₦airaland Forum

10:08 jan 20, i wrote a post, hell, is from d anglo saxon root meaning to hide, hole, hollow and a dark hidden place
hades is frm d root fid, meaning a dark hidden place.
The meaning is d same! Hell translates hades as literally as posible.

Image123: from merriam-webster's online dictionary,
Definition of HELL

1
a (1) : a nether world in which the dead continue to exist : hades (2) : the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment —often used in curses <go to hell> or as a generalized term of abuse <the hell with it>

2
a : a place or state of misery, torment, or wickedness <war is hell — W. T. Sherman>
b : a place or state of turmoil or destruction <all hell broke loose>
c : a severe scolding; also : flak, grief <gave me hell for coming in late>
d : unrestrained fun or sportiveness <the kids were full of hell> —often used in the phrase for the hell of it especially to suggest action on impulse or without a serious motive <decided to go for the hell of it>
e : an extremely unpleasant and often inescapable situation <rush-hour hell>
Synonyms: Gehenna, Pandemonium, perdition, Tophet

Note the bolded and learn. The ENGLISH word for hades and gehenna is HELL.

dis is my point. Thanks.

moredendisc: @Ubenedictus

It is good to know you use concordances lexicons, dictionaries and other helpful resources and I am pleased to hear that

I knew you'll say gnashing of teeth is simply a sign of regret

which is why I provided those verses to confirm.

You didn't let me down

"The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth". - Matt 27:44 KJV

"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." - Matt 13:42 KJV

"cast the same in his teeth" or "gnashing of teeth" means mouthing off or angry complaining

It also means criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner

Not signs of regret as most have been led to believe in teachings or Sunday School classes but rather it was about been abusive or complaining

Remember what the rich man in Sheol was doing. Yeah he was complaining, gnashing his teeth etc

Can you, now, see how the examples concerns the fact that hell does not render Sheol accurately?

Those verses Matt 27:44 and Matt 13:42, as examples, were brought up to bring attention to the fact that idioms can or were mistranslated, misinterpreted or misunderstood

Sorry, it was a trick question. I know you wouldn't have minded

Let the paradigm shift continue with the way bibles are read and/or with the way teachings, traditions or doctrines are received

interesting u step me up to take a fall, lesson learnt, i'll be more careful. I thing i notice is u didnt really give me a source dat say gnashing teeth is insulting! U just gave me ur idea! That doesnt really help now does it?

plappville: Yes!

if u are saying dat a catholic church cremated an atheist, then i'm suprised, becos d church doesnt! I also have questions 4 d church. Actually unless d atheist had a death bed repentance, i dont see how he can get a catholic burial/cremation. Ur case is either untrue, made up or u dont have d full information. Some things just dont have ways around dem.

[quote author=seeking@truth]But God knows good and evil. "Behold, the man has become like us knowing good and evil"...[/quote]and so?

Pastor AIO: Thank you for your response, Ubenedictus. I find that matter very problematic because I've just returned from nigeria where I conducted a little survey. I went around asking people what they understood by the term 'Logos'. The answers were varied. I got, ' the logos just means Jesus' on one hand. On the other, and this is very interesting, I got 'the Logos is the WRITTEN WORD while Rhema is the spoken word'. I had determined that I would only ask the one question. So I didn't go into the matter of if Logos is the written word then when the world was made through the logos and if the logos became flesh then does that mean that the written word (presumably the bible) is Jesus and the world was created by the written word.

The notion of Logos being the written word is so widespread, I've even encountered it somewhere here on NL in the past. The implication which most recoil from and only few are brave enough to voice out is 'does that mean that Jesus is the bible'?

I personally would prefer that the translations of the bible left the technical word 'logos' as it is. Why? so when people read 'in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the Logos was god they are forced to ask, 'What is meant by Logos'? This line of questioning will then open up a discussion on an issue that I find essential, nay the very core of christianity.

I maintain that translation of the word Logos to 'Word' does not convey anything to the reader. Nothing more than 'Mouth' would or 'Story' would. At least Mouth or Story would still leave the reader scratching their heads and force them to ask 'what is meant by that?'.

yeah i have seen d "d bible is d logos" crowd. So u think "word", "thought" and "reason" doesnt really make d reader ask questions.

plaetton: He he he.
Always the last last resort, eh?.
Ubenedictus pulls out the trump card .
The holy spirit did it or inspired it. Once those words are uttered, end of story.
Who can debate with that?
Final reference to a supernatural enabler always seals the deal.

Well done ubenedictus.

im nt suprised u cant undastand my post, it because they werent meant 4 u, pls u may go and argue topic like if God exist first, if u cant place d existence of God den u wont undastand d work of his spirit.

Pastor AIO: A big omission in my posts: I said that doctrinal biases influence translations. I forgot to add another and heftier point and that is that Translations have a massive influence on Doctrines. It is a two way street.

true

I knew these questions were coming, they only came a bit late.

truthislight: to which greek? Was the bible written with greek ideology or Jewish?

"You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know: salvation originate with the Jews. " (John 4:22). (Jesus words)
.................
Why then will John have to explain Greek philosophy when he is under the inspiration of the holy spirit?

because john is writting with a greek audience in mind. He wrote in greek not aramic.

Was it that the Greeks already have the truth and yahweh only wanted to key into it?

u see ur problem? D greeks had a system of philosophy, dat doesnt mean they had d truth, it simply means they have ideas and that concepts dat one may use to reach d audience. Paul said d unknown God is d pagan shrine was his God, does dat mean d pagans had d truth? No, instead he was using their concept to xplain a truth.

If the Greeks already have the truth, what exactly then do you want the gospel to preach to them that is new to attract them to christ?

ignoratio elenchi, i never said d greeks had d truth! Nor did i say d knew it all

Why even the gospel if the greek philosophy is what the holy spirit wanted to help John to key into? Any need for the gospel? (Afteral the greek had it right already)

this is like asking y d epistle of paul if d holyspirit was help paul key into d unknown God. Ur question lacks purpose.

the truth is that those that were already influence by greek philosophy twisted the words of John to suit their indoctrinated greek notion which was not what John was saying and ended up creating the confusion we have today in christianity.

hahahaha, did u notice dat d concept of logos is foreign to d jews? He could only get dat concept frm 1 place and dats from d greeks, nobody is indoctrinating anything, d idea is clear enough.

Dont even go the side you are trying to go because the apostles already gave the warning that when the apostles died off, men will come in and adultrate the truth.
Even Jesus talked about the "weed and the weath" , the weed planted by an enemy.
Well, take note, Jesus said that they should grow together that angels will do the separation at the end.

the apostle john simply preached in a language dat was understandable to his audience, d greeks! The concept of logos is a greek concept it is totally foreign to d jew, wen John used it he simply upgraded d concept and used it to xplain a cucial point of doctrine. Paul did d same, he preached in a pagan town dat d unknown God in their shrine is d true God whom he came to preach abt, dat doesnt mean d pagans has d fulness of truth, it mean dat even in their corupted minds they still search for that which is true and at times they found some truth mixed with error, d work of d apostle is d remove d error a teach d truth dat is what john did.

Boomark: Ya. Just happy to see you again. And also missing italo.

so am i

Kay 17: Bellarmine's letter to Father Foscari:
Bellarmine issues a subtle threat, that such a matter is a hypothesis because it is dangerous to the knowledge from the Scriptures.

this above is false, card bella wasn't commanding dem to call it an hypothesis instead he was comending them for doing so. He said and i quote (accding to d letter u posted)
"first, i say it seems to me that your rev and signor galileo act prudently WHEN U CONTENT urself with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely" that wasnt a threath it was commendation.

I will prove that the subject matter of the trial is the disagreement of the Church with Galileo's helicentricism. The Commissary Gen committed 2 propositions to Qualifiers (theologians 11 in number) that:

1. The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and

2. The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion. 

The qualifiers' conclusion was that Galileo's heliocentric model was heretical, and Galileo was forced to repudiate his claims and promise not to promote helicentricism itself.

So from the above the church had an issue with the unusual, unorthodox, unconventional, revolutionary idea of helicentricism.

and upon publishing his Dialogue and a consequent trial questioning the book and heliocentricism (which didn't hold any religious stance) made the below statement just prior to his sentencing

The Dialogue was placed in the Index, along with Keplar's works! The church systemically banned books that outrightly declared helicentricism!! So the church wasn't indignant only about violations to its spiritual monopoly but also on all questions on knowledge.

this are conclusions u cant sustain! U cant conclude from one case dat d church was totally against any theory that wasn't scripture, for starters u wil have to explain how a church dat hates everything revolutionary commended copernicus wen he propose a revolutionary theory.

The church felt threatened and sensed a new social order wherein Science stands supreme over even Faith in matters of conflict. The Church's apology over three hundred years later, was an admission of error.

in matter of science d church usually let it be. Dat is y card bella was looking 4 physical proof, wen science can provide it d church has been known to change her stance so d above is incorrect.

In a few lines, what I have said where: Galileo's case was of science vs institutional religion, free spirit vs authority. A self righteous church overbearing and monopolizing human knwledge.

monopolising human knowledge? Pls tell me u are joking!

Kay17 i'm also very happy for u polite tune thruout d discussion, i am happy for u. Pls permite me to attack your posts in bits, first and foremost i wil b grateful if u can give me a link to dat letter by card bella. I have snippets of d letter d controversial part and d concluding, i'll appreciate d whole letter thank u.

Kay 17: I'm encouraged by your willingness and politeness in this discussion. And I had to take my time to understand you.

Your post is not consistent. Due to the fact that you asserted that the Church was tolerant and open towards new scientific ideas even the revolutionary ones.
That's has influenced my mind to the Church's attitud and I made a presumption that the Church is tolerant towards Science.
While reading your post, a lot conflicted with my presumptions.
1. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox spiritual views.
2. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox scientific views.

the church wasnt tolerant to 'unorthodox' spiritual view, that is very correct and i would be stupid to challenge that. But to ur idea dat d church is totally intolerant to unorthodox scientific views i beg to differ. As long as science kept away from theology, d theologians kept away from d scientist. Dat is why i used copernicus as a case study, his views were "unorthodox" but as long as he kept away from theology, d theologians left him alone, he died a free man.

your words:
This means that the Church obviously censored him. Dictating the materials and ideas Galileo can propagate and with the degree of energy he should use. This is clearly anti Science. The Church as a SuperState got an injunction over the most important scientific idea in their time.
Whether or not Galileo was expounding a hypothesis is a scientific discussion not a theological one. It is obvious that the State had to step because this was the point Science and Theology conflicted.

and i reterate that had galileo kept his great discovery to science and away from scripture arguement he would have been okay. The moment d scientist brought his arguement to scripture it is like an invitation for his work to b treated by theologians. Besides d state did nothing in dis case. I clearly xplained that galileo's science became interesting to d theologians because he made it so

Bellarmine's letter to Father Foscari:
Bellarmine issues a subtle threat, that such a matter is a hypothesis because it is dangerous to the knowledge from the Scriptures.

did u read d third point card bella made? The church's literal veiw of astrology could change all it needs is substantial physical proof to contradict it by science. That was all dat was needed but already galileo had decided to "entangle himself in d sacristy"

I will prove that the subject matter of the trial is the disagreement of the Church with Galileo's helicentricism. The Commissary Gen committed 2 propositions to Qualifiers (theologians 11 in number) that:

1. The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and

2. The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion. 

The qualifiers' conclusion was that Galileo's heliocentric model was heretical, and Galileo was forced to repudiate his claims and promise not to promote helicentricism itself.

So from the above the church had an issue with the unusual, unorthodox, unconventional, revolutionary idea of helicentricism.

very unfortunate but i think u are rather oversimplifying things by closing ur eyes to d full stuff. The church wasnt after galileo simply because he ideas were new, d new stuff was by copernicus not even galileo. As far as helicentrism stood in d science realm only d church didnt touch it. If d church was just against any science dat was revolutionary it would have attacked copernicus but it didnt, if she was against d 'unorthodox' it would have been copernicus not galileo. The church didnt just attack simply becos d idea was new or unorthodox or revolutionary, no d galileo case wasn't becos helicentrism is new but becos galileo and co made it a scripture arguement and d church acted as custodian of scripture and used a scripture interpretation arguement. If there was no scripture arguement in d 1st place dere wouldnt have been any judgement. Another revolutionary theory was d big bang and it was invented by a catholic priest, d guy also died a free man becos he knew enought to keep his science from religion, he was neva censured! Galileo's case is d only case i hear pipo use dat is because i think dey are misinformed.

moredendisc: @Ubenedictus

You posted "hell" — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek

If "hell" — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek, then answers these questions please

What is the place, where the poor man Lazarus was, called?

What is the place, where the rich man was talking with father Abraham about the poor man Lazarus called?

What is and describe hell?

What is and describe Sheol or Hades?

u are creating a false difference, lazarus and d richman were in 'hell in english' shoel and hades in hebrew and greek' just d way i explain above hell is used to denote d realm of d dead pls see d oda thread i just pasted an article thread.
Shoel, hades and hell refers to d abode of d dead during d time of Jesus. Both d good and d bad go there, d good to abraham's bosom and d bad to a part of regret that is hades, shoel or hell.

Ubenedictus: let me go back to my pc, it will be interesting to show u dat wen d latins translated shoel as inferum and d english hell it was a very very literal translation,

The term hell is cognate to "hole" (cavern) and "hollow". It is a substantive formed from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". This verb has the same primitive as the Latin occulere and celare and the Greek kalyptein. Thus by derivation hell denotes a dark and hidden place.The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Septuagint hades; Vulgate infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Genesis 37:35) as well as of the bad (Numbers 16:30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulgate infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew gê-hinnom (Nehemiah 11:30), or the longer form gê-ben-hinnom (Joshua 15:, and gê-benê-hinnom (2 Kings 23:10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (2 Kings 23:10), cursed by Jeremias (Jeremiah 7:31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulgate tartarus) (2 Peter 2:4), "abyss" (Luke 8:31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke 16:28), "pool of fire" (Revelation 19:20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7), "exterior darkness" (Matthew 7:12; 22:13; 25:30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Philippians 3:19 and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, 1 Timothy 6:9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, 2 Thessalonians 1:9), "corruption" (phthora, Galatians 6:, "death" (Romans 6:21), "second death" (Revelation 2:11 and elsewhere).

frm the above, i wish 2 show that wen d translators used d word 'hell',they meant 2 translate hades nd sheol in their literal meaning so epistemologically hell is a direct translation of hades nd sheol. peace

Boomark: You should have pointed out the ignorance in the truth i wrote.

veneration of images was never a point of papal infalliability so claiming d pope comanded dat is like displaying ignorance.

Image123: yes oh this i know of the normal translators that are masters of many languages with many years of experience speaking, writing and reading, many of whom are also academically qualified and spent many months together working and brainstorming to give us great translations. my questions were to the in-house self_inflicted translators who can't see the clarity that the english word hell is the best word for translating the GREEK word Hades.

at least this is true most times but not everytime dat is y i use a concordance. In dis hell case d translator were right.

moredendisc: @truthislight

I agree with you , Ubenedictus unwittingly thinks the TRANSLATORS got it right that HELL IS HADES

The closest to hell, that you'll have, will be, the lake of fire also known as The Second death

The ultimate death that kills and will kill death.

Just confirms death is multi-tiered

let me go back to my pc, it will be interesting to show u dat wen d latins translated shoel as inferum and d english hell it was a very very literal translation,

truthislight: ^^^

lies!

u want to prove ur baseless accusation or u just want to throw trantum like a kid?

shdemidemi: 1pet1 v 17. Peter was referring to the jews saying by thr works they will b judged. Gal2•16 Paul said to the gentiles that a man is not justified by works of d law but by faith. And in 2pet15. He acknowledged what Paul.You need to rightly divide the word of God,rather than just quoting. Knowing reasons why the prophet say what they say n who they r actually talking to and y. -if we were to b judged by works, even u will not b saved.

u have confused urself, justificatiom is by faith but judgement is by works even paul say judgement is by works rom 2:6. Justification isnt judgement.

moredendisc: @Ubenedictus

"The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth". - Matt 27:44 KJV

"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." - Matt 13:42 KJV

Take a moment, to carefully read & ponder over the above two scripture for starters.

What is happening in both verse bro? What do you think?

To the untrained eyes, it does read, ridiculous and nonsensical.

Gnashing of teeth after death? How come with no physical body anymore? How is this possible?

Well, we know on record that the dead rich man, when in Hades, spoke with father Abraham when he saw Lazarus . . .

SMH Christians relying solely on their one or singular bibles will have their work cut out for them trying to understanding these verses or similar.

Only the Holy Spirit might come to the rescue and save the day for such Christians

sorry my dear friend i dont rely on translations alone, i use a concordance dat remark was directed to d wrong person.
Gnashing of teeth is simply a sign of regret, how does dat concern d fact dat hell render's shoel accurately.
Sorry i haven't been around, my reply may be late.

moredendisc: @Ubenedictus

I bet you wish its "JUST UR PERSONAL OPINION" bro.

I have much love for you bro but YOYO!

- you're on your own

SO ARE U

moredendisc: @Image123

The idea of "hell" does not exist in the Hebrew vocabulary or sphere of life so as a result there is no Hebrew word for hell

Sheol and Hades are similar in place or location and in meaning,

Sheol or Hades is a place where both the righteous and the wicked end up in after death but separated by a gulf

Sheol, is in Hebrew language or Hades is in Greek language

It is safe to say Sheol is Hades and vice versa

Hell like similar imports into Christendom, such as Yuletide etc are myths from other people's cultures

Sheol or Hades and hell are different kettle of fish

The english word hell is not a good render of the word Sheol or Hades

because the righteous and wicked end up in Sheol or Hades albeit separated by a gulf

however supposedly only the wicked end up in hell with no righteous present

UR EXPOSITION ON SHOEL AND HADES IS CORRECT, BUT UR IDEA DAT HELL DEOSNT TRANSLATE D WORDS WELL IS JUST UR PERSONAL OPINION AND I BEG TO DIFFER

The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek — because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

"The gospel was preached even to the dead." The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."

moredendisc: @Ubenedictus

Which side is your bread buttered on?

- That was a joke question.

This is not personal nor a vendetta on individual persons

It is a clarion buyer beware call to Christians

Christians need to do their due diligence on doctrines and on whoever teachings

They are responsible for assessing the quality of the teaching or doctrine received before buying into it

# Excuse the puns

UR POINTS ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD, TAKEN AND AGREED TO, JUST DIDNT LIKE D TAGS. PEACE

[quote author=seeking@truth]Genesis 1 vs 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the birds of the air, and over the fishes of the seas, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping things that creeps on the earth."

I guess that was the purpose of the creation of Adam, according to that verse of the Bible. But, I wonder how a man without knowledge of good and evil can manage the earth and its inhabitants.[/quote]COS D WORLD WAS CREATED WITHOUT EVIL MAN DIDNT NEED D KNOWLEDGE OF EVIL

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

Christ's Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life. The phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures" indicates that Christ's Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.

The truth of Jesus' divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection. He had said: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he." The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly "I AM", the Son of God and God himself. So St. Paul could declare to the Jews: "What God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'" Christ's Resurrection is closely linked to the Incarnation of God's Son, and is its fulfillment in accordance with God's eternal plan.
The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God's grace, "so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ's brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: "Go and tell my brethren." We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.

Finally, Christ's Resurrection — and the risen Christ himself is the principle and source of our future resurrection: "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep... For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfillment . In Christ, Christians "have tasted... the powers of the age to come" and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may "live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."

[quote author=Area_boy]No he wont [/quote]HAHAHA, DAT U DONT AGREE DOESNT MAKE IT UNTRUE

Image123: BTW, let me ask the self-inflicted rabbis, professors and translators in the house. What is the Hebrew word for 'hell'? What is the english word for 'Hades'?

IT IS D SAME TIN, HELL IS HADES AND HADES IS HELL ACCORDING TO D TRANSLATORS

frosbel: Yes, this is a real problem and the foundation of a false belief system.

for those wu believe there is nothing false there. And ur disbelieve doesnt neccesaryly stoke out another's believe.

668 Christ already reigns through the Church...

"Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." Christ's Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God's power and authority. Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion", for the Father "has put all things under his feet." Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history. In him human history and indeed all creation are "set forth" and transcendently fulfilled.

669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".

670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfillment. We are already at "the last hour". "Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real but imperfect." Christ's kingdom already manifests its presence through the miraculous signs that attend its proclamation by the Church.

... until all things are subjected to him

671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Marana tha! "Our Lord, come!"

672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace. According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.

The glorious advent of Christ, the hope of Israel

673 Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent, even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.". This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".

674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".

moredendisc: The side that elevates Mary as Queen of Heaven, purgatory etc

The post's observation was about awareness of false teachings & doctrines and not superiority

Note the mention was not exhaustive and had "s" in ". . . the Oyakhilomes, Oyedepos, Ashimolowos, Adeboyes, TB Joshuas, Oritsejafors, Bakares, Adeboyes, Olukoyas, Okogies, aladuras, WoF, "plentyrascals" etc etc . . . "

The individuals per se are not tagged bro.

actually dat is even worse, u made those individual arch types of false teachers, u are still judging.
And d stuff u listed above are just stuff u dnt believe, for those wu believe there is nothing false there. And ur disbelieve doesnt neccesaryly stoke out another's believe.

shdemidemi: Thr is really nothing to laugh abt. Let's open our minds.what d scripture says in gal 2v14” but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter .....” . A false prophet is a person who is not true with the gospel.contrary to u thinking a false prophet is a devil.U must be a prophet and a christian before u can b false. If u read d book of Peter, u will realise he changed in 2peter.

u are committed to dragging me into dis.
Just note a false teacher is one wu TEACHES a lie, not just one wu may experience a weakness in character. In d above passage paul is correcting peter's behaviour not his teaching and even paul wrote d wrong he doesn't wish to do is what he does (dat i think is in romans) does that make paul a false prophet/teacher too? Does pauls weakness translate to false message?
Be careful, dat passage is quiet clear and dat is why paul neva called peter a false prophet instead he calls him a co labourer. I repeat be careful. Nd there is nothing in 2nd peter that contradict 1st peter so i can't see ur so called changed, hope u are nt under some illusion?