JMAN05:


I had wanted to comment on the first church before I saw someone question it. I don't know what could rightly be termed "available" in your comment. I think the churches in Rome were among those that came from the preaching work done during and after Pentecost. That they were among, does not mean that only the ones based in Rome are the only ones. Again, I don't know the context in which you use "available". Other churches were available, but may not have been as prominent.

All churches are offshoots from what Jesus established in Pentecost. After all there were other churches or groups that had there beginning from Jerusalem during Pentecost and others began by the ministry of Peter, Paul and other ministers. So this first church mentality is hilarious.

PastorOluT:


U are right, but for argument sake was the reason why I used available (that is known and mentioned as there were several others not in the limelight). In truth there was no one Church per se (at least physically, though we are in body in Christ) there are several Churches in the different settlements of those that believes in Christ. I think probably the idea of the first Church was for selfish reasons as Rome seek control (no one should quote me on this as its just a thought), reason I said there's more to records available. Funny enough, the only reason for the clamour of the first Church is to establish that all their doctrines and traditions are right and should not be questioned even when it obviously negate the scriptures.

PastorAIO:



You weren't asked WHERE the church is but WHAT happened to the church. In other words trace for us the narrative of its history.

Let me even add one more question of my own.
Do you consider yourself to be a member of this church? If yes, as a member can you trace your tradition in the church back to the apostles?

PastorAIO:
Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking that there was only one church.

PastorOluT:


Though we are many, we are one body in Christ.

JMAN05:


I had wanted to comment on the first church before I saw someone question it. I don't know what could rightly be termed "available" in your comment. I think the churches in Rome were among those that came from the preaching work done during and after Pentecost. That they were among, does not mean that only the ones based in Rome are the only ones. Again, I don't know the context in which you use "available". Other churches were available, but may not have been as prominent.

All churches are offshoots from what Jesus established in Pentecost. After all there were other churches or groups that had there beginning from Jerusalem during Pentecost and others began by the ministry of Peter, Paul and other ministers. So this first church mentality is hilarious.

PastorAIO:


But you cannot tell the story of this one church.
Paul wrote letters to the church in Corinth so at the very least we can say that these churches had address that a postman can locate.

There is still a church in Corinth and it's position hasn't moved.

You cannot even tell me the story of your so called church. Who were its members on the 2nd century, on the 3rd century...

PastorOluT:


Do u realized that all the Churches that letter was written to in the book of revelation were all in Asia? Going by your rationale, then there are no other Churches recognized by Christ save the one in Asia as at time? One Church in the Spirit of Christ and not t a physical structure, or structure.

PastorAIO:


I do realise that and I also realise that the genesis of christianity was in Asia and middle east.

Henceforth if you cannot trace your christianity to these roots then you are just deceiving yourself.

PastorOluT:


Smile, I think i understand u a bit now. "If one can't trace your Christianity to these then one is not a Christian", everyone can now see clearly what u trying to prove. What of the Church in Ethiopia allegedly started by the Ethiopian eunuch? What makes one a Christian? What's the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection? How was the Church formed? And lastly according to ur statement, I say also if u can't trace ur lineage back to Noah then u are not a human being (note I said "You" and not Africa).

NB just come out straight and say it that if one is not a Roman Catholic then he is not a Christian cos I can bet u have been dying to establish that.

PastorOluT:

I say also if u can't trace ur lineage back to Noah then u are not a human being (note I said "You" and not Africa).

Emusan:


@underline - is Jehovah Witness part of the Church that offshoot from what Jesus established in Pentecost?

If Yes! Who is the leader?

JMAN05:


Let that elude you for now.

Omudia11:
False demonic church

JMAN05:


Let that elude you for now.

PastorAIO:


Presuming the story of noah was historical fact then Yes, if you can't trace your lineage back to noah you're not a human being, unless some other ancestors existed that aren't Noah.

PastorAIO:


Nope, I wasn't advocating for Roman Catholicism. Afterall those churches I mentioned are today in the fold of the Greek Orthodox church which is guilty of all the things you accuse Roman Catholics of.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was converted on the Road to Gaza. Not in ethiopia. Gaza is in the middle east. If you don't believe I can bring a map.

But guess what? The Ethiopian church does all the things that you accuse the Roman catholic Church of doing. Go and find out about Mary's Feat day called Feast of Filsata.

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/amharic/seasonal/Filsataineotc.pdf

So EVERY church that has mariology can trace itself back to the apostles but you that think you are holier than them, you don't even belong to any christian tradition.

PastorOluT:


So what u wrote here make sense to? if one can't trace his lineage back to Noah then he isn't human even if he is obviously? U just missed the point totally, the fact that he can't prove his lineage doesn't negate his being. I bet u can't even prove ur lineage to the past 200 years, yet u spilling this. Anyways I see u just want to argue.

PastorOluT:


Sigh, the Ethiopian eunuch started the Church tho he was saved in the middles east. This is goes on to show that a Church could be started when there is a need in as much as one got saved. And my argument wasn't based on the their practices, all I was trying to established was that it was formed.

Definitely every Church should be able to trace back to the apostles invariably Christ, but note the apostles did not bring the Gospel but Jesus' death and resurrection did. The apostles were only carriers of the Gospel. So the trace really is to Christ, any Church that can't be traced to Christ and His teachings is false. My point is simple, just as the tracing of the genealogy of a man doesn't really negate his humanity if it can be proven beyond every reasonable doubt that he is as he possesses all the characteristics of one.

NB so what is there to prove when a Church do not possess the characters of Christ.

PastorAIO:


It makes about as much sense as your stupid utterances thus far.

You have being denouncing the Roman Catholic Church. Yet they can actually provide document tracing their tradition back to Apostolic tradition.

You on the other hand cannot, yet you have the miserable gall to denounce them.

Then stupidly you try to use Noah as a metaphor. According to the bible Noah is everybody's ancestor and nobody is questioning whether anybody is a human being. According to the bible everybody ought to descend from Noah.

But according you NOT everybody is coming from the apostles. Then you accuse the people that can provide documentation as fake, while you that have no basis and no proof, you are claiming to be the correct christian. are you not a mad man?

PastorOluT:


Kids running around Nairaland, cos u can hold a reasonable conversation again u result to insult. No problem don't quote me again as I report u. Wishing u all the best in whatever way u choose.