₦airaland Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

btoks:
No it doesn't, which is precisely why sacred tradition and magisterium are also required for the bible to be properly understood within context and upheld.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So don't try changing the argument.

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

You already got my point.

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

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

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

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

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135422973]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So don't try changing the argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

btoks:
Well, you still haven't answered the question and thus evading.
Jesus established one church (not a church building) and that's clear in the scriptures and in early Christianity. Those who were not in communion with this church were regarded as false teachers, heretics or schismatics.

As I said, the closest I will get in answering this question is that "by their fruits ye shall know them"!

The bold was not part of what Jesus established.

Dtruthspeaker:
As I said, the closest I will get in answering this question is that "by their fruits ye shall know them"!

The bold was not part of what Jesus established.

You can see seeds of what Jesus established here:
Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Matt16:18–19
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...”

Matt 18:17-
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”


Research how the early church functioned. Unfortunately you can't get all the info from sola scriptura because the NT came out within a living church with its structures and tradition already in place.

btoks:
You can see seeds of what Jesus established here:
Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Matt16:18–19
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...”

Matt 18:17-
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Research how the early church functioned. Unfortunately you can't get all the info from sola scriptura because the NT came out within a living church with its structures and tradition already in place.

Do you understand that this does not make sense? For Enckakar, Ogboni, Jw, 7th day Adventist do this too?

And this is not to forget that your church committed atrocities which are called crimes against humanity. Is it Jesus Who sent them to those things?

As I said 'by their fruits ye shall know them"!

Anyway, all these are a departure from post and the bottom line is that the Catholic church does not have any valid proof and evidence of their claim. Thank you

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you understand that this does not make sense? For Enckakar, Ogboni, Jw, 7th day Adventist do this too?

And this is not to forget that your church committed atrocities which are called crimes against humanity. Is it Jesus Who sent them to those things?

As I said 'by their fruits ye shall know them"!

Anyway, all these are a departure from post and the bottom line is that the Catholic church does not have any valid proof and evidence of their claim. Thank you

It won't make sense to you because you dismiss church sacred tradition and believe sola scriptura with no context, as though there was not a church already existing.
We all know when these groups you listed started and can't even be brought into the conversation.
Eckankar – 1965
Ogboni – not Christian
Jehovah’s Witnesses – 1870s
Seventh-day Adventist Church – 1863

Why not try going further back to the 1st few decades and start from there. Go to Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and others who were taught by the apostles or their immediate successors.

Your argument stlye is what I call 'clutching at straws'. Ok there where some bag eggs amongst the faithful, how does that invalidate the entire church(is it the crusades or the inquisition you're to - there were valid reasons to start those)? I mean, look at the men Jesus himself selected, did Peter not deny him, Judas nko and his betrayal ,did the other disciples not flee when Jesus was taken! Do you think the protestant churches that came after did any better? (so many atrocities carried out)

Your claim that the Catholic church has no valid proof of its claim ignores both scripture and history. You don't have to agree, but dismissing it without engaging the evidence is not the same as refuting it.

The invalidity of your church is based on its anty-Christian and anti-bible conduct and behaviour.

Every other church recognises, admits and confesses The Truth that it is taking and subscribing to a foreign religion which originated from Isreal.

Whereas your church is trying to steal the same foreign religion and trying to claim it as theirs through stealing Peter and claiming he is yours.

Whereas, Peter is an Isrealite and Catholicism is a Roman institution.

And stealing and not declaring the Truth and not giving honour to whom it is due are all anti Christian and anti bible activities.

Not to talk of your church now raising it's own version of anti biblical activities.

These are the basis of their invalidation.

And no you know you Lie (see you are doing what your church does) in saying a few bad eggs. Whereas you have millions and millions of bad eggs.

And I have given you the opportunity to bring the proper and valid evidence to prove that claim of your church but you do not have it. Which is still the same result I got when I checked for it. Thus, I dismiss it because of its absence of Truth Full and valid evidence.

I have told you severally that it is hearsay evidence which is absolutely not admissible and acceptable

Dtruthspeaker:
The invalidity of your church is based on its anty-Christian and anti-bible conduct and behaviour.

Every other church recognises, admits and confesses The Truth that it is taking and subscribing to a foreign religion which originated from Isreal.

Whereas your church is trying to steal the same foreign religion and trying to claim it as theirs through stealing Peter and claiming he is yours.

Whereas, Peter is an Isrealite and Catholicism is a Roman institution.

And stealing and not declaring the Truth and not giving honour to whom it is due are all anti Christian and anti bible activities.

Not to talk of your church now raising it's own version of anti biblical activities.

These are the basis of their invalidation.

And no you know you Lie (see you are doing what your church does) in saying a few bad eggs. Whereas you have millions and millions of bad eggs.

And I have given you the opportunity to bring the proper and valid evidence to prove that claim of your church but you do not have it. Which is still the same result I got when I checked for it. Thus, I dismiss it because of its absence of Truth Full and valid evidence.

I have told you severally that this it's hearsay evidence is absolutely not admissible and acceptable

For someone who didn't even know about Eusebius just a few days ago, you sure are making bold and sweeping statements, albeit misguided.
Please do some more research sincerely on the fate of peter and come back to this post in a few weeks/ months( May God give us long live).
About the so called atrocities of some church members this is a strawman argument and doesn't invalidate the good.

While doing some research, have an open mind about what Catholic church actually is and teaches without 21st century lens divorced from Christian history as well as the prejudice you already exhibit, so that you can have stronger arguments even if you don't agree with the church.
You may find you have no valid basis for even believing in the books of the bible talk less of your own misguided sola scriptura interpretations. Shikena

btoks:
For someone who didn't even know about Eusebius just a few days ago, you sure are making bold and sweeping statements, albeit misguided.
Please do some more research sincerely on the fate of peter and come back to this post in a few weeks/ months( May God give us long live).

This would be you shifting the burden of proving on me to prove your church's claim. Whereas, it is you or your church who should prove its claim because it is "He who asserts must prove".

btoks:
About the so called atrocities of some church members this is a strawman argument and doesn't invalidate the good.

While doing some research, have an open mind about what Catholic church actually is and teaches without 21st century lens divorced from Christian history as well as the prejudice you already exhibit, so that you can have stronger arguments even if you don't agree with the church.
You may find you have no valid basis for even believing in the books of the bible talk less of your own misguided sola scriptura interpretations. Shikena.

It is not a fallacy because you painted your church as a saint and one who has done only the good. Therefore, I have a right to show that your church did evil too.

And that even murderers, prostituttes, armed robbers, scammers, wife beaters, and all the unrighteous people we know do some good too. Therefore, they have not done anything that the next man has not done. So no point here for them.

btoks:
You may find you have no valid basis for even believing in the books of the bible talk less of your own misguided sola scriptura interpretations. Shikena.

I already told you that I believe the bible because it proved its reports. But, no reasonable person can believe your church seeing that it does not have Truthful and valid evidence

papyjaypaul:
What language are they jubilating in? The Vatican speaks Latin but that is not a problem, it's Nigerians or Africans speaking their own language that is a problem to fellow Africans. Africa, wake up.

Omo what's your problem self 🤦

Emaprince:
Even this pope that passed, I heard have given a go ahead for women to become priests.

Omo where did you get this News from 😳 ?