₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
You mean like Mother Teresa was also a charitable and missionary mission?
Mother Teresa Was Kind of a Heartless Bitch

Why pick a controversy out of countless acts of charity and mission from the church. Bro, be thankful of the good.
Mother Teresa has been declared saint anyway, so overall she was good regardless of any controversy you might dig up.

ScamHunter:
Wealth doesn't matter if your heavenly account is empty. The only currency recognized by heaven is Jesus. Any other thing is a waste of time and eternal everlasting regret

Doesn’t just have wealth for wealth sake, it is the largest charitable and missionary organisation in the world, so all geared towards God's work ultimately.

God1000:
From my own findings, estimates of global Catholic Church assets range from hundreds of billions to potentially over a trillion dollars if everything is included. However, much of this wealth is tied up in institutions that serve religious, educational, and charitable purposes.

Would be a herculean task to work out the wealth of the entire church, a lot of the assets are so invaluable they are priceless. How would you estimate the value of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls (where Paul is buried )for instance? Talk less of diocese by diocese assets. All for God's glory.

Dtruthspeaker:
I am sure you expect me to mention any of the denominations you know whereas did the disciples really have a church that they went to every Sunday? No.

The closest answer that I will give to this question is, "by their fruits ye shall know them"!

Well, you still haven't answered the question and thus evading.
Jesus established one church (not a church building) and that's clear in the scriptures and in early Christianity. Those who were not in communion with this church were regarded as false teachers, heretics or schismatics. See Acts 15 for an example of how the church came together to deal with Judaizer controversy on gentile circumcision. Church was never a 'me and my bible and my interpretations' (there was no compiled bible and most people couldn't even read!) What they had was the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). They are several other references for the church.

By what fruits shall you know them - confusion, contradiction and division?

Dtruthspeaker:
By doubting we are led to question, by questioning we arrive at the truth. - Peter Abelard

And so I have found the Truth and my eyes are open which is why I have asked you questions and you could not answer them.

Thereby proving that your Catholic church is not a church that belongs to God!

I need to know what this truth is. Where is this church of God that you refer to? Don't evade again

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135422973]

I said "satisfies that level of query and evidence" you are talking of people's "understanding". So wrong match.

Read the entire post - the point is if it satisfies the level of query as you state, we wouldn't have billions questioning its authenticity. It's hard enough with the 3 fold authority of scripture/tradition/magisterium talkless of the false sola scriptura you believe.

Off Point! The topic is not about reason for believing what's in the Bible.

Definitely on point, you have no valid reason to believe the books in the bible and we touched on this in previous exchange.

But about you giving valid and admissible proof of how Peter came to arrive in Rome to the point of being murdered in an upside down cross

And from our back and forth the only evidence you people have is very bad hearsay evidence

Thus, you could not prove the Truth of the Catholic church's claim by any valid evidence.

So don't try changing the argument.

If you believe its hearsay evidence ,that's up to you. Those who believe need no more evidence. Keep searching, your eyes would open eventually

Dtruthspeaker:
And this is why the bible excels above others and is the most beautiful Truth Full Story of the past.

Because it satisfies to a great portion that level of query and evidence.

No it doesn't, which is precisely why sacred tradition and magisterium are also required for the bible to be properly understood within context and upheld. The fact that there are billions of atheists, agnostics & non-Christians shows that the Bible, on its own, doesn't universally compel belief or satisfy deep intellectual or historical scrutiny.

From our back and forth, it's also clear you've offered no solid reason for believing what's in the Bible. When I asked you before. You responsded-
“

Exactly how we read the posts here and we know those which are true from those which are stories.

A response with no depth and simply assumes too much without historical context.

I believe the bible because the church affirms it through apostolic authority, sacred tradition and consistency with doctrine. The church came before the bible as we know it and my trust is not in a 21st century private interpretation or "commin sense" feeling, but in the guidance of the Church founded by Jesus and sustained over the millenia by the Holy Spirit. This same church told us Peter was in Rome and was matryed there.

Dtruthspeaker:
Was it Peter and co who did all the trekking for The Word to go round the world? So Philip trekked to Ethiopia to start the church there? Ahan, don't lose your sense of good reasoning.

I don't really know or understand where you're going with questioning the church’s missionary work over the centuries.
All I know is you're trying to eat after soup don ready.

Dtruthspeaker:
Sorry, I can and do because even before I judged them others have been doing so but I did not think that their judgement was right until I did my own check.

And of course my judgement is not restricted to the Catholic church alone. But the topic is about the Catholic church, so my comments here are restricted to them alone.

And sadly it is the other way round, only a scant few people of whatever religious preference can truly be described as Christ likes. And as people have overflogged every other person falls short

https://www.nairaland.com/7943406/there-almost-no-true-christians#127522939

https://www.nairaland.com/1257876/went-nigeria-could-not-find#15247650

I do hope you can find the truth and I think eventually your eyes will open with a sincere open heart.
It's up to you to say the Catholic church is not of God and the church certainly doesn't you or anyone individual to validate it. Its records already speak itself. It'll be interesting to know which church is of God!

Dtruthspeaker:
Did they not already go into the world when Jesus sent them Mathew 10?

Did it take Adeboye to be physically present in every place where the Redeemed Church is before they could establish his church there? Please do not catfish.

Wow, showing up after soup don ready!! Where were the Adeboyes when early missionaries were trekking through deserts, facing beatings, shipwrecks and prison just to preach Christ? There wasn’t modern evangelism. No phones. No planes. No hotels. Just raw faith and fire.

Don’t compare today’s Redeemed convenience to the grind of the early church. The foundation was laid in pain.

Dtruthspeaker:
My investigation took me through the road of Eusebius and Jerome whom because both are bearing Eusebius, I thought that they are the same person. But now I see your Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote ecclesiastical history as different from Jerome who wrote Vulgate.

And it is Jerome who is from Stridon who has that question mark as determined by the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Meanwhile I was searching for the person (witness) who said that Peter was killed in an upside down cross to see if he answered the questions I have to ask

Thus you have taken me to my target and now the question follows your Eusebius of Caesarea, which is

When and where Peter was arrested?

Before whom (court) was he tried and found guilty of death;

Who and who was there when all these was happening?

How did he get to be there to see all these things he claimed he saw happen?

There is no independent report anywhere else of anyone corroborating any of these things.

So how come he is the only one who said he saw all these things?

And the reports do not say that he is the hangman/execution nor that it was his house or land that was used as the execution grounds, so how did he get a "private viewing" which nobody saw

Like the murder of The LORD, Jesus Christ, executions are always carried out in public, so how come Peter's own was not done in the open public so that there would be many witnesses, if it is to be believed?

Come on!! You’re asking for a level of evidence that even the most documented ancient events can’t meet. We’re talking about the 1st century, when written records were rare, mostly lost and controlled by the ruling class. If we applied your standard to all history, we’d have to throw out most of what we know about ancient history.
E.g Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection- the most important event in christian history, and yet outside the NT there are only very scant references to crucifixion by Josephus and maybe tacitus, no other roman execution orders or official records have been seen. Hardly any reference to resurrection but we believe this.
-Queen Amina (16th century o!) - historians debate whether her exploits are mostly myth or fact.
-Oduduwa- a figure shrouded in myth, oral tradition and scarce hard evidence. Does that mean Oduduwa didn’t exist?

The truth is that ancient history is built from fragments, tradition and a careful weighing of sources. For those inclined to believe, the evidence is enough, but for those who don’t, no amount will ever be enough. Keep researching.

By the way, Eusebius didn't claim to invent the story of Peter’s martyrdom. He referenced earlier sources like Origen, Dionysius of Corinth and others. He was reporting what had already become widely accepted tradition in the Church.

Dtruthspeaker:
My intention is not to gloat but to point out that the Catholic system is not of God. Sorry, it had to be said.

If you remember, it was also preached that you must eat the communion so that a person must be saved, and I wanted to be saved, so no one can say that I took it unworthily.

And the bottom line is that, I saw I was still in hot trouble and still the same person I was even when I had not taken it.

And if not that I already knew that the bible was true and that I have already seen God first hand, this disappointment would have definitely made me stupidly say that there is no God.

Only to grow up and see that the majority of atheists are people who grew up in the Catholic as I also saw it was here in Nairaland too and I even raised a thread on it.

https://www.nairaland.com/7600700/why-catholic-church-evil-majority#121547568

So, you see, any observant person can see that, that church is doing a lot of under ground evil for a place already marked with doing so many evil atrocities, so how can anyone not reasonable think and see that they must also resort to Lying? Of which it is now known that they are capable of Lying eg

The Herald-Mail
https://www.heraldmailmedia.com
Lies and cover-ups: Catholic church in Pennsylvania had ' ...16 Aug 2018 — Lies and cover-ups: Catholic church in Pennsylvania had 'playbook'

So, how can any reasonable person not think that they could be Lying in many other things they said?

You can't judge the entire Catholic Church by the failings of a few. With more than 1.3billion members, some do leave and sadly become atheists but that happens in all denominations.

You need to weigh the overwhelming good against any odd bad. I mean, which other church gets as much criticism as the catholic church which has done immense good throughout history.
Consider a lot of the good:
-It has sent missionaries worldwide, bringing the gospel education & medicine
-It’s the largest non-government provider of healthcare and education globally.
-runs over 5K hospitals and over 140K schools.
-founded the university system and continues to establish and support many institutions of higher learning.
-operates thousands of orphanages, food banks and shelters globally.
- preserved and canonised the Bible.
- is the leading voice in defending the dignity of human life.
-promotes peace, reconciliation and forgiveness globally
-has led in science (e.g Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître), charity (Mother Teresa, St. Vincent de Paul) and social justice.
-formed saints like Augustine, Aquinas and Thérèse of Lisieux who shaped Christian faith and ethics.
- Many modern authors - try to research some of them and their works:
1. G.K. Chesterton (1874–1936)
2. J.R.R. Tolkien (1892–1973)
3. Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953)
4. Evelyn Waugh (1903–1966)
5. Flannery O’Connor (1925–1964)
6. Thomas Merton (1915–1968)
7. Fulton J. Sheen (1895–1979)
8. Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022)
9. Henri de Lubac (1896–1991)
10. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988)
11. Peter Kreeft (b. 1937)
12. Scott Hahn (b. 1957)
13. Bishop Robert Barron (b. 1959)

-Countless verified miracles have been associated with it.
-it is the custodian of Christian history and tradition.

And despite scandals and failings here and there, it has stood for 2,000 years.and counting
Is this the church you say is not of God??! I
wonder which is of God in that case.

Try cutting the church some slack and don't let bitterness obscure the good God has done through it.

AngelicBeing:
l concur with you, for instance, l can Walk into any Pentecostal or Charismatic church and receive HOLY COMMUNION but I won't be allowed to receive Holy communion in Catholic Church except l am a Catholic, like seriously,

It's a serious matter, Catholic Church views the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ after consecration of bread and wine, not merely a symbol. By receiving it, you're effectively professing belief in that teaching. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of the Eucharist and out of respect for both your own conscience and the Church’s doctrine it’s reserved for those who fully accept that belief.

If you wish to receive in the catholic church, then complete your 1st holy communion sacrament in the Catholic church and you may receive at every mass if you wish (provided you're in a state of grace).Shikena

Dtruthspeaker:
This is you even being honest. I took their holy communion a coupla times even when I never went to catechism classes, and baptism and confirmation.

I felt then that as long as I had chosen Catholic church and I attended mass then I could take it. And I took it. And I never even went for Saturday's confessions.

And funny in my days they did not say those prohibitory words of "if you are not baptized in the Catholic church..."

And in all these, me and my fellow Catholic friends and people remained the same evil people we all know who NO ONE WOULD CALL A CHRISTIAN!

So, in truth, all these are sheets.

The bible makes it clear who a good person is and those who are not.

May your gloating not lead you into deeper error. Taking the Body of Christ unworthily is not a light matter, it’s something scripture directly warns against in 1 Cor 11:27–29:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord... For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Mocking or dismissing it doesn’t erase the gravity of the act .

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135407925]

An open mind does not mean that every thing should enter it.

Logic and Reason dictates that only valid things should enter one's mind.

And hearsay evidence has always been an evidence nobody accepts.

And when a matter is True it is proven by valid and irrefutable evidence.

You gave no evidence. All you did was to say that someone else eg Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Eusebius said that...

And that is classical bad hearsay evidence.

Of which I investigated your Eusebius and did a thread on him, and guess what? He does not exist.

https://www.nairaland.com/8412421/see-catholic-lie-man-said#135173890

So, here we have one of your witnesses who claimed Peter died upside down, yet, no one can find him.

When a person caught with stolen property points out a witness whom nobody can find, no one believes his testimony and he is taking as the thief.

Same thing here

.

I laugh because what you just called hearsay is exactly what historians call primary and early secondary source material.

As you don't know, Eusebius of Caesarea was a real historical figure known as the Father of Church History(260 to 339AD) and was Bishop of Caesarea. His most famous work(Ecclesiastical History) was written around 311AD and specifically mentions Peter’s martyrdom in Rome.
If you're saying Eusebius "does not exist," then I seriously question the integrity of your so-called investigation.Please research some more and you could start from here:
Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 25
This link will help - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

I don't think it has occurred to you that Christ never left the land of Isreal yet His Words have reached Ekwulobia. So also it is not necessary for Peter to leave Isreal before the Roman ruler Constantine decided to subscribe to the little Isrealite religion called Christianity

.

Chai see the height of taken events for granted!!
Jesus commanded his disciples to go into all the world. And they did. The Catholic church certainly sent missionaries all over, that’s why the gospel reached Ekwulobia,not through magic, but through centuries of missionary journeys, persecution, martyrdom and sacrifice. You're sitting in the comfort of the 21st century taking that for granted.

The Church didn’t spread by magic but on the blood, sweat and dangerous journeys of real men and women like Peter, Paul, Thomas and others who went far beyond Israel to obey Jesus' call.

Dtruthspeaker:
Abraham had a wife when God called him, Christianity is not determined by marital status.

Thus it is reasonable to hindsee and state that Peter and the disciples were married.

But if anyone comes out to say that Judas married one ibo girl from Aguleri, serious solid proof must be shown.

That is the same thing here. Catholics need to show valid proof of how an konk Isrealite born and bred only in Isreal and who speaks only the Jew tongue will now leave the land of his birth and safety to go to his enemy's land to live there.

Exactly like saying that because of Islamization of Nigeria, Lazarus Mouka will now leave Nigeria to go and live in Afghanistan. Is this possible?

Your analogy is very weak here and continues to reveal a very limited understanding of how things worked in early Christianity.and the fact that Peter met our Lord Jesus.

If you insist on “solid proof” for everything, then you’re opening a can of worms that cuts through the very heart of the Christian faith. For example, where’s your “solid proof” that:

Jesus turned water into wine?
Peter walked on water?
Lazarus was raised from the dead?
The resurrection happened?
The Holy Spirit descended like tongues of fire?


These are all accepted as truth by faith and supported by historical witness and Church tradition not by modern courtroom style evidence.

Early Christianity was radically missionaryas Jesus had told the Apostles to go to the ends of the earth (Acts 1 v8) The idea of Peter (yes a konk Jew), going to Rome (the centre of the Gentile world) is not only reasonablle but fits perfectly with the trajectory of Acts and Church history.
This isn’t a cock & bull story like “Judas marrying an Igbo girl.” do some reasearch as per my previous posts.
Talking about enemy land, Judea/ Isreal was well within the Roman empire. Remember the Roman governor of Judea - Pontius Pilate!

Dtruthspeaker:
Yes.
Exactly how APC is accused of Lying and an APC supporter comes to say that it is not a lie but is true because Oshiomhole said it.
That is a very very bad evidence.



Exactly how we read the posts here and we know those which are true from those which are stories.



It is not reasonable for anyone to imagine that the bible would state every single detail of the lives of the people it reported. Eg that one day Peter had a runny nose or that Joseph had to poop!

We all have the common sense to fill in the gaps. So don't make it look like we are contending based on sola scriptura or ex sola scriptura.

The argument is based on simple ordinary natural and common sense and the validity of the evidence given.

And evidence you have given which is basically hearsay evidence is a very very bad and invalid one.



My mind is open but any claim made must be backed by valid and irrefutable evidence exactly how comments demand proof from posters here before their claims are accepted as true

I do hope you'll keep an open mind and research deeply with solid responses, as the "common sense" argument or resorting to modern comparison with APC or saying "bad bad hearsay......" holds absolutely no water against historical fact.
I've given you evidence for why Peter was in Rome, you instead say common sense says he wasn't there. I stated to you that you will find no early church proof of your claim. A strong evidence would be early christians or any groups at the time stating that Peter wasn't in Rome. Even the Eastern Orthodox knows Peter was in Rome.
You've also given a very weak argument as to why you believe the bible books at all!!! I'll just repeat, this book didn't fall out of the sky. Research and find out information.

Apparently, poorly designed buildings,using substandard materials, cutting corners is fine during the working hours mandated. It must be from a scientific study !!

AngelicBeing:
let me buzz into this discussion, they said that Apostle Peter was the First Catholic Pope, Apostle Peter was married, but how come all the other subsequent Popes that came after Peter till date, were not married, abi na fabricated story, and there's no scriptural backing, to suggest that Apostle Peter was the First Pope, abi this are all man made church doctrine, and again we have just the 5 Fold Ministry, nothing like Cardinal, ArcBishop or Pope etc

Yes, Peter was married but he also left everything to follow Jesus(Luke 18:28).

The term "Pope" ( meaning father) wasn’t used for Peter during his lifetime, but he was clearly the cheif Apostle and recognised as such by the early Church. He ended up in the See of Rome( and matryed there) thus his successors there and the office( called Bishop of Rome) became what we now call the papacy.

Clerical celibacy is a separate discipline (not doctrine) that developed later for pastoral and spiritual reasons, especially in the Latin rite. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Peter’s role or apostolic succession.

Also titles like Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop are part of the Church’s natural development.The early church grew like the mustard seed Jesus spoke about, starting small but gradually developing structure and discipline over time to serve believers.

Jesus established a Church that required continuity.It aas guided by the Holy Spirit, rooted in scripture, Sacred Tradition and apostolic succession.
Obviously, you wouldn't get all this if you go by sola scriptura.

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135398690]

Do you not see the fall of this statement? The church is accused of Lying and you are saying the church's father's" said it? Like saying APC is lying then an APC supporter says that it is true because Oshiomhole said it. That is a very very bad evidence.

you want to discard church father evidence!! How exactly do you believe in the bible books? You do realise it was these same church fathers as part of the early church that recognised, preserved, and passed down those very texts. You do realise the bible didn't just fallnout of the sky?
The bible (NT in particular) was written to an existing church.
You may come with your "common sense" argument 2000 years later but it holds no water against historical fact.

Also, note that the bible does not tell is where the Isrealites eg Mathew, James, Jude, Joseph, Nicodemus etc were buried. But we have common to reasonably tell us that they must have been buried in the land of Isreal according to their tradition.

This is where Sola Scriptura falls short. Bible doesn’t claim to give us every single detail historical detail. In fact, there was a church during scripture writing and after. That’s why we have Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium through which many other truths and practices have been faithfully preserved and passed down. For instance, it's through sacred tradition we know the writers of Matthew,Mark, Luke. Their names were never part of scriptures as the authors, likewise burial sites of many(not all) figures are well known through sacred tradition .Burial sites of all apostles well known with references (try do do some research) e.g James the greater buried in Santiago de compostela, Spain, Thomas buried in India etc

My points were many people in southern Nigeria have Catholic roots and we have seen the claims the Catholic church made and the irregularities there are in them and thus questions have been raised.

And I did not rely on the post cited I only gave it as an ensample that people have identified several irregularities claimed by the church like me and in line with this thread is the No 17 in that post.

And you say they were debunked but this thread clearly shows that you do not have a valid answer proving this claim to be true.

All you have given is the popular bad and not acceptable evidence called "Hearsay Evidence"

So, this claim of Peter died in Rome and was buried remains A Lie, in absence of valid undisputable and unimpeachable evidence

I'll urge you to keep researching with an open mind and you'll find that Christian history is much deeper and richer than Sola Scriptura allows. dismissing Sacred Tradition and historical testimony, will leave gaps in understanding the full picture of the faith and its origins.

The early Church didn’t rely on written texts only. It preserved the faith through lived tradition, eyewitness testimony and the the Magisterium. The claim about Peter dying and being buried in Rome is not mere hearsay, it’s rooted in consistent testimony from early Christian writers, archaeological findings beneath St. Peter’s Basilica, and continuous Church tradition for almost 2,000 years.

You dimissing the so called "lie" without providing any stronger counter evidence but relying on "common sense" is intellectually weak. Keep researching, the truth is not afraid of scrutiny.

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135393795]

I stand to be corrected but common sense and the tradition of the Israelites already tells me that Peter must be buried somewhere in the land of Isreal because he is an Isrealite, Exactly how it is expected that Buhari must be buried in Nigeria, even if we are not told.

Nothing like common sense to refute a historical fact almost 2000 years after the event!!
There are many quotes of church fathers closer to the time that talk about Peter's matrydom in Rome.
Please read Clement of Rome's 1st epistle to the Corinthians from 96AD referring to Peter's matrydom.
Read Irenaeus agaisnt heresis (Book 3, Chapter 3 ) c.180AD referring to Peter and Paul.in Rome
Read Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History - 325AD) talking about Peter's matrydom in rome
And several more. All found on online ( try new advent.org)
Talkless of archaeological evidence of Peter's remains being under St Peter's Basilica Vatican. A site known throughout church history and reconfirmed in recent decades.
Note that no ancient source claims Peter was buried in Judea or Israel!

I don't know how old you might be but you may not know that most southerners are Catholic and have Catholic basis by virtue of the proliferation of the Catholic church. So we have seen many things and have heard many things and have heard both the salient questions and queries vs the ridiculous and untrue ones. And what you don't know is that many of us refused to believe it at the first, but deep down they gnawed on our hearts and disturbed our spirits. Thereby creating the need to check for confirmation and verification.

Thus, I am not the first to note that there are irregularities with the claims of the Catholic church.

https://www.nairaland.com/1540773/51-lies-propagated-roman-catholic#19956939 -See no.17.

My age doesn't matter. People have questions everywhere, even in the holy land!
Oddly enough, I remember reading that eaxct thread back in 2013 and just laughing off the ignorance. You're relying on a NL post to determine the supposed lies the Catholic church has told!! All those rejoinders have been debunked over centuries and even here on NL. Do some research and understand catholic teaching not rely on hear say. Common sense doesn't explain a lot about the details of Christian history. Research- Research- Research!!!

Kobojunkie:
The movement that was Jesus Christ of Israel and His disciples — an Israelites-only movement which predated the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah, along with the eventual exile of over a 3rd of those who survived the desolation of the land. After the destruction, many groups attempted to hijack the original movement, spinning various propaganda in attempts to draw a connection to that which existed before the destruction of Jerusalem. As we all know, the group that won in the end—stolen by way of vicious campaigns— is the one that was led by Bishops who later cited Rome as their capital.

2. The books of Israelite Scripture were not written by non-Israelites, and they were all written before the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. The books were in existence before the Bishops, most of them of Roman origins,— a wholly non-Israelite church/assembly—eventually decided to compile their chosen collection into what you call the bible today.

3. Indeed, the Israelites were not against writing books, so yes, lots of them did write, including Josephus, and some others during the first century before Jerusalem was destroyed.

4. I have read most of the books not included in your Bible, though. I think a better question should be Why should anyone interested in knowledge themselves to just the books that are contained in your Bible? Isn't that an admission that one is not wise enough, or one does not in fact believe he/she is guided by this deity that is supposed to be in charge of it all —the claim your churches make?

P.S. The Shepherd of Hermas was likely not written by an Israelite. Why? The promise of prophetic visions to the people of Israel by YHWH of Israel came to an end right as the walls of Jerusalem were brought down, stone by stone, and His End time was ushered in. Jesus Christ of Israel hinted at this when He declared that the end that was to come— that generation, the wicked people— would be much worse than their beginning.

While the movement began in israel, the message was also taken over into gentile lands especially by Paul in the beginning. Jesus himself interacted with gentiles. So where is the movement gone, surely the gates of hell didn't prevail against it.

The Catholic church follows scripture, sacred tradition & magisterium. The canonised scripture is interpreted with the context of sacred tradition. Some non scriptural books may or may not have valid sacred tradition.


PS- might be worth removing the dashes not to come across as too chatgpt ish.

Dtruthspeaker:
I care to know Truths and since I discovered that many historical facts were not put in their proper truthful light eg Nigeria's colonialism which today we now know is just the same as the banditry going on especially in the north, I now carefully check and recheck every story of the past to verify if they truly occurred and played out as they say.

And as you yourself can see, no one can reasonably and satisfying prove this claim.

And history still reported that the Roman Catholic church (as if there was any other Catholic church) was Lying, thus the need to verify claims arises.

Where, according to you, was Peter buried? Where in history do we have someone say the catholic church is lying. Please be specific, is it the protestant reformers in the 16th centuries that broke away from the church. Was it orthodox in the the 1054AD Great Schism, the last 100 with evangelicals and pentecostals ?please clarify .

Kobojunkie:
The Catholic Church courtesy of Rome, attempted a hijacking of a movement that began in Judah, before its destruction, for political and material gain. The Catholics did not give the world the books contained in the collection referred to as the Bible since the books were originally written by Israelites. Rather, the Catholics attempted to colonize the noise created around the movement, to make it all their own.

where is this separate movement you refer to? Who decided which books made it into the bible and why? There were many books written by the Israelites, some even read in sone churches, why didn't they all end up in the bible e.g. shepherd of hermas?

3nity7:
well, am going to leave you to your believe. though the scriptures you listed doesn't support infants being baptized because it has to be a conscious decision as there are no records of infants or children baptized.

This is why scripture also has to be viewed within the context of church sacred tradition. Scripture doesn't record everything that happened in the early church.

Early church taught infant baptism.Even main protestant reformers agreenwith infant baptism. Opposition to this teaching started in the 16th century by the Anabaptists.

Thank you

3nity7:
so one can be saved without believing and confessing Jesus but by baptism alone, Yes or no? Secondly, were in the scriptures is infant or children baptism illustrated or supported? Don't tell me church leaders because church leaders can be wrong.

No, it's faith and works. baptism apart from faith does not save. In the case of infants, the faith of the parents/ godparents stands in until the child can profess their own faith just as in the old covenant, infants were included through circumcision.Paul links to baptism in Col 2:11–12.

While there’s no verse that explicitly says “baptise infants,” we see strong clues here:

Acts 2:38–39 – “The promise is for you and your children.”

Acts 16:15,33 and 1 Cor 1:16 – Entire households were baptised. a typical jewish household would naturally include children

Mark10:14 Jesus welcomed children into God's Kingdom with no age limit.


Early Christians practiced infant baptism with no issues, in fact the main debate was whether to wait gor 8 days or not before baptism. While individual church leaders can be wrong, the entire church guided by the holy spirit cant be wrong. Early church affirmed infant bsptism.

Some qoutes from early church fathers:
Origen (c. 185–254 AD)

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.”
– Commentary on Romans 5:9


Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)

“Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD)

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth... We all thought otherwise…that the mercy and grace of God should be denied to no person born.”
– Letter to Fidus, Epistle 64(59)

3nity7:
ok, so one can just get baptized without believing and confessing Jesus as Lord and be saved? Because that is where your argument seems to be pointing to and this i disagree. Because you will always hear the people believed and were baptized. And you even don't seem to believe in the Holy Ghost baptism which is the real thing but the water is just a symbol. Please Baptism itself does not save, I guess you are Catholic.

You may disagree, but I’ve stated early Church teaching, supported by patterns within Scripture as per refs in my previous post. In cases where children cannot profess faith themselves, the Church entrusts this responsibility to parents/ godparents, who then commit to raising the child in the faith.
The Holy Spirit is present and active in a valid baptism and this has been taught since the early church. Water and Spirit baptism are connected deeply.
You seem to be going against scriptures regarding baptisimal regeneration when you you state that baptism doesn't save -
Peter speaks directly to this in1 Peter 3:18–21, where he compares baptism to the waters of the flood.
“.......Baptism which corresponds to this ,now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Dtruthspeaker:
I know you can use the scriptures and you even need to use the scriptures for Peter starts in the Bible. Thus, use of the bible cannot be dispensed with.



I don't know nor care about church interpretations but I know common sense tells all of us that Peter cannot go to Rome. It is like Islamic bandits taking over Nigeria them a Christian will think of running to Afghanistan? Can't happen!

Thus, 1Peter 5 13, did not say Peter is in Rome for that is not the beginning of Peter's speech. And 1Peter 1:1 already tells us that he was writing to the churches in the area.

So, common sense tells every reasonable person that Peter never went to Rome, not to talk of Rome now making him their Pope and not to talk of them having his body there

Whether you care or not, historical fact is historical fact. It was known throughout the early church that Peter was in Rome and was matryed there. If in 2025, you feel you know better that's up to you. I'll urge you to do more research on this topic

InvertedHammer:
/
How did Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube catch up globally in such a short period of time? The power of marketing is alive and well…else why would a sane human being believe that a blind can see and a lame can walk by the powers of a man in Nigeria who frequently sneaks out for full medical checkups abroad?
/

You didn't respond to my point. You're still comparing these companies to the Catholic church that's lasted 2 millenia. These companies you listed were established in the last 15 to 50 years. Let's see where they are in 1000 years.
Church is Church and businesses are businesses. Understandably, there are many business centres that masquerade as churches with their fake miracles and money grabbing. - you'll find that miracles have to be rigorously verified with the Catholic church- takes years sometimes. Shikena

Good to see 3 leaders just getting down to business even on a train. We should emulate this.

3nity7:
We are saying the same thing from different view point. For one to be baptized, and mind you, water baptism is just a symbol of what transpired in the spirit. The true baptism is in the spirit, a baptism with the holy Spirit and fire
Luke.3.16 - John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

for one to be baptized in water, he/ she has to believe in their heart. That is why you will hear words like they believe and they baptized. Then the confession is a open proclamation. Maybe the disciples then before baptism will ask, do you believe that Jesus is the son of The most high God and God raised him from the dead? This they will affirm and are baptized.

Thanks, however, we have different interpretations of what baptism is. The apostolic Churches teach that baptism is not just a symbol, as per John 3:5 and Peter 3:21, which show baptism is more than an outward act. Romans 6:3-4 also says we are united with Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism. This shows that the holy spirit is there at baptism

To show how important baptism is, from early Christianity even infants have been baptised with the parents/godparents professimg faith on the child’s behalf and takimg responsibility for raising them in the faith.
We see seeds of this in Colossians 2:11-12 which connects baptism to circumcision (infants were circumcised in the old convenabt), also whole households were baptised in Acts 16. So baptism is the new covenant way of entering God’s family.

Several Church Fathers also confirm that the apostles handed down this practice of baptising infants.
Therefore baptism, is a sacrament of grace not just a symbol.

3nity7:
please read Romans 10:8-17 then come back let's talk.

This isnt a new debate and the church has already dealt with this for centuries. It is Faith plus works when the whole bible is read in context not by plucking verses here and there to justify the protestant doctrine of sola fide!.

By quoting Romans 10:8-17 you can't go against Jesus' words in John 3: 5 or Peter words, 'baptism now saves you" in 1 Peter 3:21. Please also see James 2 24 - “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”

So, the apotolic Churches believe the teaching about faith in Christ but also emphasise that faith must be expressed through actions and obedience such as baptism.