[i][/i]
Cant still get over the Dana crash. I regret looking at pictures of some of the victims because as much as I tried I just cant get the faces off my head. Well, it has happened too bad we could not help it! May such never happen again.


I was just thinking of the victims’ last moment and I can imagine all sorts of lamentation, fear, prayers etc

I am sure there would be spirit filled born again Christians (apology to other religions just talking about mine). These xtians who when faced with calamity lower than such that happened would calmly have preached that we thank God in all situations and accept His wish would probably have at that very minute of staring death in the eyes said things like ‘God where are you’ ‘Ori mi o, eleda mi o’ ‘Mogbe o egbami o, ‘God if you truly exist please take control of this plane and land us safely’ etc some probably would have said worst like ‘are you sure you are up there looking at this?’ ‘if you are true to your word….please arise now’ etc….

Will some foolish words some of them would have said lead them to hell even though they were born again and faithful to God prior to this?

Some would probably have heard at one time or the other that all that is needed to be saved is to confess Christ as lord and accept Him, now will some people who were at that point unbelievers but quickly accept Him at that last minute make it to heaven for saying those words?

I am a Christian myself I probably should know answers to these but just wishing to learn more from other Christians because anyone could find him/herself face to face with death sometime.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE those of other religion can open similar thread and discuss this. With due respect I want only Christians to contribute here and I don’t mean to insult anyone I just don’t want this to degenerate to religious war as in some cases. I have Ruth, Michael, Deborah as well as Fatima, Sikiru, Habeeb etc as cousins, uncles, aunties so I respect everyone’s belief. Thank you.

wakagirl: [i][/i]
Cant still get over the Dana crash. I regret looking at pictures of some of the victims because as much as I tried I just cant get the faces off my head. Well, it has happened too bad we could not help it! May such never happen again.


I was just thinking of the victims’ last moment and I can imagine all sorts of lamentation, fear, prayers etc

I am sure there would be spirit filled born again Christians (apology to other religions just talking about mine). These xtians who when faced with calamity lower than such that happened would calmly have preached that we thank God in all situations and accept His wish would probably have at that very minute of staring death in the eyes said things like ‘God where are you’ ‘Ori mi o, eleda mi o’ ‘Mogbe o egbami o, ‘God if you truly exist please take control of this plane and land us safely’ etc some probably would have said worst like ‘are you sure you are up there looking at this?’ ‘if you are true to your word….please arise now’ etc….

Will some foolish words some of them would have said lead them to hell even though they were born again and faithful to God prior to this?

Some would probably have heard at one time or the other that all that is needed to be saved is to confess Christ as lord and accept Him, now will some people who were at that point unbelievers but quickly accept Him at that last minute make it to heaven for saying those words?

I am a Christian myself I probably should know answers to these but just wishing to learn more from other Christians because anyone could find him/herself face to face with death sometime.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE those of other religion can open similar thread and discuss this. With due respect I want only Christians to contribute here and I don’t mean to insult anyone I just don’t want this to degenerate to religious war as in some cases. I have Ruth, Michael, Deborah as well as Fatima, Sikiru, Habeeb etc as cousins, uncles, aunties so I respect everyone’s belief. Thank you.

ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO SIN HAS NOT KNOWN GOD 1 JOHN 3 VS 6 SO I GUESS THE QUESTION WILL BE, WHAT KINDA SIN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ? AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'GO TO HELL' ? THERE IS NO PLACE CALLED HELL. HELL IS A CONDITION YOU ARE PLACED IN BECAUSE OF YOUR SINS

i once tried to preach onboard, they stopped me.

wakagirl: [i][/i]
Cant still get over the Dana crash. I regret looking at pictures of some of the victims because as much as I tried I just cant get the faces off my head. Well, it has happened too bad we could not help it! May such never happen again.


I was just thinking of the victims’ last moment and I can imagine all sorts of lamentation, fear, prayers etc

I am sure there would be spirit filled born again Christians (apology to other religions just talking about mine). These xtians who when faced with calamity lower than such that happened would calmly have preached that we thank God in all situations and accept His wish would probably have at that very minute of staring death in the eyes said things like ‘God where are you’ ‘Ori mi o, eleda mi o’ ‘Mogbe o egbami o, ‘God if you truly exist please take control of this plane and land us safely’ etc some probably would have said worst like ‘are you sure you are up there looking at this?’ ‘if you are true to your word….please arise now’ etc….

Will some foolish words some of them would have said lead them to hell even though they were born again and faithful to God prior to this?

Sin isn't necessarily in our actions on their own but more in our mindset. To be born -again means to be born of God, to have our minds renewed and to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The bible says that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Not to sound insensitive but consider this: Why would anyone who truly believes in God make statements like "God if you truly exist....."?

Some would probably have heard at one time or the other that all that is needed to be saved is to confess Christ as lord and accept Him, now will some people who were at that point unbelievers but quickly accept Him at that last minute make it to heaven for saying those words?

Sorry to say this, but saying the sinners' prayer does not save anyone. The misconception that saying those words makes one born-again will lead a lot of people to hell.
What makes someone born again is when you believe in Jesus Christ then you confess your sins and repent from them (Romans 10:9-11). The emphasis is first on believing. saying the sinners' prayer without this is like doing a mere recital and it means nothing.

The sinners' prayer is not scriptural. It is just something evangelists use to make it easier for people to come to God. Don't get me wrong, the sinner's prayer is not bad but it is repenting and believing in your heart that really counts not the words.

I am a Christian myself I probably should know answers to these but just wishing to learn more from other Christians because anyone could find him/herself face to face with death sometime.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE those of other religion can open similar thread and discuss this. With due respect I want only Christians to contribute here and I don’t mean to insult anyone I just don’t want this to degenerate to religious war as in some cases. I have Ruth, Michael, Deborah as well as Fatima, Sikiru, Habeeb etc as cousins, uncles, aunties so I respect everyone’s belief. Thank you.

I hope I have been able to answer your question. God bless

Joagbaje: i once tried to preach onboard, they stopped me.

Wtf does this have to do with the thread?

Sin isn't necessarily in our actions on their own but more in our mindset. To be born -again means to be born of God, to have our minds renewed and to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The bible says that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Not to sound insensitive but consider this: Why would anyone who truly believes in God make statements like "God if you truly exist....."?



Sorry to say this, but saying the sinners' prayer does not save anyone. The misconception that saying those words makes one born-again will lead a lot of people to hell.
What makes someone born again is when you believe in Jesus Christ then you confess your sins and repent from them (Romans 10:9-11). The emphasis is first on believing. saying the sinners' prayer without this is like doing a mere recital and it means nothing.

The sinners' prayer is not scriptural. It is just something evangelists use to make it easier for people to come to God. Don't get me wrong, the sinner's prayer is not bad but it is repenting and believing in your heart that really counts not the words.



I hope I have been able to answer your question. God bless

Mr_Anony:

Sin isn't necessarily in our actions on their own but more in our mindset. To be born -again means to be born of God, to have our minds renewed and to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The bible says that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Not to sound insensitive but consider this: Why would anyone who truly believes in God make statements like "God if you truly exist....."?



Sorry to say this, but saying the sinners' prayer does not save anyone. The misconception that saying those words makes one born-again will lead a lot of people to hell.
What makes someone born again is when you believe in Jesus Christ then you confess your sins and repent from them (Romans 10:9-11). The emphasis is first on believing. saying the sinners' prayer without this is like doing a mere recital and it means nothing.

The sinners' prayer is not scriptural. It is just something evangelists use to make it easier for people to come to God. Don't get me wrong, the sinner's prayer is not bad but it is repenting and believing in your heart that really counts not the words.



I hope I have been able to answer your question. God bless

Well said, but just to add something. To be "born again", in a strict sense, means to be baptized.

italo:

Well said, but just to add something. To be "born again", in a strict sense, means to be baptized.

I agree totally

-just to clarify because this is about last minute repentance: the fact that some one didn't have the time to get baptized doesn't mean the person will go to hell and again it is the believing and the repentance that saves.
much more important than the dipping in water and saying the words (those are external manifestations of an internal phenomenon).

italo:

Well said, but just to add something. To be "born again", in a strict sense, means to be baptized.

No , absolutely not true.

To be born again means to be born again in the strict sense of the word, albeit spiritually and by the Spirit of God.

Baptism is important as has been commanded in the bible , it is an identification with Christ that we have died to this world ( when immersed in water, not some sprinkling on a baby's forehead ) and we now live a new life in Christ Jesus ( when we come out of the water ).

" Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." - Romans 6:3-4

Thread cleaned by me. Sorry to any innocent posts/posters whose comments also had to be axed.

@future posters,
the OP clearly stated this:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE those of other religion can open similar thread and discuss this. With due respect I want only Christians to contribute here and I don’t mean to insult anyone I just don’t want this to degenerate to religious war as in some cases.

she even asked nicely . So please respect her request for christians only. Thanks.

frosbel:

No , absolutely not true.

To be born again means to be born again in the strict sense of the word, albeit spiritually and by the Spirit of God.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

frosbel: Baptism is important as has been commanded in the bible , it is an identification with Christ that we have died to this world ( when immersed in water, not some sprinkling on a baby's forehead ) and we now live a new life in Christ Jesus ( when we come out of the water ).

" Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." - Romans 6:3-4

There is nothing in that verse that shows that baptism is MERELY an identification with Christ, as your fallible interpretation suggests. Rather, the verse shows that baptism ENABLES us to live a new life just as Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21

New International Version (NIV)

21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now SAVES you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now SAVES you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it SAVES us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

italo:

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.



There is nothing in that verse that shows that baptism is MERELY an identification with Christ, as your fallible interpretation suggests. Rather, the verse shows that baptism ENABLES us to live a new life just as Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21

New International Version (NIV)

21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now SAVES you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now SAVES you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it SAVES us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

No no no no noooooooooooo!!!

Baptism is a symbolic ritual. for instance If a man and a woman are in love and get married. The exchange of the rings (insert baptism) and the marriage vows (insert sinner's prayer) are not what makes it a marriage. The true marriage ingredient is love (insert believing) and commitment to the partner (insert repentance).

Don't get it twisted, all are very important, but as it is not the ring that makes you married but it is a symbol of marriage so in the same way is baptism a symbol of repentance. it is not baptism that saves us. Jesus saves us.

Peace.

Baptism is actually salvific,it is necessary for salvation.Even Cornelius in acts with his household still had to be baptised despite having received the holy spirit.

Also in acts of the apostle on the day of the pentecost the people asked people "what must we do to be saved?" Peter replied you must repent of your sins and be baptsized for it's remission.I can go on and on but this will suffice for now.

About those in emergency situation like the dana air crash,I will leave that to Gods discretion as his mercy is infinite

chukwudi44: Baptism is actually salvific,it is necessary for salvation.Even Cornelius in acts with his household still had to be baptised despite having received the holy spirit.

Also in acts of the apostle on the day of the pentecost the people asked people "what must we do to be saved?" Peter replied you must repent of your sins and be baptsized for it's remission.I can go on and on but this will suffice for now.

About those in emergency situation like the dana air crash,I will leave that to Gods discretion as his mercy is infinite

Using the example you gave, do you mean to tell me that they received the Holy Spirit and they spoke in tongues without them being saved? (Acts10:44-48)

Yes baptism is very important. Every christian must be baptized but the dipping in water is not what saves. It is the believing and the repenting. John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10

Mr_Anony:

No no no no noooooooooooo!!!

Baptism is a symbolic ritual. for instance If a man and a woman are in love and get married. The exchange of the rings (insert baptism) and the marriage vows (insert sinner's prayer) are not what makes it a marriage. The true marriage ingredient is love (insert believing) and commitment to the partner (insert repentance).

No amount of love can make me married if the union is not solemnized in the Catholic Church, what about you? Is it loves that made you/will make you married?

Love is an essential ingredient but consecration as a married couple is what makes a Christian couple married. Repentance and faith are essential ingredients but baptism saves.

Mr_Anony: Don't get it twisted, all are very important, but as it is not the ring that makes you married but it is a symbol of marriage so in the same way is baptism a symbol of repentance. it is not baptism that saves us. Jesus saves us.

Sometimes I wonder if you dont read our posts or you read them but you are just adamant on forcing you fallible opinion on us even after they have been reasonably debunked.

St. Peter says "...baptism that now SAVES you..."

Who should I believe, you or him?

Mr_Anony:

Using the example you gave, do you mean to tell me that they received the Holy Spirit and they spoke in tongues without them being saved? (Acts10:44-48)

What about Paul who 'God had chosen to know his will, to see the Upright One and hear his own voice speaking, because he was to be his witness before all humanity, testifying to what he had seen and heard.'--Acts 22:14,15

Yet, Ananais says to him: "Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins." Why did he need baptism to "wash away his sins?"

Mr_Anony: Yes baptism is very important. Every christian must be baptized but the dipping in water is not what saves. It is the believing and the repenting. John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10

John 3:16 says whoever believes in him will have eternal life... But of course whoever believes in Jesus will be baptized because he will believe Jesus' word in Mark 16:16 which says he who believes AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED.


Romans 10:
9 that if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved.

Does this really mean that all I have to do to go to heaven is to say "Jesus is Lord" and believe that he ressurrected? Notice that the verse doesnt even mention "repentance" (because you can do these without repenting and believing and loving God as Lord and saviour). This of course would mean that every professed Christian is destined for heaven because practically all of us say "Jesus is Lord" and believe in the ressurection.

10 It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.

Are we really justified by believing in the heart that God raised Jesus, and saved by declaring with the lips that "Jesus is Lord?"

That would mean that the demons are justified and saved, because they believe and declare with their lips that Jesus is Lord.

You see that your analysis is terribly flawed.

Though "repentance" and "baptism" are not mentioned in the passage, but one who believes in his heart that God raised Jesus and declares with his mouth that Jesus is Lord SHOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED... Then, he will be saved, just as Peter said in Acts 2:38.

So also, John 3:16 doesn't mention "repentance" and "baptism", but he who believes SHOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED... Then, he will be saved, JUST AS PETER SAID IN ACTS 2:38.

italo:

What about Paul who 'God had chosen to know his will, to see the Upright One and hear his own voice speaking, because he was to be his witness before all humanity, testifying to what he had seen and heard.'--Acts 22:14,15

Yet, Ananais says to him: "Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins." Why did he need baptism to "wash away his sins?"



John 3:16 says whoever believes in him will have eternal life... But of course whoever believes in Jesus will be baptized because he will believe Jesus' word in Mark 16:16 which says he who believes AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED.


Romans 10:
9 that if you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved.

Does this really mean that all I have to do to go to heaven is to say "Jesus is Lord" and believe that he ressurrected? Notice that the verse doesnt even mention "repentance" (because you can do these without repenting and believing and loving God as Lord and saviour). This of course would mean that every professed Christian is destined for heaven because practically all of us say "Jesus is Lord" and believe in the ressurection.

10 It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.

Are we really justified by believing in the heart that God raised Jesus, and saved by declaring with the lips that "Jesus is Lord?"

That would mean that the demons are justified and saved, because they believe and declare with their lips that Jesus is Lord.

You see that your analysis is terribly flawed.

Though "repentance" and "baptism" are not mentioned in the passage, but one who believes in his heart that God raised Jesus and declares with his mouth that Jesus is Lord SHOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED... Then, he will be saved, just as Peter said in Acts 2:38.

So also, John 3:16 doesn't mention "repentance" and "baptism", but he who believes SHOULD REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED... Then, he will be saved, JUST AS PETER SAID IN ACTS 2:38.

My friend, why are you picking a fight where there is none? I have not in any way said baptism is not important. We can both quote scriptures till our faces turn blue where baptism is mentioned or isn't mentioned. I think my analogy of a wedding sits well enough. It can be argued that the without the rings and the vows there is no wedding but the rings and the vows still symbolic and are not the core ingredients of marriage.

Remember when you first brought up baptism, I totally agreed with you. What I don't agree with is when you begin to claim that baptism literally washes away sin. No my friend that is figurative speech much like the communion is not literally the body and blood of Christ. I could say to my bride "this ring binds us together as one". It doesn't mean that that our wedding ring literally binds anyone.

Now in the context of this thread, remember she was asking about saying a last minute prayer before the plane crash and my answer was that reciting a prayer holds no water but it is believing in your heart and truly repenting of one's sins that saves a person.
You agree with this however you also want to claim that physical water literally washes away sin? Let me ask you in the situation of a plane crash, let us say someone got born-again (i.e. believed and repented of his sins) just before boarding the plane. Unfortunately the plane crashed and he died. Do you want to tell me that God will send him to hell because he didn't dip himself in water?

Now above was my logical answer, what follows below is my somewhat illogical answer to show you how your arguments sound (this is because you accused me of not reading your responses but blindly pushing my propaganda) .........so here goes:-

You said:

St. Peter says "...baptism that now SAVES you..."
Who should I believe, you or him?

1John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin

[Every one must literally bathe in Jesus' blood or else no salvation? ........By the way, that was St. John speaking.........and please do you have any of Christ's blood with you so I can sprinkle?]

John 6:54-58 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.

[Is cannibalism the christian way now?.........By the way that was Jesus himself speaking........Please while you are bringing Jesus' blood, bring his flesh so that I can eat and literally live forever.]

My friend the above may have sounded like I was mocking but please don't be offended. I was only trying to show you how we can overemphasize figurative speech. There is no way a physical event can transform your soul, Change happens on the inside.

I still maintain that All Christians MUST Be Baptized but it is not baptism itself that saves us but Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Mr_Anony:

My friend, why are you picking a fight where there is none? I have not in any way said baptism is not important. We can both quote scriptures till our faces turn blue where baptism is mentioned or isn't mentioned. I think my analogy of a wedding sits well enough. It can be argued that the without the rings and the vows there is no wedding but the rings and the vows still symbolic and are not the core ingredients of marriage.

Answer my question: is it love that made/will make you married? If you and your lady have all the love in the world for each other, would it make you husband and wife?

Mr_Anony: Remember when you first brought up baptism, I totally agreed with you. What I don't agree with is when you begin to claim that baptism literally washes away sin. No my friend that is figurative speech much like the communion is not literally the body and blood of Christ. I could say to my bride "this ring binds us together as one". It doesn't mean that that our wedding ring literally binds anyone.

I had no problem with your explanation to the OP, except that Baptism is salvific but you dont think so. Holy Communion IS the body and blood of Christ, literally. "This is my body...this is my blood", said Jesus. I'll listen to him.

Mr_Anony: Now in the context of this thread, remember she was asking about saying a last minute prayer before the plane crash and my answer was that reciting a prayer holds no water but it is believing in your heart and truly repenting of one's sins that saves a person.
You agree with this however you also want to claim that physical water literally washes away sin? Let me ask you in the situation of a plane crash, let us say someone got born-again (i.e. believed and repented of his sins) just before boarding the plane. Unfortunately the plane crashed and he died. Do you want to tell me that God will send him to hell because he didn't dip himself in water?

I agree that one can be excused if there was no opportunity to be baptized. To be born-again is to be baptized. Baptism is not just italo pouring water on the head of Mr_Anony, no. It is a priest pouring water upon you in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit to consecrate you to the Lord, wash away your sins and give you a new life in Christ. It involves the work of the SPIRIT.

Mr_Anony: Now above was my logical answer, what follows below is my somewhat illogical answer to show you how your arguments sound (this is because you accused me of not reading your responses but blindly pushing my propaganda) .........so here goes:-

You said:


1John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin

[Every one must literally bathe in Jesus' blood or else no salvation? ........By the way, that was St. John speaking.........and please do you have any of Christ's blood with you so I can sprinkle?]

You will find it in every Catholic Church all around the world.

Mr_Anony: John 6:54-58 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.

[Is cannibalism the christian way now?.........By the way that was Jesus himself speaking........Please while you are bringing Jesus' blood, bring his flesh so that I can eat and literally live forever.]

You sound exactly like the Jews that were listening to Jesus, and that should be worrying to you. That means you doubt the power of the Spirit to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The Jews knew what he meant literally and what he didnt. Notice that they took offence with him saying they should eat and drink his flesh and blood ("how can this man give us his flesh to drink" but they never queried his saying "you will live forever" because they knew he didnt mean that literally. Jesus kept reiterating his statement and never corrected their impression of what he said.

Mr_Anony: My friend the above may have sounded like I was mocking but please don't be offended. I was only trying to show you how we can overemphasize figurative speech. There is no way a physical event can transform your soul, Change happens on the inside.

I'm not offended at all, because it doesnt sound as if you're mocking me. On the contrary, I feel sorry for you because you are more than mocking yourself. You are depriving you self of the body and blood of Christ. You study the recipe but never eat the meal. You are refusing the CONSUMMATION of your love for Christ.

These physical events involve both the work of the Holy Spirit and your interior spirit. If a physical event could not cause transformation, Jesus would have simply remained in heaven and willed that the world be saved; he would not have come to physically suffer and die.

Mr_Anony: I still maintain that All Christians MUST Be Baptized but it is not baptism itself that saves us but Jesus Christ and Him alone.

Him alone, through baptism! If it doesnt save then why must all Christians be baptized? What's the point?

And come to think of it, are you implying that your interpretation of the scriptures is infallible and cannot be wrong?

If your interpretation is fallible and can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right.

If your interpretation is infallible and cant be wrong, then what about all the billions of people who might have a different view with you on various areas of the faith. Are you saying that they are all wrong?

Cheers. No offence intended.

italo:

Answer my question: is it love that made/will make you married? If you and your lady have all the love in the world for each other, would it make you husband and wife?

Here we go again with this your corner-corner questions You understand exactly what I mean but you just want me to say no so that you can jump on the soundbite;

Of course it is not love that "makes" us married though it is in a sense. It is love that made us want to get married. It is love that will keep us married. The ring tells the whole world that we are married but the ring is not what our marriage is based upon.

How many ways do you want me to say it for you to get it?

I had no problem with your explanation to the OP, except that Baptism is salvific but you dont think so. Holy Communion IS the body and blood of Christ, literally. "This is my body...this is my blood", said Jesus. I'll listen to him.

.......literally? "if you eye makes you to sin cut it off" said Jesus. please ensure that you obey him to the letter when next you look at a woman with lust

I agree that one can be excused if there was no opportunity to be baptized.

At least we agree on something

To be born-again is to be baptized. Baptism is not just italo pouring water on the head of Mr_Anony, no. It is a priest pouring water upon you in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit to consecrate you to the Lord, wash away your sins and give you a new life in Christ. It involves the work of the SPIRIT.

To be born again, you must believe and be baptized.....and yeah baptism isn't restricted to priests every christian should be able to baptize. The great commission wasn't addressed to priests alone but to all Christians.

You will find it in every Catholic Church all around the world.

Really?! I wonder how the Catholic church preserved it for so long. and how much blood Jesus had in His body that was sufficient to be shared amongst all the churches or did y'all share it one drop each?
My guess is that your church declared wine as Jesus' blood even though it still looks and tastes like wine and you can actually get drunk if you drink enough of "Jesus' blood".

You sound exactly like the Jews that were listening to Jesus, and that should be worrying to you. That means you doubt the power of the Spirit to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The Jews knew what he meant literally and what he didnt. Notice that they took offence with him saying they should eat and drink his flesh and blood ("how can this man give us his flesh to drink" but they never queried his saying "you will live forever" because they knew he didnt mean that literally. Jesus kept reiterating his statement and never corrected their impression of what he said.

First of all Jesus wasn't in the habit of correcting Himself. sometimes He even spoke with the intention of hiding his meaning, besides you are simply assuming that they knew he was speaking figuratively perhaps it's just that cannibalism sounded more absurd to them than the promise of eternal . Read John 6 carefully the Jews asked Him to give them the bread of life then He told them that He was the bread of life and they were shocked.

Now I do not doubt the power of the Holy Spirit in any way, When God performs a miracle, it is clear for all to see. Ehen Jesus changed water to wine, it was wine people tasted it and confirmed it.
When you claim that wine and bread are the literal body and blood of Christ while they still taste, feel and like wine and bread, my friend that is a bad case of "the emperor's new clothes" It is exactly the same as what some people do when they declare someone healed and he is not. case in point Sign Fireman and Enebeli Enebuwa.

I'm not offended at all, because it doesnt sound as if you're mocking me. On the contrary, I feel sorry for you because you are more than mocking yourself. You are depriving you self of the body and blood of Christ. You study the recipe but never eat the meal. You are refusing the CONSUMMATION of your love for Christ.

These physical events involve both the work of the Holy Spirit and your interior spirit. If a physical event could not cause transformation, Jesus would have simply remained in heaven and willed that the world be saved; he would not have come to physically suffer and die.

My friend, I believe in the Holy Communion. I partake in the body and blood of Christ. It is biblical truth. It is something we do in remembrance of Christ. It is not literal blood and flesh. It wasn't even literal blood and flesh when Jesus broke it else the bible would have told us so.

Him alone, through baptism! If it doesnt save then why must all Christians be baptized? What's the point?

Symbolism....He may as well have said dip yourselves in oil or milk or the blood of a young goat. The core of salvation is not an external phenomenon

And come to think of it, are you implying that your interpretation of the scriptures is infallible and cannot be wrong?

If your interpretation is fallible and can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right.

If your interpretation is infallible and cant be wrong, then what about all the billions of people who might have a different view with you on various areas of the faith. Are you saying that they are all wrong?

Cheers. No offence intended.

Yes I can be wrong and so can your pope and your priests and my pastors... All I ask is that you read the bible by yourself for yourself with an open mind. Forget every priest, forget every pastor, don't take my word for it. Just study your bible and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

He will show you the truth.

Mr_Anony:
Here we go again with this your corner-corner questions You understand exactly what I mean but you just want me to say no so that you can jump on the soundbite;

Of course it is not love that "makes" us married though it is in a sense. It is love that made us want to get married. It is love that will keep us married. The ring tells the whole world that we are married but the ring is not what our marriage is based upon.

How many ways do you want me to say it for you to get it?

There is no way to explain something that doesn't make sense for me to agree with it. The Catholic Church says to Catholics that you will never be married in the eyes of God without going through the Sacrament of Matrimony, no matter the amount of love you both feel for each other. What do they say to you customers in your shop?

Mr_Anony: ......literally? "if you eye makes you to sin cut it off" said Jesus. please ensure that you obey him to the letter when next you look at a woman with lust

There was no complaint, outrage, disagreement, clarification or explanation. This shows that the audience understood Perfectly that Jesus was speaking figuratively there.

Mr_Anony: To be born again, you must believe and be baptized.....and yeah baptism isn't restricted to priests every christian should be able to baptize. The great commission wasn't addressed to priests alone but to all Christians.

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop, priest and the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.

Mr_Anony:
Really?! I wonder how the Catholic church preserved it for so long. and how much blood Jesus had in His body that was sufficient to be shared amongst all the churches or did y'all share it one drop each?
My guess is that your church declared wine as Jesus' blood even though it still looks and tastes like wine and you can actually get drunk if you drink enough of "Jesus' blood".

It was the head of my Church, Jesus Christ that first declared wine as his blood. We choose to follow him, not you.

Mr_Anony:
First of all Jesus wasn't in the habit of correcting Himself. sometimes He even spoke with the intention of hiding his meaning, besides you are simply assuming that they knew he was speaking figuratively perhaps it's just that cannibalism sounded more absurd to them than the promise of eternal . Read John 6 carefully the Jews asked Him to give them the bread of life then He told them that He was the bread of life and they were shocked.

Jesus could never correct himself because he was never wrong. Maybe you mean "explain". He did! John 3: 5,11 & Matt. 16: 11,12 are examples of where Jesus explained or clarified what he said when he wasn't understood in the correct sense.

And if you say "cannibalism" sounded absurd to them, that means you are admitting that they interpreted his statement literally when he said he was the bread. And he didn't correct that interpretation like he did in John 3: 16.

Mr_Anony:
Now I do not doubt the power of the Holy Spirit in any way, When God performs a miracle, it is clear for all to see. Ehen Jesus changed water to wine, it was wine people tasted it and confirmed it.
When you claim that wine and bread are the literal body and blood of Christ while they still taste, feel and like wine and bread, my friend that is a bad case of "the emperor's new clothes" It is exactly the same as what some people do when they declare someone healed and he is not. case in point Sign Fireman and Enebeli Enebuwa.

When God performs a miracle it is NOT always clear for all to see. When God became man, it was not clear for all to see that was why even his apostles did not know that he was God until much later. Even the religious leaders of his day could not believe that God could be a man. Likewise when he said he was Bread, his disciples did not understand until much later (the last supper), and many so-called religious leaders (heretics), even now do not believe that Jesus can become bread for us.

When we claimed that the man - Jesus was literally God while he still looked, walked, talked, lived like a man, my friend was that a bad case of "the emperor's new clothes?" Is it exactly the same as what some people do when they declare someone healed and he is not? Like your shop owner, Sign Fireman and your fellow customer, Enebeli Elebuwa?

Mr_Anony: My friend, I believe in the Holy Communion. I partake in the body and blood of Christ. It is biblical truth. It is something we do in remembrance of Christ. It is not literal blood and flesh. It wasn't even literal blood and flesh when Jesus broke it else the bible would have told us so.

it is the literal body and blood of Christ. You neither believe nor partake in it. Jesus "took BREAD"...but after the blessing and breaking, he said "THIS IS MY BODY!"

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Symbolism....He may as well have said dip yourselves in oil or milk or the blood of a young goat. The core of salvation is not an external phenomenon

Except a man is born of water and spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. I will listen to Jesus not you.

Mr_Anony: Yes I can be wrong and so can your pope and your priests and my pastors... All I ask is that you read the bible by yourself for yourself with an open mind. Forget every priest, forget every pastor, don't take my word for it. Just study your bible and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

He will show you the truth.

Since you admit that you can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right. I affirm that I cannot be wrong because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church which if infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind. I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and He has been telling and continues to tell me to obey the Catholic Church which is the Church that Christ founded and gave The Holy Spirit to lead it to all truth and inspire it to teach that truth which is the one truth and doctrine of Christ to all men. He says any other doctrine is a false doctrine.

So if you admit that you could be wrong, why are you trying to teach me what you are not even sure about, especially when I am sure of my own position?

Why try to teach something that you don't even know - according to your own admission?

@Italo

There is no way to explain something that doesn't make sense for me to agree with it. The Catholic Church says to Catholics that you will never be married in the eyes of God without going through the Sacrament of Matrimony, no matter the amount of love you both feel for each other. What do they say to you customers in your shop?

You see even here your "catholic church" fails because many of the first christians came to Christ as married couples and the apostles neither dissolved their marriages nor remarried them under "the church". Who brought this strange doctrine?

There was no complaint, outrage, disagreement, clarification or explanation. This shows that the audience understood Perfectly that Jesus was speaking figuratively there

Wrong, outrage is not evidence of literal or figurative speech. All outrage can indicate is that they did not accept the speech

It was the head of my Church, Jesus Christ that first declared wine as his blood. We choose to follow him, not you.

And this is what Jesus, the head of the Church says: "....But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant." Matthew 23:8-11.
Think carefully about this and answer to yourself in honesty if your church fits this description especially with it's system of heirarchy.

I can go on to argue with you point for point, but it will be fruitless so i won't,

You have said you will listen to Jesus and not me. I agree and I want you to listen to Him and not anyone else. Christ is all we are about.

I will not bother you anymore concerning how literally you take communion and baptism, it doesn't subtract anything from the power of the both. All I ask is examine carefully the church you claim is true and ask yourself

1.Does it follow Jesus teaching?

2 Does it still resemble the early church as described in the book of Acts?

After you have answered these honestly, then ask yourself again:

Is my church true no matter what it does or is my church true because it follows Jesus Christ?

In what ways is my church like Christ and in what ways is my church different from Christ?

Think about these things and judge for yourself. God bless you.

Mr_Anony:

@Italo

You see even here your "catholic church" fails because many of the first christians came to Christ as married couples and the apostles neither dissolved their marriages nor remarried them under "the church". Who brought this strange doctrine?

You didn't tell me what makes people married in your shop.

We are not crazy! We know better than to dissolve a marriage that occurred even before the advent of Christianity (in some cases). Even today, the Church does not dissolve the Marriages of non-Catholics who convert to Catholicism as long as they have been wedded in the name of Christ, but for a Catholic who marries outside the Church without the supervision of the Church, he cuts himself out of the body of Christ.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong, outrage is not evidence of literal or figurative speech. All outrage can indicate is that they did not accept the speech

and if their outrage indicates non-acceptance, Jesus would explain himself if there was a misunderstanding, but if not, he would reiterate (like he did 4times in John 6) or be quiet or sarcastic if he sensed sarcasm on the part of his audience. The case in John 6 was not one of sarcasm, Jesus would have explained to his disciples what he meant, he would leave them misinformed.

Mr_Anony:
And this is what Jesus, the head of the Church says: "....But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant." Matthew 23:8-11.
Think carefully about this and answer to yourself in honesty if your church fits this description especially with it's system of heirarchy.

I obviously thought too highly of you.

Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.
But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.

If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of The Bible. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.

It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

My God! I thought you knew better.

Mr_Anony:
I can go on to argue with you point for point, but it will be fruitless so i won't,

You cannot go on and argue point for point because you have already admitted that you don't know what you are talking about.

Mr_Anony:
You have said you will listen to Jesus and not me. I agree and I want you to listen to Him and not anyone else. Christ is all we are about.

I will not bother you anymore concerning how literally you take communion and baptism, it doesn't subtract anything from the power of the both. All I ask is examine carefully the church you claim is true and ask yourself

1.Does it follow Jesus teaching?

2 Does it still resemble the early church as described in the book of Acts?

After you have answered these honestly, then ask yourself again:

Is my church true no matter what it does or is my church true because it follows Jesus Christ?

In what ways is my church like Christ and in what ways is my church different from Christ?

Think about these things and judge for yourself. God bless you.

I have told you already that it is the Holy Spirit that moves me to stay within the Catholic Church - the one true Church, so what else is your problem?

And why are you still trying to force something you don't know down my throat. You are ignorant, as you admitted, yet you are adamant. What kind of thing is this?

italo:

You didn't tell me what makes people married in your shop.

We are not crazy! We know better than to dissolve a marriage that occurred even before the advent of Christianity (in some cases). Even today, the Church does not dissolve the Marriages of non-Catholics who convert to Catholicism as long as they have been wedded in the name of Christ, but for a Catholic who marries outside the Church without the supervision of the Church, he cuts himself out of the body of Christ.


and if their outrage indicates non-acceptance, Jesus would explain himself if there was a misunderstanding, but if not, he would reiterate (like he did 4times in John 6) or be quiet or sarcastic if he sensed sarcasm on the part of his audience. The case in John 6 was not one of sarcasm, Jesus would have explained to his disciples what he meant, he would leave them misinformed.

I obviously thought too highly of you.

Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.
But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.

If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of The Bible. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.

It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

My God! I thought you knew better.


You cannot go on and argue point for point because you have already admitted that you don't know what you are talking about.


I have told you already that it is the Holy Spirit that moves me to stay within the Catholic Church - the one true Church, so what else is your problem?

And why are you still trying to force something you don't know down my throat. You are ignorant, as you admitted, yet you are adamant. What kind of thing is this?

Oh well, relax a bit. you are getting emotional. No one wins an argument simply by shouting the loudest. i can play the exact same game you are playing and pick on individual words and phrases blowing them way out of context and calling you ignorant but that will not be fruitful so I won't do it.

In the last response i had begun to answer point for point then i stopped halfway and decided it was of no use.

Now I said I could be wrong it doesn't immediately follow that you are definitely right and you know it. The phrase "I could be wrong" which you are dubiously misrepresenting to mean that I don't know what I am talking about is an indication of bad character on your part.
I could be wrong can also mean I could be right. I said that because i want to submit to the will of the Holy Ghost's authority and not just blow my own horn. You on the other hand is taking that to automatically mean that you are somewhat superior because of what you "church" said.

Previously I purposely ignored your reply because I felt it was childish and wasn't necessary but since you want to sit on it, let me quote us and expose your dubiousness (my inserted comments in red):

You said:

Italo: And come to think of it, are you implying that your interpretation of the scriptures is infallible and cannot be wrong?

If your interpretation is fallible and can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right. (yes there is a possibility but it still remains a "could be"

If your interpretation is infallible and cant be wrong, then what about all the billions of people who might have a different view with you on various areas of the faith. Are you saying that they are all wrong? more ifs and maybes

Cheers. No offence intended.
I should have smelt a rat here but I innocently played along

I said:

[b]Anony:[/b]Yes I can be wrong and so can your pope and your priests and my pastors... All I ask is that you read the bible by yourself for yourself with an open mind. Forget every priest, forget every pastor, don't take my word for it. Just study your bible and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. He will show you the truth. (Notice I ascribe all final authority to the Holy Spirit and not my understanding or yours or your church)

You replied:

[b]Italo:[/b]Since you admit that you can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right. (it also means I could be right and you could be wrong or we could both be wrong) I affirm that I cannot be wrong because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church which if (is) infallible in matters of faith and morals.
You are appealing to an authority I do not respect, The Holy Spirit which is the authority that I have ascribed to does not back up your statement. as for infallibility, we all know of the atrocities committed by your "infallible" church

I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind. I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and He has been telling and continues to tell me to obey the Catholic Church which is the Church that Christ founded and gave The Holy Spirit to lead it to all truth and inspire it to teach that truth which is the one truth and doctrine of Christ to all men. He says any other doctrine is a false doctrine.
the question is whether your catholic church has lived up to that doctrine

So if you admit that you could be wrong, why are you trying to teach me what you are not even sure about, especially when I am sure of my own position?

Why try to teach something that you don't even know - according to your own admission?
Here you dubiously misrepresent what I am saying: I am not trying to teach you anything neither have i admitted any ignorance. I am only referring you to the same Holy Spirit we agree upon as authority and asking you to compare your church to Him

In another reply I say:

Anony: You have said you will listen to Jesus and not me. I agree and I want you to listen to Him and not anyone else. Christ is all we are about.
Again, notice I refer you to Christ's Authority

I will not bother you anymore concerning how literally you take communion and baptism, it doesn't subtract anything from the power of the both. All I ask is examine carefully the church you claim is true and ask yourself

1.Does it follow Jesus teaching?

2 Does it still resemble the early church as described in the book of Acts?

After you have answered these honestly, then ask yourself again:

Is my church true no matter what it does or is my church true because it follows Jesus Christ?

In what ways is my church like Christ and in what ways is my church different from Christ?

Think about these things and judge for yourself. God bless you.
Notice how my Questions implore you to examine your church against Christ's teachings

To which you have now replied:

I have told you already that it is the Holy Spirit that moves me to stay within the Catholic Church - the one true Church, so what else is your problem?
Notice how you -instead of honestly answering the questions you ignore them and - adamantly keep defending your "one true church" without trying to compare it to the truth at all

And why are you still trying to force something you don't know down my throat. You are ignorant, as you admitted, yet you are adamant. What kind of thing is this? I never admitted ignorance, I only submitted my views for scrutiny, but that's alright your method is to jump to conclusions that don't follow

@ Mr_Anony,

I have been examining and continue to examine my Church against Christ's teachings, and I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind and I have been telling and continue to tell you that all these have revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ built to teach all truth to all men. What else do you want from me?

I'm sorry for the way I addressed you but if you want me to be civil you should also be careful about the way you talk about Popes, Priests, The Church...these are things that I hold sacred. Every man has a beast in him.

I never said that your saying that you were wrong is the basis for saying I am definitely right. I said and still say that I am definitely right because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church. You saw that and you probably ignored it, yet you call me dubious.

I said since you say that you may be wrong (or right - which means that you are not sure - which in-turn means that you don't know), it then means that YOU ADMIT that I might be right.

So I can infer that you say that I might be right, but I SAY that I am definitely right.

So if you don't know (since you are not sure if you are right or wrong) why are you trying to teach me what you don't know which may be wrong and be the road to hell, especially when I am certain about my position?

And don't say again that you didn't try to teach me anything. With due respect, that is a big lie.

You tried to teach me how to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively; you tried to teach me that baptism is only symbolic and not salvific; you tried to teach me the Characteristics of God's miracles (wrongly implying that it is always clear for humans to see); you tried to teach me the way to arrive at the truth (telling me to "forget popes, priests, the Church"... You tried to teach me many things that you yourself DON'T KNOW.

I am not saying that I am superior to you in anyway and you know that. Even Pope Benedict XVI wouldn't say that. What I am saying is that the doctrine that I preach is the True doctrine and is hence superior to every other doctrine (which are, of course, false). It is not by human power that the Church is infallible, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit which Christ has given to his Church.