₦airaland Forum

Lets not beat around the bush, there is no problem with "sowing the word" but there is a problem with "christian" leaders who silently encourage umbiblical teachings. The word we speak is not ours, it is Christ who speaks through us (well provided the pastor is even led by the Spirit in the first place).

Ask yourself - where is all that "seed" going? To purchase a new car for my pastor of to build a new school? Is that seed going to be used in the way the early apostles used theirs (to bless members of the congregation who had genuine needs)?

happy mosque hunting idupaul. Go try it out, see if it works out for you.
But here is a smidgen of advice bro, pray about it first. If your heart still feels you shld go then go.

This alek Wek sef . . . Was she passed through an oven?

If Christ had adopted this financial strategy He'd have been a very rich man.
These CEOs (pastors) need to be in charge of our economy, we'd be a world power in 4yrs.

KarmaMod:
So true. Very beautiful woman.

maybe i have problems with my eyes but that woman looks old and tired.

no kidding but after reading this thread i have nothing but pity for the man tranquil is going to marry. I dont think you love this man at all . . . if you honestly did your only thought would be how to build a foundation of trust, love and honesty with him.
I never mince words, you are only marrying this man because he is abroad and you are seeking a better life for urself (selfishness).

Its clear you really dont know this man, its clear you only broke the other relationship from the other guy you love out of expediency. Its clear you're the type of woman who will make a man's life hell in a marriage.
I read where you try to justify ur perfidy by saying well he may have had x no of flings too. How well do you know this man? What if he saved himself for you?

I pray this man finds out and goes on to meet a more deserving woman. You're just a disgraceful freeloader.

your girls surprise me. fooling around with u when they have boyfriends?
Good thing you defined that "fooling around", no girl wants to be sharing a man with another so i suppose they have a right to be angry with you for playing them.

mazaje:
what if her beliefs are wrong?

Then she will bear the consequences alone no? why is it such a pain to you?

mazaje:
you claim that christ is the only way so its up to you to prove it

don't need to . . . i'm not begging you to believe my claim. Believe whatever you want. haba . . . na fight?

mazaje:
. . . . .i believe i have far more joy than you. . . . . i am no sinner and i don't go around feeling i have to massage the ego of an imaginary being who feels my good doings are like flity rags in his eyes. . .  i don't go around feeling sad and guilty because an imaginary malovalent being claims i am a sinner and needs to die, i do what ever i like and accept the consequences and live with it, i don't have to massage the ego of an imaginary being by praising him all the time incase he gets angry with me and does'nt provide for my needs. . . . i am far more joyful than you can ever imagine. . . the only person/being that is not joyful is your manovalent god that needs to be parised and thanked all day like a village chief else he gets angry and release his fury on you like a mad dog. . . . . i don't need any one to sing me praise before i become joyful the only being that needs his ego massaged before he gets happy is you imaginary god. . . .

But you sure go around trying to bear someone else's headache. You're not a sinner . . . bravo to you. Leave us alone.

mazaje:
christ is the way to where and what? how do you know he is the way? why is allah not the way? what makes buddah a false god? how do you know? the only reason you left islam for christianity was because you had some exposure to christains/christianity. if you were living in some where like zamfara state or pakistan and had little or no exposure to christains/christianity you woud have still been a moslem your exposure to christains is what made you change your mind, i was a moslem before too, my exposure to christains made me change my religion to christainity just as my exposure to the real world made me to become an athiest. . . . . .

dont burst your jugular. She simply made a statement of her own personal belief, did she put a gun to ur head to accept it?
No wonder even Chrisbenogor wonders if you have joy at all.

Lighten up bro.

manmustwac:
And i believe its because people are afraid of what happens when they die. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, thats why people are religios

the same reason i believe most of those who claim not to believe in God spend way too much time desperate to prove he doesnt exist.

muslims at odds over Jesus?

Omenuko:
This is not true. . . .Peter was Pope (not bishop of Rome) from the time of the death of Christ (around 32) to his death in 67.  So check this out. . . .

Peter becomes the head of the apostles aka Pope (32  -67 AD) -----> Paul writes the letter to the Romans (54 -58 AD) ----> Peter becomes bishop of Rome (60 - 67 AD)

Is the above not a possibility?

shifting the goal posts . . . circular reasoning, round about arguments saying nothing . . . classical hallmark of the confused.
Paul wasnt martyred until AD 67, how then did Peter come from nowhere to take over a church that Paul had set up within 2 yrs of the writing of Romans? Makes no sense.

I give up arguing with you . . . i have better things to do. Have a great sunday.

Omenuko:
Finally, we agree although the 'never' part is not true. You are basing your assumption on the fact that Paul did not greet Peter when he was writing to Romans. The most you can say about that fact is that Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. You can't just categorically say. . . .oh, that's proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. Davidylan, that is not proof of Peter never being the bishop of Rome. You can't prove something from silence.

you seem to be running in circles. Pls see above where i speak about the time Romans was written, Paul's policy of not preaching where others had already laboured and the incomprehensible possibility that Paul could have written 16 chapters to a church that already had Peter leading them for 20yrs and didnt even mention him once.

You have skipped all that to rush back to your dogmatic viewpoint with no regard for new information.

You keep saying i cant prove something from silence when that is EXACTLY what you are guilty of doing. The bible doesnt say Peter was not bishop of Rome but from the writings of the early apostles we know quite clearly that NONE of them recognised any authority from Rome. At least Paul didnt and we know (not from silence but from his own writings) the Roman church was his own labour not Peter's.

Perhaps before laying accusations you shld take the time to read like i have done. If i wasnt 100% sure of my claim based on evidence i wouldnt be arguing this issue. Its about time you laid aside church dogma and did some digging yourself. I notice that you dont even look at the bible at all . . . it seems to be a chronic issue with catholics who claim own the bible.

Omenuko:
Lol. . . .an angry man opens up his mouth and shuts his ears.

Even though i'm not angry, we can say the exact same for you.

Omenuko:
This is what I have been saying.

1. The bible is silent as to whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome (this means that either statement cannot be proven from the bible)

the bible isnt silent, rather it is a silent witness to the fact that Peter was never bishop of Rome.

Omenuko:
2. Peter was bishop of Rome because the early church christians attested to it

Point of correction - early catholic leaders you meant to say there.
The early church christians in acts attest to no such thing.

Omenuko:
3. I believe '1 Peter' was written in Rome because Peter makes reference to Babylon (code name for Rome)

I'm not sure you'd let me get away with stating "beliefs" that have no basis in the bible.

Omenuko:
Where is your proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. I have already acknowledged that the bible does not explicitly say that Peter was Bishop of Rome. What else do you want from me.

I've been giving them, try and read my posts before replying.

Its true the bible does not explicitly say peter was bishop of Rome but the bible also states (not explicitly) that Peter could never have been bishop of Rome.

Omenuko:
Have you ever thought about when the book of Romans was written. Peter may have arrived in Rome after Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. How is that proof?

It is generally accepted tht Paul wrote his letter to the Romans betwee 54-58 AD. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32-67AD. Meaning Paul was writing his letters to a people who had been under Peter's leadership for over 20yrs.

Now that would not be consistent with Paul's writings here - 2 Corinthians 10:15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,

16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

Clearly Paul wasnt a man who preached in a church that had already been founded by another. Where then was Peter all this while?

Omenuko:
Do you know anything about debate.  Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.  What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.  As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).  My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome.

Neither do i believe you do, see below:

You: Proving something is A, means that you would have to show proof that that something is A, positive evidence.

However, you have claimed that Peter was Bishop of Rome with NO shred of biblical evidence.
You have claimed that the bible is silent on whether Peter was or was not Bishop of Rome with NO evidence.

You: What you just did was post scripture and hypothesize that Peter could not have been in Rome because Paul didn't greet him.

However you didnt even quote any scripture to defend your hypothesis.
You deliberately pretend not to grasp the glaring silent witness that the book of Romans is - the fact that Paul greets 27 brethren in the church of Romans while glaringly omitting to acknowledge the work of the alleged founding Bishop is not something you can sweep under the carpet.

You: As far as his letters, I believe that Peter was writing '1 Peter' in Babylon (aka Rome).

Again . . . another baseless claim that you dont even try to prove.

You:My friend, the most you can do is say the bible is silent on the issue of Peter being the Bishop of Rome

Again the bible is a silent witness to a fact that Peter was no Bishop of Rome.

And you ask me if i know the rudiments of debate? Dont talk about things you severely lack too, throwing stones from  glass house isnt wise.

Omenuko:
The testimony of the early church (what I posted a while back, what you criticized as biased catholic bishops). Ok, prove from the scriptures that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. . . .

Read all through the book of Romans. Its inconcievable that Paul could have preached and greeted every member of the church but the Bishop. Galatians 2 clearly tells us Peter was sent to the circumcised.
Acts has nothing to say about Peter being in Rome but plenty about Peter being in Jerusalem and Paul being in Rome.
Peter wrote 2 books, neither was to his alleged Roman church.

I think we also need to clarify something - when you talk of the "early church" i'm sure its not the church in Acts you mean to say. They had no such testimony as u falsely claim.

Omenuko:
@Davidylan,

I have answered all of your questions. What question did I not answer. Let me state it again. . . .the scriptures do not prove or disprove the fact of Peter being the Bishop of Rome. What other questions did I not answer.

On what basis then does the catholic claim of Peter being bishop of Rome stand?
The bible actually disproves the fallacy that Peter was bishop of Rome.

I think i will go buy myself a copy of the dead sea scrolls, its only $70. I'm tired of being told the bible belongs to catholics only. Its just a shame they dont even read it.

i can only gape in utter disbelief!

pilgrim you try, kudos to you. Yesteday i took one look at this thread and decided it wasnt worth it. The problem is omenuko and his ilk surprisingly behave very similar to the muslims. They never answer questions directly, circular reasoning is the order of the day and when they feel cornered resort to emotional hot air and insults to dig themselves out of a hole.

This is the simple question - was Peter BIBLICALLY the Bishop of Rome?

Dont expect an answer. I'm out. I'd rather argue with nimshi. Anyone who wants to perish on the altar of catholic lies is free to do so.

ericok:
Yes, He did.

can u show me where?

ericok:
Isn't it funny the way we talk about God, bible and the interpretation of the bible. From the foregoing, it simply shows that the people attacking the Catholic Church mode of confession are either ignorant of the bible or interprete the bible to suit themselves. May I state here that priests are the representatives of God and God has already granted them right to forgive sins.

If you feel offended by this, I am sorry about it, but it doesn't change my believe.

Did he really?

Cool tundysho, ever tried dousing a chicken with kerosene, lighting it on fire and watching it squawk around the house? hilarious!

Nimshi:
But there's good reason for Paul not to have mentioned/acknowleged Peter as Bishop of Rome in his letters. Omenuko hasn't got to it yet, so I'll hold my peace while I follow this interesting discussion.

Nothing new Nimshi, its the default islamic propaganda that Paul corrupted the original gospel of salvation.
O boy go and sleep.

2 Samuel 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

For Christians who have read their bibles (not ignorant hypocrites who just copy "contradictions" they dont understand off the net) . . . we all know the history of David's first son with Bathsheba, Adonijah, Absalom, Solomon and the eventual falling apart of the kingdom of David from the reign of his grandson.

Nimshi, i think you shld realise we are not fools here. I'll just hang around waiting for you to trip urself up again.  

My friend! Your namesake's one heck of a job! He had many women, but he must have sex with the wife of one of his officers. And for 9 months, he didn't confess the sin to God. Damn guy thought that was that; aferall, Uriah was dead. David showed himself to be a particularly wicked man; and he got off very lightly. So much for justice. In any civilised Society, he'D've gotten life without parole at a minimum. But in that great land, he's the king. Much like when Abacha used to do his thing at the garrison in Ibadan; only he wasn't king then.

Really? You must not have been reading your bible.

Omenuko, i made clear i dont take part in circular arguments.

Go back over my posts . . . NONE has said anything remote to refuting the possibility that Peter may have been to Rome before.

the question is one that is straightforward - was Peter BISHOP OF ROME? That has nothing to do with whether he ever visited Rome or not.

Omenuko:
What do you mean 'how'? If, I say if, Peter was ever in Rome, would you agree that he contributed in spreading the gospel there?

how does that make him bishop of rome? circular arguments bore me.