mobile21

Those PETA ppl seriously need to read this: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." (Ex 20:4) They indeed worship the animals of heaven, earth and water more than they worship the Lord.

Recently, a Raider's piece of news said that the overwhelming majority of christian denominations support abominations like homosexuality ("gay marriage") and abortion (the link: http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7819). The biblical truth is that Jesus Christ founded one Church only, denominations only appear once the "cat of schism is out of the bag" (the so-called Reformation) and of course, any person today can "found a Church" and name it "the true, reformed church of Jesus Christ the authentic Lord" but the reality is that ain't so. Jesus Christ founded one Church with one authority because the truth is one. The confusion you are into right now is a product of Satan's action and influence on history but Jesus Christ Himself said that despite the false prophets, the truth would always remain till the very last day. Leave confusion and embrace the only biblical truth, that's God's will.

I know Allah was the name of one of the ancient arab pagan gods but that doesn't mean those who say that name these days (the muslims) aren't calling for the one, true God. It's sort of like calling God "Jehova", it's a mistranslation but at the end it doesn't matter because after all we don't know (we can't know) God's true name as the Bible says.

Hi. CCC means Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And I guess you telepathically confess your sins to our Lord Jesus Christ right???? Tell me something: If Jesus Christ is God and God is omniscient (knows everything), then why you need to telepathically confess your sins to God if He already knows which ones are your sins????. If Jesus Christ instituted confession via telepathy, why the Bible says: "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (Jn 20:23) ???? If Jesus gives to the disciples the power to forgive sins (hence, the biblical method of confession), how that system relates to the "telepathic confession" one???. Let's say one person confesses a sin to a disciple and the disciple does not forgive the sin but then the very same person confesses the very same sin telepathically......: is the sin forgiven or isn't according to Scripture???. well all I have to say is I hope that a mere person is not in charge of a person being forgiven by God. I can tell you that there are some people that I am having a hard time forgiving....but I pray whether I forgive them or not God will...and I know there are some who may not have forgiven me for past happenings...does that mean that since they don't forgive me that God does not forgive me?!? Now this is an honest question...if there are people out there who hold grudges against us...does that mean that we can't be forgiven by God? Love and Blessings, Angel Jn 20:23 refers to the power that Jesus Christ gives to His disciples (ministers) to forgive sins in His Name so it doesn't apply to the the forgiveness of the rest of us ppl.

LadyC is right, sin NEVER does good things for your life, I've learned that the hard way.

And I guess you telepathically confess your sins to our Lord Jesus Christ right???? Tell me something: If Jesus Christ is God and God is omniscient (knows everything), then why you need to telepathically confess your sins to God if He already knows which ones are your sins????. If Jesus Christ instituted confession via telepathy, why the Bible says: "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (Jn 20:23) ???? If Jesus gives to the disciples the power to forgive sins (hence, the biblical method of confession), how that system relates to the "telepathic confession" one???. Let's say one person confesses a sin to a disciple and the disciple does not forgive the sin but then the very same person confesses the very same sin telepathically......: is the sin forgiven or isn't according to Scripture???.

Neocons say they don't consider Bush as the "4th person of the Trinity" but they sure act like he is. I don't remember these kind of "offenses taken" when Bill Clinton or any other president was criticized for his performance in office. P.S. I'm grateful I'm not in a country bombed by the U.S. because the bombs would hurt my skin even if the President who ordered the bombing was "a christian"

The muslims worship the very same God and that's quite a historical irony because the first thing they attack of christianity is the Trinity dogma and it is because of the Trinity that they indeed worship the Son at the same time they worship the Father. I know that canon of faith of the CCC is not very popular these days due to the political times we are living in but the CCC has to preach it like it is regardless of the political times. That's what a truthful witness does.

Could it be? Is it possible? I'm with Mobile on this one. Man, I never thought I would say that. But wait...isn't there a lot of Catholic doctrine that had its origin long after the 5th century? Right on Steve_Hut!!! Let's team-up to defeat once and for all these lil' flowers (Calvin & Arminius that is) :t3:

Huh? I was baptized in a Catholic parish as an infant, and continued to attend there for many years afterward. In my Catechism class, I don't think we ever opened a Bible. In the classroom, in the Rectory, or in the sanctuary, I don't think I ever saw one. We read the Catechism, the Missal, we learned about the Popes and the evils of the Reformation. Reading the Bible was not necessary, they told us, because you'll eventually hear the entire text if you attend Mass regularly for (I think) 5 years, or something like that. And since the Pope carries the full authority of Peter, we only need to listen to him. My godparents, to this day, wouldn't know where to find the book of Malachi if their lives depended on it. My mother's family are all Catholic going back at least 100 years, and none of them has ever read it even casually. I know because I asked around. Likewise my friends' families at church. So what's all this about Catholics being encouraged to read the Bible? I can't really prove you were never a catholic but my personal opinion is that you never were a catholic and that you just make that up to say things like: "I never saw a Bible!" and stuff Anyway, I've known protestants who barely know the Bible too (like those "catholics at your parish" :suspicious: :suspecting_something: ), I remember one occasion when I was debating the "virginity of Mary" issue and I discovered that the protestant had no idea Mary wife of Cleopas and Mary mother of Jesus were two different individuals!!!! I mean, that's really really something.

LIES I replied to you here: http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.p...opic=6979&st=30

Infallibility is in the Bible? Please show me where. I quote myself here: "Infallibility is a concept that contains several presumptions from the Scripture just like the concept of trinity or the concept of orginal sin do. Those presumptions have the common element of the presence of God in the Church and among its members. We do know that Christ founded a Church that would never be defeated (Matt 16:18) and therefore that it would last until His second coming (Matt 28:20) so the Bible establishes God is with the Church always. Now, because of Acts 2:1-4 we know that the Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Holy Trinity) inspires and guides the Church that remains united in the name of Jesus Christ (Matt 18:20). This means that if Jesus Christ is truth (Jn 14:6) and He sent the Holy Spirit to the Church (Jn 14:26) so the truth would be in the Church (Jn 16:13) then, the conclusion is not only that the Church will last because Jesus Christ founded it but that it is infallible (hence, free from error) too. That's why the Church had the authority to declare that what we know as the Bible is the infallible Word of God in the year 397 during the Council of Hippo."

Christians can't be so-called "liberals" or so-called "conservatives" because the christian political agenda fits neither one of those.

Here are just some: http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/09/taiwan_bush031209 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ferl-155711.htm http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/e.../taiwan.poll.ap http://www.deutschewelle.de/english/0%2C33...57311%2C00.html http://www.navytimes.com/print.php?f=0-292925-ebb2468343.php The Bush administration preaches "Al-Qaeda" is the biggest danger when in fact China is the biggest threat ever to the U.S. security. You'll see how China will swallow Taiwan soon (before the chinese Olympics, that's a given) and how no one will do anything to stop them and how the red dragon will start spreading terror around the globe.

Isnt that wonderful news, that is the gospel of God, the good news, we are free we are forgiven, the sacrifice has been made and all we need do is repent and turn to Him. Now lets look at Hebrews 10:10-12 Praise God, thank you Jesus! Do you believe this Mobile? It doesnt matter what our preachers preach, whether it be the pope or Paul, or Peter or whoever, if it goes contrary to the holy word of God it is wrong, and one must not participate. God loves us! There is no longer a need for the offering up of sacrifice for our sin, Jesus has already done this for us. Turn to Jesus Mobile, His arms are open, His voice is calling. Will you answer the call? He waits for your answer! In Jesus Kevin 1) The "re-sacrifice" thing is a protestant game of words because that actually never came up in the catholic doctrine. It's precisely because Heb 10:18 is right that the Mass is correct. In transubstantiation it is not us the ones offering something to God but it is God the One who is giving something to us and that something is the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that give us eternal life. In other words, you seem to understand the basis for the Mass backwards. 2) As for the much touted blasphemy part, well, the prophet Malachi didn't predict the Mass as a "blasphemy" in his prophecies:

Welcome Garden_of_Eden !. I dunno about the "friendly chat" part but surely you'll find interesting things around here!

I'm neither because both have stances against the doctrine of the Apostles and of the Fathers of the Church. Why rely on the knowledge of 2 ppl from the XVIII century when the christian doctrine of the first 5 centuries is so absolutely clear?.

"some church"??? There's the Church Jesus Christ founded and then there are the other religious communities who have some truth to some degree. Christ gave infallibility to one Church only and that's the only biblical hard fact.

Because God gave mankind free will, you can marry whoever you want and God didn't decide that, you did. To say anything against human free will is to talk against the truth of christianity.

-The eating of the flesh & drinking of HIS blood is symbolic & has been explained -to you at least 48 times that I know of--YOU canNOT drink something that NO -LONGER EXISTS..HIS blood was expended at the cross---- -Psalm.22.vs.14------ -I AM POURED OUT LIKE WATER,AND ALL MY BONES ARE OUT OF JOINT:MY -HEART IS LIKE WAX,IT IS MELTED IN THE MIDST OF MY BOWELS.... -LEVIT.17.vs.11------- -FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD----- -NO BLOOD--NO LIFE---Life ceases when A major portion of the blood is lost from -the body--Therefore IT is an IMPOSSIBILITY to drink "blood"that NO LONGER -EXISTS--& JESUS HIMSELF TOOK WHAT WAS LEFT OF HIS BLOOD & POURED IT -ON THE ALTAR OF THE MERCY SEAT IN HEAVEN----That is why the scriptures can -only be symbolic---& on top of that GOD HIMSELF TOLD THE SONS OF ISRAEL -THEY COULDNOT EAT--DRINK BLOOD OF ANY ANIMAL LET ALONE HUMAN BLOOD- -DEUT.12.vs.16------- -ONLY YE SHALL NOT EAT THE BLOOD YE SHALL POUR IT UPON THE EARTH AS -WATER..... -SO mobi as YOU are so FOND of saying:IF GOD INSTITUTED IT{ANY PRACTICE} -YOU MUST PROVIDE THE SCRIPTURE WHERE GOD REPEALED IT----- -SO MOBI-----Scripture PLEASE---????? That is the anti-evangelical christian argument. Jesus SAID "this is", not "this symbolizes". If the jews were scandalized by Jesus' words it was because they understood it as Jesus Christ literally said it and the Evangelists definitely note that (again, St. John didn't use the word "eucaristos" 2 times in Chapter 6 because of some coincidence). The final nail in the "symbolic" coffin is that when the jews kept questioning Jesus about such outrageous statements, He draws an analogy between His Flesh and Blood and the manna which was true, physical food, not a symbol, it really came down from heaven. Of course, you could always say that the jews never crossed the Red Sea, that they just "overcame psychological issues" or that Jesus never resurrected, that He only "will be in the memories of the believers" or whatever. P.S. notice that most protestants after the Reformation believed Jesus' words in their literal fashion according to the protestant book "Two Hundred Definitions of the Words 'This is My Body" published in Germany in 1580.

I pray for peace in Israel daily. I also pray daily for the conflicts between India and Pakistan (there has been peace lately and let's hope they keep it that way), China and Taiwan, for peace in Chechnya, in Colombia, in Northern Ireland and in Sudan and Ethiopia where christians are persecuted.

Just in case someone is wondering, I'm talking about the holocaust the sacrifice to God and not the historical event known as "the holocaust" of course. The Last Supper & Crucifixion being during the time of Passover has a great deal of significance because just like God sacrificed the firstborns, now Jesus (the firstborn Lk 2:7, Lk 2:22-24) was being sacrificed to save mankind. The Mass was originally called Eucharist and this word comes from the greek word eucaristeo that means "to give thanks" so the Evangelist uses this word, eucaristeo, with a specific purpose in here: "Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish." (Jn 6:11) and here: "Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks." Saint John uses that word, eucaristeos, with the explicit intention to relate the miracle of the breads and the revelation that Jesus Christ is the "bread that comes down from heaven" (Jn 6:50), to the sacrifice of the Mass. This reference to the Mass by Saint John is widely recognized by many influential protestant scholars like George Beasley and Oscar Cullman so, it's clear all of the first christians understood what the sacrifice of the Mass was and all of the first christians knew that the sacrifice that gave us a never-ending source of grace was completed. Is the Eucharist, the Mass, a blasphemy as you repeat? The Scriptures say no just because Jesus Christ tells us that His Flesh and Blood give us eternal life (Jn 6:53). Since when blasphemies give eternal life?. "Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (Jn 6:28-29) If we have to believe in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ tells us that if we have faith in Him, we will do what he says (Jn 14:12) and if He says that we have to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood (Jn 6:53), then you, as a believer, do agree with the Eucharist right?.