₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
STORY! STORY!! STORY!!!
And the group name of your gathering is?😂

The group name of my gathering is The Body of Christ. Jesus gave us His Body. Not denominations or organizations.

Perhaps, you don't understand. Let me show you the Berean version:.

But is this story, story to you:


"You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.". Romans 8:9.

MaxInDHouse:
You have judged yourself as you have not surrounded yourself with faithful servants of God unitedly doing the will of God. Psalms 1:1
You keep judging God's organization when you have no better replacement!🙂

You mean I should surround myself with faithful servants of Satan who have not the Spirit of God in them?

I surround myself with faithful servants of God who have the Spirit of God in them. They consist of all blood-washed and Spirit-filled believers in Christ all over the world.

No matter what you surround yourself with, "If you have not the Spirit of Christ, you are none of His".

MaxInDHouse:
Continue playing Nollywood movie for yourself.
What concerns me with the useless and worthless spirit that can't associate with faithful people?😂
Ọmọ if you can't mention the name of your church forget that hopeless spirit worrying you irritates me!😂

Are you judging me?

Do.you have the Holy Spirit in you according to the Scriptures? If you don't, you are none of His according to the Scriptures. If you really want to inherit eternal life, that should concern you than a whole lot of human doctrines.

MaxInDHouse:
The spirit with which Jesus was driving out demons according to them dwells where?🙂


So present a better performing group nah!😂

Is the Bible a joke to.you?.If you have not the Spirit of Christ, you are none of His. It was not me who said that.

MaxInDHouse:
So according to them Beelzebub is only following Jesus shey?
It's obvious you don't lie!🙂

Give me any instance that demonstrates the Jews believe Belzebub was inside Jesus.

At least they joined what seems virtuous to them nah!🙂

The same way you also joined what seemed virtuous to you.

But what seems virtuous to man does not necessarily seem virtuous to God.

To God, "If you have not the Spirit of Christ, you're none of His"

MaxInDHouse:
When the Pharisees said about Jesus:

“This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.” Matthew 12:25

What spirit are they claiming that's in them?

No. They didn't claim to possess any spirit, neither did they claim that Jesus has any spirit in Him. They only claimed a spirit was helping Him. That does not mean the spirit is in Him.

Jesus said:
“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house. Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens. Matthew 5:14-16

Many people want to become witches too. Many want to join Boko haram. There were many bandits recruit ongoing right now. And many are joining church of Satan. What's joining a lying JW organization any different?

The matter is that no one can have the Spirit of Jesus except he is a follower of Christ. You can even do good works. Everyone can do it. But the single differentiator that no one can do is to have the Spirit of Christ which is given by God alone.

My dear, the Bible says if you don't have the Spirit of Christ, you don't belong to Christ. Do you think this Word of God is a lie?

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus said so!
Each Pharisee, Sadducee and Scribe was claiming they have holy spirit nah!

No, each Pharisee never claimed to have Holy Spirit.

Their problem is they can't present any better performing group than Jesus' disciples because it's performance that serves as evidence of God's holy spirit that is what Peter presented as evidence of God's holy spirit with the disciples of Christ! Act 2:16-18🙂

No, your lying group is not performing anything.

MaxInDHouse:
Sebi the so called indwelling is in you shey?😂

Keep on deceiving yourself when there is no group of worshipers to present as your fellow believers!😂

No, the Bible didn't say anyone who does not present a group of worshipers aa fellow believers is deceiving himself. Did the Bible say so? But the one who has no indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit is deceiving himself according to the Bible.

",...if the Spirit or Christ is not in you, you are none of His "

MaxInDHouse:
The same way Jews used dogmas to disqualify Jesus and his disciples nah!🙂

To the Jews Jesus and his disciples were liars but there is no better performing group to present just as you don't have any to mention now!🙂

Is the Bible dogma to you? You don't value your soul?

If Jesus was talking about perfection, is a lying organization perfect?

Do you have the Spirit of God in you? Your lying organization does not even believe in the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit, let alone the Baptism.

The Bible says if the Spirit of Christ is not in you, you do not belong to Him. Romans 8:9. Is the Spirit of Christ in you? If no, you are none of His according to the Scriptures.

MaxInDHouse:
So the same applies to you!

Now what was the evidence Jesus gave as future signs that will help his disciples know that they truly belong to him?

Mind you the first is they must be one as a united family {Mark 10:28-30} they must form a group {Matthew 18:20} they must have love among themselves as one group {John 13:34-35} Jesus himself presented his fellow believers as his spiritual family! Matthew 12:46-50

Was Jesus talking about perfection when he pointed to those having the same line of thought with him?

NO!

So if you can't present any group as your fellow worshipers you are not in that same man called Christ Jesus!🙂

If Jesus was talking about perfection, is a lying organization perfect? Lol.

Do you have the Spirit of God in you? Your lying organization does not even believe in the indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit, let alone the Baptism.

MaxInDHouse:
You can continue deceiving yourself nobody knows you here to confirm if you are a liar in your house or community that is why your church matters most because your church speaks better regarding who you truly are.

In the first century a person may have some questionable characters but once he belongs to the group known as "CHRISTIANS" they will start watching if he is joining the group in their practices and of course they all know that if he continues with that group he will become better a person there scriptures say:

Happy is the man who does not walk according to the advice of the wicked And does not stand on the path of sinners And does not sit in the seat of scoffers Psalms 1:1

But when you refuse to mention the group name of your religion and start hiding under anonymous religionists claiming Christians today there is no way people can evaluate you.

Yesterday i was talking with an immigration officer who treated me the same way he did to all those entering his office but when one of his fellow officers greeted me in his presence and told him i'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses the man felt he has not treated me well.

WHY?

Am i not just a Nigerian like the rest?

It's because of the group name JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES in fact he was ready to go extra mile in assisting me further.

So if you come telling us stories about your personality you are just bluffing until you mention the name of the group with which you associate as worshipers!🙂

It's not a matter of a gathering dear.

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9.

No matter how good you may think your character is, if the Spirit of Christ is not dwelling in you, forget it. You're none of His.

Explore2xmore:
We are not far apart, in fact your own words confirm the argument. On Luke and Eusebius the position has never been that the account is inaccurate. The witnesses Peter brought, the Jerusalem church's awareness, Acts 15's familiarity with the episode all strengthen the narrative's credibility. The narrower point remains distinct a well-attested report and the epistemic status of the visionary experience within that report are related but separate questions. Acknowledging that distinction is not denying the account.
On Cornelius your own framing settles it. God acted first. Peter followed. God bypassed Peter rather than waiting for Peter's authorization. That sequence is exactly the principle this thread has been pressing. If God moved ahead of Peter, ahead of baptism, ahead of formal incorporation, and ahead of Jerusalem's expectations, then the decisive factor is God's initiative, not institutional control. Peter did not open a door God was waiting for permission to open. God opened it and Peter was compelled to acknowledge what had already happened.
Your personal testimony of receiving the Holy Spirit on July 6 2000 without any preacher present is consistent with exactly that pattern. God moving independently of institutional sequence is not exceptional in Acts 10. It is the norm you yourself described.
Cornelius is therefore not an exception. He is Scripture's clearest demonstration that no institution however ancient or sincere can legitimately position itself as the necessary gateway through which God must operate. Acts 10 does not merely record history. It establishes permanent theological precedent.

Exactly. I only want to make one clarification each on the two questions raised in the discussion:

1. That Eusebus' claim of Luke's audience with Peter can be considered overwhelmingly authentic- going by what we have discussed so far. Luke himself clarified in Luke 1 that he made thorough research from the very first disciples before penning anything.

2. That Cornelius' salvation experience did not happen anytime before Acts 10. It happened as Peter preached. God bypassed Peter to seal him up because Peter wouldn't have done it.

MaxInDHouse:
This is where you failed woefully!

The ORGANIZED PEOPLE unitedly doing the will of God as followers of Jesus are the ones called "CHRISTIANS" not someone who can't be seen.

So pick your lamba if you don't belong to any known group anyone can just make the same claim as in all the many different religions claiming Christians surely have individuals making the same claim joo!😂

My dear, this is what I said:

I'm a Christian. I do not lie. I do not deceive people. I do not fabricate doctrines. I do not cut off people's statements to say what they didn't say. I believe Jesus is the Son of God according to the Bible. I don't believe Jesus is an angel because the Bible didn't say so. I believe Jesus is my everlasting King because the Bible says so. I don't believe that Jesus started reigning in 2014 because the Bible didn't say so.

I believe only in what the Bible says or directly implies. I do not believe in human formulated doctrines. I'm a blind follower of Jesus Christ. I follow Jesus blindly because I am too confident in His leadership.

Why cut off my words to feed yourself with half truths as you do the Bible? You do not have any quality of a Christian in your gathering.

Christianity is not by gathering. If the Spirit of Christ is not in you, you are none of His!

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

All these your talks about a fleshly gathering where lies reign and the Spirit of God is absence is just pure blindness.

Explore2xmore:
On transmission, the point about Luke's contemporaries and the early Church's acceptance is well taken. Establishing authorship and general reliability matters. The narrower point is simply that confirming Luke accurately recorded an event is not the same as evaluating the evidential status of a visionary experience within that event. Those are related questions, but they are not identical.

That does not invalidate the fact that Luke and Eusebus were thorough. Peter's vision was relayed throughout Christiendom as at that day. And when you remember that Peter deliberately took other christians along with him to Cornelius' place as witnesses of whatever might happen there, plus the fact that the entire congregation of Acts 15 were all fully aware of the event even before Peter narrated it in that convention, you'll come to understand that there was nothing secret or unknown about the entire episode. You alleged lack of similarity between an actual experience in relation to a general narrative does not invalidate the accuracy of Luke's account, and by extension, Eusebus'.

On Cornelius, Acts 10 actually strengthens the point under discussion. God intervened before Peter fully understood what was happening and poured out the Spirit before baptism, before formal incorporation, and before Peter had finished speaking. The sequence matters. Cornelius did not receive the Spirit because Peter authorized it; Peter recognized God's work because Cornelius had already received the Spirit. The institution did not create the reality, it acknowledged a reality God had already established.
So the disagreement is quite narrow. Faith, the Word, and the Spirit are central. The question is whether any human institution determines where God may act. Acts 10 presents God acting first and the institution adjusting afterward.

The bolded is the norm in christiendom. God acts first, then we follow. Christianity is in no way a human institution, neither is it human-led. You can study the entire book of Acts to see this model in full glare. What can be established right now is that Cornelius heard the Gospel through Peter. He believed the Gospel, and God went ahead of everyone to seal him up with the Holy Spirit. The most important lesson here is that, man cannot stand in the way of God for His people. God will bypass you if you are unwilling to carry out His will to the fullest. God bypassed Peter.

MaxInDHouse:
So what is the fruit of your own religion?

Let's compare to know which is really the truth?

Of course your religion remains ANONYMOUS!😂

I'm a Christian. I do not lie. I do not deceive people. I do not fabricate doctrines. I do not cut off people's statements to say what they didn't say. I believe Jesus is the Son of God according to the Bible. I don't believe Jesus is an angel because the Bible didn't say so. I believe Jesus is my everlasting King because the Bible says so. I don't believe that Jesus started reigning in 2014 because the Bible didn't say so.

I believe only in what the Bible says or directly implies. I do not believe in human formulated doctrines. I'm a blind follower of Jesus Christ. I follow Jesus blindly because I am too confident in His leadership.

MaxInDHouse:
Are you saying the Pharisees who taught apostle Paul the scriptures don't search the scriptures?😂

Ọmọ they surely searched the scriptures the only problem is they don't want to subject themselves under Jesus' followers because they can see their mistakes just as everyone today can see the mistakes of Jehovah's Witnesses but where both you and the Pharisees failed woefully is you can't find a better performing group than JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

That is what sincere researchers who are searching scriptures are interested in! John 6:68-69

So, you cut off what I said about the Pharisees and used my Jews response as response regarding the Pharisees? It's the same type of lies and falsehoods that your organization is known for. You're just hearing the fruits of your organization.

MaxInDHouse:
The same way Jews concluded that the apostles were LIARS!🙂

No! That's another lie.

The Jews didn't search the Scriptures. They only concluded. Those who searched got saved. The Pharisees deliberately rejected them because they don't want a decline of Judaism. The apostles themselves reject many liars who came up. We have searched the scriptures and gave found you to be liars. We didn't just conclude. Your claims run contrary to scriptures and therefore expose you as liars.

Explore2xmore:
I understand the argument regarding Eusebius, and a 209-year chain of transmission is a strong case for preserving knowledge of authorship and general provenance however my point is narrower. Establishing that Luke wrote Acts is not the same as establishing the evidential status of every event Luke records. The question is not whether early Christians knew Luke's sources, but whether a visionary experience relayed through witnesses and later narrated by Luke should be evaluated differently from ordinary historical reporting. Authorship and epistemic reliability are related issues, but they are not identical.

I understand you just want to argue for argument sake. A reported event does jot always have to be done by eyewitnesses to be true. Luke evidentially made extensive research, interviewed eye witnesses and had several eye witnesses who read his books and never disputed his writings. You're arguing as if Luke or Eusebus were the only sources of truth for what they wrote. Just write a book right now and insert unverified claims with a lot of false narratives, let's see if your book would stand. These people had contemporaries who knew better than themselves. The fact that Lukes books were accepted by the early Church is enough proof that it was honest. The fact that Eusebus' claims were not countered by any of his contemporaries is enough proof of their veracity. You can't expect us to jettison the judgement of contemporaries for that or men like you who lived over 2,000 years after the actual events.

On Cornelius, your distinction between acceptability and salvation is clear. However, Acts 10 still raises a difficulty for a strictly bounded reception model. God not only recognized Cornelius before Peter arrived; the Holy Spirit fell on him and his household before baptism, before formal incorporation, and before Peter finished speaking. If reception itself can occur prior to the formal mechanism, then Acts 10 appears to show God acting beyond the institutional sequence rather than exclusively through it. The chapter seems to present the mechanism as affirming what God had already done, not as the sole channel through which reception became possible.

What you don't understand is that salvation is spiritual and not mechanical. Faith is the most important factor in salvation. The moment you have faith in the Word that is preached or being preached, that Word will cleanse you and give you a spiritual rebirth. That's why Jesus said "Ye are cleansed through the Word that I have spoken unto you" John 15:3. Cornelius believed everything Peter preached, and was cleansed by that Word. His spirit became born again because of his faith in the Word (John 1:12), and was therefore counted worthy of the Holy Spirit. God had to take that proactive action to baptise them in the Holy Spirit because Peter wouldn't have granted them such a privilege. You can see he was not even planning water baptism for them. He said "Who can forbid these from being baptized, seeing they have received the Holy Spirit just as we". Meaning, we can no longer forbid them since they have even received something much higher. God wanted Cornelius to come in completely into His family. Knowing that Peter would keep him at the door, God took proactive steps that relegated Peter to the background. Cornelius was cleansed and saved through the Word that Peter spoke to him. God had to baptize him in the Holy Spirit because Peter wouldn't do it. His mindset was that God probably wanted gentiles to come a little closer, but God showed him He wanted them all in.

This is not something exclusive to Cornelius. I myself received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit on the 6th of July, 2000 in my room. Nobody preacher or prayed for me. There are several others who have the same testimony.

MaxInDHouse:
First century disciples of Christ makes mistakes and people thought Jesus and his followers are false prophets just as you are doing to Jehovah's Witnesses today but you can never ever find a better replacement! John 6:66-68🙂

No. We can make mistakes, but we do not tell lies. Your organization actually lies.

What's better performing in an organization united in lies?

Israel says he's super ready to take on Iran.

Explore2xmore:
You mark particular with Eusebus being a third generation disciple. What does this exactly mean? He saw Jesus and by your nomenclature the 1st generation disciples which I believe consists the original 12 from Peter to Judas?
Don't you see that the third generation discipleship strengthens his reliability as a church historian but does not resolve the specific transmission problem being pressed, which is Luke reporting a trance-state vision experienced by Peter decades earlier. Eusebius's trustworthiness concerns church history broadly. The epistemological question about visionary experience transmitted orally across decades remains a separate category that his credentials do not close.
On the acceptance versus salvation distinction, if acceptance means access to God's presence without ceremonial barrier, and salvation means inner transformation through faith, then Acts 10:34-35 is addressing the former while the Cornelius baptism episode addresses the latter. That is quite probable. The question it raises however is significant. If acceptance is universal and prior, and salvation is subsequent and conditional on faith in Christ, then Acts 10:34-35 establishes something genuinely independent of the salvation mechanism. God's prior recognition of Cornelius was real and operative before the salvation event occurred. That prior recognition cannot then be retroactively collapsed into the salvation framework without erasing what the text explicitly distinguishes. The distinction you are drawing actually reinforces the point about God acting independently of formal human inclusion rather than undermining it.

Eusebus can be trusted for many reasons apart from the fact that he quoted from verifiable sources. He was also in the direct line of the generation of disciples. It seems you don't understand what that means. That means the information from the first disciple were reliably passed down to him. The moment you realize that all the first century Christians know who wrote what, and how the Who gathered his information, you'll start getting it. First century believers knew Luke wrote books, and they knew his medium of data collection and validation. Eusebus was not so far away for such information to have been lost on him. Many in Eusebus' day have the same information he had. And the fact that Luke heard Peter was not a matter of debate in the 300s. Thousands of years later, it may look debatable. But in 300AD, this was common knowledge. You cannot expect that in less than 209yrs, the knowledge of how Luke wrote his books would have been lost.

You don't understand what the presence of God means. You need to understand that before you can understand what Cornelius got before and after Peter. Before Peter, Cornelius had what all men now have - acceptability. That is a qualification to be saved. As far as salvation is, everyone is qualified TO RECEIVE salvation. That's what Cornelius had before Peter. After meeting Peter, he received salvation. Today, everyone is qualified but not everyone is receiving.

MaxInDHouse:
Quote a single publication of Jehovah's Witnesses in which a specific date was mentioned regarding the end of the world!🙂

Where did this question come from? Who and you are arguing about jw fixing dates?

There are evidences for this anyway. Look here for some: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/end-of-the-world/&ved=2ahUKEwj5n6ixh-uUAxXAVEEAHcLHOjsQy_kOegoIAggACAEIChAC&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw26sHV8d8YkC8JD9Fg5nudD&ust=1780575664959000

Now you see what i've been telling you for years that there is a difference between verifying what was said and what spread among disciples?

The Bible confirmed that a wrong notion was spread among first century Christians yet it didn't give us a specific name or time someone said it among the apostle all we can see is that Jesus said something and first century Christians got it wrong.

So continue deceiving yourself expecting perfection from modern day Christians simply because of misconception that went round among them which definitely must have been heard by unbelievers back then looking at them as deluded people as John died and Jesus never returned since then.

Now you are learning!🙂

If you know what's good for you, you'll follow the Bible squarely rather than an organization that is consistently embroiled in so many so called misconceptions. You went into the early Church to find one ungrounded rumor that was spread, which the Church never held as a standard to justify deep lies of your organization which you now call misconceptions. Such misconceptions as "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." Lol. Such misconceptions as Jesus started reigning in heaven in 1914, lol. Or such misconceptions that Jesus is angel Michael. Hahaha.

The John dying or not dying issue was a not a notion generally held by the Church. And you want to make that one notion your standard, and your good reason for believing in lies? You better enjoy your lies in peace.

MaxInDHouse:
Just as the apostles lied to their followers that Jesus will return before the death of apostle John {John 21:23} and as they lied that God's Kingdom is near since 2,000 years ago shey? Matthew 10:7

Quote where the apostles said these two things in the Bible.

Ọmọ you can never ever find a better performing group than JWs whose leaders have successfully formed one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers throughout the world! Isaiah 2:2-4

You mean one big and happy family of lie loving worshippers who believe that the apostles lied about Jesus' coming before John's death, and Jesus' soon coming for more than 2,000yrs.

Even if you were alive in the first century what the Jews did to Jesus and his apostles is what you will do because you will continue demanding perfection while you keep on looking for their mistakes which you will surely see!😂

You just came out clean now. Let me keep demanding perfection while you keep demanding lies. The end will tell the best.

MaxInDHouse:
Which church do this your US and WE belong to?😂

Ọmọ the truth is there has never ever been a time under this planet when the servants of God leading His worshipers were perfect, they always commit one blunder or another which faithless people like you will hold onto so as not to participate in whatever God is using His servants to do.
Today you are claiming Christian but under what church?
You want to follow perfect spiritual leaders something that has to never existed before.
So stop deceiving yourself claiming WE or US because you are alone there is no servant of God that you follow as spiritual leaders something Jesus taught and established among his own disciples!😂

Leaders are not perfect. True. But that does not mean leaders should be liars. It also does not mean leaders must inject their own imaginations into the Word of God.

MaxInDHouse:
Who told John to write his own gospel account so that he has to mention what Jesus has said some six decades before?
Ọmọ they were all confused but God's holy spirit touched John after writing his own gospel account @ 96 c.e to correct the wrong notion in the year 98 c.e.🙂

Another mental gymnastics. Always thinking your thoughts are the standards for biblical interpretation.

As for us, we will never infer anything other than what we are able to see or read in Scripture.

MaxInDHouse:
This is funnier than ever!😂

So any of the Apostles could be the one who spread it shey?

You are getting closer at least you now agree that not all the apostles perfectly understood what Jesus was saying!🙂

No one says they always perfectly understood. I have told you that Jesus explained messages to them as seen in the Bible. This particular matter is not a matter of doctrine. Jesus doesn't have to waste His time explaining something so trivial. Peter and John were very close. If John understood what Jesus said, it's very likely Peter also did. Or, at least they discussed it privately afterwards and had mutual understanding.

MaxInDHouse:
What Jesus told Peter went viral!🙂

It was in the audience of the 11. They were all conversing together. The Bible says "the brothers." The Bible didn't say Peter.

Explore2xmore:
Don't you see that the transmission argument proves too much if applied selectively. If Eusebius is defended on the basis of ordinary historical transmission, then competing ancient sources cannot be dismissed by a different standard. The methodology has to remain consistent.
On Acts 10, the sequence matters. Peter declares God’s impartiality and Cornelius’s acceptability in verses 34–35 before the gospel proclamation and before baptism. The text presents prior divine recognition first, then fuller incorporation through the word and Spirit afterward.
That distinction weakens the exclusivist reading being argued. If baptism and the preached word mark covenant incorporation, then Acts 10:34–35 is still affirming that Cornelius already stood in genuine favor with God beforehand. The chapter is therefore not about moving from total exclusion to acceptance, but from prior acceptance into formal inclusion within the covenant community. Does God rely on mankind's formal inclusion?

You're not getting it. Apart from the fact that Eusebus quoted verifiable sources, he was also a 3rd generation disciple. All scholars trust his writings because of the boxes he ticked.

You're also mixing things up about Cornelius. Acceptance is different from salvation. The vision shows all men are accepted. Acts 10:34-35 shows Cornelius is accepted. We gain that acceptance because we no longer need to be ceremonially clean before we can get closer to God. Salvation is a different thing entirely. It's the rebirth of the inner man which happens through faith in Christ alone.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus spoke to Peter who told others what he thought Jesus meant and John later corrected the wrong notion six decades after.
The same thing happened among them after 42 months that Jesus has been teaching them about God's Kingdom they still felt the Kingdom will come in the first century:
“Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” Act 1:6
People living back then would easily conclude that Christians were deluded as they believed Jesus will return in the first century only for them to hear that John has changed that belief in his own story.
That is exactly what happened they weren't perfect in their understanding Paul confirmed it:
For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 1Corinthans 13:9-10
Whatever they thought back then wasn't perfect until the whole message was completed that's exactly what John did with his own gospel account.
So stop deceiving yourself!🙂

All those are your own mental gymnastics. The Bible didn't say Jesus told Peter and he then told others what he thought. It seems you were there when it all happened.

MaxInDHouse:
You look at humans like you ask if they are perfect but in reality they are not so Peter definitely misconstrued what he heard from Jesus by telling others just as he did by rejecting his Christian brothers because they weren't Jewish by birth.
Is that the same person you thought can't say what he didn't really understand?🙂

Yeah. The Bible never said Peter did. So stop the speculation.

MaxInDHouse:
So Peter never knew such a thing spread among disciples when it was him directly that Jesus spoke to?

Perhaps it was 98.c.e that John later realized that it has spread among the disciples.

Ọmọ nah Peter talk am if not he would have corrected it before 98.ce. that is why John was inspired to correct the wrong notion before his death!🙂

We don't use 'Perhaps' or 'Omo na Peter talk am' speculative thinking to interpret the Word of God. The problem with you JWs is that you speculate a lot, and your speculations most times are absolutely illogical.

For example, if it was Peter who spread it, then definitely, John would have said it was Peter. Now, John explicitly said it was the brothers but you're here replacing the 'the brothers' with 'Peter' because you want to prove a point.

Just look at Peter's life from that John 21 onwards. Where would he have the time to be spreading rumours? Someone who went fasting 40 days and delivered a powerful Sermon on the 40th day with over 3,000 souls won to the kingdom would be the one to have time to be spreading unfounded rumors?