₦airaland Forum

truthislight: No! It is you that have the problem for saying it is not a parable.

How can you say that Abraham was literally in heaven when Jesus christ said no man has ascended to heaven befor ?

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13).
..........

So, you are wrong man, it was a parable and thats that.

If you dont know what that parable means, say so.

I said none of what you are alleging that I did.

truthislight: Can you show to me how the lake of fire is a perment place of torment ?

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10 NKJV)

frosbel: But Christ never spoke of everlasting burning for anybody, so where did you get this doctrine from ? Catholic Church ?

He did in the Book of Revelations. By rejecting Hell, then you must ask what is the purpose of judgement after death. Why doesn't God just let them stay dead? This isn't something you can answer without making all kinds of assumptions and rationalizing.

TroGunn: Pls reread my post - it makes a great difference if one follows Christ. You get to live endlessly in a wonderful world.

Those who deliberately and knowingly reject Christ and God will get their just reward - death/destruction/cut-off (lifelessness).

Burning people eternally in a fire for fun is something God said did not enter his mind:

Jeremiah 19:5 - "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind".

If it did not enter God's mind at this time to burn people for fun, one wonders when it did and why. Truth is, it's still not on God's mind.

Eternal torment is pure sadism - simple, and it finds no support in the Bible.

You're using that scripture out of context. That is referring to human sacrifice not judgment of the unrighteous.

frosbel: I cannot believe your sadistic statement above.

You are not satisfied that God may reward you with eternal life, he must also punish humanity and possibly some of the relatives you know for endless ages in a furnace of fire.

I can assure you that this dark dogma of the apostate catholic church has nothing to do with the God of the bible.

If you keep preaching it , you will surely end up with either false converts (which seems to be the case in about 80% of Nigerian churches ) or a heap of backsliders.


Ignorance is not an excuse, learn !

It's not about being sadistic. What joy do I derive from people going to Hell? But it's not about me, it's about Christ. It's about His return to judge the world. It is pretty clear that there will be punishment. It won't be just "Ok just disappear." If that was the case, what is the purpose of judgement. When they die, they should just stay dead.

TroGunn: You will simply cease to exist if you die - fact. Same as Adam is no more, just as God said.

Why does it then matter?

Because life, even when difficult like now, is desirable. And the future life would be wonderful. Why would a sensible person want to cease to exist, when he can live in a world where "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain"? ( Rev 21:4). With all the secrets of the universe to learn and unlock - which is enough job to do eternally, with the company of like minded friends, and not forgetting good food and delicious wines.

I don't know about you, but I ( and many millions/billions I believe) love life and want to keep having it.

The lie of hellfire hasn't made people to turn good - just drives reasonable people from God and serves Satan's purpose - the father of the lie.

The purpose of hellfire isn't to intimidate people into accepting Christ. That is a misconception. Personally, I didn't accept Christ because I didn't want to go Hell. One comes to Christ by recognizing one's sin and repenting. That is for another thread though.

Can you not see that it makes no difference whether you accept Christ or not if the result is simply ceasing to be. What reason does a person who doesn't believe in heaven, or having questions answered care about spending an eternity with Jesus. There are many atheists that have stated their desire for what you are saying. Can I just vanish? The reason they desire it is because they realize that if it is a viable option, there is really no consequence for rejecting Christ.

wiegraf: You should have done that rather than clown around, as I've not heard of this oyinbo communities that endorse incest. Also, please show how the often portrayed as blue eyed yet Jewish but definitely white Jesus was the god of your ancestors.

And I've not been abroad for quite some time, though true, I do admire bits of their culture. Actually, I admire bits from any and every culture, as I don't look at skin color. That's really foo.lish

I will not respond to any other parts of your post in respect of the OPs wishes. I will only answer your direct question pertaining to societies where incest is common. Look up the Appalachians in America. Also called Hillbillies.

Rosieflower: D story of d rich man nd Lazarus is a parable nt literal

The issue is whether Jesus spoke of Hell as a real place. If Hell is symbolic in the parable and death represents the ultimate finality, how does the dialog happen between Lazarus and the Rich Man?

If the dead know nothing and they simply vanish then there is no reason to accept Christ. After all, if you simply cease to be, what does it matter? It's all the same to you whether some people are experiencing eternal bliss or not.

TroGunn: Pretty simple, really. Jesus parable of the Rich man and Lazarus and nothing to do with life and death - he was using it to teach the Pharisees (who loved money, symbolized by the Rich Man) on the futility of such and self-righteousness - Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.

Luke 16:14 "The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight".

If we take the parable literally, it makes even less sense.

- It means all good persons will be in one man's bosom - Abraham must have a large bosom indeed!
- that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of "hell"
- that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there.
- that this hell and heaven are within talking distance

Overall, a literal meaning is useless - and it was a parable. All the other parables should as well be taken literally, in that case.

The wages sin pays is death - and the dead know nothing, feel nothing - Eccl 9:5-6,10

The issue is not about taking the parable literally. What we're talking about is whether Hell symbolic or not in the story. Just as when Jesus talks about farmers, vineyards, etc. Are these not actual professions or settings? They are. The setting (hell) described in the story is what is if importance. Is it actual or not? If it isn't actual, then you must explain why Christ chose that setting if he just wanted to tell a story about God resisting the proud and favoring the humble.

Or this?
So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:49, 50 NKJV)

If the dead feel nothing. Who will be wailing and gnashing their teeth?

How do you interpret this scripture?
And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46 NKJV)

TroGunn: As stated earlier, "Lake of fire" is not a place of torment- it's permanent destruction/removal - where there's no possibility of reversal. Even death and hell are said to be thrown into same "lake of fire" - meaning they'll be permanently removed ( 2nd and final death with no reversal).

Rev 20:13-14 -- "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire".

Usage of fiery torment in the Bible stands for permanent destruction. Another example is that of Babylon the Great discussed in Revelation. Her destruction is described as torment - actually meaning permanent end, "never to be found again".

Rev 18:9,10 - "And the kings of the earth, who committed acts of immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning, 10standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.'"

Rev 18:21 - "Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again."

Jesus parable of Lazarus and the Rich man ( Luke 16:19-31) was just that - a parable, to teach a lesson. This passage is the fifth in a series of parables:

The lost sheep - Luke 15:3-7;

The lost coin - Luke 15:8-10;

The lost boy - Luke 15:11-32;

The unjust rich man - Luke 16:1-15;

The rich man and beggar (named Lazarus) - Luke 16:19-31.

Actually there are elements in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man that show that it is provable not a parable. But that can be debated and it isn't the issue at hand. The point is that whether it is a parable or not, if Hell didn't exist, then what was Jesus talking about? If all that awaits is death then how is all the dialogue between Lazarus and the rich man happening? Then what is Abraham's bosom? What is the parable about then? What is "permanent removal"?

You see that in denying Hell, you create a lot more questions for which answers must now be invented.

I would like to hear your interpretation of this scripture:

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10 NKJV)

Your interpretation of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is sketchy. Christ was clearly speaking of a place called Hell. That wasn't symbolic. If death was the final destination, there could be no story to tell.

texanomaly: And one more thing, don't judge an entire race because of the action of some.

Park well jor!!!!!!

I was speaking generally. I know that not all western cultures accept homosexuality. Most do but not all.

I wasn't judging the individual. I was speaking at the nations that comprise western civilization as a whole.

frosbel: The 'god' that will place human beings in a furnace for endless eternity with no reprieve is not the GOD of the bible but SATAN.

Maybe the reason why you believe in the hell theory is because :

2 Corinthians 4:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Please point to where that is in the
Bible? Where satan will cast people into hell?

macof: Abraham married his sister
Nahor(Abraham's bro) married Haran's(another bro) daughter

Isaac married Nahor's daughter
Jacob married Laban's(son of Nahor) daughters(two sisters)

Judah married his sons wife

So let me see Christians condemn the above people first.

As for homos, Jesus was more gay than straight

To respect the OPs wishes, I will stay out if this thread, but I would not let macof get away with his comment. It is a fundamental error some make. Just because something is documented in the bible doesn't mean it is endorsed by God.

That's all I have to say. Please continue this thread. I'm curious to know what conclusions will be reached knowing that some of you are abroad and others are in Nigeria. Will it be that some will accept homosexuality, incest, etc since they live in the west and thereby whatever the white man espouses must be good for us all and we backward africans must espouse as well.

[quote author=Oduduwaboy][/quote]Huh?

Cyrus Levi: The cover-story they are taught in their church is the Mosaic calling and respect to holiness,pureness and divinity.

This cover story sucks cause they're deceived,brainwashed and manipulated.

The main story is the sacredness of the garment is a ritual when worn makes the ground soles and thorns to their feet,an unknown dimension that sucks on the blood of their worshippers.

P.s:never been there,this is from a member redeemed from the celestial church,a once spiritual leader-chief shepherd called into greater light by God.

Huh?

EMILO2STAY: no!, you are unable to point out where scripture said christians should pull of shoes to respect a holy ground.
And where in the bible did God give such injunction to christians to take of their shoes when going into the church.

This is pointless now. It's clear you're not even reading my posts. Let's not keep going around in circles.

Oduduwaboy: Dear one you are still quoting from the much discredited bible.

How can we seriously take the bible for what it says when it declares the earth to be only 6000 years old and the earth flat ? It took the rationality and logic of questioning and thinking men to get humanity to the present level of civilization .

Please see below.

Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:21, 22 NKJV)

Are these not the cosmological truths we hold to today.

Oduduwaboy: Dear one you are still quoting from the much discredited bible.

How can we seriously take the bible for what it says when it declares the earth to be only 6000 years old and the earth flat ? It took the rationality and logic of questioning and thinking men to get humanity to the present level of civilization .

Please point to where the bible states that the earth is 6000 years old or where the bible states the earth is flat.

Virginity is not more important for weapon. The commandment against fornication is not just for women alone but for men as well. Now there is emphasis on the woman only because of what the concept of marriage represents.

Our god-given institution of marriage is a reflection of the symbiotic relationship between the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The bride is the object of affection; the bride is the prize; the bride is what the marriage is all about. It is only for this reason that the woman is admonished to keep herself pure. It shows that she is worthy of all affection and honor, that she honors the bridegroom.

It is interesting to note that Revelations tells us that Jesus is returning for his chaste virgin bride (speaking about the Church). Just as Israel is the bride of God the Father, the Church is the bride of Christ. Just as Godhead is faithful and pure, so also should the bride the faithful and pure.

There's so much so say on this topic but you will find that scripture is filled with this type of parallelism between the purity between a man and a woman up until marriage and the faithfulness and purity between man and God.

This is dangerous doctrine. The bible is quite clear in paying tithes. Now if the leadership of the church is misusing it, then that is a different issue. Remember that you shall not muzzle the ox that treads the corn, a laborer is worth of his hire, etc.

Of course the tithe is not for God. God doesn't need money. The tithe is for the laborers in the vineyard of Christ. Those who have given all to labor in the ministry full-time (all the church workers). It is also required so that there is plenty in the church so that the church can provide assistance to the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc.

I can understand at being angry about the mismanagement of church funds or forcing people to pay their tithes but that does not excuse the believer from his duty to obey God.

It should be stated clearly though that the final destination for all those who did not receive Christ is the lake of fire, the second death. Oftentimes this is spoken synonymously with hell but they are separate things. Hell (Sheol in the OT and Hades in the NT) is not permanent, the lake of fire is (the second death) is.

Those who do not believe in the concept of hell. You will have a lot of work to do to explain the very clear teaching of Christ, the writings of Paul and Peter, and what is in the book of Revelations. There are too many scriptures to count that speak clearly on this matter. I am quite interested in your interpretation of them.

Hell is not a reprehensible concept. The bible makes it clear that it was a place prepared for the devil and his angels. But man's choice will take him there if he rejects Christ.

I am interested in your interpretation of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man that Jesus spoke.

EMILO2STAY: the doctrine of the apostles of christ are contained in the book of the new testament and Non says anything about taking of shoes to respect a holy ground. was the burning bush commandment given to christians? Answer yes or no! And who gave the so called divine injunction?.

So you are unable to point to any scripture to support your point. Please point to scripture where the apostles specified how the believers are to gather and worship.

Divine injunction is self-explanatory. The injunction is a God-given directive to the church.

Lets not keep arguing. It isn't right for believers to argue over things that shouldn't be issues.

EMILO2STAY: you are just blabbing, you are the one who is failing to make a coherent argument here. I have asked you to point out straight where scripture stated clearly that christians can take off their shoes to respect a holy ground or to immitate heavenly bodies but you have failed. Instead you keep ranting about one cannot confine God into a mode. the apostles penned down all that is needed to live a perfect christian life, and non includes pulling off shoes to respect a the presence of GOD in a holy ground. If it is an injunction, them let me ask, by whom?, God? or man?

Let me say that it is not a sin for you guys to walk bare-footed. But my argument is that such instruction did not come from God but from a mere man.

I don't think you are certain of what you arguing. What does not wearing or not wearing shoes have to do with living a Christian life. You're mixing things up. What scripture are you referring to the apostles? Please point it out.

I supplied you the scripture in exodus when Moses was called. I supplied you the in Revelations which contains the description of Christ by John the Elder. Now if Jesus was wearing shoes, how would John have been able to describe his feet?

I already stated that there is no commandment to take off your shoes in the assembly of believers. How many times must I repeat the same thing. It is a divine injuction given to CCC. Now you claim that it was given by man, therefore you must supply evidence for your claim.

I really want to know what scripture you are referring to when you mention the doctrine laid down by the apostles. Please cite it in your reply.

EMILO2STAY: i seem to understand you , but bible should be the standard for every true christian. My dear we are not asked to immitate the heavenly bodies in dressing and we need no particular mode of dressing to remind us that we are the citizens of the kingdom of God we believe by faith...So am just trying to tell you that this doctrine of not wearing shoes in the presence of God is purely man made. There is no biblical backup for your practice, it was commanded by your sunata or pastor or what ever you call your preacher.

No one is saying that the bible should not be the standard for Christians. You're failing to make a coherent argument. Please point to where not shoes doesn't go against scripture. It isn't man made. It is by divine injunction.

The bible is full of all kinds of symbolism that. Both in the New and Old Testament. The communion (which we still, the parables Jesus spoke, the miracles he did. It's a shame that you try to box God into a mode.

I don't want to keep arguing about this. One thing bible is clear about is for believers not to be contentious. It's bad form.

Let's just agree to disagree. It's crazy that taking off your shoes is a controversial topic.

God Bless

EMILO2STAY: the bible admonished christians to dress modestly even jesus wore sandals, Tell me when dressing to go out dont you put on somthing to cover your foot?. The doctrine that you must take off your shoes when in the presence of God is not a christian doctrine...period. You do not have biblical backup for this your symbolism you preach, It is a man made doctrine admit it!!
The bible does not have to tell you to wear shoes cuz its common sense, it is like telling you to wear cloth to cover your unclothedness When you have your common sense. We christians are not to respect a holy ground but keep our body holy because that is the real house or temple of God where the holy spirit dwells. God does not dwell in houses made with brick and cement.

I don't want to keep arguing with a fellow believer about something that really is a non-issue. This isn't a matter of theology. I will say this though, there is a reason the name of the church is called the Celestial Church of Christ.

A lot of what is done in the church is emblematic of what is done in heaven. You can read the book of Revelations. The underlying idea of the mode in the church is to reinforce the knowledge that the believer is a citizen of heaven and is as the saints are in heaven. The sutana with no shoes represents the glorious body the believer will be clothed with in heaven. It is interesting to note that when John saw Jesus in heaven, he is described as being clothes in a white garment and without shoes. We know this because John described the feet of Christ. Would there be need for shoes in heaven?

Again it is only an injuction to CCC and not to all of Christendom.

nerodenero: Aside the Bible verse,they believe is part of the sacrifice of practicing their own religion.Is like a muslim lady wearing hijab.The religion dictates covering of sensitive parts and some of them wont step out without wearing it.It has become part of them,a belief,it is their faith and just the best way they feel they can practice their religion.

You are mistaken brother. First CCC is not a religion. As the name conveys, it is a church of Christ. I don't understand what you mean by "covering of sensitive parts". Indeed, the not wearing shoes is seen as a type of fast. It is all to the honor of God.

EMILO2STAY: my point is, the church of christ is not a temple nor a shrine these are places you are likely to pull of your shoes when you want to step in. Yes our God is holy but he did not command christians to take off their shoes when we gather together in his name.

I'm not contending the fact that there is no explicit commandment to wear shoes or not wear shoes. The point is that you cannot confine God to a single mode. That's the beauty of God. To one man Jesus said "go wash in the water", to another he said, "your faith has made you whole", and to another he spat on the ground, made some clay, and rubbed the man's eyes. The injunction not to wear shoes is for celestial church of Christ, not all of Christendom.

What you're saying is tantamount to the man who was told to go wash in the water telling the man for whom Christ spit and made clay that his way is wrong.

I'll say it again, not wearing shoes is symbolic of the fact that the place where the believer comes into the presence of God is a holy ground. The sutana without shoes identifies the believer as a citizen of heaven, spiritual, no connection to the carnal. The symbolism loses its meaning with the wearing of shoes.