₦airaland Forum

this people picking on my namesake. make una stop am o!

we lost, we lost . . . we'll learn from this.

A K O kai but i go respect your decision. If i try to go and start madrassa school at the islam section na ban dem go ban me! Lucky nimshi.

Nimshi ok lets talk about my namesake.

A K O why now? Cant i read my quran in sunday school?

Surah 19:71 pls anyone? I'm interested in just why allah wants to send all of us who are busy fasting to hell.

Omenuko:
How many times do I have to answer you? [size=16pt]YES![/size] Peter was bishop of Rome.

how?

Omenuko:
Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.

Ah the usual trump card when catholics get stuck with their "traditions".  
- As a christian, ransomed from the law of sin and death, you are a walking celebration of Christ's birth every second. Dec 25 is for those who wish to kill chickens and make noise.
- The bible doesnt list what books are inspired . . . but that in itself is a very weak argument, the thief on the cross didnt even have the chance to read anything. heck he's in heaven while you and me are here arguing on NL.
- The bible never says to go to church on sundays. it says not to forsake the assembling together of the saints, it doesnt even say assemble in a church. if u choose to assemble in the house of a brother on monday nights (Just like Paul and co sometimes did) it is acceptable of Him.

Omenuko, we've had enough of this pitiful whines about sola scriptura when you guys run into problem. Its either the bible is the sole authority on God or not. which is it or do we go read another bible?

Easy . . . no calls, no contact . . . he'll get the message.
Its not the best way but hey what do ya do?

Omenuko:
Your father is a lier. . . .

no problem. Was Peter Bishop of Rome or not? My father isnt campaigning for the post.

Romans 15:20Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul must be a very selfish man, no room to include Peter the man he allegedly built the roman church with and who eventually became bishop?

Omenuko:
I'll believe the testimony of the early church christian over yours. You yourself, showed no proof that Peter did not got to Rome or was not Bishop of Rome. Lets agree to disagree. If ever you manage to prove that Peter was not Bishop of Rome what is your driving point?

- It is Paul's testimony not mine. I will believe him over your "early church catholics".
- Nowhere did i insinuate that Peter never went to Rome at any point in his life (another way of muddying the waters).
- You havent a shred of proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you cant try to pan off your own claim by asking me to prove it isnt true.
- The driving point is simple - a house built on lies cannot stand.

Nimshi:
Oh, c'mon davidylan, don't rain on King David's parade.

The operative word in v71 - to stick with this English translation - is "approach". I'm certain you know the meaning of the word. And, in your estimate of the time lapse between 71 and 72, you excluded options that should earlier have appeared; I mean, during the approach, like a nanosecond , say? C'mon, davidylan; you're better than that.

i'm not sure even you understand the operative word because we all know the original translation was "go down into hell" before islamic "scholars" felt it needful to change it. Read most translations, some say "around it", others say "approach it", some say "pass over" . . . you will agree with me that all three phrases are saying entirely 3 different things. To walk around something is not the same as to approach it or pass over it no?

Nimshi, if i were you i'D be more concerned with YOUR eternity in hell. Now we are perfectly clear that all muslims are destined to hell by an irrevocable decree of dear old loving allah no? Shaytan must be rubbing his hands in glee.

Omenuko that is the problem, all those are "assertions" by men who definitely had a catholic agenda. Where is the biblical proof? Paul certainly would have known better than Irreneaus and co who was Bishop of Rome. Its absurd that he wrote to the Romans, regularly preached to them and completely ignored the man he supposedly built the church along with.

Omenuko:
YES! Peter was Bishop of Rome

How do you know this? I'm curious.

pilgrim.1:
Meanwhile, please take style modify the "girl 2:7-8" in your first paragraph, lol. I know it happens - you write G'al as a word and fiam - it turns to "girl". Maybe if you write it out in full - Galatians?

thanks, i kept wondering why "girl" kept appearing.  

Omenuko:
Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire

I think that is a little stretching of the facts.   Revelations was describing events of the future not events happening at that time. It would thus be wrong for you to equate babylon with a pagan roman empire that long ceased to exist. If you want to debate that i'll be more than happy but first oblige me how Peter ended up Bishop of Rome first. thanks

Omenuko:
I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

then where does this strange but false assertion that Peter was Bishop of Rome come from?
Could Peter have been Bishop and none of his brethren acknowledged it?

You had a list of catholic leaders making reference to Peter being in Rome at a point . . . but virtually NONE of the early writers (Dynosius, Irreneaus) refers to Peter as Bishop of the church . . . we see references to church building by Paul (and Peter - expected as he was leader of the apostles in Jerusalem) and the martyrdom of both in Rome.
No reference to Bishopric . . . isnt this strange?

Omenuko:
This argument is kind of weak.  Did the author of Hebrews greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time.

Actually it strengthens my argument. Galatians 2:7-8 clearly identifies Peter as the appointed leader of the Jewish christians (the circumcision) and Paul the leader to the Gentiles. It is therefore no surprise that Paul writes to every other person BUT the Jews. We never see him write an epistle to the jews, we don't see him talk of going to preach to the church in Jerusalem . . . because it is possible he didnt do so because they already had leaders there.
Even Acts 11 mentions this quite clearly.

When Paul first got converted, Peter was one of the chief brethren at the Jerusalem church.

Omenuko:
Finally you have acknowledged it. . . .they indeed were Catholics.  What is your evidence to the contrary?

I refer to your popes and catholic bishops not to the early disciples please. don't get me wrong.

Omenuko:
So, you acknowledge that Peter could have been in Rome because the Bible is silent in either case?

That was never the issue, in case you have muddled it up here it is again - was Peter BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

Omenuko:
Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

See the references to Rome in Revelations . . . so your church is the hold of demonic spirits and blasphemy? Thanks Omenuko.

Omenuko:
Now I understand, will you at least acknowledge that Peter may have been in Rome.  I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

That again is an attempt to muddy the waters because my assertion has never been that Peter did not go to Rome at some point. The issue is WAS PETER BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

Omenuko:
No, Peter was not a coward, he was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome.

Nice catholic assertion but when are you going to prove it?

Omenuko:
Peter was the leader of the Apostles. . . .

True, that's why i wonder why Paul greets 27 important brethren in the Roman church and ignores his leader.

Omenuko:
Paul wrote many more letters to the faithful other than the ones in the New Testament.

It doesnt invalidate Paul's failure to mention the "bishop" of Rome in 16 solid chapters to he church of Rome. If they already had a bishop why was Paul eager to go preach there in Romans 1?

Omenuko:
So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?

that is all they are . . . "assertions" not proof.

Omenuko:
These same people (early christians) had access to the same epistles of Paul that you are quoting from and still acknowledged that Peter at one point was in Rome.

Did not the pharisees have access to the books of Isaiah? How then did they miss the Messiah?

Omenuko:
Their letters attesting to Peter's presence in Rome should be viewed as historical evidence or should be considered.

One thing you have to contend with is the fact that those men were catholics and it was to the interest of the church that the unproven claim of Peter's bishopric of Rome be upheld at all costs. How do we infact know that their "evidence" (not historical at all) is without bias?

Omenuko:
The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.

Neither does it say he was.

Omenuko:
Show me in the Bible were it says Peter was not in Rome.

Reverse psychology wont help you here. Have you shown me in the bible that Peter was Bishop of Rome? Surely at least one of the early apostles would have secretly mentioned it no?

Omenuko:
The most you can do is infer from the omission of Peters name in any one verse of the New Testament that explicitly states that he was in Rome.

You've even done worse. Try to force babylon as code for Rome when it is not. You have defended an assertion that is nowhere supported in the bible.
Where in the bible was Peter Bishop of Rome or ever heard of the Roman church?

Omenuko:
So, stating that the Bible is silent of Peter being in Rome does not prove that he was not in Rome or that he never went to Rome.

The issue is not whether Peter was ever in Rome. The issue is this, was Peter ever BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF ROME?

Omenuko, here is one more problem you have to deal with . . . if indeed Peter's statement here: 1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

. . . was in reference to the church in Rome . . . would you then contend that the babylon in Rev 17:5 is also a reference to the church of Rome?

Rev 17:3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Over to you mr. Omenuko. The bible does not lie, you cant accept one thing and denounce the other.

Omenuko please read Romans 16 . . . Paul greets 27 members of the church of Rome. Did he forget to greet their very bishop? That must be the very height of disdain . . .

Omenuko:
In the greeting at the end of Peters first letter (see above) he states or implies that he is writing from Babylon.  Where is Babylon? Well if we use the Bible and the testimony of the early church fathers (see below) it becomes clear.   Babylon is a code-word for Rome.  It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).  Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

I've seen this very poor and frankly baseless "explanation" so its no surprise that you had to ferret through the net to get it.
Lets read through the bible . . . Peter wasnt a novice . . . why did Peter use "babylon" as a code for Rome when ALL OTHER apostles including Paul clearly mentioned Rome?
Why is Peter the only person to use babylon as code for rome when even the acts of the apostles, the gospels and the epistles all clearly refer to Rome?

Ok back to the old testament . . . is it possible that a Jewish nation that spent 70yrs in exile in Babylon did not know the difference between Rome and Babylon? Was Nebuchadnezzar a king of Rome?

Several pro-catholic websites make the claim that Peter used the term Babylon so the Roman government wouldnt come searching for him and kill him . . . well we know that is false . . . because Paul wrote to the church in Rome (Romans) and mentions the church in Rome several times with NO REFERENCE to the alleged Bishop of Rome! Why did Peter write not a single letter to his alleged church in Rome? Why did Paul have to write epistles and go to preach in a church that already had a bishop in the person of Peter?

Omenuko:
Look, the authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered unlawful. They (Romans) considered the worship of any other gods other than the Roman ones as atheism and atheism was against the law.  You ask where was Peter in all this, I don't know, but I do know that Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital.  Letters were routinely read by Roman officials.  Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders.

Paul wrote the book of Romans and had this to say - Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Let me post some of the early Christian testimony (take note of the dates):

Was Peter just being a coward or was Peter ever Bishop of Rome at all? I would consider it  slight for Paul to be writing to a church with a Bishop and never acknowledge him even once!

Arsene, time to offload RVP, Walcott and Bendtner and perhaps Adebayo

Van persie - Van miss it.

na wa o. Just get the kids on Arsene!

Sisikill:
I forgot to add this -

I think the topic for this thread is very inappropriate. OP, I am happy you are finding enlightenment in Christianity and I understand you want to celebrate it however I think you could have gone about it getting the Muslims involved or disparaging their beliefs.

Just my two cents. . . for whatever it is worth.

I think what is even more inappropriate is your trying to pass judgement on something you know little about. Reindeer's post here was prompted by the fact that a purely christian thread was locked and many on it banned because muslims were as usual disgruntled by the conversion of a muslim to christianity. That is his question . . .

Omenuko:
@Davidylan,

Have you herd of St. Peter's Basilica?

What is its relevance to ANY of the questions i asked? Here is the conundrum . . . if Paul was imprisoned and killed by the same Rome were Peter was Bishop . . . what was Peter doing and why did Paul NOT ONCE mention his name in his epistles?

- Look at the quote you made . . . catholic tradition is not the same as history.

Omenuko:
I will come back later to address:
[list]
[li]Peter apostle to the Jews?[/li]
[li]Is the Bible silent about Peter being in Rome?[/li]
[/list]

Pls my questions are listed in other posts . . . why are you trying so hard not to address them?

Omenuko:
Question: When I come back and address these issues what will it prove? You still won't believe the Catholic church is 2000 years old. You still won't believe in apostolic succession. You don't even trust that the list I posted of popes is authentic. Lets start from ground zero: Do you believe Peter was the leader of the early Church?

That was not my question . . . here it is again - was Peter ever Bishop of Rome?

mdsocks:
lol!, i can imagine the guy reading tales of Marco P

Topbanana lied when he said the US gave missiles to the taliban. Bawomolo just corrected that lie but as usual u're a muslim, i dont expect you people let truth and facts get in the way of propaganda.

Omenuko, that is no answer . . . i asked three pertinent questions . . . posting a list of popes (subjective because we have no proof that Peter was ever pope) doesnt help issues.

Now lets look at your pope list - If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32AD - 67AD and Apostle Paul, whom even Peter acknowledged as a trusted chief missionary to the gentiles was jailed n Rome and killed by Nero around 64-67AD . . . where was Peter all this while?

Why did Paul not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome ONCE in all his letters written from the Roman prison?

Those are the questions bro, posting a list of popes is pointless.

Nimshi, Nimshi . . . its all well to quote the bible . . . u are under official protection.

Mind if i quote the quran too? Perhaps i'll have to make up plenty of Usernames before the day is over.  

You see, i'd love to tackle your "questions" but i'm sick to my stomach of hypocrisy . . . arent you too?

Omenuko:
@Davidylan,

My brother, I say we agree to disagree here. If not, prove me wrong. . . .

you make the claim, i simply disproved it by virtue of the fact that it doesnt hold water. its up to you to prove it.
Just a simple question . . . when was Peter Bishop of Rome? I happen to remember that many of Paul's letters were from prison in Rome, how come "Bishop" Peter left him in prison?

One more question - You say the cathlic church has been around since the time of Christ? Where?

Oh one last one . . . remember Paul specifically describing his calling as to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews?

Omenuko:
@Nimshi,

My friend, there has always been dissent within the Catholic Church, starting from the time of Jesus. Throughout the 2000 years of church history the Catholic Church has experienced many ups and downs, dissent, controversy, intrigue, heresy (you name it), but fear not because the bible says:

1. there was no catholic church in the time of Jesus.
2. No catholic church existed in the days of the early apostles.
3. The catholic church isnt 2000 yrs.

Desist from decietfully misappopriating what isnt yours.

Nimshi congrats . . . you know what happens to christians who dare to do post such threads about allah dont you?
I mean you know . . . those who try to even talk about christian testimonies?

bawomolo:
the afghan conflict started way before US intervention, contrary to what morons say, the US supplied the pakistan secret intelligence agency(ISI) weapons. the ISI in turn transported the weapon to the mujahadeens(sp). al-qaeda wasn't formed until after soviet withdrawal from pakistan and the jihadists were split into groups headed by weird characters like osama bin laden

you wonder why i ignored topbanana's bunch of bananas?
Notice Afam didnt even respond to my rebuttal of his lies?

Dont waste your time with these air heads.

Palin was picked for one reason:
1. Pick the Clinton voters

Here very first speech was to praise Clinton and speak about her 18 million voters. Sadly everyone has realised the only thing she shares with Clinton is her gender.