JMAN05:

Sin is sin, however, some sins are viewed more serious than others. this is a fact.

Dat one na 4 human being eye no be 4 God eye.

[quote
author=kingk]

Please if a righteous man/woman is driving , suddenly he lost control of
the vehicle due to brake failure and he/she ran into another person and
kill that person...................pls has he committed a sin? If
you're to judge that righteous man; how will you judge him



NOTE: he/she has been a righteous man or woman through his/her life.
[/quote]If am d judge he wil nt be persecuted cos it wasn't intentional. wht am sayn is dat sumbdy dat killed and sumbdy dat lied intentionally are dysame b4 God.

Sal C: You enjoy quoting me, no?
Look at what your fellow protestants are doing to you, dragging your face to the mud. SMH.
You will do well to reply them after reading John 19V11.

Which one be ur fellow protestants, my dear if you lyk take wht i said if u lyk live it. dis is NL on your own (OYO)

@syncan, longest time no chat, i have searched for you all dis y but no were to find you in NL, ur welcome back. Accordn to dat chapter n verse of d bible cn u name 1 or 2 sins which lead to death and which does not lead to death. Thanks.

amara.lizzy%40y:
@syncan, longest time no chat, i have searched for you all dis y but no were to find you in NL, ur welcome back. Accordn to dat chapter n verse of d bible cn u name 1 or 2 sins which lead to death and which does not lead to death. Thanks.

Thanks for welcoming me back dear, I will give you example surely, but do you now agree that not all sin leads to death?

"... there is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing your hands together."

Per "pope" Boniface VIII (of Unam Sanctam fame) as alleged by his accusers at his abandoned trial.

JMAN05:

Italo don smell am. if he sees you again, e go dodge. instead of him to sincerely say it is an unbiblical tradition, he is here looking for a scripture to twist it into. dey made the bible and forgot to insert purgatory.

oh! so catholic teach the bolded? so so so you mean that infallible catholic teach that bolded? so you mean they teach the bolded? ah!!! people like italo are the MOST insincere people on earth. I know you also believe that lie italo, not so?

please when did they say this rulership of christ began?

Yes, that what's taught in his church....just as Italo said.
He probably meant Christ's 1000-year started when the church started.
Infact, lemme repost the conversation and when he was refuted.

Italo:
Jesus already reigns in eternity (1 Cor.
15:24-27, Rev. 4 & 5) and that in this world
His reign, established as a seed, is found
already in the Church. This is the 1000
years, which is the Hebrew way of indicating
an indefinite long time - in this case, the time
between the first and second comings, the
era of the Church, in other words the last
days in the broadest sense.The Book of
Revelation situates this era between the
persecutions of the Roman antichrists of the
first century and the final unleashing of evil
at the end.

From all the story he wrote, I intentionally brought out the bold and asked....

Adsonstone:
before we start....
Does the bold mean that the 1000year (which
you say is Christ indefinite) reign has started?

....and here was his answer

Italo:
Yes

You can check page 28 of this thread to see it.

Adsonstone:
Your position has so many
implications.....We'll discuss them in bits (cos
my fone cannot allow me to say all at once)
The first that refutes you is that in the 1000
year reign, Satan will have no access to
deceive anyone (Rev 20:1-3).
If you insist the reign has started, remember
the devil is still deceiving billions....even
deceiving some to believe that there is no
God.....and some to believe that he is not
deceiving them.

....and here, he was refuted.
I had not even mentioned the other points that proved the catholic teaching false.
....Immediately he was refuted, being in shame, he cunningly quoted all my statement and diverted what's on hand.

This was what he said

Italo:
Do you say 1Cor 3 is talking only about
judgement; judgement and its aftermath; or
you dont know?
I have been asking this for almost a week now.

....and when this was also clarified, he claimed he's ignoring.

Smh for liars and false teachers.

Enigma: "... there is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing your hands together."

Per "pope" Boniface VIII (of Unam Sanctam fame) as alleged by his accusers at his abandoned trial.

provide d document where he wrote d above.
If u can't then u are a big liar like his accusers.

Ubenedictus: provide d document where he wrote d above.
If u can't then u are a big liar like his accusers.

Work on your comprehension and ability to read.

Until we see evidence that you have attained a decent level of comprehension then you are a biiig false accuser by your post directed at me.

Syncan:

Thanks for welcoming me back dear, I will give you example surely, but do you now agree that not all sin leads to death?

Al sins are equal b4 God. Bt nt al dat leads to death. D sin dat cn nt lead to death are those ones which u confessed n forsake b4 God, so if God 4gives u dose 4mal sins cn lead sum1 to death. Hoping 2 hear ur own examples.

Enigma:

Work on your comprehension and ability to read.

Until we see evidence that you have attained a decent level of comprehension then you are a biiig false accuser by your post directed at me.

and you are the saint who posted supposed scandalous words without proof and make accusers your source of information.
Weldone, brainy guy.

Ubenedictus: and you are the saint who posted supposed scandalous words without proof and make accusers your source of information.
Weldone, brainy guy.

And you are the one lying against me with slander and false accusation.

Well done, poor comprehension guy!

Enigma:

And you are the one lying against me with slander and false accusation.

Well done, poor comprehension guy!

and i'm very happy that i neither accused you, d accusation thus far are urs.

Oh yes, you accused me clearly enough --- calling me big liar.

As I said, I attribute this to your comprehension. And of course if your comprehension was up to par you will realise that what I did was report an accusation made against Boniface VIII. Try and understand that.

If I myself want to "accuse" or even finish Boniface, I have much stronger stuff for that.

Enigma: Oh yes, you accused me clearly enough --- calling me big liar.

As I said, I attribute this to your comprehension. And of course if your comprehension was up to par you will realise that what I did was report an accusation made against Boniface VIII. Try and understand that.

If I myself want to "accuse" or even finish Boniface, I have much stronger stuff for that.

now who has comprehension problems? i made a conditional statement, provide the said proof that he made d statement. It seems you still haven't found d proof.

I reported an allegation. Your comprehension is still not up to par for you to understand that?

Let me help you: provide the document with which Peter ordained Clement. You are a LIAR if you make that claim unless you can produce the document where Peter said he ordained Clement.

Enigma: I reported an allegation. Your comprehension is still not up to par for you to understand that?

Let me help you: provide the document with which Peter ordained Clement. You are a LIAR if you make that claim unless you can produce the document where Peter said he ordained Clement.

oh! Humour me! In a thread on purgatory u produced a 'report' of an allegation that claims boniface taught adultery isn't a sin, without condemning d said allegation, then your testimonies on many threads now says catholics are liars and fraudsters. my comprehension is fine.

^^^ Sorry, bros your comprehension is still faulty; otherwise you'd know that there is a difference between reported and "produced a report"!

Meanwhile, my post was on topic because the discussion that it followed was on the categorisation of "sin". See, you still need to work on that comprehension in all honesty!

Enigma: ^^^ Sorry, bros your comprehension is still faulty; otherwise you'd know that there is a difference between reported and "produced a report"!

Meanwhile, my post was on topic because the discussion that it followed was on the categorisation of "sin". See, you still need to work on that comprehension in all honesty!

so we are to learn how catholics classify sin from allegations. Weldone

You see that your comprehension really really needs help now?

I can't even be bothered to explain beyond that!

amara.lizzy%40y:
Al sins are equal b4 God. Bt nt al dat leads to death. D sin dat cn nt lead to death are those ones which u confessed n forsake b4 God, so if God 4gives u dose 4mal sins cn lead sum1 to death. Hoping 2 hear ur own examples.

Amii did you read that passage? vs 16 says " if you see your brother commit a sin that does not lead to death..." pls read it. You can see he wasn't talking about a brother who has sinned, repented, confessed and forgiven. He was talking about someone who has commited sin. No confession mentioned. If we agree with what the bible actually said in this, we can go ahead with the next one, which is identifying what sin leads to death or not.

Ubenedictus: and you are the saint who posted supposed scandalous words without proof and make accusers your source of information.
Weldone, brainy guy.

"And they began to accuse him, saying , We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to the emperor"

I guess I can quote this just to disparage the Lord. oh and blame it on your comprehension when you protest. The truth shall set you free.

Crybaby is no longer ignoring my posts?

[quote
author=Syncan]

Amii did you read that passage? vs 16 says " if you see your brother
commit a sin that does not lead to death..." pls read it. You can see he
wasn't talking about a brother who has sinned, repented, confessed and
forgiven. He was talking about someone who has commited sin. No
confession mentioned. If we agree with what the bible actually said in
this, we can go ahead with the next one, which is identifying what sin
leads to death or not.[/quote] so can you now tel me which sin dat does nt lead to death.

amara.lizzy%40y:
so can you now tel me which sin dat does nt lead to death.

Nne when you click quote and you want to type, make sure you have seen the last "qoute", then just use the shift button or enter, this will keep you away from typing close to the quote closing bracket. that's what is making your post untidy. I 4 use pm but you told someone no pm sometime ago....

As per your question, even though you didn't exactly say it, but I take it that we agreed on all sins don't lead to death. Eg. Do you think I should be punished in hell, if I did was shout at you in anger saying " Get lost", for driving slowly on a speed lane?

Perhaps, I should interfere in this issue of 'sins', it's kinda becoming something else.

*thinking*

What if I did the right things and my wife and kids did not? They may end up in hell. How am I supposed to enjoy eternity if I know that that every second of infinity my wife and my kids are on fire and being tortured by demons? How can I enjoy eternity knowing that ANYONE is being tortured forever? Have you ever noticed that hell is not in the Old Testament? Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, shows up and it’s then there we are threatened with eternal suffering

It doesnt matter how hard you try, i will only answer you if and when i feel like..until you tell me what 1 Cor 3 is talking about, and show me where i said Atheists believe in God

adsonstone:

yes, simply because you have no more lies to put foward.

The first that says the Hades/Purgatorium
inhabitants are judged before going there (a future judgment) has been refuted because It has been clearly shown that they are judged in the second judgment.

The second lie that states that Jesus's 1000-year reign has started has also been refuted (with just a point found in rev 20:2-3)....and immdiately you were refuted, refusing to own up or bow in shame, you diverted to this one that has just been clarified.

No more lies to put foward! Now claiming to be 'ignoring'.....mtcheeew....smh for your ignorance.

I mentioned earlier that you'll eventually shy away claiming you're ignoring.....and thats whats happening.

No problem anyway. Its the normal thing you do.

JMAN05: Maybe YOU should clarify your apostolic succession. You believe that Charles Russell the false prophet is a product of apostolic succession...so tell us who ordained him.

JMAN05:

I don't believe the bonded. sorry, no road, divert to the other road.

Oh yeah? This is straight from your organization's publication:

"Jehovah's witnesses have a history almost 6,000 years long, beginning while the first man, Adam, was still alive ... [Abel was] the first of an unbroken line of Witnesses ... Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses ..." Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose pp.8-9

So who's lying?

JMAN05 or his Watchtower Society?

What makes it wrong?

JMAN05:

Italo don smell am. if he sees you again, e go dodge. instead of him to sincerely say it is an unbiblical tradition, he is here looking for a scripture to twist it into. dey made the bible and forgot to insert purgatory.

oh! so catholic teach the bolded? so so so you mean that infallible catholic teach that bolded? so you mean they teach the bolded? ah!!! people like italo are the MOST insincere people on earth. I know you also believe that lie italo, not so?

please when did they say this rulership of christ began?

#ignored

adsonstone:


Yes, that what's taught in his church....just as Italo said.
He probably meant Christ's 1000-year started when the church started.
Infact, lemme repost the conversation and when he was refuted.




From all the story he wrote, I intentionally brought out the bold and asked....



....and here was his answer



You can check page 28 of this thread to see it.



....and here, he was refuted.
I had not even mentioned the other points that proved the catholic teaching false.
....Immediately he was refuted, being in shame, he cunningly quoted all my statement and diverted what's on hand.

This was what he said



....and when this was also clarified, he claimed he's ignoring.

Smh for liars and false teachers.

italo: Maybe YOU should clarify your apostolic succession. You believe that Charles Russell the false prophet is a product of apostolic succession...so tell us who ordained him.

As for me I do not want to clarify apostolic succession to one whodoesnt have anyregard for it anymore than I want to clarify true religion to Atheist.

I'd rather clarify it to lower animals like St. Anthony did.

I don't believe the bonded. sorry, no road, divert to the other road.