₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
This is what image referred to as doctrines of devils from the pit of hell.  This is the result of those who don't take the Words of God at face value.  Adam fell for it in the Garden of Eden and men today are tripping over it into the pit of hell. 

The Bible contains history, poetry, parables, prophecies, genealogies and figures of speech but the devil will want you to believe that the book Genesis is a myth and that the book Revelation is a mystery that we cannot understand thereby robbing you of salient messages from God.

Jesus spoke to the public in parables but eventually spoke to His disciples plainly.  If you notice in all His parables you will not find names of people or places.  The fact that Jesus mentioned names of real people such as Moses, Abraham and Lazarus should show you that He was talking of a real event.  You will be blessed if you read the Word of God in a straightforward manner until it becomes clear that it is speaking figuratively or in shadows and types, that way you will not be deceived.

Olaadegbu,

Do a lot more study and you will find out that the story of lazarus and the rich man was a parable among a number which he rendered at a sitting.
The names he mentioned(Moses,Abraham) do not change the fact that it was a parable.

Jesus spoke in parables all the time to the public and he was speaking to the public when he rendered that parable.

Apart from that, the bible makes it clear that heaven or the supposed hell do not become an issue until after the judgement day(which is yet to be).
Therefore every person that is dead is just that; dead.
Yes, they are all dead and in a state of non existence until the day of judgement where all that are dead will be resurrected to face judgement.

So, ur "hell" has nobody in it or going through it right now.

1Ti 2:3-4
(3)  This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
(4)  who wants all people to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth.

The above shows what God wants; he wants to save everybody.
But almost the whole of Christianity feel this is not possible.
They say this is merely what God wishes or desires but does not necessarily mean it will be so.
Do they have any scriptural backing that suggests that what God wishes/wants/desires might not come to be?
Of course not!
But do we have scriptural proof that God's wish/desire/want will come to be?
Yes we do!!

Isa 46:9-11
(9)  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
(10)  Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
(11)  Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Job 23:13
(13)  But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.


Isa 14:24
(24)  The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:


Isa 55:11
(11)  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God wants to save the whole world.The bible tells us that anything he wants/wishes/desires will come to be.
So it is therefore true that the whole world will be saved because God wants it so.

Since it's like nobody wants to deal with this issue by referencing the article I posted, I'll put a bit of it here.
This in response to a portion of Olaadegbu's post above:

IS THERE A LITERAL PLACE OF PUNISHMENT CALLED "HELL?"
IS THE PUNISHMENT OF THIS HELL EVERLASTING-ETERNAL?

Many Christians have a very strong opinion of things that they know virtually nothing about. Hundreds of times I have been told that "hell" is a literal place of literal fire which is everlasting or eternal. They have no proof of any such thing. Time and again I am told: "The Bible is LITERAL, Ray. You have to take it literally." Oh really, and do they even believe their own words?

Let's see if you believe the Bible teaches a literal hell of literal fire that lasts literally for eternity.

If there are Scriptures that clearly show that "hell fire" is not literal nor eternal, then how can there also be contradicting Scriptures which would suggest that "hell fire" is literal and is eternal? Hell fire cannot be both literal and eternal at one place in the Scriptures, but then it is also figurative and temporary at another place in the Scriptures. It is either one or the other, it cannot be both.

Let's look at a few examples from no less an authority on this subject than Jesus Christ Himself (Note: All quotations of Jesus in this paper will appear in red type).

"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if your right eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.

And if your right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:27-30).

Mark's account adds these words:

", into hell fire, where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. For EVERY ONE shall be salted with fire, " (Mark 9:48-49).

And this includes you and me, (Matt. 3:11 & I Pet. 4:12).

From just this one teaching of Jesus we can know absolutely whether "hell fire" is literal and whether it is everlasting or eternal.

Let's pay close attention to just one statement from Jesus that should help everyone to see that this is figurative language that teaches us a great spiritual truth. Jesus did not say what most Christians think He said.

Jesus did not say: "And if your eye offends you, repent of your lust or God will cast you into an hell of immortal worms and everlasting fire which will never stop burning."

But that is what most Christians think Jesus meant even if He didn't actually say it. Nonsense.

"And if your eye offend you, "

This word "offend" means: "to entice you to sin" (Strong's Greek Dictionary).

Now then, is it even "literally" possible for a physical organ of the body to be the cause of a moral or spiritual sin? No, it is not possible. Lusting after a woman does not have its origin in the eyes but rather in the heart.

", whosoever looks [with the eyes] on a woman to lust [in his heart, not in his eyes] after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

The lust of the eyes is itself a "figure of speech." We "look" with our eyes, but we "lust" with our heart. And the "heart" in Scripture virtually never means the organ of the body which pumps blood. The "heart" in Scripture is the inner most man, the seat of emotions and passions, conscience, and moral character. No physical organ of the body has even one of these spiritual attributes. More proof:

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders" (Mark 7:21).

Did you notice that "looking on a woman to lust after her" IS adultery, and it comes not from the eyes, but from the heart. So then, is this teaching in Matt. 5:27-30, literal, or figurative? It is figurative. More proof,

Here's what Jesus said to do if one finds himself looking at a woman to lust after her:

", if your right eye offend you [entices you to sin] pluck it out , if your right hand offend you cut it off, "

What? "Pluck it out , cut it off?"

And lying two-faced hypocritical theologians tell us that the Bible must be taken "literally?" That both hell and hell fire are "literal?" That we are to pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands and feet, literally? Are they crazy?

If this teaching on hell by Jesus Christ is to be taken literally, how come you don't see millions and millions of Christians around the world having NO EYES, AND NO FEET, AND NO HANDS? Is there even one Christian in a billion that takes these Scriptures literally when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is? No, their failure to "literally" follow Jesus' command belies their assertion that virtually all of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus are "literal."

But what about the "worms that don't die," and the "fire never quenched?" Simple: Jesus never used the words "hell fire."

Two things we should never find in a Bible: [1] The old Anglo Saxon word "hell," and [2] any word denoting "endless time," as in "for ever AND ever," "everlasting," or "eternal." There is no such equivalent in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures.

Furthermore, if "for ever" means an eternity, what pray tell does "for ever AND EVER" mean? Multiple eternities? How many eternities are there?

The first place that "hell fire" appears in the Greek New Testament is in Matt. 5:22. Virtually all Bibles with a center reference will refer you to the marginal note on "hell" where it says, "Greek: Gehenna." And Gehenna is Greek for the Hebrew word "Hinnom" or "Valley of Hinnom," which is found outside the city walls of Jerusalem on the south side.

You can, if you wish, take a stroll through hell in Jerusalem - it is now part of a city park. In the time of Christ's ministry this valley was the Jerusalem city garbage dump, and for centuries, as long as garbage was thrown into it, the fires kept burning and the worms which ate the garbage didn't die out - they kept reproducing, year after year after year.

The only way , the ONLY WAY, that any Christian can claim that hell, hell fire, immortal worms, never-ending fire, eternal torture, etc., can be literal is if we take everything literally that Jesus said regarding hell (Gehenna fire). You cannot separate what Jesus says MUST be done to avoid having, ", your whole body cast into hell [Gehenna], from what Christians say hell is. In other words, you cannot avoid a LITERAL HELL by performing a FIGURATIVE action.

Jesus did not say: "If your right literal eye literally offends you, FIGURATIVELY pluck your literal eye out, " But that's the kind of insane theological poppycock that is peddled from the pulpits.

How is it possible to "figuratively" pluck out one's eyes, and cut off one's hands and feet to avoid a "literal" eternal hell fire, and then insist that the words of Jesus and most of the Bible must be taken literally?

Why do you stand for such utter and unscriptural nonsense? Why would you want to continue defending such illogical ignorant enemies of God's Word? You would never stand for such a travesty, such a miscarriage, such a violation of sound scholarship in any other area of your life, save when it comes to religion.

Image123:
Ttalks
Hell is symbolic of what? Heaven? Who told you that the words of Jesus are not real or that nobody is in hell?some article perhaps. Well, I have seen a more sure Word.
Is it new to you that Jesus was sent to save the world? What are you quoting, no be you go first quote Bible ke.

Can you show me a verse that says someone or anybody is in hell apart from the rich man in the parable?

It's not new that Jesus was sent to save the world.The only problem is that Christians world over do not believe he is capable of
doing this; they feel he can only save a few while a major lot will be damned for eternity.

OLAADEGBU:
This is an article you need to read on what the Bible says about hell.

There are three words translated “Hell” in Scripture:
Gehenna (Greek): The place of punishment (Matthew 5:22,29; 10:28; and James 3:6)
Hades (Greek): The abode of the dead (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27)
Sheol (Hebrew): The grave (Psalm 9:17; 16:10)

There are those who accept that Hell is a place of punishment, but believe that the punishment is to be annihilated—to cease conscious existence.  They can’t conceive that the punishment of the wicked will be conscious and eternal.  If they are correct, then a man like Adolph Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions, is being “punished” merely with eternal sleep.  His fate is simply to return to the non-existent state he was in before he was born, where he doesn’t even know that he is being punished.

However, Scripture paints a different story.  The rich man who found himself in Hell (Luke 16:19-31) was conscious.  He was able to feel pain, to thirst, and to experience remorse.  He wasn’t asleep in the grave; he was in a place of "torment." If Hell is a place of knowing nothing or a reference to the grave into which we go at death, Jesus’ statements about Hell make no sense.  He said that if your hand, foot, or eye causes you to sin, it would be better to remove it than to "go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43-48).

The Bible refers to the fate of the unsaved with such fearful words as the following:

[list]
[li]"Shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2) [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]"Everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46) [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 24:51) [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]"Fire unquenchable” (Luke 3:17) [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]"Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish” (Romans 2:8,9) [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]"Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]"Eternal fire, the blackness of darkness for ever” (Jude 1:7,13) [/li]
[/list]
Revelation 14:10,11 tells us the final, eternal destiny of the sinner: “He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day or night."

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

Olaadegbu, the article I refered to deals with all these stuff you've posted here.

A lot of the things in the bible are symbolic and not meant to be taken/interpreted literally.
And besides, some of the interpretations we have of certain key verses which we quote to support the hell theory
are wrong.

as regards the rich man and Lazarus stuff, it wasn't real; it was a parable which Christ told to paint a picture
or highlight a point.
Nobody is in this so called hell; not even the rich man.

Now this verse below is just one of the many that shows God will save everyone; yes, even Adolph Hitler:

1Timothy 4:10
(10) With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Savior (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him).

Image123:
God is going to save the whole of humanity ke? This one na straight doctrine of devil, hin no even qualify as another gospel.

Why don't you guys go through the article and punch holes in it where you see fit?!

It would only make sense if you could critique the contents of the article without just making broad and general statements with nothing
to back them up.

davidylan:
This, as far as i'm concerned is the CRUX of the matter. I really am saddened hearing christians subscribe to such new ageism. The end indeed is near.

what makes this new ageism david?
The scriptures have not started saying something new; they've been saying the truth ever since.

noetic16:
where do u stand? do u believe hell is a hoax? if so, what are your reasons? what are your deductions from your article?

I believe if you go through the article, you'll get my stand.

But if you want a summarised version, well:

Hell is not as it is commonly believed to be i.e. a fiery burning place where people burn forever/for eternity.
The main conclusion that can be gotten is that God is going to save the whole of humanity.
The idea that only a few will be saved while some will suffer forever is wrong and not put forward by scripture if properly viewed
and interpreted.

Also, the common notion of hell which almost the whole of christianity subscribes to is a pagan belief which has firmly rooted itself
in christian beliefs.

That's the much I can say for now. Make ur own conclusions from the article.

Now, the topic is quite a controversial one, but it would be needful for us to see why it is viewed so.
Not many people would subscribe to the fact that the hell described in majority of the christian circles is false.
I don't intend to battle this out with anybody.
My intention is to present why it is viewed thus and leave everybody to decide for themselves if
they would want to continue with their previous beliefs about hell, or get a regenerated view on this whole
"hell" issue.

This presentation was done by somebody else on his website and I'm providing the link below.
Please note:

The write up is pretty long; so if you do not have the patience to read and go through all the points presented,
it would be better you didn't bother reading. This hell issue is a serious issue and needs to be dealt with as precisely
as possible.

Also, it should be noted that my agreement with the points put forward by the article are mine personally and
should not be concluded to be the general belief among the congregation where I fellowship(cos I know there is one such
fellow who reaches such erroneous conclusions here    ) .

Furthermore, it would be of good use if you could have a hewbrew/greek bible to check on points while studying/reading the article.
Strong's concordance will help very well if you have it.
Those with the e-sword bible software are in good hands for this.

The link is below. Enjoy(or maybe fume  as the case maybe) :

Hell is a Christian hoax

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? . . . .(Check out the below)

2Th 2:3-4
(3) Let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first [unless the predicted great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come], and the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition), [Dan. 7:25; 8:25; I Tim. 4:1.]
(4) Who opposes and exalts himself so proudly and insolently against and over all that is called God or that is worshiped, [even to his actually] taking his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself is God.

Eze 28:1-2
(1) The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
(2) Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:


1Co 3:17
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.


1Co 6:19
(19) Do you not know that your body is the temple (the very sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit Who lives within you, Whom you have received [as a Gift] from God? You are not your own,


Question that need to be asked:

Ok, we know in the old testament days, the temple of God was a physical place,right?
But now in the new testament days, the temple of God is the Christian or the body of Christ as shown above.

So, this anti-christ which 2 thessalonians is pointing to; is he going to be seated in a physical temple or within the bodies(hearts) of the christians/church?

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=458895.msg6173624#msg6173624 date=1275991201]My big bros! Nice having you around. [/quote]Hi Peter.
Always around but silent. I choose to speak/write/post only when/where necessary.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=458895.msg6173624#msg6173624 date=1275991201]Nice observation you have there. But I still hold the RCC suspect as the great LovePeddler. . . especially in light of Daniel's prophecies, not just revelation[/quote]Yeah, Daniel's prophecies are one of the parts of the bible used to support the claim against the RCC but still there are other views that knock off RCC as the suspect and point to christianity/christiandom as the LovePeddler of babylon i.e. In the sense that;RCC and every other denomination, going about the faith upside down.Thereby prompting the need for those who are true to christ to come out from among them and really stand for Christ.

I'll try and find some articles on them.

Err. . . . I know the point being pushed by the topic is not really true.
It's the belief held by seventh day adventists and some other people.
I've read a lot on these postulations and they seem to make sense sometimes but there are
other equally sense making views about the "mark of the beast" and the anti-christ stuff that
are completely opposite from the point pushed by the adventists.


The book of Revelations has a lot to say and it is usually the basis of most of these arguments.
One of the paramount claims made by a lot of people based on chapters like Revelations 17 is that
the pope is the antichrist and that the LovePeddler in question is the Roman Catholic Church.

I was inclined to believe this before, but further study has led me to believe that the LovePeddler in Revelations 17 isn't the catholic
church, but the whole of Christendom(that is, the majority that has and still will go into error).

The major reason why there are issues whenever a catholic and a non-catholic(basic christian,pentecostal,anglican,baptist,etc. . .) want to get married is because of how  2corinthians 6:14-18 is interpreted by different people.

And maybe also Amos 3:3

2Corinthians 6:14-18
(14)  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(15)  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
(16)  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(17)  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
(18)  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Amos 3:3
(3)  Can two walk together, except they be agreed?


In reference to 2Corinthians above, unbelievers are people who do not acknowledge or believe in Jesus Christ; that do not believe he died for the sins of mankind to bring salvation to all.

But believers are those who believe in Jesus Christ and acknowledge the fact that he died for the sins of mankind.

Catholics believe this,pentecostals believe this,baptists believe this;. . . most christian denominations believe this and that is what makes them believers.
The fact that they are broken up into different sects/denominations/doctrinal differences is as a result of different approaches to understanding the word of God; but that does not rub them off from the fact that they are all believers as they all have the common denominator of belief in Christ.
For example,myself, Zikky, Kunleoshob,Enigma,nuclearboy,etc do get at loggerheads with people like Joagbaje,Tonye-T,Olaadegbu,image123 over some differences in our approach towards our faith in Christ; but we(i.e. the former group[ttalks,zikky,kunle,nuclear])  do not consider them(ie. the latter group[joagbaje,tonye,Olaadegbu,image]) to be unbelievers.
We consider them to be believers since we all believe in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us. 

Now the question is: How can Christians of different doctrinal approaches to worshipping God have a marriage that wouldn't be rocky?
One straight answer(although not the main one  ): Which marriage doesn't go through rocky situations at one point or the other?!

Anyway, the question leads us to Amos 3:3 as posted above.
Before people can decide to get married, they must conciously and unconciously agree about certain things in their lives, don't they?!
Well, this is the case even within couples of the same doctrinal approaches. So should it be with couples of different doctrinal approaches towards God.

As long as a couple who have doctrinal differences in their approach towards God can reach an agreement on how they can live peacably with each others' differences, then they can walk together(they can marry). it is all a matter of reaching an agreement.
That is the point in Amos 3:3; as long as there is agreement, things can happen wonderfully.

Definitely,in one way or another, the agreement could be broken one way or another by one party or the other in the marriage as time goes on and could lead to problems. But that is where love plays a major role; it would lead the offending party to remember the agreement they both had and make amends so as to return to be operating under the agreement and the promotion of peace.

It is just like our relationship with God; we are under an agreement(the new covenant) with God.But once in a while, we do step out of line(breaking the agreement in some way or the other) but we do find our way back to peace with God by making amends and seeking forgiveness and repenting.
And thus putting ourselves back within the confines of the agreement and benefitting from it.

It is only when an agreement cannot be reached that marriage between such couples cannot take place.
Ofcourse, . . . . who gets married when there is no agreement in the first place? 

There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to issues of marriage; the outcome is always determined by the couple(those involved in it).
That's the way I see this issue.

Gen 14:24(AMP)
(24)  [Take all] except only what my young men have eaten and the share of the men [allies] who went with me--Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Amplified version showing that it was understood that Abram told the King to take all except . . . . . .

Gen 14:24(CEV)
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.

Contemporary English Version showing that the possessions were understood to be the King's except the food eaten by Abram's men(let my share . . .[allow my share]), and that the King should give to abram's allies their share of them.

Gen 14:24(GW)
24 I won't take one single thing except what my men have eaten. But let my allies Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.

God's Word version saying the King of Sodom should let(allow) the allies to take their share; indicating his ownership of the goods/possessions.

Gen 14:21-24(CEV)
(21)  The king of Sodom said to Abram, "All I want are my people. You can keep everything else."
(22)  Abram answered: The LORD God Most High made the heavens and the earth. And I have promised him
(23)  that I won't keep anything of yours, not even a sandal strap or a piece of thread. Then you can never say that you are the one who made me rich.
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.


Gen 14:22-24(KJV)
(22)  And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
(23)  That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
(24)  Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.


Looking closely at Abram's statement in response to that of the King of Sodom:

One can see very clearly that Abram said he wouldn't keep anything of the King's. One can decide to keep or not keep only something that is in his possession
and not something  that isn't in his possession. It is clear that they were discussing something in abram's possession but which Abram refered to as "yours" to the King of Sodom; implying that he considered them to be his.

One might argue that "keep" wasn't the word used by Abram but "take" as indicated by the KJV version; which would then mean it was in reference to freshly taking something instead of already being in possession of something(as keep would imply).
But if you look at verse 24 of the kjv version, the statement continued with "save only" which would mean "except" in the context it was used.
This means that abram was saying he wouldn't keep anything of the king's(the spoils) except for what his men had eaten out of it and whatever his allies wanted out of it.
This implies that the right word to be used was "keep" and not "take".

This clearly shows that the stuff they were deliberating about were the spoils of the war which were in Abram's possession but which Abram referred to as "yours" when speaking to the king; which implies and shows that Abram considered them the possessions of the king of Sodom.

I think Matthew Henry's comment on this issue is quite interesting and goes along with the idea I'm trying to pinpoint:

Matthew Henry: We have here an account of what passed between Abram and the king of Sodom, who succeeded him that fell in the battle (Gen_14:10), and thought himself obliged to do this honour to Abram, in return for the good services he had done him. Here is,
I. The king of Sodom's grateful offer to Abram (Gen_14:21): Give me the soul, and take thou the substance; so the Hebrew reads it. Here he fairly begs the persons, but as freely bestows the goods on Abram. Note, 1. Where a right is dubious and divided, it is wisdom to compound the matter by mutual concessions rather than to contend. The king of Sodom had an original right both to the persons and to the goods, and it would bear a debate whether Abram's acquired right by rescue would supersede his title and extinguish it; but, to prevent all quarrels, the king of Sodom makes this fair proposal. 2. Gratitude teaches us to recompense to the utmost of our power those that have undergone fatigues, run hazards, and been at expense for our service and benefit. Who goes a warfare at his own charges? 1Co_9:7. Soldiers purchase their pay dearer than any labourers, and are well worthy of it, because they expose their lives.
II. Abram's generous refusal of this offer. He not only resigned the persons to him, who, being delivered out of the hand of their enemies, ought to have served Abram, but he restored all the goods too. He would not take from a thread to a shoe-latchet, not the least thing that had ever belonged to the king of Sodom or any of his. Note, A lively faith enables a man to look upon the wealth of this world with a holy contempt, 1Jo_5:4. What are all the ornaments and delights of sense to one that has God and heaven ever in his eye? He resolves even to a thread and a shoe-latchet; for a tender conscience fears offending in a small matter. Now,
1. Abram ratifies this resolution with a solemn oath: I have lifted up my hand to the Lord that I will not take any thing, Gen_14:22. Here observe, (1.) The titles he gives to God, The most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, the same that Melchizedek had just now used, Gen_14:19. Note, It is good to learn of others how to order our speech concerning God, and to imitate those who speak well in divine things. This improvement we are to make of the conversation of devout good men, we must learn to speak after them. (2.) The ceremony used in this oath: I have lifted up my hand. In religious swearing we appeal to God's knowledge of our truth and sincerity and imprecate his wrath if we swear falsely, and the lifting up of the hand is very significant and expressive of both. (3.) The matter of the oath, namely, that he would not take any reward from the king of Sodom, was lawful, but what he was not antecedently obliged to. [1.] Probably Abram vowed, before he went to the battle, that, if God would give him success, he would, for the glory of God and the credit of his profession, so far deny himself and his own right as to take nothing of the spoils to himself. Note, the vows we have made when we are in pursuit of a mercy must be carefully and conscientiously kept when we have obtained the mercy, though they were made against our interest. A citizen of Zion, if he has sworn, whether it be to God or man, though it prove to his own hurt, yet he changeth not, Psa_15:4. Or, [2.] Perhaps Abram, now when he saw cause to refuse the offer made him, at the same time confirmed his refusal with this oath, to prevent further importunity. Note, First, There may be good reason sometimes why we should debar ourselves of that which is our undoubted right, as St. Paul, 1Co_8:13; 1Co_9:12. Secondly, That strong resolutions are of good use to put by the force of temptations.
2. He backs his refusal with a good reason: Lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich, which would reflect reproach, (1.) Upon the promise and covenant of God, as if they would not have enriched Abram without the spoils of Sodom. And, (2.) Upon the piety and charity of Abram, as if all he had in his eye, when he undertook that hazardous expedition, was to enrich himself. Note, [1.] We must be very careful that we give no occasion to others to say things which they ought not. [2.] The people of God must, for their credit's sake, take heed of doing any thing that looks mean or mercenary, or that savours of covetousness and self-seeking. Probably Abram knew the king of Sodom to be a proud and scornful man, and one that would be apt to turn such a thing as this to his reproach afterwards, though most unreasonably. When we have to do with such men, we have need to act with particular caution.
3. He limits his refusal with a double proviso, Gen_14:24. In making vows, we ought carefully to insert the necessary exceptions, that we may not afterwards say before the angel, It was an error, Ecc_5:6. Abram here excepts, (1.) The food of his soldiers; they were worthy of their meat while they trod out the corn. This would give no colour to the king of Sodom to say that he had enriched Abram. (2.) The shares of his allies and confederates: Let them take their portion. Note, Those who are strict in restraining their own liberty yet ought not to impose those restraints upon the liberties of others, nor to judge of them accordingly. We must not make ourselves the standard to measure others by. A good man will deny himself that liberty which he will not deny another, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees, Mat_23:4. There was not the same reason why Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, should quit their right, that there was why Abram should. They did not make the profession that he made, nor were they, as he was, under the obligation of a vow. They had not the hopes that Abram had of a portion in the other world, and therefore, by all means, let them take their portion of this.

Viaro,

It is very clear from Genesis 14:21-24 that Abram being the owner of the spoils considered them to be the possessions of the King of Sodom
which he(Abram) had taken over.

The goods/people being discussed in the verses in question were those of the King of Sodom which by circumstance now belonged to Abram.

Look at this:

Let's say in an imaginary situation, there is a law that states:
"If any body loses his money(that is,misplaces it in some way or the other); any body that finds it or comes upon it automatically becomes the owner."

Now still in this situation, Tim(an imaginary person) lost $5000 and could not find it after every effort to do so.
Tim knows the law and knows that if any other person finds the money, that money would never be his again.
Johnson(another imaginary person), knows about Tim's loss;having heard from some other person.
On a particular day, John was strolling in the evening and comes across the $5000 which Tim lost.
He takes it and by law, it is now his.
The news spreads that Johnson had found the money and everybody knew that it now belonged to him.
But Johnson;now the owner of the $5000, knows that Tim was devastated by the loss of the money and he decides to keep the money safe.
He did this becasue he didn't really need the money since he had more than enough.He took $200 out of the $5000 and bought a safe to keep the rest of the money($4800).

Tim was really devastated by his loss and decided to do what had never been done since the law was institued.
He decided to go and plead with Johnson for some of the money. On doing so, Johnson tells him that he can take $3000 of what was left
while he would keep the safe and $1800. After all, the money was now his(Johnson's) and he could decide what he wanted to do about it; . . . . keep it all
or give it back to the person who lost it.


The scenario I painted above isn't really a good one but the point I'm trying to make is that: from reading Genesis 14, The king of sodom could be said to be Tim while Abram could be said to be Johnson.

Everything I've said about this has nothing to do with whether 90% of any goods were given to any body or whether it bears any relation to tithes or not,
but simply the fact that Abram(current owner of the spoils) decided to leave a balance of the spoils to the original owner(king of Sodom).

Gen 14:21-24(Amplified version)
(21)  And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons and keep the goods for yourself.
(22)  But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the Lord, God Most High, the Possessor and Maker of heaven and earth,
(23)  That I would not take a thread or a shoelace or anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich.
(24)  [Take all] except only what my young men have eaten and the share of the men [allies] who went with me--Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Gen 14:21-24(CEV)
(21)  The king of Sodom said to Abram, "All I want are my people. You can keep everything else."
(22)  Abram answered: The LORD God Most High made the heavens and the earth. And I have promised him
(23)  that I won't keep anything of yours, not even a sandal strap or a piece of thread. Then you can never say that you are the one who made me rich.
(24)  Let my share be the food that my men have eaten. But Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre went with me, so give them their share of what we brought back.

All I can deduce from these verses are the simple fact that The King of Sodom begged for his people from Abram who had come into possession of them along with the goods of sodom by defeating those who took them from Sodom.

As far as I can see/conclude, Abram defeated those kings for the sole purpose of rescuing Lot;he wasn't interested in the booty/bounty that resulted;it was just a windfall which he could do whatever he wanted with.

The king of Sodom pleaded for his people.Abram,who never really had an interest in the spoils, was willing to release the balance of the spoils(after tithe and food and what his allies wanted). He had already sworn not to take anything of the spoils except what he mentioned(food eaten by his men and what his allies wanted).

This is the clear cut and simple scenario presented by the verses.
Whether the king of sodom took what was left for him or not; or was happy about what he got or not is not an issue here.But the fact
remains that Abram's statement indicated that a balance would be left for him to take.

Verses 22 - 24 highlight the fact that Abram considered the spoils of war which were his by conquest to still be the goods or possessions of the King of sodom;although not exclusively.
He considered them to be the king of Sodom's but were his(Abram's) to determine their fate.

It is now very clear that Tonye does not know his bible:


[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=441519.msg6016843#msg6016843 date=1273250195]ROTFLS seriously i can now read their minds. . .goooosh i thought of these scriptures as much too as it appears that's all they got to show and offer.

1. What Paul meant in ephesians was a plea to idle folks who lazy around and make a living from stealing to desist and bcome of responsibility to those who'll need their services. It had nothing to do with giving your money to the poor as he never refered to all christians but rather does who steal. correction![/quote]Mr. Tonye, the man paul was talking to Christians in that passage too; in that when you have, you give to those that need. Your view is so myopic
that you can't see what needs to be seen. When the thief stops stealing and becomes responsible;meaning when he repents and does the right thing,he should be able to give to those that are in need. That message of giving to the needy when you have is meant for you too.

[quote author=Tonye-t]2. So when did "collection of the saint" bcome "collection for poor and needy" gooosh these guys will not seize to pop lafter in me. [/quote]Kai! This man does not know his bible at all.

This was Paul's instruction:

1Co 16:1-2
(1)  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(2)  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

This is what he did after some christians responded:

Rom 15:25-26
(25)  But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
(26)  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.


This was his appreciation of the response of some christians to the instruction:

2Co 8:1-4
(1)  Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
(2)  How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
(3)  For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
(4) Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.


Tonye, do you now see that the collection was for poor saints in Jerusalem who were in need?
Please read the bible more and you will see more connections to that fact.

[quote author=Tonye-t]3. what a point you gave in Gal.2:10. But pls did you check the meaning of that usage 'poor'. for your info it never referred to beggars, nor those in need.maybe Matt. 5:3 will explain berra. ^{*see how serious he posted thinking to have made a point} [/quote]You are amazing. How on earth does the passage in Matthew relate to this you this man?

Look at other translations if the one I gave does not make sense:

Gal 2:10(AMP)
(10)  They only [made one stipulation], that we were to remember the poor, which very thing I was also eager to do.

Gal 2:10(BBE)
(10)  Only it was their desire that we would give thought to the poor; which very thing I had much in mind to do.

Gal 2:10(CEV)
(10)  They only asked us to remember the poor, and that was something I had always been eager to do.

Gal 2:10(ISV)
(10)  The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do.

Gal 2:10(KJV)
(10)  Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=441519.msg6016204#msg6016204 date=1273244427]@ Alethiea and Ttalks (well renowned hypos),

since you guys carry the crusade that the wholistic message of giving by Paul in the Ntestament was to give to the poor et al, pls show me where paul in the whole of the NT ever mentioned that WE AS CHRISTIANS SHOULD EVER GIVE MONEY TO THE POOR. pls show biblical reference else forever keep quiet here. i didnt say so the jury did.! [/quote]Eph 4:28
(28)  Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

1Co 16:1-2
(1)  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(2)  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Gal 2:10
(10)  They only [made one stipulation], that we were to remember the poor, which very thing I was also eager to do.


These verses are quite sufficient. And one thing you should get clear is that we are to give to whomsoever is in need.
One does not have to be a beggar on the street to be in need(because I feel the impression you have about those in need are beggars on the street).
Anybody can have a need at any point in time. It could be a beggar, it could be a child,a man who is broke at a point in time,
a widow who has no money to send her child to school, a student who needs a ride to school, a young girl who needs help;
. . . . . it could also be you who might have a lot of money stuck in your bank account but at the moment have no access to it cos your atm card
is missing,it's the weekend(and banks are closed) and your stomach is eating itself out in hunger as you forgot to stock up your fridge for
the weekend . . . . .

Just like Mickey Rourke(aka Whiplash) in Iron Man 2 said to Justin Hammer:
"Your software is shi.t" after bypassing all the security systems he(justin hammer) had put in place,
so do I say unto you Tonye-t;

"Your theory/concept/outlook on the this tithe/prosperity issue is shi.t ." since it has always been bypassed
and exposed to be full of flaws.

newmi:
Enigma, KunleOshob, InesQor, nuclearboy, aletheia
l wish to throw simple note of warning to all of my respected discussants especially to those whose names are on the roll call above, You don't any reward for aguing and rainning insults no rather you get a reward for the record of souls whose salvation can be acredited your account.

for me a particular note of ineterest is that, of what use it is to the body of christ that a man with all of the supposed resource of knowledge either acquired or obtained by divine revelation still what really counts to Father God-souls is not considered.

The kingdom of darkness is working tirelessly and relentlessly round the clock to lure as many as possible to hell knowing that he has but a short time while the majority of us seat here and expend useful enegies aguing and plexing the strength of knowledge without a view on eternal values. If you repectable men think that "its a book of error" then write your own and get busy winning souls thus enhancing your relevance to the body.

infact quit this waste of precious God-given time and go prove the quality of your understanding of scriptures by presenting fruits of the communication of your faith.

he who has an ear let him,

Please go and sleep.

Do you even understand anything that you are saying?
Don't you know that the souls that you are clamoring about require the exposition of the truth so as to
assure themselves of doing things rightly?

So you are comfortable with the fact that some souls are being led into and through error(erROR) as long as you can be preaching the gospel unhindered?
You are unknowingly being wicked by reasoning like you just did above.

So you would be happy that some couple of people are being led unknowingly into a ditch as long as you can assure your self of one reward for
acting like a robot with no conscience?

Get out of the box in which you are in and see the true picture clearly from the outside.

Acts 7: 37-38

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of israel. a prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina,
and with our fathers:who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

jagunlabi: Sometime after God was done with the creation, a group of very angry looking people who called themselves christians(based on the name of their religion) came looking for God. They came to him to make what they felt was an urgent request;

Christians:
God, we are very sorry to have to disturb your well earned rest, but we need your urgent help.

GOD:
Ooooooooohh!!! What is it, now?  What do you all want.

Christians:
We have a problem that is burning us inside.

GOD:
Problem? When did i create you that you are already having problems? What do you know about problem, eh?

Silence.

GOD:
Okay, fire on with your request.

At the word, "fire", all the christians flinched and trembled seriously.

GOD:
What is wrong with all of you? Why did you all tremble like that?

Christians:
Because of that word you uttered just now. . . the "F" word.

GOD  :
Do not lie against your creator, humans!! When did i utter the word, "FURCK"?!

Christians:
No,no,no! Not that "F" word . . . . the other one . . .

GOD:
Oh, you meant, FIRE?

A great trembling from the christians.

GOD  :
Eyah! You people's problem is urgent, indeed! Hmmm, where did i go wrong with you people? Okay tell me quick!

Christians:
You see, we christians have this belief that only we believe in. . . and we want others to believe in it too.

GOD:
Ehen?

Christians:
You see. . .  we want all of them to believe in what we believe in, so we try to preach it to them, but instead of immediately accepting what we preach to them, they just make fun of us, and tell us that our belief reeks of cow dung. You see, our belief is. . .

GOD:
Stop! I don't want to know what your beliefs are! I am not interested in them one bit! So what do you want of me?

Christians:
We want you to make a little place for them to roast for eternity, because anytime they reject our beliefs, they burn our egos, so we also want them to roast and for eternity to avenge and satisfy our ego.

GOD:
Is that all?

Christians:
Yes, our lord!

GOD:
Mtscheeeeeww!!!! Is that why you all came to disturb my rest? Don't you have a little respect for the wellbeing of ya creator? Mttsssshhhheeeeww!! Don't you all know that you have already created that place of fff. . .  eternal roasting by yourselve?

Christian:
Really? How did we do that, our lord?

GOD:
By thinking it, it has already been created in your minds, and that is all that it takes. I don't need to do anything again! Look at these idiots coming to disturb my resting for something they've already created by themselves and for themselves. Nonsense!!

Christians:
Please, forgive us, o great one. But how do we get them into the roasting place we've created for them in our minds?

GOD:
Keep telling them and yourselves of it day after day after day until it becomes so real in your minds that it seems to start consuming you all from within, that is all. You can then herd them
into the place of eternal roasting that you have created in your minds. That should give you peace of mind again. Now go away and let me continue with my rest!

Christians:
Thank you, our lord! We are truly grateful to you, eternal father.

But God is already fast asleep and snoring. The christians qietly left looking very happy indeed. Their collective ego has just been given a very big boost.

I really enjoyed this!

I might be wrong but I do have a feeling that Joagbaje and nuella think being born again takes place when some body says:

"Lord Jesus, come into my heart. I accept you as Lord & saviour, "

and other stuff like that.
Maybe without saying that, a person is not born again.

As Inesqor rightly put above, being born again comes about by putting one's faith/having faith in Jesus Christ.

The lip confession above isn't what gets one saved, but the belief in the person and work of Christ.
It is an inner conversion of the person's mindset and personality to the truths of Jesus Christ.
This can take place within the twinkling of an eye when the person's heart is tuned to Christ after coming to the knowledge of his truth;
it does not require a prayer as some feel must be.

I think James 2:14-26 comes into play here.
The issue of faith and works.

Joagbaje:
I did acknowledge that James had great principles , you may go back and read them. But his depth of James revelation knowledge is shallow , compared to Paul's . John the baptist had great principles too. but I am greater than john. How do you reconcile the differences in James teaching and Pauls teachings, or you didnt observe any conflict?

Joagbage,
If you can still be saying up till now that there are conflicts between Paul's and James' teachings, then you are a very sorry case.

I'm sure your object of conflict resides in the issue of "faith without works is dead" in James. If that is so, you show yourself to be an ignorant person in terms of reasoning.

Sit down and put on your thinking cap and you will see that James' teachings along with those of Paul are in perfect harmony.

*Now back to the topic at hand*

sonya4all:
@op,thanks,i saw the site,but i didnt see their mission statement or what they believe,can u help tell me all,do they speak in tongues,etc

I said the site is not a church website, but a site that can be traced to the church since most of the articles in it are by the Pastor(along with other people).And besides, I am not the OP
I don't think a mission statement is necessary for such a site since it isn't a church site.
But as shown on the intro of the site, below is the position of the authors of the site:

Pressing For The Crown is dedicated to helping believers in their resolve to earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all time given to the saints. It is intended as a Bible study resource and nothing else. Read our articles and let them provoke you to go spend time studying the Bible.

The articles on this website are contributed by a handful of individuals from different congregations and new articles are added as their personal schedules allow.

Whether or not you agree with a position expressed here, we exhort you above all that you be a diligent student of the Bible and that you entrust your salvation to the capable hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. May God grant His light into our hearts.

If you go through the articles on the site, you can get an idea on the position of the authors on varying issues.
As regards the speaking in tongues stuff, there should be an article among the articles to help your enquiry.

OLAADEGBU:
It's only you that can tell whether you heard the voice of the true Shepherd or that of a wolf. What I can deduct from your confessions here on NL along with some of the members of your "church" is that you are against tithes and offerings, don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, you (especially ttalk) believe that God created some people to be punished in hell while He has chosen some for heaven, you are not sure what it means to be born again, don't believe that the Bible is complete and inerrant, your misconceptions about the true Church etc. What is called the doctrines of the devil have found a common ground in some folks that are not comfortable with the doctrines of Christ. This is how cults such as the JW's and the mormons etc started. The JW's started because of their paranoa about hell fire and yours is starting because of your hatred for the paying of tithes and offerings in Churches.

I don't think I ever implied that God specified some people for heaven and some to be roasted in some fiery fire.
What my posts have indicated as regards hell is that the general conception about it is very likely to be wrong. I do not subscribe to the fact that it is a place of eternal punishment,but a scenario and period(age) of painful but needful chastisement for a better end.
This view on hell is my personal view(not culled from the teachings at the church I worship) which I developed from some personal study of my own.

Even if I belong to a particular group of believers, it does not mean I can't have some views that might be slightly different from theirs.

sonya4all:
Please may i knw the name of the church ,so as to join u.Tnks

Hi sony4all,

The church doesn't have a website specific to it, but it does have a website with articles put up by the pastor and some other people.
It also has a church directory.

NB: It hasn't been updated in a very long while now due to the busy schedules of the contributors.

This is the link if u're interested: Link to the site

chukwudi44:
Romans 6:3-4:for surely u know that when u were baptised into union wit christ,we were baptised into union with his death.By our baptism then we were buried wit him and shared his death in order that just as christ was raised 4rm death by d glorious power of his father,so also we might live a new life.

Err. . . . how can one be so sure the baptism spoken of in the above verse is in relation to water baptism?
It could be the baptism of the holy Spirit

Compare those verses with :

1Co 12:13
(13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The above verse definitely says that one is made to be part of the body of Christ by the baptism of the holy Spirit. So, therefore, I know for sure that the baptism spoken of in Galatians 3:27 is definitely that of the holy Spirit when you view it in the light of 1 corinthians12:13.

Gal 3:27
(27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

In that case, the baptism spoken of in Romans 6:3-4 could very well be that of the Holy Spirit.

- baptised into union wit christ(Romans 6:3)
- baptized into one body(1 Corinthians 12:13)

^^^ ain't they saying the same essentially the same thing?

I really wonder how some people view God to be. It's like they view him as one horrible task master
that would smash his whip on your backside the moment you step out of line.

Let's say for instance, that tithing is compulsory(which it isn't), would God be mad at you for using it to take care of a sick friend?
Come on. . . . . . . . .

People should try and understand that it is our relationship with our fellow men that highlights or pinpoints our relationship with God.
When we love and care for our neighbours,we fulfil the law of God.