Vetus Itala above? I ask because that is an old latin translation of the Septuagint - which of course would be closer to the Cathlic Bible with additional hebrew texts ...
While I can see you and Lori have had a rather conentious debate ... It does not help your position to denigrate early Christian history.
Stating that the catholic church dates no earlier then the 4th century - when clearly they can make a connection to the eary christian writers and writings while at the same time you make reference to Waldensians in antiquity [a historical fact that is counter modern scholarship on the history of this movement] does not help your discussion regarding doctrinal differencces IMHO
Though I am curious regarding your claim to Wadensians in antiquity - do you have any link to new scholarship regarding them. All of the books and histories I have found - especially widely accepted and recent in scholarship place the origins of he Waldenses at the earliest in the 9th century ...
Johndeerefan: I think for you to imply that I 'hate Christians' carries the strong implication that I am not a Christian myself. Shame on you! You don't know what my relationship is to Jesus and generally on this board people discourage judging someones salvation.
I am redeemed by Christ blood just as you are.
I am redeemed by Christ blood just as you are.
Are you refering to the Vetus Itala above? I ask because that is an old latin translation of the Septuagint - which of course would be closer to the Cathlic Bible with additional hebrew texts ...
While I can see you and Lori have had a rather conentious debate ... It does not help your position to denigrate early Christian history.
Stating that the catholic church dates no earlier then the 4th century - when clearly they can make a connection to the eary christian writers and writings while at the same time you make reference to Waldensians in antiquity [a historical fact that is counter modern scholarship on the history of this movement] does not help your discussion regarding doctrinal differencces IMHO
Though I am curious regarding your claim to Wadensians in antiquity - do you have any link to new scholarship regarding them. All of the books and histories I have found - especially widely accepted and recent in scholarship place the origins of he Waldenses at the earliest in the 9th century ...
When it comes to early church history, DHK, seems to be a bit of a Revisionist.
I encourage all poster here to visit Catholic Answers are review Johndeerefans contributions. Notice the snarky, and impolite manner he posts. Look at his accusations of people lying, being idiots and fools. Johndeerefan know everything and can learn nothing.
Too bad, so sad!
I have to admit I just looked through each of the over 100 posts that he posted and if he was snarky, it's because he was responding to snark. I'm surprised he was banned because there was nothing there whatsoever that is bannable, IMO.
JDF - You did a good job over there. But man loves darkness rather than the light. That's their choice.
Here is it, want to apologize or continue to deny??
All try again . . . . Did you not accuse me of claiming that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation Johndeerefan??
Actually, Lori, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, not transubstantiation.
...says the person who claims that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation.
In case it gets lost in the thread. I'm sure your not ignoring the fact that you made this false accusation!
I found this statement in Wikipedia:
"It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ's presence."
Just a gentle reminder that there are other sources than the one DHK listed.
You are uneducated concerning the canon of Scripture.
Do you think that the Apostles were foolish and ignorant men who didn't know which of their works were inspired and which were not? Of course they did! And they passed on that knowledge to first century believers. The last Apostle, John, wrote all of his books between 90 and 98 A.D., and then lived on into the early part of the second century, at which time the Scripture was canonized.
We have the Itala, a very early version by the Waldenses, written during that time--second century.
Ahistorical revisionist nonsense!
In case it gets lost in the thread. I'm sure your not ignoring the fact that you made this false accusation!
First of all, while it is true that I did forget that I said that, it's equally true that, while you didn't use the word "transubstantiation", you repeatedly compared their belief with the Catholic belief, which is transubstantiation, and used language such as Christ being present in the host that leave no doubt as to what you were talking about.
Furthermore, when I stated that they did not believe in transubstantiation, you changed your tack and then insisted that the LCMS and" most Lutherans" disagree with me, there by implying that they do believe in transubstantiation.
Finally, I feel I must point out your hypocrisy yet again, for continuing to accuse me of making false claims, but then refusing tot ake responsibility for the number of false claims you have made about me and my church.
Oh, if only you were so concerned about your own long list of false accusations.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to admit I just looked through each of the over 100 posts that he posted and if he was snarky, it's because he was responding to snark. I'm surprised he was banned because there was nothing there whatsoever that is bannable, IMO.
JDF - You did a good job over there. But man loves darkness rather than the light. That's their choice.
Thank you.
First of all, while it is true that I did forget that I said that, it's equally true that, while you didn't use the word "transubstantiation", you repeatedly compared their belief with the Catholic belief, which is transubstantiation, and used language such as Christ being present in the host that leave no doubt as to what you were talking about.
Furthermore, when I stated that they did not believe in transubstantiation, you changed your tack and then insisted that the LCMS and" most Lutherans" disagree with me, there by implying that they do believe in transubstantiation.
Finally, I feel I must point out your hypocrisy yet again, for continuing to accuse me of making false claims, but then refusing tot ake responsibility for the number of false claims you have made about me and my church.
Oh, if only you were so concerned about your own long list of false accusations.
Total nonsense Johndeerefan: you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, they don't. They DO believe that Christ is present in the host. If that belief means you believe in transubstantiation there are going to be a lot surprised Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. You don't know what you are talking about and I never said that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. They definitely believe that what you Baptist think of Holy Communion is sheer and utter heresy.
Your contributions to Catholic Answers was sheer dribble. Nothing of substance and certainly did not refute the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Last edited by a moderator:
Total nonsense Johndeerefan: you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, they don't. They DO believe that Christ is present in the hosts. You don't know what you are talking about and I never said that Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. They definitely believe that what you Baptist think of Holy Communion is sheer and utter heresy.
I will support Johndeerefan in this. I was taught - by a Lutheran priest - that they believe in co-substantiation. That Christ is present with the earthly elements - not that the elements become the body and blood of Christ like the Catholic church teaches. Whether they believe what Baptists think is a heresy is a non-issue because that's not what matters. What matters is Biblical theology.
Your contributions to Catholic Answers was sheer dribble. Nothing of substance and certainly did not refute the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I'm disagree. JDF was quite direct, succinct and hit at the heart of wrong teaching and yet he was banned. That is sad.