He was banned for lying ... multiple times.He was banned simply for being a Catholic, nothing more, and nothing less.
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!
He was banned for lying ... multiple times.He was banned simply for being a Catholic, nothing more, and nothing less.
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.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The Bible was always 66 books. The early church did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. The RCC departed from Scripture at that point.
So is a pagan Greek poet, does that make his writings Scripture?Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
The Maccabbees (sp?) are also quoted in the NT.
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?Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?
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.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!
IMO, no.My next question is why is it so hard to get a strait answer from some Baptist in regard to the formulation of the NT? Were these Councils, ummm…Catholic?
A. Provide the quote please.Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
The Maccabbees (sp?) are also quoted in the NT.
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!!Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?
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.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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!
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.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.
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?Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?
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?Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?
Since you don't have his application in front of you -- I don't know how you can know that for certain.Originally posted by riverm:
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.
Since you don't have his application in front of you -- I don't know how you can know that for certain.Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
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.
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.Originally posted by Jim1999:
Let's get on with the discussion about 27 books in the New Testament and how they came about.
Cheers,
Jim