₦airaland Forum

haibe: I know this, so where do they go, hell or hell fire?

Who, sinners? If sinners, some go to hell. Nobody is in hell fire yet.

frosbel: so Lazarus was in hell but not hell fire

The Bible clearly says Lazarus was in Abraham's bo.som, which is also paradise.

haibe: Did Jesus go to paradise that day?

Where did the bible say elijah is not unconscious?

I never said Jesus parables are impossible, I said they are not literal but are meant to drive a point, usually a moral lesson.

Did Jesus lie when He told the thief that they will meet in paradise that day? In fact, did Jesus even say anything about paradise to the thief, and what did He say if you think He said anything?
The Bible showed us that Elijah is not unconscious when it showed him come to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration to speak of His demise. It also tells us that a cloud of WITNESSES are around us. Witnesses are not unconscious, knowing nothing. The Bible is filled with all these illustrations and passages. Paul talks about being in a strait, wanting to depart and be with the Lord. the souls under the altar are not unconscious knowing nothing.
You imply that Jesus' saying on the rich man and lazarus is impossible. Of course all His teachings, even His life is a moral lesson.

haibe: So the rich man could see lazarus and abraham but lazarus and abraham could not see him??

22 “The time came when the beggar died and
the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The
rich man also died and was buried. 23 In
Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up
and SAW ABRAHAM FAR AWAY, with Lazarus by his
side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham,
have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the
tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,
because I am in agony in this fire.’

Where does the passage say definitely that Lazarus was viewing anybody? What exactly is your point on this?

haibe: Okay then, I have no problen with you as regards this, maybe some other people will have to answer that.

but look, you don't believe they start burning immediately but yet you believe the story of the rich man and lazarus is literal, are you not contradicting yourself??

hell is not hell fire. i expect that you should know this.

haibe: If truely it's a common knowlede that all upper garments are shirts, can you go out saying a lady's buba is a shirt?

Also I don't know what is common about this knowledge because people will hardly agree with you that all upper garments are shirts.

your assumption shouldn't lead to making generalisations on behalf of others

that's because you only think of a shirt in terms of what we popular call shirts. At least, my encarta dictionary agrees with me. They are all basically shirts. Whether it is button down or two button or no button, or roundneck, or long sleeve, or short or designer.

Candour: When i mentioned buttons, just wanted to paint the picture so even a toddler can get the difference between a shirt and a robe. I still wonder how you can imagine it in your mind, then write it down that all upper garments are shirts. So a suit is a shirt, a coat is a shirt, a jacket is a shirt, a blouse is a shirt, even a buba is a shirt?

Why do you like standing truth on its head like this? So fashion just recently classified them abi? how can you boldly twist things like this?

Have you been to a bank before? have you seen female bankers wearing shirts? Will those shirts they wear fit on you? So if you agree with shirts being demarcated between the sexes, why not trousers? or you think you can wear the same trousers those female bankers wear?

Hmmm...Image123.....you actually called a buba worn by women from ibadan and other places a shirt?

I must report you to your friends Joagbaje and Gombs today

From the definition of shirts provided by haibe, buba certainly fits that general category. i know you are not interested in understanding the point of view i'm giving, but simply up to that you might accuse him of. i'm used to that, no wahala. The point still remains that shirts have always being unisex, i mentioned somewhere that that has being since like forever. Unlike trousers, which a few decades ago were strictly men's wear. Therefore, according to Deut 22v5, the woman should not wear what belongs to the man.
By your views now, we can safely say that Deut 22v5 is meaningless but subject to what man says. Man can say tomorrow that there is male bra or male plaiting of hair, that is different and not fashionable for the female. That is the point. i'm not even yet into talking about if it is sin or not. My point from the start of the thread is that if we are talking about Deut 22v5 oh, trousers are men's.

haibe: Which point that buba is a shirt?


shirts
Noun: 1. A garment for the upper body
made of cloth, with a collar,
sleeves, and buttons down the
front
2. A similar garment of
stretchable material with few
or no buttons, typically worn as
casual wear or for sports

great and simple.

Candour: The bolded is actually very funny and laughable

So you must curtail my freedom before you can discuss the bible with me? Will my discussing on other threads make you stumble in your Christian walk? because that will be strong reason enough. I won't allow you inhibit my freedom to dispel any new falsehood that might arise on another thread while i'm busy with you here simply because it pleases you.

Moreover how did you arrive at the 2 months benchmark? My bro, if you want to discuss, pls come and lets discuss. This kind of condition makes it obvious you are very scared of an open and honest discussion of this issue.

It's a talk for crying out loud, we're not betting our cars and houses so what are you afraid to lose?

The conditions are in line with the motive of this thread. i simply picked two months as a test point, its not a benchmark. If the primary discussants are not interested in just discuss but are hypocritically debating elsewhere, what is the point then? My terms are very clear. meanwhile, you can go shopping any other person who is interested in your discussion. Thanks.

Goshen360: As for me, I agree to your terms and conditions. Mine is for YOU or any tithe teachers to AGREE to answer the intelligent questions I will submit to you and ANSWER THEM WITH SCRIPTURE BACKING. DO NOT DODGE ANY QUESTION OF MINE AND I WON'T DODGE ANY OF Y'ALL.

eeeyah, it appears you are not reading what is being said, its becoming an hobby for you.

Mark Miwerds: I will not bow to such a demand, Image123.

If God lays it on my heart to open a tithe thread, or to post in a tithe thread, I will obey God rather than man.

Something tells me that even if we were to agree not to open or post in a tithe thread for two months as you requested, tithers would no doubt be opening and posting in tithe threads in an attempt to deceive readers over the two months that non-tithers were not posting.

So, no, we cannot agree to such a demand.

see my terms below

Okay, okay, drumboy. You know what. i'll enter the DISCUSSION on one condition, that the discussants do not engage in any other tithe thread, or introduce tithe into other threads for the next two months apart from this thread. i no get time, i don tire for this tithe tithe talk all the time, but i go try sha. My brothers are simply tired, it is antitithers that are taking this thing as a do or die, like an addiction.
So, i await their agreement(Mark and Candour).
BTW, i do not think myself a theologian. Thanks.

Can two walk together except they be agreed? Drumboy, you can see evidently the insincerity of your discussant. He is still much enmeshed in debating and debating. this thread is just another avenue for him to debate. So, he cannot stay out of tithe talk on ANOTHER thread on NL for just two months? i cannot afford to waste my time if these two are unserious on such a simple thing.

haibe: sin·glet /ˈsiNGglit/
Noun: 1. A sleeveless garment worn
under or instead of a shirt
2. A single unresolvable line in a
spectrum, not part of a
multiplet

blouse /blous/
Noun: A woman's loose upper garment
resembling a shirt
Verb: Make (a garment) hang in
loose folds

jack·et /ˈjakit/
Noun: An outer garment extending
either to the waist or the hips,
typically having sleeves and a
fastening down the front
Verb: Cover with a jacket


So please how does this definitions imply that all these are shirts?

Kindly give the definition of the shirt too, thanks. BTW, you are leaving my point to focus on dictionary definitions now. No wahala.

haibe: kindly show me where the dictionary which you denied using says all upper garments are shirts.

Kindly learn to read and comprehend carefully. i never denied using a dictionary. You said "don't use the dictionary as an atom of confusion", and i was not referring you to any dictionary as yet. And i said i did not mention dictionary na. i guess you went to check a dictionary, right? And surely, you did go to check. However even before i checked a dictionary, i already knew this as basic common knowledge. It is in fashion that we qualify them.

see my encarta dictionary na.
It says blouse is woman's SHIRT.
It says singlet is sleeveless SHIRT.

haibe: Is a buba a shirt?
Is a blose a shirt?
Is a singlet a shirt?
Is a coat a shirt?

from my english, you should know that yes they are. i have not written in other tongues na.

haibe: If belts which was arguably worn by men first becomes unisex, why can't trousers become unisex?

belts were worn by men first? Where? Oh you're are assuming.

haibe: So please where did you get your definition of shirt being an upper garment or that all upper garments are shirts?

I guess its your assumption though.

It is general and basic knowledge. thankfully, the dictionary ALSO confirms that.

its not bad, my former campus pastor is putting it on everyday since she began her youth corper service and none of those hypocrites go to condemn her because they know she is saved obviously.

Like i said, you are being unnecessarily emotional with this issue. i do not see the reason why you will call your fellow brethren hypocrites because they do not have the understanding that you have on an issue. An understanding which BTW you just obtained recently. We do not all have the same level of understanding or revelation, and you do not need to label others for not being like you. You were like them if not worse for many years. Well, to your answer, it is bad according to Deut 22v5 which is my point all along. Or what then does Deut 22v5 mean?

Can you prove to me that Jesus wore a shirt or that Adam and eve wore a shirt?

But i doubt that you can prove that they did not wear one na. If every upper garment is a shirt, then they did wear shirts. Maybe not like what you wear today. They did eat bread too, but perhaps not like what you eat as bread today.

Candour: You're very wrong image. The standard clothes a male wore at the time of Jesus was a robe. Ropes or belts were used to hold them in place, not buttons and they surely didn't have shirts. In fact your dictionary should have told you the word 'shirt' is of middle English of around the 12th century AD and even at that, KJV of 1611 has no record of an article called a shirt yet garment that entered English in 16th century is mentioned in KJV

When you checked your dictionary for shirt, did you remember to check for blouse? Jacket? Because its very obvious you went to Merriam webster dictionary for that definition. Even the punctuation marks there give you away

So, the qualification of a shirt is that it has buttons? All upper garments are basically or generally shirts. Like i said, it is fashion that now gives specific differential names. The point is that there are clothing that are unisex and there are some that are not. The shirt is unisex, the belt is unisex, the shoe is unisex. The bra is not, at least not yet. Plaiting of the hair is still not unisex generally. The trouser did not use to be, some few decades ago. i really wonder how difficult that is to comprehend.

Also like haibe asked, is the Buba his mum wore also a shirt? I noticed you skipped this particular question

Didin't skip the question. i already said that all upper garments are shirts, basically.

frosbel: Many have been set free from the false doctrines that you have come to represent :

Tithes : They can now spend on their needs and help others - Pass
Hell fire : They no longer believe in a god who is a monster and will roast them for eternity - Pass
Traditions : They are no longer under the bondage of man tradition that wants to control their dress, they way they speak, their friends etc - Pass
Heaven : Many people now know that the destination for believers is not heaven but a new earth and heaven - Pass


Feed on this and enjoy.

Its a fulfillment of prophecy. it is those that ENDURE to the end that are saved.
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways ; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

haibe: That of lazarus and the rich has been explained, if you still wish to hold on to that then you must accept that that situation and everything that happens there is literally true.

Did the bible say elijah went to paradise? did the thief on the cross meet Jesus in paradise that day?

The souls at altar in heaven described in revelation implies the martyrdom of the saints and is seen as a sacrifice, God remembers the live they gave up for Christ, that verse is figurative.

On lazarus, i have asked you to show us any of Jesus' parables that are impossible. i'm yet to see you show this. The Bible shows that Elijah is not unconscious and knowing nothing, same thing with Moses, and with the souls at the altar. The souls at the altar knew something and were even asking God something. they were not unconscious knowing nothing. We need to look at the scriptures as a whole, and not just some part that seem to suit our logic and teaching. Did Jesus lie when He told the thief that they will meet in paradise that day?

haibe: Can you show me that particular scriptures that says when the ungodly die, they go to hell fire and immediately to start burning?, that is if your definition of hell here doesn't mean the grave or hades.

Also who are they going to meet in hell fire?

i have never said that anybody goes to hell fire and immediately starts burning. Please, stick to what i am saying.

haibe: I keep mentioning saints who are humans, you keep mentioning Jesus and angels, were they the one in Abraham's bosom?? Isn't lazarus who was viewing the rich man our concern here?

Its easy to admit if you have no answer.

What is wrong with you. i said "i do not know. You ask if it is possible. i have shown you proof that it is possible."
The Bible does not state definitely that Lazarus saw the rich man in hell, i do not know where you saw lazarus viewing and how such is your concern. i have tried to stick with what the Bible says, and that is that Jesus and the Holy angels are able to see the torments in hell, and that we believers will be like angels in that kingdom. This is what the Bible clearly says.
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

When John saw visions in revelations, he was in more than one instance confused as he bowed in worship to an angelic man, who had to tell him that he is a man like him.

Okay, okay, drumboy. You know what. i'll enter the DISCUSSION on one condition, that the discussants do not engage in any other tithe thread, or introduce tithe into other threads for the next two months apart from this thread. i no get time, i don tire for this tithe tithe talk all the time, but i go try sha. My brothers are simply tired, it is antitithers that are taking this thing as a do or die, like an addiction.
So, i await their agreement(Mark and Candour).
BTW, i do not think myself a theologian. Thanks.

DrummaBoy: We are still awaiting a tither to take up this wonderful opportunity of discussing the position of tithing today.

Mark Miwerds and Candour have been ready since forever.

I opened this thread in all honesty thinking that some tithers will jump at the opportunity of explaining their doctrine and practice of tithing, in a clear manner, but I am now trusting God that I will not be dissapointed.

@Image, if indeed my position in the OP is what you and other tithers have been advocating it will not be difficult to take up the gaunlet.

Again, this is not a debate but a discussion. There shall be no winner or looser.

Now I will let out a little secret: my wife wants to understand the whole argument about tithing. I cannot reffer her to the OLAADEGBU thread or anyother thread for that matter that has simply turned a war zone. So, I open this one with the hope that the gentle woman at heart can read a clear, thoughtful, theological, edifying discussion on the why you should tithe and why you shouldn't tithe.

Also it will be a source of help to others who want to understand the tithe matter clearly.

So, we are waiting for tithers.

It's not a difficult thing to do. It is just that we know what will happen already and are being frank. Your wife na tither na, she wants to understand your obsession ba? You want to convince her to come over to ya side? eeyah, sorry.

frosbel: How can something eat us up when we are comfortable in our personal lives ? Nay , we are mad at the fleecing , robbery and theft being perpetuated in the name of GOD by self appointed so called MOG.

Then simply go and face them na. They are not the bible or the tithe, are they? They would still perpetuate their acts without the tithe, so why hang the tithe and leave the people that are making you mad? We cannot base doctrine or teaching on personal grouse with some so called MOG.

frosbel: People need to be saved, they need help and encouragement and you are talking rubbish about Trouser, lol.

This is how religion makes people 'dumb'.

hehehehe, you just realised this ba? You seem to be the hypocrite, i guess you have seen the hypocrisy of your position that is why you choose not to answer. People need to be saved and encouraged and all you spend your life doing is talking tithes and talking about people leaving their church to no where exactly? You who is not interested in heaven or going there, you are here discouraging others and calling people who are not your mates in any level names. You need help. i pity those who follow you or are convinced by you in any issue, really.

haibe: This is a very unsound way of thinking, so because shirts are meant for the upper body means all upper body garments are shirts??

Am amazed at this, my mum wore a buba out today which is an upper garment, so my mum's buba is a shirt?? really??

So we can as well say because trousers are meant for the lower body, all lower body garments are trousers?? including skirts??

lol, then no argument left.

Wrong bro! very wrong! don't use the dictionary as an atom of confusion, the dictionary wouldn't even tell you every upper garments are shirts.

hehehehe, i did not mention dictionary na. i guess you went to check a dictionary, right? You're being emotional about this, you do not need to refer to alternate views as unsound and irrational na, bro. All upper body garments are technically shirts. For fashion purposes, you can begin to make differentiations though. Why, like someone said, do people have very strong issues on this matter if indeed it is nothing? If the believer is so free, he/she should be free enough to do without something of controversy. Instead it is the other way round, they cannot do without or even think of doing without it.
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Why is this attitude unheard of amongst so called liberated believers. Instead, they are ready to show off their new found freedom and force it into the faces, psyche and mindset of the unspiritual/weaker

haibe: Who made trousers a male's clothing?

Are you aware we have trousers for male and trousers for females just like we have shirts for males and shirts for females??

Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

haibe: Everyone has been wearing shirt since forever?? Even Jesus wore shirts?

Did everyone start wearing shirts the same time? Who started wearing it first?

Yes to all the questions.

frosbel: You still don't get it, do you ?

It is not about the amount , the percentage, the ratio, the proportion of ones income etc, it is the misuse of this money or rather misappropriation of these funds for purposes other than helping the poor , widows, orphans, students, elderly etc etc.

In other words STOP ROBBING the people of God under the pretense of the money going to GOD when even a dunce knows the contrary is the case, the money goes to fund babel projects, luxurious MOG life styles and aimless and pointless and I dare say lifeless crusades that turn out more backsliders than believers.

Goshen360: On the contrary, nobody holds 90% of his or her income to spend. Take away taxes, expenses on personal and families, take away giving etc where do you still have 90% to yourself?

We are contending false hopes given to God people. In this case, faith should hang on God hope in the finished works of Christ.

This is a discussion, not a debate thread. We both listen to each other.

Like i have said, it is not the tenth that is eating you up. It is something else. It is not the tenth that is making you or others to have false hopes. People are given false hope using anything, offerings, firstfruits, healing, prayers, churchwork, even preaching or mission, investments etc. If indeed, it is not about the amount, the percentage, the ratio, the proportion of ones income, then why on earth are we discussing or debating on the amount, the percentage, the ratio, the proportion of ones income? Is that not crazy?

frosbel: yeah right , you wish .

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

haibe: Sometimes logic is a very important tool in exposing a blatant lie.

So are u still saying the saints will be watching their loved ones burning in hell?

Thought i already answered this? The Bible does not say, why are you asking and asking, are you going to hold on to my words and answers above what the Bible says? What the Bible says however is that Abraham was able to see the rich man in hell and that Jesus is able to see the people in torments. Jesus is in Heaven right?
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: