₦airaland Forum

To rescue damsels in distress. Although they often don't realise it and refuse to be rescued !

A.w.o:
I'm not going to quote any scriptures

And why not?

but I'll speak from experience.

Anecdotal evidence!

Paying tithes has really paid off

That is, it was some sort of investment scheme or insurance policy?

You see, it's simply a covenant between you and God

If you mean like Jacob, then true. But if you mean mandatory and punishable by cursing if in default, then not true.

In other words, when you give your tithe give it freely and you'll never regret you did.

You don't "give" something that's mandatory, you pay. And it can't be "freely" if you have too!

Whatever the Pastor does with it at the end of the day is between him and God

I'd like to label this Kindergarten Christian thinking, but the truth is it's not Christian and it's not thinking.

I am clearly speaking for myself.

That's allowed. And thanks for making that very clear.

monshege:
Thank you, I couldnt have said it any better than that

Actually, you couldn't have said it any worse. It's devoid of any real scriptural foundation or biblical understanding. Presumably you wouldn't have gone to the Word either. But recounted examples of it working for you?

God bless

Hi Nferyn,

Okay, no problem. You don't hold top a notion of ensoulment, I am happy to put it to one side for the moment.

However, you must realise that you it reads somewhat blurred when you make statements like this;

Early term abortions are not the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

So when does the potential become actual?

when the foetus is severely handicapped

How severe a handicap warrants termination and who is to say?

If it's about quality of life, living on less than a $1 a day in modern Nigeria, is really handicapping disabled or not, would you suggest their quality of life warrants termination?

Also you talk of weighing up rights and consequences. Whose rights exactly? By saying;

Yes and the negative effects should be weighed against the positive effect. It's up to the woman to determine which effects take precedence.

You are just trotting out the old "Womans right to choose" line which is not really a question of rights and consequences of all involved.

The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

Please explain how?

God bless

Hi All,

Enigma, long time. Good to hear from you. TG, Ishmael et al, keep up the good work.

Funnily enough no one in support of mandatory tithing for Christians can even string together a half decent premise for it. On this point at least protagonists from Tlops to Gospelman are nothing more than well-versed religionists, spewing what they've been fed.

TayoD is the only tithing proponent that sounds like he is somewhat familiar with scripture, but as ever (on this point at least) he marshals a motley crew of half-truths, mis-interpretations and outright lies in order to defend something that he would clearly see is wrong if he just looked with unbiased eyes.

Knowing fully well that tithing under the law cannot be imposed on NT Christians, TayoD goes back to the Abraham/Melchizedek incident to establish it. Then as if by magic, he uses Malachi in an attempt to enforce it, insisting scripture calls non-payment "robbing God".

TayoD of course knows that the law & the prophets are to be read as a whole. Did I mention disengenious?

It's almost amusing how he convolutes, calling Jacob Abrahams son. Lies, saying that Abraham tithed on his increase and obfuscates saying that Jacob kept the law of tithing, when;

1. There is no mention of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob tithing on their increase. And there is lots of mention of Isaac's increase, even though TayoD conveniently overlooks this fact.

2. Jacob made a personal vow to God to tithe if God would give him something in return. It had nothing to do with the Abraham/Melchizedek incident, or any preexisting law.

3. TayoD also fails to tell us what, how or to whom Jacob would have tithed?

I could go on and on. How tithing as a practice predates Abraham, how a tithe paid to priests is a nonsense in NT Christianity, as we are all priests. How his notion that Christ collects the tithe in place of Melchizedek is almost scary, but not as scary as thinking that all OT testament laws were fulfilled in Christ except the "tithe". Maybe you'll realise that to call The Lords work incompletre is beyond scary.

In the earlier thread on this referred to by Enigma, we comprehensively treated this. Indeed some of the sub-themes were worthy of threads in their own right. Everything that TayoD is peddling here has already been laid bare. His final point was that he could find no fulfillment of the "gift" made by the OT High Priest, and erroneously (and obstinately) insisted that this was the tithe .

But if a brother insists on being emblematic of a lost cause and dodgy doctrine, who am I to stop him  ? Where's Analytical by the way? I'd guess he supports mandatory tithing. Apologies if you don't dude !

Like TG said, it's condemnation. Here and now (I used to feel guilty if I so much as thought about otherwise utilising my tithe money, and unworthy that I couldn't meet more needs outside of tithing), and thereafter, because keeping the law justifies no one.

God bless _{(and blesses, regardless of our puny attempts at self justification and righteousnes ~ Luke 18:10-12)}

Hi Nferyn,

Long time, Hope you are well.

nferyn:
Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous.

Why? The wilful destruction of a innocent human being (especially of the most vulnerable and defenseless) is murder.

Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible

Based on your premise above, why? Surely you see it as just a lifestyle choice?

because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman

Presumably any negative effects on the child are inconsequential?
This is also double speak, because;
1. Would you not say that the whole reason for wanting an abortion in the first place was to avoid negative p&p effects? and
2. You omit to mention the wholly positive effects pregnancy and childbirth.

25 weeks cannot possibly be considered a person because it lacks the neurological capacity to feel pain

Hmmm, having said that, you then siad this

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

Here you are allowing abortion of an individual who can feel pain, but because said individual is handicapped?

There are lots of handicapped people who can feel pain. The main difference betwween them and the foetus is location (i.e. outside the womb). Presumably killing them wouldn't count as murder either?

Atheism is just a big hole unable to make coherent sense of the moral let alone the spiritual. Likewise science, which has it's place, but will always fall short.

Have a good day

God bless

@ Trini_Girl & Ishmael,

Greatly appreciate your efforts, and may God bless you. I hope you realise that this is more than a question of ignorance or mere misinformation? It's not even a question of lack of knowledge. It's deep spiritual bondage. I speak as one who by the grace of God was loosed from it.

A doctrine that makes no scripturally sense, has any biblical basis and no divine mandate. Yet some very intelligent people subscribe to it wholesale  .

We comprehensively thrashed this out over 27+ pages, every which way, but some will not have it.  This untruth is the main underpinning (and funding) of much of the carnal religious construct that holds sway today.

Fight the good fight.

God bless

Hi TG,

On-topic;

Okay, I'll ask you this and then leave it for now. Is sex outside marriage biblically sanctioned? Can you show it with references from the scriptures?

Off-topic;

I can't access my non-work e-mail right now and I'm catching a flight later today. I'll try and contact you via e-mail by late next week. Apologies, it's just so frenzied right now.

God bless.

trini_girl:
TV! I'm fine. I've been observing from the sidelines. Nothing too interesting going on these days.  But haven't you noticed me trying to get your attention? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-44339.32.html

Good to hear you are well.

Yes 0! Things are one kin' these days. Hopefully it's just the ebb & flow of this kind of forum.

I went there 0! Given the title/theme of the thread I thought I'd give it a miss. I did read up until a few people were called out and still wasn't motivated. I've since gone back and read the whole thing. Still not really interested.

About the deviation. First, thanks for gettin'my back, much appreciated. Second I noticed the similarity between Syrup and Shahan, but concluded it was just that, a marked similarity. In fact, gender apart, I think Syrup is probably even motre akin to Bari_Kade in style and approach. That's not to comment on individual premises, positions or my personal opinion.

Now back to the topic  .

Let me correct you then. your reasoning is flawed!

We'll see!

You can set yourself straight by sticking to the definition of FORNICATION and not the lose definition of sex pre and post marriage since fornication can occur either before marriage (pre-marital) or within (post matrimonial) marriage. Remember, fornication is unnatural sex, example with prostitues, homosexuality, beastiality, incest etc.

Not as flawed as your premise girl. Fornication is illicit sex. This would include, but not be limited to the unnatural kind.

and exactly which statement do you misinterpret as a lie?  show me YOUR relevent appropriate biblical evidence where the bible is clear that sexual intimacy between man and woman should only occur inside "wedded union" and then we'll give it a go.

As I asked before, please detail scripture showing that sexual intimacy can be legitimately (in a biblical sense of course) enjoyed outside holy matrimony.

You wrote;

You've asked me this question before.  If the only intent of marriage is being bound then we see marriage quite differently.  Sex is only a part of a committed relationship.  a wedding is just an open declaration of a decision already made by both parties.  Even common law relationships are 'binding' in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of God.

Then;

Legitimate in whose eyes, yours?  So if you have sex with someone, you're automatically married to them? Scriputre please, thank youuuu.

And then;

Did Adam and Eve 'exchange vows'? Nowadays, we would called that a common law arrangement and frown upon it.

Please make the connection. In the sight of God, the intimacy signalled marriage. Likewise with Isaac and his wife.

When you say "we", you mean the world not Christianity. There is no such scripturally defined relationship as "common-law" marriage. To suggest that God see's CLM as the world (law) is simply wrong.

You can have a committed relationship without sex. Indeed, many marriages exist (no, I don't know how ) without it. And I'd imagine all of any duration will do so at some stage (at least for a time).

What exactly is the wedding declaring if intimacy can be legally established outside it?

I see the error of trying to "divorce" sex from marriage. Can't be done. It's a ploy atheists and humanists love to adopt. To ruinous effect too.

Back off topic;

I noticed your labelling me as your 1st choice MOG. I'm flattered, must be said. But after long, prayerful and thoughtful reflection (a whole nano second  ), I have to say no. That's not a reflection on you TG, it's me .

If I say yes, I'll have to demand you submit to "my authority" (thorougly unbiblical), always qualify your posts on NL with "MyPas" (My Pastor says), and generally check your God given faculties whenever I speak. We'd have to gather followers (as numbers seem to be one way of legitimising MOGGERY) and start our own shursh (My Church), As if there is more than one? Of course in due time I'd delegate some small anointing/responsibility to you (My Ministry).

Of course, I'll have to finance this title and the empire that goes with it, so I might have to join the tithing and enforced offering brigade (not biblical). I'd like a plush office, necessitating a building fund so we could acquire a physical temple (redundant). Obviously I'd like staff, so that would lead to an organisational/hjierarchical structure being put in place (utter perversion of the NT relationship basis of worship),

I'd have to wear some weird kit. Dog collar anyone? Or worse still, fry my hair! Adopt some ecumenically profound title (Apolstolic-Prophet to the Futhermost galaxies  ) and camp out in the OT.

But the worst thing is I'd have to scrap my personal encounter with God and assume the role of a mediator (usurping The Lord). Equally tragic is the fact that you'll have to articulate your whole walk through me. So I won't enter in and I won't let you (or any of the others) enter in either.

Please understand.

God bless

Backslider:
I am not interested in any jot of praise.

That's good, 'cos I am not a praise singer. In fact, I am not a singer period .

I however don't have one single hate for you or your post to me.

You know I ain't got nuthin'but love for you bro' 1 No shaking. I appreciate your position on a lot of things, and you zeal is obvious. But regardless of our many differences, I am not about hate , hating or being hateful!


So back to your post.

"What is your view on Pastor EA Adeboye aka "Daddy GO" or more specifically, what is you take on the word he claimed was prophetic and how one should react"

God bless

TayoD:
I am reminded of what Paul says: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Doesn't this apply to T.V., internet, money, politics etc as well?

Everything is to be judged on it's merits (or otherwise). As relating to "politics", you have been offered numerous opportunities to enunciate your position, and failed to do so severally. Don't try and sneak in a "quickly taken free-kick" here my friend  !

Although I am tagged TV01, I don't own a telly and I was greatly edified by giving it up and disavowing most worldly programming. Not to say that TV is inherently evil (Telly that is not me ). But to the immature or indisciplined, it has potential for great harm. Kinda like wine really.

BackSlider,  I appreciate your position regards wine, telly and the like, but you go beyond the biblical writ to add your own legalistic strictures. That is usual the beginnings of cultic /denominational isolation. Please be persuaded, but please beware.

God bless

TayoD:
Here is what Jesus has to say: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Correct, he also said this;

Luke 5:14 ~ And He charged him to tell no one, "But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded."

And underwent this;

Luke 2:21~  And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

The Lords mission would have been aborted if He broke the law, or was party to any one else breaking it.

Don't let anyone bring you into bondage through the law of Moses. In Christ we have liberty.

God bless

Backslider:
Deuteronomy 18:22
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Bro' Backslider, you missed this bit (I trust you did not do so on purpose, as that would suggest you were scared of upsetting people and that would make you a man-pleaser, which I doubt you are );

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?'--

What would you suggest as an appropriate means of execution? It's been absolutely ages since I attended a good stoning .

God bless

Hi TG, Long time. How now? You've been keeping a low profile huh? Busy??

trini_girl:
The phrase "pre-marital sex" is one that was created by man to describe sex outside of marriage.

I stand to be corrected, but I thought the suffix "Pre" meant "before". Pre-marital sex then being sex before marriage.

Sex by either of the partners in a marriage is called "Extra-marital". I think bopth meanings of "extra apply here !

So "Post-marital" sex is legit. Pre-marital is not, neither is extra-marital.

There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting male and female, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication.  It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral.

You opened this statement with a blatant lie. The Bible is as clear as glass on this point. There is no divinely sanctioned relationship that permits sexual intimacy except the wedded union. Unless of course you can show biblical evidence for that.

The only way such a relationship could even be considered legitimate, was if by the very act of sex they considered themselves to married. Even this breaks down, as if that were this case, the word would be "covenanted" and not "committed".

Let me ask you this; How binding is the committment mentioned? Is it till death do part or until the attraction fades? Disagreements set in? Or something better comes along. If while either party is still alive, can either of them commit to another?

If either of the parties in the relationship above died or the Lord where to return, what would the status of the couple be?

The more we learn what fornication truly is, the more we learn that "normal" pre marital sex is not fornication.

It sounds like a classic case of "learning without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth".

Re-ngineer or re-define the meanings of the words all you will. (as some would prefer to call sin a lapse, error, area for improvement or personal failing). The biblical imperative remains inviolable. Sex before, without, or outside marriage is a sin.

Please, this by no means is a free card for having sex.

That's exactly what it is, except you have discriminated against those who would induulge in sex of the homosexual variety (and other beastly variations)!

In my opinion sex still remains an enjoyable activity between two consenting, responsible ADULTS, in a long term relationship

You have every right to an opinion, and if you qualify this as just that, without attempting to claim biblical warrant for it, no probs. As to the "enjoyability of sex", you are right,  but it is also enjoyable to many whose relationships have no scriptural sanction, and by many who don't have relationships in any real sense of the word. So your point here is?

Trini, you can't make this thing stick. The Bible is complete and whole in this matter. Semantics, wordplay and obsfucation can never replace or equate to the revealed inspired Word of God.

God bless

Backslider:
I SPEAK TO THE MATTER AND I THANK GOD I WILL NOT CALL NO ONE NAMES.

Yes now! Being fully aware of Donnies hyper religious superiority and your own overblown sense of piety, I figured you would refuse to answer back (and actually think you are accruing religious brownie points)    !

Donnie appears to have changed tack for some reason  No probs BS, more opprobium for you  .

sage:
Alcohol, like food should be in moderation.

Leave them 0!

That is the starting point.

Anyone who eats more than is necessary, has more clothes than they need, live in a house that is larger than they require, drive an uneccesarily large or expensive car are all under the same condemnation by Bro' Backsliders anal religious logic. I still love him sha  !

You also fail to distinguish between moderate or very occasional use and all out alcoholism. Not to mention your erroneously bracketing smoking/drug use with acceptable levels of wine consumption.

Please advise, if the Lord turned water into wine and wine drinking = drug abuse, where does your bombast leave you?

Anyway, if my occasional glass of wine causes my brother to stumble, I will no longer drink at all, lest I cause the one for whom The Lord died to stumble. At that point, love trumps knowledge.

Needless to say most of your MOG's (across denomination here) all look suspiciously well-fed and appear to lack no good thing. Tell me Bro' BS, what is their fate?

Love ya!

God bless

Ah, Donnie the Scribe, meet Backslider the Pharisee  .

One doesn't drink 'because he's holier than thou, the other because it's perdition in a bottle  .

Donnie in his wisdom came up with this

The bible does not expressly condemn drinking or smoking in the scripures

The Bible does not condemn drinking, but it warns strongly against drinking to excess (a distinction that our resident zealots do not seem t be able to make ). The Bible does not mention smoking at all. And smoking and drinking are not in any way the same.

Not to be outdone, Bro' Backslider came up with this;

Where did he bring the understanding of THE LIBERTY TO DRINK BEER ! This is outrageous. You must read scripture and know what is expedient(in the context that it was used here) as a Christian and what is not Expedient.

Christian have liberty in Christ. If you can't deal with it, leave it. Don't try and legislate for everyone else or condenm those who believe differently.

Romans 14:3 - Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

Sis' Agnesoseka summed it up quite succinctly.

agnesoseka:
I drink occassionally and don't see anytin wrong with it,as long as i do it to moderation!!

But the wearers of broad phylacteries and the makers of long repetitive prayers (who suppose themselves to be spiritual titans, but are just religious pygmies) have to have the final [s]overblown essay ful of great swelling words[/s] say!

My advice is as follows;

1 Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Sorry, that wasn't my advice that was 1 Corinthians 7:23. My advice is shove off you two  !

tianshie:
I have to confess I don't read the good book that much but I know enough to question why Jesus cursed the fig tree because it didn't have any fruit.
Couldn't he have just walked on?
Wasn't that a measure of just a tad imperfectness,after all it wasn't the tree's fault.
Scholars pick up your thinking pads. . .

First of all, the thing created, does not question The Creator.
Second of all, The Almighty does not need or ask for justification from finite beings
Thirdly, and corallaryy to my first two points, you can't judge a Being who is altogether unlike you (in this case infinitely superior in every possible way) on your terms.

To those that truly care, I suggest you read the message in the juxtaposed narratives as suggested by Grouppoint in post #2, but reading somewhat before and after the core verses.

However, I have an alternative reading, which speaks to the fig tree as a metaphor for the Jewish nation, Which from the favoured position God had granted it had descended into empty religion and placed it's security in temple ritual. Notice that the tree withered from the roots up (and was not just barren henceforth).

Religion is death. Dogma kills.

God bless

sage:
TV01 im amazed by the depth of your Knowledge of the Bible. A very good bible student. I am always open to reasoning with peole on Biblical issues and ready to adjust if a person can prove his beliefs from the bible.

Hi Sage, I appreciate the words of encouragement, but I must acknowledge that everything I have, I recieved. I cannot act as if I did not. God is not partial. I try and hear Him direct and I know He speaks. And although I cherish the direct moments, I appreciate that oft times, He can speak through others and I don't want to be too proud too hear.

I must say that I have been edified no end and in so many ways by other contributors to this forum (sincere thanks all ). This thread is a point in question, I had a lot of stuff just lying there, unresearched, unpondered, unstructured and unarticulated. Lots of the discussions here forces me to look closely and really scrutinise what I think, or what I thought I thunk .

sage:
TV01

I would like to know your stand on many issues that i still have found no basis in the bible for those teachings.

1 immortality of the soul---------- a big lie perpertuated by the church (looks like we have similar views)

2 Eternal Punishment----------2 bigger lie (i think u and i have similar views)

3 And the most controversial of all-The Trinity Doctrine----The biggest fraud the church has perpetrated.

Careful consideration of the bible has shown me certain things. But funny enough if you try to point it out to other people they accuse you of trying to promote the doctrine of a sect or cults . And since you know your views are from the bible, u can't help but wonder which sects and cults they are talking about.


I think i know your views on other issues like Christians and Politics and Military service , Popes and other church 'leading' man glorifying titles and tithes (or should i say theiving pastors ), The churchs harlory among others

I try and articualte my individual doctrinal positions as a unified whole. As revelation and understanding deepen, I can fill in gaps update areas and reflect on others. I do not have a complete picture (and kinda doubt I ever will this side of eternity).

I know from several threads that we have similar stances on several points, but I am quick to acknowlege my own puny limits. I would suggest people open threads on any areas they have questions. As much as we may be correct on certain points, none of us know it all and even when people have misconceptions or wrong positions, their posers can still be very pertinent and edifying

Later dude

God bless

shahan:
I can understand your persuasion; but it's quite limiting. First, man is actually tripartite - I Thes. 5:23 speaks of man's "whole spirit and soul and body"; and the Bible shows that there is a "dividing asunder of soul and spirit" in Heb. 4:12.

Possibly, I am aware of Thessalonians 5:3, and while it distinguishes between the three, it does not necessarily mean they are all entirely seperate.

Numerous verses intimate to the fact that the soul (as consciousness, mind, will, emotions, intellect etc) is/can be more to the carnal.

As believers we first recieve reborn spirits and then ressurected bodies. The only other thing is a "renewed mind", which we are to strive for/ work towards. The renewed mind impacts the character (personality or soul).

Even Hebrews 4:12 buttresses this somewhat, as if the soul was entirely seperate. Why would it require "dividing asunder?".

Anyway, most of the above is really only nuance. I quite appreciate the subtelties the discussion is drawing out.

Although you acknowledged that the soul has more than one meaning in Scripture, let me offer this teaser to the point. We could be sure that God was not meaning to require the "consciousness" of the rich man in Luke 12:20 in the statement: "this night thy soul shall be required of thee".

Absolutely, the rendering of any word translated soul has to be read in context. I think we are agreed on the fact that the term soul can be employed with various meanings. Our difference appears to be in it's total seperateness and non-dependance on both body and spirit.

However, I'm not persuaded about the idea that the soul 'only exists in as much as body and spirit are intact', as though it was some abstract concept less distinguishable from spirit and body. That idea is unsustained in light of the texts alluded to above, and several others in Scripture.

I see no where in scripture that a soul (as seperate and distinct from a body or spirit), was ever created (in its unique seperate sense), or existed without a body. Do spirits have souls? Do animals have spirits?

# I Kings 17:21-22 - "the soul of the child came into him again", which suggests a separate, distinct entity intact on its own apart from the body.

# Acts 2:27 - "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell", again demonstrating a distinct entity from the body that was laid in the tomb/sepulchre.

# Gen. 35:18 - "her soul was in departing", indicative of same sense as above.

Simply rendering soul as spirit in these instances would answer here. Worth pondering is the fact that there is no mention of the spirit returning? Can one live with just body and soul? I see here that the spirit returns and the soul is animated.

Okay; but even so I hope that does nopt translate into the idea that when a man dies, there is no "soul" - if the term strictly means "consciousness"? There may not be consciousness in the reality of this world; but that is not to suggest that the soul ceases to exist apart from the body.

I think our difference actualises itsellf here. In light of what I have posted in this response thus far (and previously), I am saying just that. I know your persuasions in light of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, but I am persuaded by the references to immortality I have posted severally and the fact that the dead sleep. I don't see that souls roam or are kept somewhere in conscious existance outside an intact body and spirit.

Now, where does that leave the spirit of man? Also, have we carefully examined the import of God destroying both the "body and soul" in hell? Doesn't that suggest well enough that the wicked will be raised in their bodies as well? And if the wicked have "souls" that will be destroyed in 'hell', does that not hint at the idea that their souls do not cease to exist at death and burial?

I believe the spirit returns to our maker. I also believe ressurection will be of the whole person (although I don't personally believe the wicked will get new bodies). When body and mind/consciousness are destroyed, the spirit returns as previous.

For two reasons, I believe:

(a) 'spirit' and 'soul' are sometimes (not always) used interchangeably to refer to the individual in particular - in just the same way that 'angels' are sometimes referred to as 'men', even though we know they are not synonymous in essence (see Gen. 19:1, 10-11); and,

(b) in their essential nature as separated from their bodies, they were referred to as "spirits" rather than as "souls". The former indicates their nature of existence apart from their bodies; the latter would point to the people in particular rather than their state of existence.

Let me expound on the second reason. Heb. 12:23 speaks of the "spirits" (rather than the 'souls') of men made perfect, emphasizing rather the nature of their existence; but in Rev. 6:9 we read of the "souls" (not 'spirits') of those who had been slain, because our God wants to draw our attention to individuals in particular who suffered for their faith, rather than the nature of their existence after they were slain.

(a) I think we've agreed severally  on this point.
(b) I agree with you here, but I think this speaks more to my "overlapping body & spirit" animated soul, rather than a distinct and totally independant one.

Again, the Bible calls God "the Father of spirits" (Heb. 12:9) and "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22) - which in their context point to the essential nature of men as spirit-beings (cf. Acts 17:28 - 'we are also His offspring'; and John 3:6). However, we also read in Job 12:10 that in His hand is the "soul" of every living thing, defining individuality and personality.

It is interesting to note that the distinction between spirit and soul is also highlighted in Isaiah 57:16 - "the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made" (see also ch. 42:5). Nonetheless, that we many times read of 'soul' as pointing to the individual in particular references is underscored by the refrain: "that soul (not, 'that spirit') shall be cut off from his people" - Gen. 17:14 and Exo. 31:14.

Again, I see this as more fully attested to by soul as overlap.

Well, first we both agree that the soul is not inherently immortal. Secondly, that the soul survives death is without question as have been demonstrated severally. Third, the immortality referred to in those verses you posted do not negate the fact that the soul leaves the body and is in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave. If it were otherwise, the texts already proffered for this would have been saying something else.

Firstly ~ Agreed
Secondly ~ Not from where i'm sitting it hasn't
Thirdly ~ I think they do.

As to the context of the state of conscious existence beyond the grave, I wonder if you have an explanation for the Lord's statement in Mark 9:44, 46 & 48 - "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"??

An allusion to Gehenna, where conditions are such that everything is consumed.

Enjoyed the challenges you offered - succinct and refreshing. May I offer my sincere apologies for my reactive response earlier.

Not at all, I enjoy the debate and quite appreciate that we all can get a little heated. Please don't take offense at my sometimes combative literary (literary ke?) style.

God bless

Hi Shahan,

Re your post quoted below, and specifically regards your references to the "soul"

shahan:
It is interesting to note that a 'professor of Sacred Scripture' could deny the nature of the soul as taught in the Bible. If the concept of 'soul' as separate from the 'body' does NOT exist in Scripture, what then does the Bible mean by the following texts? --

Gen. 35:18
"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin." It is clear here that the soul departed from her body, and thus was separate from the body.

I Kings 17:21-22
"And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Same thing here - the soul which had been separated from the body returned into the body of the child.

Job 14:22
"But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." Job here marks the distinction between the "soul within" and the "flesh upon" as two separate entities of man.

Gen. 3:19 & Eccl. 12:7
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. .||. .Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The distinction is made between the body of man that returns to the ground (dust) from which it was made; and the spirit of man that returns to God as a separate entity "formed" within man (see Zech.2 12:1 - "formeth the spirit of man within him".

Acts 2:27
"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" We all know that when Jesus died, His body was in the tomb/sepulchre (Matt. 27:60 & Mark 15:46), but it was rather His soul as separate from His body that went to 'hell' (or, 'Hades').

It is beyond argument to suppose that the soul does not survive the death of the body; or that the soul as separate from the body does not exist in the Bible, as some professors of Sacred Scriptures would have us believe. On the contrary, the Bible distinctly teaches and affirms these concepts regardless the denials today.

Beyond argument? Hardly.

Simply put, the bible shows that man was made from the dust of the earth to which God breathed in spirit.

A soul only exists in as much as body and spirit are intact. Like two overlapping circles the area of the overlap is the consciousness (soul) that springs forth. So although man is often referred to as tri-partite, I am not sure this is strictly true.

It is also clearly evident from scripture, that "soul" can mean several things. Including person(ality), mind and even spirit.

As you yourself allude to in your quote below.

shahan:
Secondly, many people take Ezek. 18:4 to mean that the soul itself (as distinct from the body) "dies" - “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” What does this imply? It does not suggest that the incorporeal part of man called soul suffers 'death' - as I've attempted to demonstrate just above. Soul in that verse refers to the person himself, rather than to that which is in contrast to the body, as hinted at in the reference offered by the author - (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)

It is the same sense of 'soul' as used for "the person" in the following: Gen 46:26 - "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six" || Act 27:37 - "And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls || Rom 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers" || I Pet. 3:20 - "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water".

Although it is correct to label the "soul" incorporeal, it exists in it's unique meaning only in as much as the living being is intact.

When a man dies, his spirit has departed (goes back to God who gave it). Hence there is no consciousness, that is death.  This will likewise be the case when God destroys both body and soul of the wicked. There will be no more consciousness or remembrance of them.

shahan:
Acts 2:27
"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" We all know that when Jesus died, His body was in the tomb/sepulchre (Matt. 27:60 & Mark 15:46), but it was rather His soul as separate from His body that went to 'hell' (or, 'Hades'). This is underscored in I Pet. 3:18-19 - ". . .he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." It was not with the body in the sepulcher that the Lord Jesus went to 'hell' (or 'Hades') to preach unto the spirits in prison; it was rather the soul as separate from the body.

In this last cited example, we can deduce evidently that the soul indeed survives the death of the body. Were that not possible or not the case at all, how then could it be said that Jesus "went and preached unto the spirits in prison"?

It is beyond argument to suppose that the soul does not survive the death of the body; or that the soul as separate from the body does not exist in the Bible, as some professors of Sacred Scriptures would have us believe. On the contrary, the Bible distinctly teaches and affirms these concepts regardless the denials today.

Not to overlook your references to Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3 above.

Firstly, your exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-19 is but one possible one (not that I deny you the right to hold it).

Secondly, why does it say went and preached to "spirits" and not souls?

Thirdly, to suggest the "soul" survives the death of the body alludes to it's being immortal. I posted earlier on this, showing that the Bible contains no such notion. Now that's beyond argument.

God bless

Grouppoint:
According to the bible, Christ has redeemed us from of the curse of the law (and not from the entire law as you alluded)

Hi Grouppoint, I'll try not to be tedious.

If you believe that Christ redeemed us only from the curse of the law (and not the burden of keeping it), leaving the blessing freely available, let me postulate this;

- To avail oneself of the blessing of the law, would one not have to to adhere to it?
- To adhere to any point of the law is to be bound by the whole of it.
- To attempt to be justified by law, means one falls from grace.
- To fall from grace means you ceased to profit from The lords work, having opted for a works based salvation.

Point 1 - All the blessing From God in Christ jesus are by Grace. Freely e has hiven us all things richly to enjoy. God does not require our works to bless us

Point 2 - In a very real sense, you may be right about attaching blessings to keeping the law. But the end of the believers faith is salvation, that is everlasting life. As I mentioned earlier, it is not promised under the law, righteousness is always inputed by faith.

Grouppoint:
Back to the topic. If according to Malachi the prophet, God has promised us more blessings than we can have room to contain, if we pay our tithes and offerings. I consider this a law and the blessings which accrue to it are blessings of the law.

If by us you mean NT Christians, then I don't believe Malachi was addressing us. He was addressing them. That is OT Jews. The law they were under has been annulled. We (Us) were never under that law. mandatory tithing is simply not a Christian notion. 

Point 3 - A lot of what purports to be Christianity these days is a wierd mix of indigenous socio-cultural practice, mixed with selected Jewish rituals (and quite likely other sundry beliefs ).

Grouppoint:
You may say that it was OT or meant for a certain group of israel, but like I said, we are children of Abraham according to the promise, hence we can tap into this blessing.

This is a contradiction. I believe I made the distinction between the promise (recieved by faith) and the law (apprehended by works). The former leading to eternal reward and the latter bringong only temporal blessings. The first given to the sons of Abrahmam by faith the latter by law. You can't apprehend the promise by recourse to the law.

Pertinent to note that the Jews declared themselves Abrahams seed. But that did not qualify them for the eternal blessing. Only those who are of like faith with believing Abraham are sons and inheritors of the promise.

Point 4 - One of the wierd/scary outworkings of so applying OT/law based religion instead of or alongside NT/Grace based faith is that people who are not physically Jewish attempt to plead the covenants. People who claim to be Christians try and live by law. So They at once deny what they claim to be and try and become what they can never be. Niether fish nor fowl.

I hesitate to suggest where that leaves such a one.

God bless

^{Apologies for not quoting chaoter and verse, I'm a little tired. I am hapy to do so if you would like.}

Grouppoint:
I thought you would know that law has its curses as well as blessings. Because Jesus redeemed from the curse of the law, in order that we might enjoy the blessings of the law.

I don't agree. I see it as follows;

~ While the law was in effect it had blessings & curses for obedience or disobedience.
~ Yes, The Lord died so as to redeem us from the law
~ But not so that we might enjoy the blessings of the law
~ It was so that we could be "justified by faith"
~ And, I now understand, inherit eternal life, which was not a promise of the law.

Grouppoint:
Furthermore, you seem to have removed the OT from your own bible. Have you not heard that we are sons of Abraham by the covenant?

I believe in the OT as much as the NT, but I am careful to distinguish between and apply the two.

~ One can live a Christian life solely on the basis of the NT (I'm not saying discard the OT).
~ I thought we where son's of "believing Abraham" by faith (by promise)
~ Said promise being 400 years before the law (said law has been annulled)

May I just say that an unhealthy obsession and/or mis-applying the OT in NT Christian life, leads to the rebuilding again of the things Christ died to free us from.

1. A restricted place of worship
2. Physical building in this place
3. A mediatory Priesthood (MOG) to administer worship (go to/represent God for/to beievers)
4. Mandatory Sacrifices (Tithe)
5. Ritual holy days (Sabbaths etc)

And other such works. Ultimately, subscribing to such means that Christ will profit you nothing.

Grouppoint:
Since you are curious, I attend any church where I feel led by the holy spirit. I have visited with a few churches and fellowship groups over the years.

I wasn't curious, I was just being extra. Apologies. It's just that one tends to find this kind of stuff peddled in such places.

Grouppoint:
However, I believe that the body of Christ would not benefit much from us overly focussing on what denomination one attends.

Absolutely. I more than agree. Indeed, I believe denominationalism is a blight on the Body. I also think God will at some stage do away with it.

Grouppoint:
God Bless

You too dude.

knowitall:
tv i feel for you. you're left to debate with 4th graders.

No probs 0 jare. I'm lonsuffering like my Heavenly Father  !
Having said that, these MOGS have some of Nigeria's finest brains buying into their hocus-pocus  .

tlops:
I donot need an MOG for that, just my practical application of the word of God.

Tlops dude, how far with that mountain?

And I'm still waiting for the name of that MOG so's I can blacklist him/her!!

Awaiting your report.

Thanx again.

Hi Analytical, as ever I would like to hear you expound you views on this thread.

Now that everyone’s here, could I humbly suggest that we’d all be better served by nailing this one point at a time. That will stop the discussion becoming muddled.

So first up if (I may).

Immortality of the soul ~ TayoD has stated that he believes this is a Christian notion. Indeed, it seems logical quite straightforward to suggest that if one subscribes to a doctrine of eternal torment, one must necessarily insist on this.

Previously, I posted the following 6 scriptures in reference to Immortality in the Bible.

Romans 2:7 - eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
1 Corinthians 15:53 - For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
1 Timothy 1:17 - Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 6:16 - who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.
2 Timothy 1:10  - but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

There is nothing in these scriptures to suggest that immortality of the body/soul is something inherent to mankind, either from creation or otherwise.

Additional scripture which employs the same word translated immortality, but translate it differently, will not lead to a different conclusion.

For example,
Romans 1:23 - and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Here Paul, describing the idolatry of those who know not the living God, says that they “changed the glory of the incorruptible (immortal) God into an image made like to corruptible (mortal) man.”  It’s the same Greek word translated immortal” in 1 Timothy 1:17.

John 5:26 says that the “Father hath life in himself,” and that He hath “given to the Son to have life in Himself”.

I can find nothing in scripture on which to establish a doctrine of inherent human immortality, be it of body or soul.

If anyone can show otherwise, please do so.

God bless

Grouppoint:
I guess the game, set, and match would have to go to , TayoD and Analytical

Como que? What are you doing on my thread  ?

If you come up in here you'll get mashed, like de man dem before you  .
Unable to gain ground, they soon scuttled off!

You will end up the same way. You have been warned  .

Gods blueprint for the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ has been severally enunciated.
If you have any refutations or scripturally backed alternatives. Then serve! Otherwise.

God bless

babaearly:
Thats what you were made to believe.

As ever alternative viewpoints are always welcome

mrpataki:
Just my understanding of the scriptures as to hell.[/b]

Hi Pataks, In line with the current debate what is your current thinking? Eternal destruction or eternal torment in the lake of fire?

Regards

God bless

TayoD:
Matthew 25:46 - And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life This passage is clear about what awaits the condemned ones - torment. Even if we regard the everlasting to mean for a time period, the word punishment does not mean annihilation by any stretch of its use. That same word is used in 1 John 4:18 and it does not suggests anything close to anihilation.

Selective highlighting serves only to emphasise, and no prove your point.
The word means a time period which can be finite or infinite. Let the context determine which.
The judgment is eternal/everlasting. No return from this one. Like they say, no repentance in the grave.
If you read 1 John 4:18 to read punishment or torment, it does not mean for all eternity

TayoD:
Matthew 25:46 - And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the [color=#990000]Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. The problem I have with your interpretation of this verse is that you suggest S&G have already gone through a judgment that is yet in the future.

That judgement was in the past. The tense is unmistakeable. Further, it was a type of that which is to come. There will be a final judgement. After which you go into life eternal (and it's rewards) or death eternal (after your punishment). That is utterly consumed just like S&G where.

TayoD:
Matthew 25:46 - And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life This passage is clear about what awaits the condemned ones - torment. Even if we regard the everlasting to mean for a time period, the word punishment does not mean annihilation by any stretch of its use. That same word is used in 1 John 4:18 and it does not suggests anything close to anihilation.

My understanding of the eternal fire as used in Jude is found in [color=#990000]Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. This scripture tells us what makes the fire eternal - it is from heaven. That fire is different from the once that we know simply because of the source.

You are nullifying your own arguement here?
The fire after the final judgement will have it's source likewise from Heaven. Please tell me does that attest to destruction or eternal torment?

TayoD:
The wicked can't spend eternity in hell because hell itself is not eternal. The lake of fire is eternal. Abraham's bossom is not in heaven, but actually in the ground like hell or hades. Remember it was actually side by side with hades. Howver, the occupants of abraham's bossom have now been moved to heaven when Jesus ascended.

Your explanation and location of "Abraham Bosom" sounds like you plucked it from thin air? Sheol/Hell whatever, are just expressions for the grave. The dead sleep. The parable was figurative. Are there humans in Heaven right now? Please outline something to attest to that.

If all the wicked are tormented in an eternally burning lake. Does that not mean that their is one punishment for all? Or will you have different tempretures? Or would you refute the notion that the bible declares punishment based on transgression? He renders to each according to their works?

God bless

I like easy ones!

1.
The thread heading ~ Head of the Church = Jesus Christ. Always has been always will be.
(Just say no to Popes, Superintendants, Metropolitans, Presiding Bishops, Covering Apostles, GO's, MOG's SAP's etc etc. Sitting in a seat that is in no ways theirs. Nonsense & covetousness ).

2.
Peter & Paul had different charges. Paul to the Uncircumcised, Peter to the Jews (who are called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands). Neither of them were the titular head of the Lords church.

3.
Peter was being hypocritical. Acting Jewish amongst gentile believers, as there were other Jews round.

4.
Because they were only human. And Believers have liberty to disagree or adopt different approaches to the non-essentials. I don't recall Peter being involved?

5.
No whitewash. It was a meeting of the whole Church and sound counsel prevailed.

6.
Not by God he wasn't.

7.
The truth that He was the Messiah, The Son of God.

God bless

shahan:
Just like I said earlier, even the proponents of the doctrine of annihilation are deeply disagreed among themselves on what they actually believe. Sample these:

1. Let the discussion rest on it's merits. I don't believe anyone is taking a position just for the sake of arguement.
2. We all have different ways of articulating, it is not hard to see what Sage means. If you are not sure, please ask!
3. Can we keep this to the scriptural merits or otherwise of the points raised and not venture into the ad-hominem.

shahan:
The problem many people have with reading issues in the Bible is simply that they cannot receive the divine declarations as stated. There has got to be a middle course somewhere that offers them a pivot for their supposed denials and re-interpretations.

It's not your place to perjoratively label maturity, understanding or leading that differs from yours, even if you are 100% correct. Like I said.

Shahan wrote;
What exactly is meant by "eternal destruction" and "eternal torment"? I think most people who have a problem with Revelation 20:10 easily accept the annihilation/destruction doctrine without a moment's consideration for the "torment" in that verse.

My response;
Again, like I said.

Who said anyone has a problem with it? I don't deny or overlook it's presence. There is a dissonance between my reading of scripture up until this verse. It would be dishonest to re-interprete or ignore my whole reading up till this point on the basis of the one verse/section of scripture.

My initial default position after becoming a Christian (and even as an unbeliever) was eternal torment. I had no questions about it as such. But after scrutinising related scriptures and doctrines ("immortality of the soul", destruction, death, eternal life etc), I have cause to question it.

Shahan wrote;
I can understand why people feel the way you do on this. In just the same way, there's no such teaching in the Bible as annihilation.

My response;
What exactly do you understand and how? And why do you assume my position is driven by feeling? There is an almost overwhelming weight of scripture that suggests eternal destruction for the wicked. Especially when one properly aligns, death, eternal life, immortality and other doctrines that tie closely into this.

Shahan wrote;
It all depends on what you understand those verses to be pointing to or implying by immortality.

My response;
We'd all appreciate if you outline your understanding of those verses.

Shahan wrote;
I'll urge you to keep reading and perhaps you might see that more than being mentioned 'remotely', the Lord Jesus categorically made it clear that there's such a thing as eternal torment:

My response;
Firstly, I don't see eternal torment necessarily implied in the scriptures quoted. That is your reading of it.

Matthew 25:Everlasting fire ~ Means just that, fire that cannot be quenched until it fully consumes. This is clearly outlined in 2 Peter 2:6 & Jude 7.

Likewise Everlasting punishment is easily understood as an irrevocable judgment. The second death is final, from which there will be no ressurrection or further pardon, hence the judgment handed down is final, eternal.

Mark  9: As above.

Luke 16: Even if one adopts a literal interpretation to this parable, there is nothing to suggest that the time spent by the wicked in hell is eternal. Is there anything, anywhere in scripture to suggest that Abrahams bosom is heaven?

The rich man arrayed in "purple" almost certainly represents the rich law bound priestly elite, whilst Lazarus typifies the poor/gentiles who have Abrahams faith. It's a parable. Jesus was demonstrating to the stiff-necked, hard-headed, religious jews that the KOG was being opened up to the nations.

The notion that the grave has two distinct parts one for the wicked and one for the righteous is nowhere portrayed in the bible. It is from old Jewish lore. One that The Lord used to make a point.

Shahan wrote;
Do you remember that Death and Hell were personified in Rev. 6:8? "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

My response;
This does not butress your position. Personified or literal, they are both cast into the lake of fire to be consumed.

Shahan wrote;
Perhaps the reason for such a position is borne out of an unwillingness to look into the clear statements in the Revelation verses. The passages there do NOT teach "cessation of life" as long as those cast into the lake of fire experience "torment".

My response;
Suppose all you will, it changes nothing. If I was "unwilling to look" as you suggest, I would have stuck with all my default or recieved positions. Passages elsewhere clearly teach that death is just that. If there is no cessation of life, what need ressurection?

Shahan wrote;
The one question I would like to ask about this idea that Jude 7 points to finality of judgement: Will the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah escape the FINAL Judgement in Revelation 20:12-13?

My response;
Surely it can't be hard to see that the "example" that God made of S&G is exactly a type of what the 2nd death would be. Final, eternal, unchangeable, irrevocable.

Presumably you can read eternal torment into the "example" of S&G. I would appreciate your doing so, be it, literally or figuratively.

In as much as you purported to be trying to help, thanks.

God bless

Hi Y'All,

Whilst continuing in my daily study meditation, lot's of scriptures have been speaking to me very deeply on this and I must confess that I am been led even more towards eternal destruction as opposed to eternal torment.

I'll try and find time to articulate some of what I'm hearing, but I'm enjoying the discussion so far.

One thing I had never thought about much was the immortality of the soul. This is sounding less and less like a Christian notion the more I read.

I think "immortality of the soul" is core to the doctrine of eternal torment but It's something worth claryfing in it's own right.

I think scripture talks about immortality as something to come, not something we already have, as I believe the following scriptures all attest to;

Romans 2:7 - eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

1 Corinthians 15:53 - For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 - So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

1Timothy 6:16 - who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

2 Timothy 1:10 - but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

I see nothing that can even remotely be read as eternal torment before the Revelations 20:10. Do hell and death burn forever as well?

I am not convinced that death is meant to mean anything other than cessation of life. Whilst I accept that death is on occasion used figuratively in scripture, I don't think it's import is such in relation to eternal judgement.

Likewise attempting to pass of eternal life and/or everlasting life as not being about life (immortality?) per se, but about the quality of that life, is to me as tenuous an arguement as the one about death.

Also with regards to Jude 7, I think this speaks even more to eternal destruction as opposed to eternal torment when read in conjunction with 2 Peter 2:6.

2 Peter 2:6 - and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

Jude 1:7 - as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I think this clearly outlines the fact that it was the finality (irrevocability) and means (unquenchable fire) of the judgment that were eternal in nature and not the actual length of the judgment itself. Which of course was death (destruction, perishing, consuming).

Loads more questions, but it's good to talk. Thanks

God bless

knowitall:
4 times exhaustively to be exact.

If you mean the thread on "tithe", good effort. So what do you think?

Backslider:
before The Law there was Offering.

True, but that speaks nothing to a mandatory tithe

God bless

@ Backslider, Grouppoint, Feyisara Please read this, slowly  !