₦airaland Forum

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?

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?😁

FxMasterz:
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:
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.

FxMasterz:
Before any of those believers can believe anything, it would be Confirmed by other disciples especially Peter and John himself.

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?🙂

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 Matthew 10:6 to Matthew 28:19 trajectory you cite actually follows the point being made here rather than weakening it. Jesus himself demonstrably shifted the scope of proclamation from Jewish exclusivity to universal reach. That progressive development in divine instruction is precisely the framework within which Acts 10 sits. Concerning Matthew 16:18-19 and apostolic authority, the text establishes Peter's role within the first century apostolic community. What it does not establish is any subsequent organization's claim to have inherited that binding authority.That inheritance requires independent demonstration. Asserting it is not the same as proving it.
At the foundation everything here rests on. Luke wrote Acts approximately five decades after the events described, please tell this is not true. The Cornelius episode, including the trance-state vision and Peter's reported interpretation of it, reaches us entirely through Luke's narrative. Peter left no written account. There is no independent first century source that corroborates what Peter saw, what he understood, or what he said at Cornelius's house. What we have is one author, writing decades later, reporting avisionary experience that occurred i ln another man's mind during a trance. That is a significant distance between the event and the record of it.
This matters because Matthew 16:18-19, the binding authority passage you are building on, faces the same transmission question. The entire apostolic authority structure you are invoking rests on documents written years to decades after the events they describe, by authors who were not always present, filtered through communities with theological stakes in how those events were understood. The grey areas therefore sit beneath both sides of this conversation, not only mine. Before settling what Peter's vision means, it is reasonable to ask how confidently we know what Peter actually experienced, said, and understood.

MaxInDHouse:
Please count Jehovah's Witnesses out of such thing because Jesus wasn't talking about preaching for salvation in some instances for example @ Matthew 10:6 he specifically instructed his disciples not to preach to anyone except Jews only in fact he excluded Samaritans who were also Israelites in the message so there is a difference between preaching to gather Christ's future corulers {Matthew 10:6} and preaching for the salvation of obedient mankind. Matthew 28:19


Luke wrote all the information he was able to gather regarding how the apostles and elders in Jerusalem established Christianity so whoever is found opposing their stance is no longer a Christian because Jesus said regarding Peter and the other apostles:

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.” Matthew 16:18-19

The death of An·a·niʹas and Sap·phiʹra occurred because they lied to that group (Apostles) that's why God's angel struck them instantly people in the first century began calling the group a cult after the death of that couple but then anyone disobeying the apostles on any settled matter will be excommunicated {Romans 16:17; 2John 10-11} so in the first century the group known as Christians have the same line of thought {John 17:22; 1Corinthans 1:10} and whoever doesn't agree with the decision made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem can't question their authority just as we have among Jehovah's Witnesses today such ones can go ahead and form their own religion but no member of Jehovah's Witnesses will count such a person or his religion as part of our faith! 1John 2:19
So it's these anonymous religionists claiming Christians that are confused regarding God's word not JWs!

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

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!🙂

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

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.

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?

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.

FxMasterz:
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.

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.

FxMasterz:
Are you saying you know better than Eusebus?

Explore2xmore:
Maxindhouse, the Matthew 10:6 to Matthew 28:19 trajectory you cite actually follows the point being made here rather than weakening it.

According to God's word the Jews were chosen to spread the Good News of God's kingdom so that people of all other nations can tap into it through the Jews:


This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ ” ‭Zechariah 8:23 NIV‬


That's the arrangement Jesus stick to {Matthew 5:17} and that is why he first restricted them to Jews only! Matthew 10:6

God will choose among only Jews to rule with Christ but when the Jews failed to make use of the opportunity given to them the invitation was blown open to people from other nations! John 1:11-12 compare to Matthew 22:1-14
🙂

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:
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
Whenever anyone comments on your thread regarding the question you asked tell each person to declare the name of his church so you can know where the teaching is coming from otherwise they will just be running in circus.
Whatever you hear from me belongs to Jehovah's Witnesses globally!🙂

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?

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?🙂

FxMasterz:
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?

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.

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

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!🙂

Zechariah 8:23 describes nations approaching God through Jewish mediation but it's a framework Acts 10 dismantles. Cornelius was accepted by God before Peter arrived (Acts 10:34–35). Matthew 10:6 was temporary and later superseded by Matthew 28:19. Quoting the restriction without the commission to all nations is incomplete.
John 1:11–12 makes faith, not ethnicity, the basis of belonging, while Matthew 22 concerns response to invitation, not permanent ethnic privilege. Hope this hasn't been your life view. The trajectory of these passages moves from exclusivity to universal access, not the reverse.

MaxInDHouse:
According to God's word the Jews were chosen to spread the Good News of God's kingdom so that people of all other nations can tap into it through the Jews:


This is what the Lord Almighty says: “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ ” ‭Zechariah 8:23 NIV‬


That's the arrangement Jesus stick to {Matthew 5:17} and that is why he first restricted them to Jews only! Matthew 10:6

God will choose among only Jews to rule with Christ but when the Jews failed to make use of the opportunity given to them the invitation was blown open to people from other nations! John 1:11-12 compare to Matthew 22:1-14
🙂

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?

FxMasterz:
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.

FxMasterz:
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.

Obviously you aren't getting the message because of what your religion taught you.

Read this again for clarification:

Neither God nor Jesus said only Jews will have everlasting life o!

The redeemer from God (Christ) will be born among a race {Isaiah 9:6} and that race are those who have known all the things associated with the Christ and his origin that is what brings the Jews into the picture {John 4:22} whereas they are not the only descendants of Jacob but they knew all the prophets from Moses until John the baptist while Samaritans on the other hand only accepted Moses as the prophet of God that is why the Christ will use Jews as his disciples to reach out to other nations. Zechariah 8:23

What will be their benefit for being his disciples?

God will only choose among them those to rule with Christ! Matthew 19:27-30

But the Jewish nation declined God's offer {Matthew 23:37-38} that's why the selection of Christ's corulers was extended to other nations {Matthew 21:43} so that individuals from different nations throughout the world could become part of corulers with the Christ! Matthew 8:11

This is the arrangement Jesus stick to that is why he first told them to go and call only Jews as his disciples! Matthew 10:6

Explore2xmore:
Zechariah 8:23 describes nations approaching God through Jewish mediation but it's a framework Acts 10 dismantles. Cornelius was accepted by God before Peter arrived (Acts 10:34–35). Matthew 10:6 was temporary and later superseded by Matthew 28:19. Quoting the restriction without the commission to all nations is incomplete.
John 1:11–12 makes faith, not ethnicity, the basis of belonging, while Matthew 22 concerns response to invitation, not permanent ethnic privilege. Hope this hasn't been your life view. The trajectory of these passages moves from exclusivity to universal access, not the reverse.

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.

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.

What Jesus told Peter went viral!🙂

FxMasterz:
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:
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.

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

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!🙂

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.

FxMasterz:
If John understood what Jesus said.

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.🙂

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.

FxMasterz:
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.

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!😂

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.