timibofa:
Turkey is in the present day Europe and partly in Asia.
•Apostle Paul was a citizen of Turkey because Tarsus exists in Turkey.
•Christianity existed in Turkey for about 1,023 years while Christianity has only existed in Nigeria and Ghana for 172yrs starting from when Rev. Birch Freeman came to Badagry in 1842.
•The seven churches Jesus spoke to in Revelations 2 & 3(Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea,) existed in the old Turkey.
•The disciples were first called Christians in Turkey(Antioch)
•Turkey once had the largest Christian auditorium in Europe called Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
•Mary the mother of Jesus was taken to Turkey by Apostle John and till date, her room has become a tourist centre.

TURKEY TODAY

•Present day Turkey now has 96% muslims & 0.02% Christians(less than 130,000).
•The Hagia Sophia(once largest church in Europe) was taken over by muslims and converted to a mosque for over 400yrs and later used as an Islamic Museum

WHY CHRISTIANITY COLLAPSED IN TURKEY

•Emphasis on doctrinal differences weakened the Turkish church.
•Rivalries amongst denominations
•Petty politics in church coupled with ethnic biases.
•The Turks were building big cathedrals instead of building men.
HOW IT HAPPENED

•Osman Ghazi discovered the disunity amongst Christians and used it to fight a Jihad that led to a mass genocide of the Armenians, the Hellen and Turks of that day. In fact, the weapon of war used was designed by a Turkish Christian.
•Many Christian women converted to Islam to save their lives and some were raped and killed.
•Osman Ghazi started the Ottoman empire which gave muslims political post and made it a religion of the state.

IS NIGERIA/GHANA HEADING THE WAY OF TURKEY

•Virtually all the mistakes the church in Turkey made, the Nigerian/Ghanaian church have made it.
•We are building Cathedrals at the expense of discipling men.
•Disunity amongst churches
•Ethnicity in the church
•Denominational rivalry, etc.
•Sharp division along doctrinal lines

MORE FACTS

•The spiritual foundation of Turkey is stronger than that of Nigeria/ Ghana and Christianity existed for over 1000yrs in Turkey unlike ours which is just 172yrs but Islam Radicalism uprooted it. If it can happen in Turkey, it can also happen IF we are not careful.
•The menace of Boko Haram has destroyed a lot of churches in the Northern Nigeria and it may take another 200yrs to evangelize Borno State alone.
•There is a secret agenda to Islamize Nigeria and other African nations as contained in Abuja declaration of 1989.

DON'T SAY IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE, IF WE DON'T RIGHT OUR WRONGS AS A CHURCH.

SOLUTION

•HEART-FELT Intercession
•Aggressive evangelism- the terrorist reached out to the youths in the norths first and gave them AK-47 and bombs, if we had reached out to them on time,
they'll be carrying BIBLES today.
•Mission support:-God is holding the church responsible for Boko Haram, yet we are blaming the government. If we had supported missions and
missionaries, we would have those insurgents to Christ long ago.
•Unity of the church is key in winning this battle. The last but not the least christians should be actively involve in politics. Enough of these muslims political office holder with islamic adgenda.

ARISE CHURCH & LETS DO THE NEEDFUL!!!

.u
Thank you for the warning. But it will not happen, because Islam has lost the power the religion had before the fall of the Ottorman Empire.
Muslims have attacked and killed their fellow Muslims more in this century than all the Muslims killed during the crusades.

kumakunta:

Mr man keep shut and stop being silly. Spain and Serbia were formally Muslim dominated.

It was muslim dominated because they were invaded and taken over by evil jihadists at an unfortunate time in there history. Prior to that, Spain was a christian nation and all the crusaders did was to rid Spain of the forces of evil. Obviously your hypocritical self does not see anything wrong with the satanic jihads.

ARISE CHURCH & LETS DO THE NEEDFUL

What a dumb post.. what did you know about history?
Please tell me little about Christianity in France andSpain, how come about the dominance.
Tagging other faith terrorist.
what happen in Serbia ?
what happen in Georgia ?
What is happening in Kashmir ?
What is happening in Gaza ?
All this are nothing but pure terrorism.
Obama recently admitted they made a mistake in Libya. Nigerians travel to Libya to seek for greener pasture,Libya has a booming and stable economy under Gadafi`s rule but the Christians went their displaced him liberalized and neutralized Libya introducing democracy and indirectly creating room for gospel to penetrate, same with Iraq.
And the list and analysis goes on and on.

Don't worry Nigeria Christian's have started real (money)envangelism ,see the leader's are only interested in exotic suv car's, building mansions- school fees sky rocket in Christian institution. The children of the poor and tithe payer cannot go to the mission school ,unlike olden days when missionaries came free education work cloth food & shelter.The Muslims instead are giving out money (call it petrodollar)in the name islamization .Nigerians who are Christian in position of authority are taxing churches

mrhansome12:
It may happen in other place not in igboland we hate that religion with passion.

Hahahaha
But you prefer a religion where God who answers to no one
Who is doer of all he intends
Needs to kill his own "son" because of the sin of another person
baffling!

SUPERPACK:
you are wrong. certain documents and files on wikipedia must be verified by the team of editors b4 it can be put up for public consumption, especially when such info is about history.
.
Secondly if their info is nt reliable why are they ranked as 1st in google search and even recommended by google as highly reliable.
.

Not entirely true. It admits that because they allowed for anonymouse editing, articles on their website should not always be taken as authentic. Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to crosscheck for authenticity every single one of the thousands of article/history/facts/biographies/ documents/ files etc posted on the website on a daily basis.
Recently, Pres. Buhari Wikipedia page was tempered with; someone altered one of his nicknames to 'Ajala The Traveller'. Any disgruntled fellow could have done that. There are plethora of similar cases as the Buhari's. Wikipedia is never a point of reference and should never be used to validate a point, never.

Louislewis:
[size=18pt]My observation right now with the situation in Nigeria today, apart from what the op wrote, it has been observed that, the Boko Haram have be distributed to all part of Nigeria for a planned taking over of all churches. The churches will be over-run one day by surprise.

Go to villages in the South-South and South-East, they are all over waiting for the d-day

.[/size]

Please explain the quoted.

Fourwinds:
hmmmmm well done... D Jihadist didnt make slaves out of them, they were not forcefully converted rite...

Stop assuming.Go first do your research.

BetaThings:


Hahahaha
But you prefer a religion where God who answers to no one
Who is doer of all he intends
Needs to kill his own "son" because of the sin of another person
baffling!

Then the one who is causing all the troubles in the world from ISIS, to Boko Haram just to mention a few so any of the religion encroachment into igboland is dead on arrival.

jikanbage:
how many of u hate It

million that is why it is non existence in igboland

RandomVic:


Not entirely true. It admits that because they allowed for anonymouse editing, articles on their website should not always be taken as authentic. Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to crosscheck for authenticity every single one of the thousands of article/history/facts/biographies/ documents/ files etc posted on the website on a daily basis.
Recently, Pres. Buhari Wikipedia page was tempered with; someone altered its nickname to 'Ajala The Traveller'. Any disgruntled fellow could have done that. There are plethora of similar cases as the Buhari's. Wikipedia is never a point of reference and should never be used to validate a point, never.

gud point.
i only use wikipedia link when i have gone through other sites also for verification, i sited them in dis arguement because of the easy navigation for readers, and i have alternate links to the previous ones.

RandomVic:


Not entirely true. It admits that because they allowed for anonymouse editing, articles on their website should not always be taken as authentic. Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to crosscheck for authenticity every single one of the thousands of article/history/facts/biographies/ documents/ files etc posted on the website on a daily basis.
Recently, Pres. Buhari Wikipedia page was tempered with; someone altered one of his nicknames to 'Ajala The Traveller'. Any disgruntled fellow could have done that. There are plethora of similar cases as the Buhari's. Wikipedia is never a point of reference and should never be used to validate a point, never.

"you are wrong. certain documents and files on wikipedia must
be verified by the team of editors b4 it can be put up for public
consumption, especially when such info is about history"
You can't even edit some major topics on wikipedia,moreover,for how long did the "Ajala the traveller" remain on the wikipedia page.Wikipedia is still one of the most reliable sources on the internet.

annunaki2:


[s]The crusaders never invaded any non christian country with the purpose of converting them to christianity. I challenge you to name a single country that was invaded for that purpose. The crusaders were primarily a defensive army whose primary objective was to defend European territories against attack from satanic jihadists. The only case of offensive military campaign carried out by the crusaders was when they went to capture and take over Jerusalem[/s].

Stop typing shits.Turkey was under roman empire before the ottoman emprire.A rift between the catholic church allowed them(ottoman) to gain grounds thru jihad.

SUPERPACK:
pls stop spreading wrong information every where, turkey was never a christian country in their history, only constantinople (istambul) was dominated by christians.
.
The roman catholic and latin christians crusaders are to be blamed for the fall of constantinople, and contrary to you conclusion that they were all converted to islam is far frm the truth, rather the Christians in turkey vacated the country to neighbouring countries, so what the muslem took was the land and assets on it, and also few christians who could nt migrate,
.
years after the conquest the christians started migrating back and dis led to the massacre by the subsequent ruler.

M4ka! Yo a muslim?? Twas 4king Jihadist dah converted turkians under duress. Turkey ko? Tolo tolo nee?

Fourwinds:
my question is so all this happened in Constantinople? I know d West and East Roman Empire had their differences... There were several Crusades and Jerusalem was d main point of Crusades ok

Constantinople (currently Istanbul), was dominated by Italians until the. Massacre of the Latins (Catholics) by the Orthodox Christians.

Until (1204) Pope Innocent III, sent Crusaders to conquer Constantinople that was the Fourth Crusade.

Note: As at that time Christians were divided into Catholic and Orthodox.

The Crusaders were Catholic military Arm. And they persecuted any nation that failed to follow the Papacy rules.

Uramzi:
M4ka! Yo a muslim?? Twas 4king Jihadist dah converted turkians under duress. Turkey ko? Tolo tolo nee?

haha

Shores of turkey indeed..
To continue to spread hate and poverty abi?

Maybe they should start by spreading whatever good news they have to their congregations in Nigeria and Africa and start ameliorating the suffering of the poor.

We have gigantic problems of corruption, greed and killings going on due to religion and instead of the religious bodies to look inwards and start raising pious followers they are just interested in spreading their brand without any substance. Charity begins at home. Success is not about the number of branches you have but about the number of good deeds and pious followers your congregations have.

SUPERPACK:
They whole area never fell to the byzantine empire, the turks resisted the byzantine empire.
.
Can u also deny the fact that the atrocities committed by the crusaders on the city of constantinople weekened their defence and force which led to their fall to the ottorman empire later on without resistance.
.
what of the non christian countries invaded and converted by the crusaders, were they conquered for God?.
.
I believe that such thing as dis that happened in the dark ages cannot happen again. the lord is our strength.

Turkey was first pagan, then it became Christian through proselytizing. The Turkic Muslims invaded and by murder and rampaging, it was brought to Islam. The Crusades we're as a result of Islamic army conquering most of the then Christians lands in the middle east. In fact the Bishop of Jerusalem back then called upon the King of England and France for help, after his city was captured.

I do not supporting either of them but if you doubt me Google is your friend.

SUPERPACK:
pls stop spreading wrong information every where, turkey was never a christian country in their history, only constantinople (istambul) was dominated by christians.
.
The roman catholic and latin christians crusaders are to be blamed for the fall of constantinople, and contrary to you conclusion that they were all converted to islam is far frm the truth, rather the Christians in turkey vacated the country to neighbouring countries, so what the muslem took was the land and assets on it, and also few christians who could nt migrate,
.
years after the conquest the christians started migrating back and dis led to the massacre by the subsequent ruler.

Leave them na so dem go dey lie like say Muslims no sabi history too

Lifebender:


Stop typing shits.Turkey was under roman empire before the ottoman emprire.A rift between the catholic church allowed them(ottoman) to gain grounds thru jihad.

Yes, there was a rift. But this does not negate the point that the Ottoman empire wanted to attack Constantinople. They already wanted to invade and plunder them before that.

MicroBox:
ARISE CHURCH & LETS DO THE NEEDFUL

What a dumb post.. what did you know about history?
Please tell me little about Christianity in France andSpain, how come about the dominance.
Tagging other faith terrorist.
what happen in Serbia ?
what happen in Georgia ?
What is happening in Kashmir ?
What is happening in Gaza ?
All this are nothing but pure terrorism.
Obama recently admitted they made a mistake in Libya. Nigerians travel to Libya to seek for greener pasture,Libya has a booming and stable economy under Gadafi`s rule but the Christians went their displaced him liberalized and neutralized Libya introducing democracy and indirectly creating room for gospel to penetrate, same with Iraq.
And the list and analysis goes on and on.

Serbia ?
Georgia ?
Kashmir ?
Gaza ?

What do these places have to do with the topic?

lol @ Northerners waiting for d d-day if that day comes.You guys would know we have some thinkers in this country with immense capabilities

MarieSucre:


Turkey was first pagan, then it became Christian through proselytizing. The Turkic Muslims invaded and by murder and rampaging, it was brought to Islam. The Crusades we're as a result of Islamic army conquering most of the then Christians lands in the middle east. In fact the Bishop of Jerusalem back then called upon the King of England and France for help, after his city was captured.

I do not supporting either of them but if you doubt me Google is your friend.

my only arguement was that the crusaders weekened and inflicted great damages on constantinople, which later made it impossible for them to defend themselves when the Ottorman invaders struck. So both the Crusaders and the Ottorman jihadist are to be blamed equally for the fall of constantinople.

Lifebender:


Stop typing shits.Turkey was under roman empire before the ottoman emprire.A rift between the catholic church allowed them(ottoman) to gain grounds thru jihad.

It was a rift between the Orthodox Christians and Catholics.

That rift cursed the Massacre of the Latins(Catholics)

and the Forth Crusade.

annunaki2:


It was muslim dominated because they were invaded and taken over by evil jihadists at an unfortunate time in there history. Prior to that, Spain was a christian nation and all the crusaders did was to rid Spain of the forces of evil. Obviously your hypocritical self does not see anything wrong with the satanic jihads.

History is not your wish or dream but reality

1. How did Spain become a Christian country?
2. Was the forcible conversion of people who were not Christians by Queen Isabella Godly?
3. Was the expulsion of people who did not convert Godly
4. Do you believe that it is right to force people to become Christians but wrong to force people to convert to other religions?

Do you believe that the inquisition was Godly?
Do you believe that the doctrine of discovery was Godly?

kallmemrB:
pipe dream....nothing like that can happen in nigeria....we still have igbos that hate Islam than satan due to their catholic beliefs

it can happen.
just do d Needful d op said

annunaki2:
Turkey is a muslim country today because they were over ran by evil satanic jihadists and forced to convert at the pain of death and not because the church there was weak. That scenario can never happen in Nigeria cause they will be crushed. In truth islam is in decline today in Nigeria with several muslims renouncing islam on a daily basis and accepting christ.

even I'd we don't v attack from jihad, something else may happen.
Nigerian Christianity must run from ungodly competitions, rivalry, differences, sin etc.
what d op said can hsppen

tartar9:

"you are wrong. certain documents and files on wikipedia must
be verified by the team of editors b4 it can be put up for public
consumption, especially when such info is about history"
You can't even edit some major topics on wikipedia,moreover,for how long did the "Ajala the traveller" remain on the wikipedia page.Wikipedia is still one of the most reliable sources on the internet.

The fact that almost anyone can pretty much edit any article on wikipedia as he or she pleases is discomforting. Very discomforting in deed. If you're to provide Wikipedia as your proof of point in a debate be sure to back it up with relevant citation from a more reliable souce.
wikipedia itself says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because
some articles may contain errors,” you
should “not use Wikipedia to make
critical decisions.”

www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

@ Safemode dont kid yourself it won't ever happen.We will die first before seeingg our religion changed

SUPERPACK:
my only arguement was that the crusaders weekened and inflicted great damages on constantinople, which later made it impossible for them to defend themselves when the Ottorman invaders struck. So both the Crusaders and the Ottorman jihadist are to be blamed equally for the fall of constantinople.

The crusaders had nothing to do with. It was the invading Muslim army who conquered and destroyed Constantinople.

excerpt----

"The Ottomans were commanded by 21-year-old
Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II , who defeated an army
commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI
Palaiologos . The conquest of Constantinople followed a
53-day siege that had begun on 6 April 1453.
The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine
splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the
Roman Empire , an imperial state which had lasted for
nearly 1,500 years. [33] The Ottoman conquest of
Constantinople also dealt a massive blow to
Christendom , as the Ottoman armies thereafter were left
unchecked to advance into Europe without an adversary
to their rear. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

MarieSucre:


The crusaders had nothing to do with. It was the invading Muslim army who conquered and destroyed Constantinople.

excerpt----

"The Ottomans were commanded by 21-year-old
Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II , who defeated an army
commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI
Palaiologos . The conquest of Constantinople followed a
53-day siege that had begun on 6 April 1453.
The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine
splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the
Roman Empire , an imperial state which had lasted for
nearly 1,500 years. [33] The Ottoman conquest of
Constantinople also dealt a massive blow to
Christendom , as the Ottoman armies thereafter were left
unchecked to advance into Europe without an adversary
to their rear. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

The formation of military religious ordersscandalised the Orthodox Byzantines, and crusaders pillaged countries they crossed on their journey east. Violating their oath to restore land to the Byzantines, they often kept the land for themselves. The early People's Crusade instigated a pogrom in the Rhineland and the massacre of thousands of Jews in Central Europe .and also The Fourth Crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, effectively ending any chance of reconciling the East–West Schism and leading to the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans[/b]. Enlightenment historians criticized the Crusades' misdirection—that of the Fourth in particular, which attacked a Christian power (the Byzantine Empire) instead of Islam. David Nicolle called the Fourth Crusade controversial in its "betrayal" of Byzantium, and in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Edward Gibbon wrote that the crusaders' efforts would have been more effective improving their own countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
.

RandomVic:


The fact that almost anyone can pretty much edit any article on wikipedia as he or she pleases is discomforting. Very discomforting in deed. If you're to provide Wikipedia as your proof of point in a debate be sure to back it up with relevant citation from a more reliable souce.
wikipedia itself says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because
some articles may contain errors,” you
should “not use Wikipedia to make
critical decisions.”

www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

You are simply repeating what you've said.At least He provided a source that can be relied to some extent.Why can't they also provide any to back up their claims.Trying to use the 'wikipedia article may be inaccurate' saying just won't work.In fact what he cites is history that is already generally well known to a knowledgeable person.