₦airaland Forum

ottersberger:
On what basis then did Sunday Igboho create Ire Ekun, a private militia when he should have been in gashua prison inmate?.

Sunday ìgbòho didn't create any Ire Ekùn. What he created his Iru Ekùn with all papers intact. And he is not going to take any action without government approving it.

Anyone can create a security outfit. There are many of them. But to undertake the task of national security, you must seek government approval. If you serve private individuals with just weapons approved by government, you have no issue.

Explore2xmore:
Acts 10 clearly abolishes ceremonial purity boundaries and replaces them with spiritual acceptability. Yet Acts 10:34–35 already declares Cornelius acceptable before any explicit Christological presentation. The claim of exclusive salvation through Christ is therefore imported from elsewhere, not derived from the passage itself, which resists replacing one exclusion system with another.

Cornelius himself told Peter that he was asked to send for him so that he can "hear words whereby you and your house shall be saved". What words Peter spoke to Cornelius were the basis of his spiritual acceptance. The claim of exclusive salvation was therefore satisfied for Cornelius in this very chapter and not elsewhere. Since the very issue of his salvation is the main focus of Acts 10; if the claim has been satisfied elsewhere, Acts 10 in it's entirety would have been unnecessary.

Moral acceptance means everyone can hear the Word. Spiritual acceptance means, anyone who applies the Word can be saved. Cornelius applied the Word by getting baptized both in water and in the Spirit.

Explore2xmore:
Eusebius wrote roughly three centuries after the events, so his value is as a witness to tradition, not as an eyewitness himself. The issue is not authority, but what the surviving evidence can actually establish with confidence.

Do you know the weakness in that type of thinking? Everything we hold as knowledge today was transfered. No witness of the original sources. Socrates, Aristotle , Plato, etc all have resources attributed to them but none of those resources have any affirmation that they are indeed the sources, and there's no witness of them who passed down their said knowledge. The value of a writer does not diminish with relation to his or her proximity or distance to the actual events. Infact, a distant writer may offer more value than a contemporary if the contemporary held unverified views while the distant writer copied from verified sources.

Eusebus did not just jump into writing off his head. He had links, and scholars agree that he is one of the most trustworthy sources of Church history. That's majorly because he doesn't write without quoting the verifiable sources of his day.

Explore2xmore:
Luke never claims to have interviewed Peter; that tradition comes later from Eusebius. In Luke 1:1–4, he only refers generally to eyewitness sources. Even if Luke had spoken with Peter, the account would still be decades-removed oral transmission of a visionary experience, not documentary certainty.

Are you saying you know better than Eusebus?

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted is what you never took time to consider because Jesus spoke specifically to Peter {John 21:22} so who spread it if not Peter himself?🙂

Jesus spoke specifically to Peter in the audience of others. Anyone could have spread it.

MaxInDHouse:
The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. John 21:23
Sorry the saying went out but they didn't believe it because the person who spread it told them not to believe in Jesus who supposedly said it!😁

You just love deceiving yourself when it was said that the saying came from Jesus so you think they shouldn't believe it shey?

Abeg whose words do they believe gangan?😁

Are we asked to believe in Jesus or believe in what He supposedly said?

Keep deceiving yourself. As long as you cannot see anywhere in scripture where that notion is further authenticated, you're deceiving yourself. Before any of those believers can believe anything, it would be Confirmed by other disciples especially Peter and John himself. Even today, we don't make any doctrine of the Bible except the doctrinal concept is established by at least two scriptures. Only heretics make a doctrine of one verse with no other reference, and run with it. Out of the mouth of two or more witnesses shall every word be established.

WizardOfNG:
OP using desperate lies and revisionism to indict Yorubas is amusing to me.

For example, he claimed "Yoruba judge" jailed Kanu.
How did the case get to the table of Judge Omotosho if not for Kanu demanding the judge originally handling his case, Binta Murtala-Nyako, recuse herself?

Was it the Tinubu Government that executed the entrapment and renditioning of Kanu form Kenya?

Don't mind him. Revisionism is their stock in trade. Even if Yoruba judge incarcerated Kanu, was the law that was applied a Yoruba law?

MaxInDHouse:
John said:

The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:23

The question is:

Do you agree with the scriptures that at a point in time Christians were saying among themselves that Jesus will return in the first century before apostle John die?🙂

The saying went out. It was discussed. Can you confirm that it became a doctrine or was actually believed?

If we're to agree to your postulations, then John would read:

"The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple should not die. And this saying was believed among the brethren. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die..."

Was this how John put it?

MaxInDHouse:
John said:

The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:23

The question is:

Do you agree with the scriptures that at a point in time Christians were saying among themselves that Jesus will return in the first century before apostle John die?🙂

The saying went out. It was discussed. Can you confirm that it became a doctrine or was actually believed?

If we're to agree to your postulations, then John would read. "The saying went out among the brothers that this disciple should not die. And this saying was believed among the brethren. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die..."

Was this how John put it?

MaxInDHouse:
This is all the evidence i need from you:



So if you say John who is God's inspired Bible writer was WRONG in what God's holy spirit inspired him to pen down for us what else is there to discuss with you again?🙂

That typo is not an evidence. It was a typo and it was corrected. Look at the statement, what's John wrong about in 98 AD? Can you tell me from that statement itself! It was a typographic error. Even the word 'wrong' does not make any sense in the statement.

Here's what I intended to write:

"While John was writing (not wrong) in 98 AD, he didn't say the belief was still being held till today."

esnbrutality:
Fulani terrorists also are a law abiding group that take people's life in SW, do videos and still leave you shouting ESN while your people are terminated like insects under sniper exposure.

Igbohothat was charged by Buhariand set free by TINUBU?

Ekpa is in Jail
NnamdiKanuis in Jail

Both are safe...

Those that shouted 1 NIGERIA are either beheaded or are currently kidnapped.

Can you tell me one person. Ìgbòho killed or assaulted? Give me just one reason why Ìgbòho should not be free?

esnbrutality:
ESN is still dealing with Fulani Terrorists till today.

Amotekun is arresting children sagging and listening to Naira Marley.

Recently, on Nairaland we saw a Fulani herder that smashed the face of an Amotekun operator in SW with his stick and the Amotekun operative and his members were doing videos about the event.

Is Amotekun silent as your brothers and sisters and children are beheaded in the SW?

In the SE...ESN is still LOVED by many...thatbis why the sit at home is always a resounding success.
So i ask...how effective is Amotekun? Where is the content creator called Igboho?


Now cry please...cry Blood

Amotekun is a law abiding organization, and would not arbitrarily take anyone's life as ESN was doing.

Ìgbòho is still very active. Now seeking government permission to crush Fulani terrorists. That's how law abiding citizens operate.

I should ask you about your content creators in the persons of Ekpa and Kanu. Hope they're fine?

esnbrutality:
So Government pampers Fulani terrorists but is Rambo against ESN?

Thank GOD ESN and other operators are fully intact.

Nuff Said

If government pampers Fulani terrorists, why are they being killed and jailed? Care to tell us?

MaxInDHouse:
So you believe God's word is wrong shey?
That's all i want you to confess publicly however the same thing still happens among true Christians (JWs) till today as some of our brothers do carry their misconception for decades making people like you to call us false prophets. I'm so happy that instead of you to admit that the same thing happened among first century Christians also you condemned God's inspired word for showing you that what makes you people call us false prophets is found among first century disciples of Christ!🙂



I just want you to prove that you don't believe in God's word at least Jesus did not say the woman lied even when Jesus told her that salvation is of the Jews! John 4:22

Farewell!🙂

It is you that's saying what God's Word didn't say. That's why we call you guys false prophets. Not because of your misconception but because of your deliberate falsifying of God's Word.

I'm happy you even used the word 'misconceptions', meaning you're aware that you have been wrong about many things. And you're still wrong about thousands of other things. The truth is that, the Chur h seeks knowledge as a body. And whatever knowledge the church has acquired and have been established as a general biblical doctrine, an isolated group that has a contrary opinion not biblically grounded is an heretic group. It's like science discovering atomic theory, then a splinter group of scientists somewhere remain in archaic beliefs regarding the same theory. Such a group is going to be relegated in the scheme of things.

You wait for decades or even centuries to discover what the church has already discovered and have moved on to higher things. You're false prophets as long as your doctrines have no biblical grounding.

John clearly said Jesus didn't say he was not going to die. I'm sure it wasn't John alone that knew that. Peter knew Jesus didn't say he'll not die. Several other disciples didn't hold that opinion that John won't die. A few who misunderstood were the ones who spread the rumor. The rumor was never stated in other gospels. It was not stated in Acts. It was not stated in any Epistle. Such an important prophecy of someone who'll live till Jesus comes would take prominent positions in the gospels, the Acts and the Epistles. Why didn't it take position? Because it was not believed to be true.

But, you're here wanting to force us to believe the contrary - that the belief was held generally by early Christians even when the Bible never said so. Even the spreading of rumors is not the same as the proliferation of belief. Rumors can spread without it being believed. And all John said was that the rumor was spread. He didn't say the church held to it as a belief.

youngEmelex:
Hi Was ESN a criminal organization before Fulani militia? Why was the later crushed before the former if you reason well?

The Fulani terrorists existed before ESN. So what type of question are you asking? The Fulani terrorists are scattered all over the country with no single leader. Crushing many Fulani terrorist groups is not the same as crushing one ESN. Government has for a long time being in the process of crushing Fulani terrorists .

youngEmelex:
The Igbos desperately wanted one Nigeria from the beginning. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Odimegwu Ojukwu, Aguyi Ironsi all fought hard to keep Nigeria one. When Isaac Adaka Boro wanted the Niger Delta to break away from Nigeria, the Igbos were at the forefront of crushing that revolution. In 1966, Adaka Boro established the Niger Delta Volunteer Force, an armed group primarily composed of members of the Ijaw ethnic group, and proclaimed the Niger Delta Republic on 23 February 1966. This declaration led to a conflict with federal forces, lasting twelve days before Boro and his associates were apprehended by Ojukwu led soldiers and later charged with treason. Just a year later, the table turned on Ojukwu and he suffered the same fate as Isaac Adaka Boro after he declared Biafra. Fast forward to this present day. Nnamdi Kanu created a security outfit when he saw that Fulani militia were causing mayhem in some parts of the Southeast, the Yorubas were at the forefront of crushing that security outfit and it was a Yoruba judge that sentenced Kanu to life in prison. Few years after that, the Yorubas are creating their own security outfit to contain the influx of Fulani militia. The same way Ojukwu later became victim of what he did to Adaka Boro is the same way the Yorubas will fall victim to what they did to the Igbos trying to protect themselves from Fulani militia massacre. Both tribes are currently sharing the same fate

There are two lies in your post.

1. Yoruba created Amotekun before Kanu created ESN.

2. ESN was killing fellow Igbos. They didn't fight any Fulani militia. The government crushed them for being a criminal organization.

Moreso, Kanu is not part of government. Only government can create a regional outfit. Not a layman like Kanu.

MaxInDHouse:
John said:
So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. John 21:23
Jesus said this statement in the year 33.c.e and nobody not even apostles John himself corrected it until the year 98.c.e when he wrote the gospel.
So if it's not a misconception among the first century Christians why didn't John correct it until 98.c.e?🤔

What made you think nobody corrected it until the year 98AD? So, it's only the Book that can be used as a medium of correction? John himself didn't have the notion from onset. It was some brethren who thought so. The notion that John won't die only appeared in that John 21. It never resurfaced anywhere again in the whole Bible. It was not sustained. Just a momentary thing. While John was writing in 98 AD, he didn't say 'the belief was still being held till today 'And if it were so, it's typical of John to mention that.

So why didn't Jesus expose the lady at the well as a liar when she said:

“Sir, you do not even have a bucket for drawing water, and the well is deep. From what source, then, do you have this living water? You are not greater than our forefather Jacob, who gave us the well and who together with his sons and his cattle drank out of it, are you?” John 4:11:12

Why didn't Jesus say she lied claiming Jacob (Israel) is her forefather?🤔

The Samaritans had come to recognize themselves as children of Jacob for religious purposes. Jesus understood that. The Samaritan woman was not talking about biological ancestry.

Explore2xmore:
We will arrive at it together; hopefully. We appear in fair level of agreement regarding the non exclusivity of the Jews and or Israelites but there are still grey areas regarding the authenticity of the vision isn't it?

Note that Luke wrote Acts decades after the events, raising standard source and transmission questions primarily for reference to a vision in a trance-state experience reported secondhand through a narrator, not direct prophetic utterance
The Acts 15 council's continued deliberation suggests even contemporaries did not treat the Cornelius episode as settling all questions definitively

Luke actually wrote the Gospel and Acts by interviewing the disciples directly, especially Peter.

Explore2xmore:
Is it the case that the bulk of Acts 10 were a vision not certainly physically real event?
What precisely did God mean by what I have made clean, do not call common?
Peter himself says in Acts 10:28 that God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean but exactly how is a concern for me. He didn't talk about food or any dietary categories.
Clarification about people is made in Acts 10:34-35 which confirms the theological conclusion he drew that God shows no partiality, and in every nation the person who fears Him and acts rightly is acceptable to Him. Questions regarding Jews, Israel and the rest of the world get raised here.
The interpreter does not need to work hard as the text's own protagonist provides the exegesis. The cultural and historical context reinforces this reading. Jewish exclusivity in early gospel proclamation was not merely a preference but a deeply held theological conviction, gentiles were categorically outside the covenant, ritually impure, their households forbidden territory for observant Jews. Luke 7:6 shows this was a live social reality even before Cornelius. The vision's use of food imagery was not incidental; it deployed categories Peter already understood viscerally to communicate something he would otherwise have resisted entirely.
That the interpretation held beyond this single episode is confirmed by Acts 15, where Peter uses the Cornelius precedent explicitly to argue against imposing the Mosaic yoke on gentile believers. The vision was not a private mystical experience it became foundational ecclesiological precedent.
However, one question the text leaves genuinely open is how does one establish with certainty, in any subsequent case, whom God has declared clean? At Cornelius's house the confirmation was dramatic and unambiguous, the Spirit fell visibly before any human authorization. Peter could not argue against what he was witnessing. But that mechanism was a unique unrepeatable event, not a transferable procedure. Acts 15 itself still required council deliberation despite the Cornelius precedent, which tells you the early church did not treat Acts 10 as having resolved all future boundary questions automatically.
The text establishes that God determines cleanness unilaterally. It does not provide any human institution the authority to certify that determination in subsequent cases with equivalent certainty. The conclusions in another contribution that Acts 10 preemptively settles the question against later revelatory claims is a conclusion the text does not support and does not need to support. The passage makes a strong enough case on its own terms without being conscripted into arguments external to its context.

In summary, God has done away with ceremonial cleanliness. This was the Mosaic kind of cleanliness that made Jews consider themselves above others. God's standard has moved from ceremonial cleanliness to spiritual cleanliness. Spiritual cleanliness is the new standard. And ONLY JESUS PROVIDES THAT.

MaxInDHouse:
I'm not talking about doctrine but what the first century disciples of Christ were telling themselves and definitely telling people about John that he will not die until Jesus returns. John 21:22-23
So they were expecting Jesus to return before the death of apostle John and since it wasn't corrected by Peter and the other apostles till they all died do you think any sincere observer who heard it will not call first century Christians "false prophets" since Jesus never returned as they spread the misconception? 🙂

No, it was not a misconception carried by everyone. Even John made a clarification about it in John 21:23

"Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you,."

John himself clarified that Jesus never said that.

What were they to preach to only the Jews?
Samaritans are Israelites too yet Jesus excluded Samaritans in this setting:
"Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near'" Matthew 10:5-7

So why did Jesus exclude Samaritans if the message is for all Israelites?🙂

The Samaritans were not Israelites. They were people from other nations that were resettled in Samaria after the northern tribes were taken away captives during the reign of Sennacherib king of Assyria. They original Israelites were exiled. The new inhabitants of Samaria were foreigners from other nations. They were not descendants of Jacob. Not even of Abraham. This was why the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans.

MaxInDHouse:
Was the Bible in one big volume when the Apostles were all alive or it was later compiled after most of them died misunderstanding and misinterpreting the message?

For instance apostle John wrote his own gospel account in the year 98 C.E. by then all the other apostles have died and it was in the last chapter of his gospel account that he corrected one big misconception regarding what Jesus told Peter:

So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” John 21:21-23
Was the misunderstanding of Jesus' statement corrected by the apostles or it has lingered in the minds of Christians in the first century for decades until apostle John wrote his own gospel account?

That misunderstanding was not doctrinal. It doesn't affect the Gospel in anyway. It was a mere perception about John. It has nothing to do with the Gospel. God made sure to clarify anything that has to do with doctrines. God is not a God of confusion, and the Bible is a complete Book.

And yeah, the Bible was not written in one big volume, but God made sure every ingredient necessary for a future Bible was perfectly ready.

You didn't answer the question:

Did Jesus meant they should preach to only Jews at Matthew 28:19?
If not what is the difference between this command and that of Matthew 10:6?

He meant they should preach to all nations including Jews and Gentiles but Jesus at that time did not address their Mosaic mindset of 'only Jews can be saved' That notion remained because even though the Gospel was for all, the 12 disciples have a ministry for Israel alone. The person to break out of the Jewish jurisdiction was Paul, and at that time, he was not yet a believer. Eventually, Peter came to realize the difference between himself and Paul. Paul narrated the encounter here:

"7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (gospel to the gentiles ) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (gospel to the Jews ) was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (the gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (the Jews)." Galatians 2:7-9.

So, as I was saying, Jesus didn't correct their Jews Only misconception immediately because the ministry for the gentiles was not for them but for someone else who was not yet in the gathering - Paul. And, when the fullness of time came, God Himself clarified it to Peter. God is not a God of confusion, and the Bible is a complete Book.

MaxInDHouse:
First of all this clarified what i've been telling you people on this forum that it's not everything they understood after they were baptized with holy spirit they gradually got things clearer as time passed but then Jesus said:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit. Matthew 28:19

Was he also talking about only Jews in this verse?🤔

Everything they misunderstood and misinterpreted were all corrected within the Bible and not outside of it.

Like in this particular matter, correction came in Acts 10 and was established in Acts 15.

So, we don't have an incomplete Bible.

MaxInDHouse:
When Jesus said:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Matthew 28:19-20

"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.” Act 1:7

Are you saying Peter and other apostles didn't agree with Jesus' command?🤔

They agreed but they misunderstood. They probably thought He was talking about the dispersed Jews among the gentiles. There was a Moses stronghold on their minds that wouldn't allow the truth of that message to penetrate. Thank God for Paul.

MaxInDHouse:
Somehow you missed something vital here!

Peter and the other twelve apostles heard Jesus telling them to go and preach to people of all nations {Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20; Act 1:8} so they knew very well that they must also preach to people of other nations but the issue they had with gentiles is the same issue the Pharisees also have back then.

Jews believe that when it comes to being corulers with the Christ only Jews supposed to be chosen!

The Pharisees themselves believe that Jesus supposed to associate with them since they are custodians of the law so after Jesus has spent all his days in the ministry with only his Jewish disciples they assumed that it's only Jews that will be chosen as the Christ's corulers and of course that's what was written in the scriptures but Jesus made it clear through several illustrations that since the Jews refused to respond urgently to his message people from other nations will become part of the chosen rulers with him in his kingdom.

So when Peter saw that the gift of God's holy spirit manifested in the lives of Cornelius and those who were with him despite being gentiles he realized that the barrier has been broken so now people from other nations will be chosen to rule with Christ in his kingdom though the rest of obedient mankind will enjoy everlasting life on planet earth under the rulership of Christ and his corulers! Matthew 5:5; John 3:16; Psalms 37:29.

That verse is actually not about rulers or co-rulers. It's just about God's dispensational.shift.

God's plan of salvation for the world followed a definite pattern:

Seth - Noah - Shem - Abraham - Israel - The World.

In that same Acts 15, James declared that God's stage in the salvation project is now The World stage. No longer just Israel:

Acts 15:13-21:

"13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name[/b,]. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, [b]just as it is written:

16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works (James immediately understood that this has been God's plan from Adam, and that He has been working it through the generations of Seth). 19 Thereforen[b]I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God[/b], 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The conclusion that Moses already has those who preached him is a clear distinction indicating the shift from preaching Moses for the Jews to preaching Jesus for the world. Even James came to realize at that point that Moses was for the Jews but Jesus is for the world. So, anyone who wants to maintain the status quo of Moses for the Jews should understand that there are preachers of Moses 'even outside of our circle. ' Time to preach Jesus for the world. No need compel circumcision. Everyone is saved by Grace through faith in Christ alone. Circumcision or no circumcision..

Explore2xmore:
Many people read the bible and often get diverse interpretation and understanding. Is the proper message sent therein adequately understood and appreciated for beneficial use?
Let's take a few if we can. Acts 10:15:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

What does this verse really mean?

I appreciate all thoughts and comments and particularly invite
@Sirtee15
@Gabrielshow24
@Gabrielshow26
@Tenq
@Antiislam
@Fxmasterz
@BlackfireX
@Riggtchannel
@doffman
@honesttalk21
@Sagenaija
@kobojunkie
@Lordreed
@Deepsight
@Budaatum
@ikeepgoing
@Antlisiam
@JimRohn all all other nairaland members
@AntiChistian

Maxindhouse has largely answered the question. I'll just do a rejoinder.

The verse you quoted is a message from a vision God gave to Peter as a way of instructing him that his former ideology about unclean humans should be thrown into the trash can.

To understand the verse, you need to understand Peter himself to whom God sent the vision. He was a Jew who believed that only the Jews have a right to God and to salvation. Traditional Jews still believe this till today. Others who are gentiles have no such rights. Hence after Jesus' ascension, the Jewish Christians preached the gospel ONLY to fellow Jews. If you're not a Jew, they would never tell you about Jesus and His salvation. The Jews regarded non-Jews as unclean beings with whom they must not associate, the same way they also have unclean foods which they must not eat. It was God who gave them instructions regarding this in the Old Testament. That time, God was dealing with Israel alone, but now God's attention has shifted to the whole world. Peter and the rest of the believers didn't know that God's salvation and Grace is for the whole world, even though the law was for only Israel. Peter clearly understood the vision. That's why, before preaching the good news of salvation to Cornelius and his household who were gentiles, he told them:

Acts 10:28:

"He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."

The tradition of preaching only to Jews continued among the Christian Jews until Acts 15 when during a meeting of all Christian leaders, some people accused Paul and Barnabas of associating with uncircumcised gentiles. Paul and Barnabas actually preached to gentiles while others never did. It was this same Cornelius episode that Peter used to convince his fellow believers that God has included gentiles in His plan of salvation:

Acts 15:7-12:

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles (referring to Cornelius and his household) might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Then the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.".

I believe that by now, you have fully understood that verse. The whole import of this verse you quoted and the answers that have followed is that God has already concluded the matter of salvation for the whole human race ever before Mohammed came to bring a contrary message.

Nefort:
Future events are still unfolding. So all I can say at this point is let's watch and see what is coming up ahead. The future will prove you right or wrong. Especially if Peter Obi becomes president in future. Then we can actually compare the performances of Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi as president.

Yeah, and it would likewise prove you right or wrong too. But, I hardly make wrong political choices. All those who almost fought me for asking them to reject Buhari in 2014 later wished they listened to me. Their shouts of "Change dole" turned to weeping. Buhari did absolutely nothing for Nigeria. He was just a waste of the presidential seat. They guy only came to settle his family and embolden his kinsmen to fulfil the vision of their forefathers in taking all of Nigeria. That'd all.

But, you see this Tinubu, you just have to see beyond the horizon to know he's doing what any good president would do for the country.

I usually refrain from voting if I cannot trust any of the candidates presented by the political parties. I'll just stay home and sleep. For example, I cannot be a fool to vote Buhari or Atiku into the presidency. The two most prominent parties each presented these two crooks. I just went home to sleep. I did the same in 2019 and 2023. I will not vote any devil if all the political parties present each party his own devil. My orientation about Tinubu only changed after hr became president. Maybe it'll change about Obi too if he one day has his wishes fulfilled. I criticized Tinubu heavily before he became president, just as I'm currently doing Obi.

Nefort:
Peter Obi has something which Tinubu doesn't have as much. And that is character. Character is also very important on the job. I am not saying Tinubu has bad character. But his character is not on par with Peter Obi. Peter Obi said he was going to remove subsidy if he gets elected. If he had been elected and he removed subsidy I trust him to go to the streets to speak with Nigerians and plead with them for their understanding and patience. This can greatly help to pacify the masses. But Tinubu can never do this. Secondly, for every one Naira that Peter Obi steals l trust Tinubu to steal 1000 Naira.

Everything you listed up there as Tinubu's advantages, Peter Obi can also accomplish them PLUS a better character, PLUS less money lost in corruption. That's why he is a more attractive candidate to me.

Smiling. I think the outward show of character by Peter Obi is a farce. People like him can be very dangerous. Well, being dangerous is a good thing for a Nigerian president. Otherwise, the fellow will die before his time. He needs to be shrewd, unpredictable and stubborn at the same time. If I read between your lines, I suppose you meant people management rather than just character. Maybe Obi is good at managing people and crises. I do not know how true this is, as you didn't provide your basis for this assertion.

Politicians are cunning. Remember James Nwafor and the Eze river massacres under Obi's government. Just take a look at some past associates of Obi who left him and what they said about him, you won't see anything like character in his private dealings. That's good for Nigeria anyway. As president, if you have character, you won't achieve anything. This actually was the reason why many doubted Osibanjo. He was too nice to be president. He later proved his mettle during some of Buhari's many absenteeism though, but most people are still fixated on his niceness. I will vote Osibanjo 1,000 times before I even consider Tinubu. I also rate him higher than Akinwumi because Akinwumi has never been in government, hence you can never be very accurate about what he could do. But, for Osibanjo,I can look at his antecedents and make strong decisions on that.

But, you see, politicians are not nice generally, Osibanjo may still be an exception but I could observe how he defied the north and even pitched himself against his boss. He valued Nigeria above relationships. I'm sure you would agree with me.

So, as I was saying, no politician in Nigeria has character. They're very cunning. But, that's good for Nigeria as I said. They have individual styles of bad character. Obi's own is very covert. He's shrewd. Very shrewd. And, it's a good trait for presidency. However, I don't think he can defy the north to achieve an aim. That one can only be left to the imagination as there's no way to prove that. But Tinubu grew up as a brutal, fearless man. Someone who even pushed drugs and frolick with hooligans. Such don't hear come after they hear go. His fearlessly is tested. And you can see it in his presidency. To lead Nigeria, you must be a military man or be a tough man.

If by character, you meant people management or crisis management, I may oblige you because Tinubu and his lieutenants have not demonstrated enough skill in this area.

Oh, and I remember you said Tinubu steals better than Obi. We cannot tell o because they both have the same style. They'll steal and you'll never know how much because of the style they've both perfected..

Nefort:
He left office as governor 12 years ago. 12 years is a long time to develop new beliefs, life realignment and objectives. So I wouldn't really say the Peter Obi who "failed" as governor is exactly the same person which will guarantee the same leadership style as president.


If you have higher standards for evaluating leaders you wouldn't be supporting Tinubu. You have to be talking about a premium economist to lead Nigeria. Someone like Akinwumi Adesina. That's the kind of person you will bring and I will forget about Peter Obi. The reason I currently support Peter Obi is just because I feel he is the better candidate among the top candidates that can win a general election. That doesn't mean he is the best Nigeria can provide.


Peter Obi can still possibly do all you mentioned. Using past records of his leadership of Anambra doesn't guarantee what his leadership approach will be as president after leaving office as governor since 2014. We have already seen what Tinubu can do and it is now worth trying someone different because we have never had any candidate who has presented his case like Peter Obi to rule Nigeria. Don't be too comfortable with Tinubu. Even if we elect Peter Obi the worst that will happen is that things will remain the same as Tinubu's tenure without much improvement. Buhari was clueless but the country still survived destruction. Peter Obi has a far better idea than Buhari so it wouldn't be under his watch that the country will be destroyed.

Now, this is better talk than affirming Peter Obi's past. The shift you made now has a better outlook. You're not supporting the Peter Obi of 2014. You're supporting a probabilistic Peter Obi for 2027. But, what if nothing has changed?

My support for Tinubu is based on the fact that he did better than his competitors in previous leadership assignments. Not because he is the best of the best that Nigeria could have. I have many candidates of South Western and South Eastern extraction I still prefer over him. But, the issue is that I don't see what anyone would do differently if he becomes president in Tinubu's stead. Here is it:

1. For Nigeria to move forward, both fuel and forex subsidies must be removed.

2. This will similarly increase the cost of living as it is today. Any president that cannot do away with subsidy is already a failure. It means he's maintaining the status quo. Nigeria would collapse in less than 10yrs by my projection.

3. If the president is concerned about infrastructural development considering how far behind Nigeria has being infrastructurally, he might borrow money to close up the gaps.

4. Tinubu's reforms are absolutely necessary if Nigeria would move forward. No lily livered president can have the boldness to implement the reforms Tinubu is implementing. Many presidents would soft pedal the moment the masses cry out against them. Meanwhile, the reforms are extremely necessary. The only issue I have with the reforms is that the government should have taken the time to educate the masses on the necessity of the reforms before and during implementation.

5. When you look at how Tinubu is touching all government parastatals with his reforms, you should commend him. He's reforming, overturning, reinventing and rejigging many institutions at a go in a bid to inject fresh life into the nation. He has decentralized some programs that were being monopolized by the north, and didn't bulge when the north cried out. Several other presidents would chicken out for fear of reelection.

6..He is not afraid of the north. The North has been the bane of Nigeria. That's the kind of president we need.

7. I believe Tinubu would do more in his 2nd term than he did in the first. Especially in the area of insecurity. Tinubu will crush the north to put an end to the menace. Right now, he is taking it slowly because continuity matters.

8. Leadership is not magic. Tinubu himself is an accomplished accountant, and knows what he's doing. But, it's still too early to rate his economic performance. I am giving him 5 years on that. Presently, the economy is looking positive. Price does not necessarily have to come down but money must be easily accessible to the masses. That's what matters. Not price. Developed nations have extremely high prices for goods and services compared to Nigeria. However, they're livable because the money is easily accessible. I'm looking to see that accessibility in 5 years of this government.

9. Looking at the crop of aspirants vying for the presidency now, I don't see anyone who'll do better than Tinubu among them:

1. Atiku: A well known politician with high level corruption as his identity. While there's no evidence of corruption on Tinubu yet, Atiku has multi-billion dollar evidences against his name.

2. Obi: He MAY be sincere but his sincerity is in doubt. If we must separate him from his past performance as you opined, we still have to look at his capability to take decisive actions without tearing the north. This issue is much more important than merely having good intentions.

3. Sowore: Grossly inexperienced. He has the seal but zeal is not enough to turn around the fortunes of a nation. Sowore lacks any governance experience to lead a complex and multidimensional Nigeria in my opinion.

I started observing Tinubu more closely during his pre -election campaigns when he said "Other nations cannot be progressing while Nigeria remains on its knees." That statement comes only from the lips of someone who is pained by underdevelopment. It made him look sincere. I still didn't vote him anyway, but the things he's doing in his presidency shows he really meant what he said.

Nigeria had already gone to the dogs. Tinubu is steering the country in a new direction. This sudden change of course coupled with the internal shakeups would bring temporal hardship. We must endure a few years. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We cannot continue maintaining the status quo. The country will die.

Nefort:
If you believe Peter Obi failed then that's your own opinion. But my opinion is that he didn't fail. His performance was just okay. The reason why his supporters are giving him is a chance is not really because of his performance as governor. We intend to give him a chance because he has shown seriousness to do better.

If you have low expectations of him and believe that his slow paced leadership style can bring quick turn around to a nation, you're good to go. I have higher standards for evaluating leaders. Nigeria is lagging much behind its actual status. It needs aggressive turnarounds.

A leader that can aggressively lead the country, step on toes, spread his tentacles everywhere, implement multiple gigantic projects and drive the country forward without minding public opinion or minding whose horse was gorged is my man.

Nefort:
Honestly it is not as simple as that and you haven't yet provided any strong compelling argument to prove that Tinubu significantly outperformed Obi. Lagos state and Anambra states are two different states subject to different conditions. I didn't say Tinubu failed but I would debate his actual performance score and it definitely wouldn't reach 60%. Tinubu's performance score should be calculated by the amount of resources he had access to and what he actually did with it. The same formula should also used to assess Peter Obi as well. Lagos state is a wealthier state so I expect Tinubu to do more than Peter Obi who governed a poorer state. It would have been easier to compare their performances if they were both past governors of Lagos state.


It was proven that Peter Obi saved a lot of money for Anambra and I agree with you that money should be spent on development and not storage. But I can't really tell why he made the decision to save money rather than spend on more projects. There could possibly be challenges ahead that prompted the decision to save money. Regarding stashing of money away I don't really understand what you mean by that. There was no record proving that he stashed money to his own bank account. It was reported that he saved the money for Anambra


You can never see it because you are forcing your mind to see Obi as a failure. If Peter Obi failed AI would have pointed it out straightaway after analyzing public data. But AI pointed that he still achieved a number of things in spite of the criticisms you have against him. And when you balance his achievements with his criticisms then you get a decent performance.


I previously listed all that Peter Obi was credited for doing and you only singled out 8000km of roads as his only achievement? Have you seen you are the one being dubious?


I previously mentioned that ruling Anambra is not the same as ruling Nigeria. The heat you get from ruling Nigeria is hotter than the heat you get from ruling Anambra. He knows Nigeria has a lot to be fixed and he dare not keep money away. At least I am sure he wouldn't have embarked on wasteful projects like the coastal highway which Nigeria doesn't urgently need. As a financially prudent person I bet he would have channeled the funds to invest in important areas like power supply industrialization. He has mentioned it several times that he intends to move Nigeria from consumption to production and this is exactly what will have a direct impact in the lives of Nigerians, and not Tinubu's audio "international watchdog" policies that doesn't reflect in the lives of the masses


I have repeatedly it several times that there is no way that Anambra can match Lagos in massive projects because they don't have the same purse size. Peter Obi worked with the lesser finances available to him. I previously listed Peter Obi's achievements and you are still ignoring them because you are hell bent on believing that Peter Obi is a failure.

You are the one who failed to understand. My position from the onset is this:

1. Both Tinubu and Obi are the same crop of politicians that made Nigeria to be what it is today.

2. Tinubu has his shortcomings but he actually did well in Lagos. He wasn't perfect. He could have done much better than that, but he did exceptionally well. He could do more though. He was very futuristic in his governance.

3. Obi has his strengths but he didn't unleash his full potential on Anambra. If he knew he'll vie for president, he probably would have done much better. The areas in which he failed such as 13 months strike, mass none indigene civil servant retrenchment, lack of solid projects, etc except roads overshadowed any little achievement he had.

3. Obi could achieve more than he did but he decided to keep money in accounts instead of unleashing the monies for the wealth and development of the state. This is why I and many others regard him a failure. He didn't measure up to expectations. Anambra is not as rich as Lagos but Ananbra does not have as much needs as Lagos. 8000km road could mean a lot for Anambra but means little to Lagos. There are several things he could have done for Anambra that would mean a lot for Anambra but mean little for Lagos. No one is expecting a Lagos treatment for Anambra. Any governor just has to do his work, it will be very obvious. It is much more difficult to perform well as Lagos Governor than as Anambra. Lagos is more tasking. Highly demanding. Anyone who does well I. Lagos' governance is a high performer. If you can't do well in Ananbra, you would not be able to do anything at all for Lagos if you were put there. Lagos was rough, dangerous, achaia, etc. Tinubu changed all of that. He tried. Obi needs very little efforts to replicate that in Ananbra but did he?

4. The things Obi was supposed to do that he didn't do, coupled with the very glaring shortcomings of his government (his people complained bitterly during his tenure) produced the current perception many of us have of him.

5. Obi is presenting himself as an exceptional leader when everyone know he didn't lead Anambra exceptionally. To be able to make that presentation in all honesty and acceptability, he should first detach himself from his unexceptional past and recast a new imagery of himself. Honestly, if I meet Obi one on one, and I tell him this, he'll immediately see the wisdom in that advice. This is all he needs to do to get the whole of Nigeria in his pocket. I don't know why you are failing to see this. It will work for any politician.

You should just throw away your biases for any politician. You'll see clearly that I hate mediocrity.

Nefort:
That's great!!! And I am also saying that if I use this your reasoning to assess Tinubu's performance he will also be a failure because there were things Tinubu was supposed to do that he failed to do, and the failures were the reasons for all the criticisms he received. Why is this difficult to download into ?

The only difference is that after you use my reasoning to assess Tinubu's performance, he still supercedes Obi exponentially.

My position is not that Tinubu is the best thing after sliced bread. Though I rate him higher than many past governors of Lagos state before him, I see him as a corrupt politician. I may reassess him after his presidency. Though, no evidence for that corruption yet. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that Tinubu is the one responsible for the new face of Lagos as you see it today. How I wish Obi also gave Anambra a new face, or at least a new name. Anambra may not have the same resources as Lagos, but it also doesn't have the same humongous needs as Lagos. No governor should leave money in accounts when the state still has many needs to be met. Has Obi solved all of Anambra's problems before he stashed the monies away?

I don't have any bias for Tinubu, neither do I have for Obi. It's you Nefort that has sold out your thinking cap.

Tinubu actually was doing everything he could to make Lagos more livable. And that's the fact. I didn't see that same deal replicated in Obi.

But, you see, a fowl can't see any difference between black and white even if you show it to him a hundred times. Any human with a fowl-level reasoning wouldn't fare better. He doesn't have that strength of reasoning to spot the difference. Even a blind man knows that Tinubu engaged in massive projects to give Lagos a facelift. What did Obi do exactly in smaller Ananbra? Even you, in all your empty headedness cannot give us anything Obi did except 8,000km road, and yet you see it as a reason for bragging. We're talking about projects here. Not just policies.

The very lack of sound reasoning is the only reason why anyone will praise a governor who left money untouched while the state he's governing still needs a lot for the people to enjoy the dividend of democracy. Even if Ananbra had everything and was as developed as Lagos, why can't the governor take it further and make it like New York instead of keeping the money away. Is he so myopic ? Is that how he'll keep money away as president while doctors go on strike for their salaries, infrastructural gaps remain unclosed, no new schools are built, etc, and the country continues to suffer infrastructural deficits? Did the fraud not condemn the coastal highway as wastage? Such a mentality. The only reason why Obi sees himself as somebody is because many simpletons like nefort are singing his praise. Such mediocrity.

Can you just imagine an illiterate equating the father of modern Lagos with the father of a failed alcohol business who has no project to his name other than 8,000 km road?

Tell us exactly the massive and imposing projects Obi delivered as governor like Tinubu did in Lagos? Very simple question that you've failed to answer.

You would have nothing to say than to rant.People like you don't deserve good leaders. You deserve the mediocre leaders you celebrate.