₦airaland Forum

frosbel: and your position is not biblical.


Can you answer these questions :

1. If we were to take the parable of Lazarus as fact, it infers that there is not ONE hell but TWO, i.e one after death and another after judgement.

Q1 : Can you tell the house which HELL Jesus was referring to when he preached on this subject ?


2. Consider the following scripture and answer the questions.


"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:14

In the following scripture , note the following points :


1. Death gave up the dead
2. The sea gave up the dead
3. Hell or Hades gave up the dead.



Q 1. If people die and go to Hell immediately, why are they not all in Hell, why are some in the sea ?
Q 2. What does 'Death gave up the dead' mean in relation to 'Hell gave up the dead'
Q 3. Death is also thrown into the lake of fire, does this mean Death will also be tormented forever and never die ?



Thanks.

They have let tradition to blind them.

Keep on helping them.

NativeBoy: Sure if you can tell me where I talked about a literal fire.

The point is that there is a place if eternal torment.

That ^ has no basis in the bible and your word is inconsequential.

Why ? the things that were thrown into the lake of fire ceases to exist.

see:

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4).
...........
^^
Death was thrown into the lake of fire and in the next four verses, it was "no more" as the above scripture shows.

Meaning that the other things that were thrown with it into the lake of fire will also be "no more".

So, lake of fire = obliteration or symbol of complete distruction in the bible.

See, in the first death, their is a promise of a resurrection, but "second death", there is no hope of coming back, hence = Permanent distruction.

So, second death = permanent dIstruction and it is = lake of fire.

So, fire in the bible symbolises a distruction by God that has no hope of return.

Peace

JMAN05: @hisblud

Am so sorry for calling you names, I never meant to. its just imperfection. hope you accept the apology. But I wont continue this discussion with you. if in our subsequent discussion, I sense the sincerity of your inquiry, I will resume replying you.

I love you. Peace!!!

But i had told you that nothing good seems to be coming out from @Hisblu.

Well, you do it not because of him but for other readers he wants to deceive.

macof: In Israel their God's name is Yahweh
they find it offensive to call his name in vain and so they don't use that word in normal conversations.

The catholic church formed the name "Jehovah" while translating the Bible to English in respect for the Jews.

JHVH instead of YHWH. Hebrew consonant sounds of "Y" and "W" are transliterated to English as "J" and "V" respectively.
Exodus 6:3 is YHWH in Hebrew Bible

Yahweh according to wat we read in the Bible means I am that I am but it means something else to Jews

To fully decode names in the English Bible, you need the Hebrew Bible and good knowledge of Hebrew language

Are you so confused ?

You just said that Jah = Yah from Eli-Jah above.

How inconsistent can you be ?

Smh for infants.
*Editted*

You are not really the one that should be answering this question, but that man that has let himself be deceived, who posted from a Roman catholic source.

macof: Eli- My God
Jah is actually Yah in reference to Yahweh

Elijah means Yahweh my God

well, since you have answered, and said that Eli-Jah = means Yahweh is.......

The question is, why is it ok for you to call 'J'ah > 'Y'ah, in the case of Yahweh ?

And, why is it wrong to pronouce it Jahovah ?

According to you, Jah = Yah.

@Lacum

Why is Jahovah said to be an error by Roman catholic ?

*this question is for the person that posted that Jehovah is an Error.

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

So, you did not say that Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham ?

Where then is the bosom of Abraham ?

You are saying that the rich man and Lazarus was just a parable and did not happend right ?

Hence, never you bring it up here again as evidence during debate if you never said that Abraham was in Heaven, against Jesus words that no man has ever ascended to heaven.

Peace.

NativeBoy: 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)

From that ^ your quotation, it says the devil will be cast into the lake of fire.

Can a literal physical fire burn the devil a spirit being without physical body ? You answer please.

And again, death and Hedes(grave) was also cast into this lake of fire:

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Revelation 20:14).
...........

Do you mind telling me how literal fire can burn those up there ? "death and hell(grave).

Am waiting.

Peace.

NativeBoy: 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?

Fire in the bible is a symbol of permanent distruction.

NativeBoy: 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.

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.

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

But satan is the source of the propaganda naw ?

Bidam: using your twisted logic why would satan be the author and finisher of hell?Hell was prepared for satan and his angels according to scripture. A kingdom divided against itself comes to nothing. Keep deceiving and being deceived.

But your hellfire teaching makes people to hate Yahweh(a God that you said will for all eternity torment humans whose sins is as a result of Adam's failing), does that not serve the purpose of satan

Bidam: This topic has long been thrashed on this forum.The JW have their own definition contrary to clear teachings from scriptures about Hell.

The truth is Hell is real and Heaven is real. The story of lazarus and the rich man is not a parable but a certainty.

Encircling religious spirits will claim that we are holding onto traditions and doctrines of old, but thats a demonic lie from the pit of hell itself.

satan knows that if he can bring more confusion on this matter,he will have more converts who are comfortable with living a life of illusion.

satan himself is defiled and he seeks to defile everything that he touches,especially ignorant folks who interpret scripture with human standards and understanding rather than by the Holy Spirit.

satan is indeed a speaking and arrogant spirit,you can see so many cults all over the place claiming they understood the hell doctrine using their rational thinking,reason and human efforts and not with the Help of the Holy Spirit.

For you, hellfire threat is good for tithing business.

NativeBoy: 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.

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

Joshthefirst: will they cease to exist? As in disappear?

So, the wages of sin is no longer death, but everlasting life with torment abi ?

Na wa for you people o.

Joshthefirst: But Hell is very real. If there's no hell, then there's no heaven. Why should there be an eternal perfect and righteous place such as heaven then?

@Joshthefirst

As in hell fire you mean ?
I need scriptural evidence for those ^ on red.
Thank you

Zikkyy: maybe he is telling you there is no way you can see things differently, unless you are just giving your opinion. Bros, you have to be infallible to argue with italo or to say italo is wrong

No vex if am not making sense; started my reading from this page (10)

Hence, the bible is useless and not "profitable" for anything.

Zikkyy: maybe he is telling you there is no way you can see things differently, unless you are just giving your opinion. Bros, you have to be infallible to argue with italo or to say italo is wrong

No vex if am not making sense; started my reading from this page (10)

You already know him, hence you spoke correctly

woky: u ar quoting scriptures which you blv was writn my fallible people..

Hw ar you sure those passages are truth?? Since u blv that the bible was writn by fallible people

dnt u think dat they might make mistake wen writting the bible?

Just like John in the Island of patmos was writing falsehood. Smh.

Does your pope receives msg like John ? Directly ?

Syncan: Oh dear, oh dear, this thread has been derailed from what it should have served. What I had really expected is a converse without sarcasm and name calling. I wish I know how to bring this thread back to civility. @ Italo, I think you've made up your mind that you are, not being listened to, but here to be proven wrong. You alone can re-direct this thread if you really want. Questions laced with sarcasm leads no where. If any one wants to understand, ask civilly.


Still Following.

Who is the cause of that ^ ?

Is it not that @Italo will not answer questions but rather keeps asking others if they are infellible ?

woky: thirdly

if you say Paul and peter ar not infallible then the bible is fallible since they ar fallible

it is the word of God that cannot fail.

Is the pope a bible writer ?

Even bible writers are fellible men.

Sal C: So when exactly did God stop using people infallibly?

I never said that the men God used are infellible.

I said they are fellible men.

truthislight: Is it not the doctrin of catholic that determines who is a Heretic ? Smh for you.

The inquisition is a function of catholic doctrines and it shows that the popes are just fellible men.

peter was just fellible, hence he brought out sword and cut the ear of macus in an effort to defend christ, but the infellible christ corrected him.

^^

additions ^

italo: What about the inquisition?

Remember we are talking about Catholic doctrine.

Is it not the doctrin of catholic that determines who is a Heretic ? Smh for you.

The inquisition is a function of catholic doctrines and it shows that the popes are just fellible men.

peter was just fellible, hence he brought out sword and cut the ear of macus in an effort to defend christ, but the infellible christ corrected him.

italo: Yes.

Was he fallible?

How can paul that said he stumbled man times be infellible ?

How can peter that apostle paul corrected and said "he stood condamed" in his ways then can be infellible ?

Infact, God does not need men to be infellible for him to use them, else, he will have used angels.

God needs humble men that loves the truth and are honest at heart.

truthislight: i dont need to be infellible to be saved, all i need to do is know the truth:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

I dont need infellibility, but take in the truth of the Gosple of the Kingdom to be saved.

You dont need infellibility to help others, you only need to preach the truth to them for them to be saved.

We dont need infellibility in any way.

What that needed to be done has been done by God in providing his word.

and what that the "man of God" needs is not infellibilty but the scriptures, that is what that will make him competent:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
.....................

All we need is to align ourselves to that ^.

italo: I know one person who claims to be infallible and he is not the Pope. He is not even Catholic.

His moniker on nairaland is "adsonstone."

What do you think about this?

Secondly, if you say only God and Jesus are infallible, it means all you just said could possibly be wrong, since you're fallible.

i dont need to be infellible to be saved, all i need to do is know the truth:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

I dont need infellibility, but take in the truth of the Gosple of the Kingdom to be saved.

You dont need infellibility to help others, you only need to preach the truth to them for them to be saved.

We dont need infellibility in any way.

What that needed to be done has been done by God in providing his word.

chukwudi44: IT HAS A WHOLE LOT TO DO WITH IT.THE POINT BEEN THAT HUMANS CAN BECOME INFALLIBLE WHEN GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

So, your popes are "infellible" then ? Cool.

So, tell Italo to then answer peoples questions then, and notes, other people dont claim infellibility like you do your popes.

What some people do is devote time and prayerfully study the scriptures like the bereans did, and not claim "infellibility.

If they make mistake, they promptly make correction to remain on the right side with God. (no pride here, lives are at stake). they "keep on asking" to know more.

I dont belief that humans are infellible.
I dont believe humans today are inspired as did christ apostles to write scriptures, if they are inspired, of what use is the scriptures then that the apostles wrote ? Are men today still adding to the scriptures ?

Why only the pope that is infellible in RCC ? Was it only one apostle that wrote sriptures during their times ?

Even men of old that were inspired were still not infellible, but rethter, "men spoke from God" to produce the scriptures though they remain fellible, though this men were fellible men, they did not go against God's instructions, hence they will be rejected.

But your popes, they go against scriptural instructions of God and adds to it.

Even what your popes says and teaches are not infellible and not even him that wrote them but other 'school of thought' writes and send to him to be the mouth piece.

Was it so with christ spostles and other bible writers ? No.

They all and the apostles of christ received directly from God.

Note: They received directly from God, what has your popes received directly from God that does not contradicted other scriptures ?

Infellibility indeed!

woky: Do you believe that God used men infallible in writting the scripture??

"God used men infellibly in writing the scriptures" has nothing to do with "pope infellibility".

Your problem is that you equates your political popes with christ apostles.

edogho: If dem nah wan talk true,make una forget about infallibility na.
Truthislight abeg forget d matter. Make dem talk about d inquisition too,I wan c dem defend dat too.

No o! It was not "infellible pope" that sactioned the inquisition.

O! maybe, there was no pope by then.

italo: The question was: are you fallible or infallible?

Was peter infellible ?

italo: Though I can't help but wonder why it is the same question of mine that has not been answered by both Adsonstone and JMAN05.

Why are you detracting from the discussion with your unecessary question of infellibility ?

Did other people claimed infellibility like your pope ?

Did paul claim such ?

Was peter infellible ?

The only infelible persons is God and Jesus christ.

You can add your pope if you want.

Smh

Why did you do this ?

Emusan: You're wrong!

The word hell as being used in both OT & NT is different.
In the OT=Grave (position of death)
In the NT=Hades (a brim of fire)

Anywhere hell appears in OT it means a position of death whereas in the NT it means brim of fire.

My concern was with the word 'Hell', i dont know the "wrong" you talked about.

However, the greek word Hedes means Grave.

And in translation to latin, it was replaced with Hell.

If you say otherwise you are on your own:

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell neither his flesh did see corruption." (Acts 2:31).