₦airaland Forum

LagosShia, you will continue to find fault in the gospels and glorify your Koran, I have seen many discussions with you and you just post threads links for people to read if you have no valid response for a rebuttal. Nobody is interested in your collection of URLs. What I am interested is in you giving me a burden of proof that Islam is the truth. You or your fellow scholars have not been able to do that. Deut 18 falls flat on its face because of Acts 3:22-24, John 14-16 falls flat, John 1 also does the same. You guys have also gone as far as looking to Dan 8.

After listening to more and more circular arguments from you and even sweetnecta, you bring nothing new to the board that Shabir Alli, Prof Jamal Badawi, Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat have brought to the arguments. And if these are your present day authority/great scholars and their debates have holes in them, I'm sorry my friend you are backing the wrong horse. It's time to change sides and come to the winning team. Your zeal is great for the things of god but you need to channel that zeal for the things of the Almighty God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mohammed asked his followers who were not ready to accept him to ask those of the book (Surah 10:94) and you claim the books are corrupt, is this before or after the revelation? The books couldn't have been corrupt before the revelation because he asked people to check with those who believe in the book but it couldn't have been corrupted afterwards as well because the books were in circulation in different parts, there couldn't have been a collective effort to corrupt it.

My appeal is that, if you read your quran in context which I'm sure you do, I appeal to you to also read the bible in context. Some things in the bible are very logical that you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the meaning. Ultimately when the spirit opens your eyes

Are we eating the flesh literarily or symbolically?

@Lagosshia, I'm waiting to see what you will come up with next in the light of this fallacy/error.

@ the seeker perhaps you should have started your bible quote from verse 21 then on to 22-23 that you quoted. 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of my father in heaven.

Then you can carry on to the verse you quoted. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know you quoted that verse inappropriately. I dare say even the most hardened atheist can tell what that passage meant.

You have even committed another blunder, did your prophet do the will of our Lord's father? The same book of Matthew chapter 5 @ verse 44 love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Did your prophet preach that?

For me,

1. Here I am to worship (in German), the words are just so rich.
2. Then Soon and very soon by Andrae Crouch.
3. We are not ashamed by Andrae Crouch
4. Trouble in the amen corner Jim Reeves version


Sometimes Still/Be still Don Moen version also does it for me.

What I don't really understand is that the same bible that is supposed to be corrupted is being quoted from. Isn't that a mystery? Actually the verses you quoted are corrupt of course I'm referring to Lagosshia and truthseeker.

I am saying that Peter was not the first pope. Peter was clearly one of the leaders of the early church, James was also a leader as well. Now since Paul was in prison and did not get support from the peter and the early church there, he was not the first pope, he was never in Rome.

Kind Regards

I actually just stumbled across this whilst digging some more. It might not be a 100% accurate but it does make you ask questions. I know I will dig some more after reading this.


http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/Articles/AMysterySolvedPeterBabylon.html

Paul's commission was to the gentiles and Peter's to the Jews, not in the sense that Peter was not allowed to preach to Gentiles or Paul to Jews. Was it not the Lord that told Peter to preach to Gentiles? Please read Acts 10.

(I have read Acts 10 and yes you are right, a specific example but Peter was not in Rome at the time. He was in Joppa and Cornelius was Caeserea a distance of about 64km [all in Israel] definitely a distance from Rome).

Secondly, the Papacy has very little to do with location and it was not the Church that made Peter the first Pope,

(If it had nothing to do with location and Peter was the "first Pope at the time why is the base of the ROMAN Catholic not in Jerusalem? Or at least a mini base. There is not a shred of evidence that the base of the Roman Catholic Church has ever been in Jerusalem or Israel)

It was Jesus - Read Matt. 16: 18,19; Luke 22:31,32; John 21:15-17 etc. It so happened that Peter died as the Bishop of Rome and that's why Rome became the centre of the Church and the Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope till this day. But there have been times in history when the Pope has been forced away from Rome for some reason or the other e.g persecution, it still didn't stop him from being tho Pope.

(Well according to your history, there is even a debate as to who was the first bishop of Rome, was it Marcellinus or John I? If he was ever forced away because of persecution, we would have seen it in one of his epistles. Paul clearly wrote of the persecutions he suffered especially in Rome when Peter was Pope and he never mentioned that the Pope couldn't even come to his aid.

1 Peter 5:13 - Even though this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during those days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

The issue with this is as much as I am not a bible scholar, I cannot just take your word that "Babylon" meant "Rome" in this context because we have evidence that the Babylon in Mesopotamia existed until the mid 7th century AD, remember the book of second Peter was written in 67 AD (when Paul was under trial in Rome) many years before the Arabs invaded Babylon (present day Iraq). The Arabs invaded Babylon in mid 7th century AD and the ARAMAIC Church and the Eastern Christianity became marginalized* I put Aramaic in CAPITAL because this is the language that was spoken by Jesus and Peter at the time


Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome. Paul desired to visit Rome (Rom 1: 10-15) and planned to fulfill that desire (Rom 15: 22,23). He had all along been hindered from visiting Rome by having to preach in places where the Gospel had not been preached but could finally visit because there was no where left to preach in the area he was (Rom 15:23).

But if you read properly the verse you quoted, he wanted to impart spiritual gifts. What was Apostle Peter doing for 10 years in Rome?? If you read chapter 16 when he was basically greeting the people in Rome he never mentioned the "POPE"
Once again, he said he doesn't want to build on another man's work, why was he itching to stop by in Rome on his way to Spain?

I don't know who you think the Pope is. The Pope is the shepherd of God's people on earth. He's not a military general that you would expect to go defeat the Roman army and free Paul. The fact that Peter established the Church in Rome doesn't necessarily mean he was in Rome at the time and even if he was, the church in Rome was going through one of the worst persecutions in its history by one of the most brutal emperors that ever lived - Nero. What do you expect Peter should have done?

Perhaps Nero was tyrannical but you my friend are clutching at straws here. You want to reason your way out of this. For argument sake, assuming Peter couldn't get Paul out of prison, especially after denying Christ 3 times before Christ was crucified he would have had to pull some muscle knowing fully well how felt at that time (denial) especially after having being emboldened by the spirit. The bible says he wept bitterly after what he had done. Remember he was a stammerer before he received the Holy Spirit baptism and they became emboldened and went about spreading the gospel. If he was there, we would have at least have a record that he tried or the followers of the chuch tried to get Paul out. Paul said no one was there to fight his case, only Luke was there with him.

I sincerely hope you have had a lot to learn from in my post. I had to take my time because you raised some important and intelligent issues.

Well I reread Acts 10, Romans 1, 15 and 16 and it was good to read and I also researched the spread of the gospel in Babylon which made me find out that Islam got there in the 7th century AD, 700 years after Peter preached the gospel there

@Italo, I have waited patiently for your rebuttal of my post. Please have a look and let me know what you think,

Kind Regards

@Italo You have agreed that Peter was the first Pope. Excellent. Remember the apostles commission in preaching to the Jews and gentiles. Paul's commission was to the gentiles and Peter's was to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8. If Peter was the first pope he obviously did not keep his commission because he would have had to be in Rome as the location of the papacy True or false. You can argue that there were a lot of Jews in Rome at the time so he was sent to those Jews there.

Here we have one statement from Apostle Paul in that regard. Paul wanted to establish a church where Christ had not been preached because he did not want to build on another man's foundation.

Romans 15:20 20Thus my ambition has been to preach the Gospel, not where Christ's name has already been known, lest I build on another man's foundation (AMP).
Roemer 15:20 20 [m]Dabei war es mein großes Anliegen, nur dort zu predigen, wo man noch nichts von Jesus Christus gehört hatte. Denn ich wollte nicht auf einem Fundament aufbauen, das jemand anders gelegt hatte.(Hoffnung fuer Alle)

As usual I give you in 2 languages so even i myself get a good understanding of it. If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome. Also we know in the book of Acts 28 that Paul was imprisoned then he was there for 2 years. If Paul and Peter recognised themselves as apostles why would Peter allow Paul to be in prison since he was Pope.

The book of 2nd Timothy is written from the roman prison round about 66-67 AD. In chapter 4 when was being tried, Paul mentioned that no one came to his defence that only Luke was with him. Surely Peter cannot be Pope and allow Paul to be in prison for spreading the gospel. Mind you the book of second Peter was written in 67 A.D so we are assuming he was actively Pope at the time.

Just so you know

@Italo, we haven't resolved this issue in the other thread but it's come up here which is a good thing. When did Jesus Christ establish this church 2011 years ago? I asked you who became the first pope and you tried to be smart with that. I asked you is it Constantin or Apostle Peter and you quoted a scripture when Jesus said upon this rock i will build my church.

Effectively what you were trying to say was that it was Apostle Peter and you said that is not what you said. If it isn't Peter, is it Constantin? or even Apostle Paul? I was taught from as early as age3 or 4 that Apostle Peter became the first Pope. Remember I told you I went to a catholic school.

I could be wrong but therein lies the crux of problem.

At the end of time we would not be saved by being a member of a particular church. Remember, Christ is coming to rapture a church without spot and blemish.

Yes Jay5000 true talk but also 1 Tim 4 is very real and true. You can tell the obvious false preachers (some can't) and as iron sharpens iron we also need to sharpen one another s countenance on the not so obvious ones that perhaps have multitudes following them.

The book of Joel 3:14 talks of multitudes in the valley of decision.

Well it says Roman Catholicism not Roman Christianity, A simple google search will tell you.

I knew you would choose that one. I was taught the same in catholic school.

So Peter was the first pope eh? I think you need to read that the bones of Apostle Peter were found in Jerusalem. Why would his bones be in Jerusalem when he was supposed to be in Rome? This is documented fact. Now is your Pope married? Apostle Peter was married. Matthew 8:14

14 And when Jesus went into Peter's house, He saw his mother-in-law lying ill with a fever. (AMP)
14 [f]Als Jesus in das Haus des Petrus kam, lag dessen Schwiegermutter mit hohem Fieber im Bett. (Hoffnung fuer Alle)

I gave you translations in 2 language just to emphasize that fact that he was married!

Now about the commission of spreading the gospel. What was the commission given to Peter? What was the commission given to Paul?

Once again  give you the result in 2 languages. Apostle Peter's commisson was or the Jews and Apostle Paul's commission was for the gentiles. I think we both know that the jews were not in Rome. Romans are gentiles If anything Paul should be Pope as he was commissioned for the gentiles and he never married.

Galatians 2:7-8
7But on the contrary, when they [really] saw that I had been entrusted [to carry] the Gospel to the uncircumcised [Gentiles, just as definitely] as Peter had been entrusted [to proclaim] the Gospel to the circumcised [Jews, they were agreeable];

    8For He Who motivated and fitted Peter and worked effectively through him for the mission to the circumcised, motivated and fitted me and worked through me also for [the mission to] the Gentiles. (AMP)

7 [e]Diesen Leitern der Gemeinde ist klar geworden, dass Gott mir den Auftrag gegeben hat, den nichtjüdischen Völkern[f] die Botschaft von Christus zu verkünden, so wie er Petrus aufgetragen hat, sie den Juden[g] zu bringen. 8 Denn alle konnten sehen, dass meine Arbeit als Apostel ebenso von Gott bestätigt wurde wie die des Petrus. (Hoffnung fuer Alle)

Please take time to understand this. I pray to God that your eyes are open to his Word

Who was the first pope? Peter or Constantinople?

@inspired, the Mazda and Isuzu are Japanese. The new Japanese cars don't do it for me. I like the new Honda Legend though but a bit thirsty, You know you have to factor in petrol when thinking of these things ;-) . The Smart Brabus Roadster Coupe for just me or Audi A6 3.0 TDi for the family.

1. 1986 Isuzu Piazza Turbo, Ran into a London Bus, fixed it and scrapped soon afterwards
2. 1985 205 GTi passed down from a friend. Pocket rocket, lots and lots of fun this one. Passed on to brother
3. 1989 Isuzu Piazza Turbo (Handling by Lotus! yeah right!) Passed on to same brother as I moved abroad (you can tell i really had a thing for these Piazzas)
4. 1994 Volkswagen Corrado VR6. Probably the best car I have owned. I loved it but after 2 years 3 faults in one years @ 500 euros a pop to fix, it had to go but I miss it
5. 2001 Mercedes CLK 320 cabrio It was alright, a good mover but absolutely soulless. Summer was always good though. Sold because i moved on.
6. 1999 Mazda Xedos 9 Supercharged. OK car. Thought it would excite me more than it does as i had always wanted one. Should have gone for the RX-8 instead
7. Looking to get a Smart Roadster Coupe Brabus. Had a test drive in one and it was blast. The lady can get a family car, I can drive my Smart on sundays :-)

If didn't learn anything from the cartoon, (which I did) but something just jumped at me as soon as I read it. Galatians 2:7-8, There is no contradiction in the word of God


Thanks a lot and God bless you

@Plaetton yes oh. No resurrection no faith.

John 10:18 English Standard Version (©2001)
No one takes it from me, {His life(my emphasis)}but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

So we see that in Romans 10:9 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". English Standard Version (©2001)

The bible says in Ephesians 2:13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. And how did the blood bring near you might ask? When it was shed on the cross.

Please I am no hater, I am just stating what is not biblical. I went to a catholic school so i know what i am talking about. Recently I went to a catholic church as a friend was getting married. Why do I have to sing to mary?

That I may know Him and power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His suffering being made conformable unto His death.

Looking unto Jesus {and no one else (my emphasis)} the author and finisher of our faith who for the joy of what was set before him endured the cross despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Now I ask you, Do you believe the Bible is the complete word of God?

If yes, why have we added to what is in it?

@coolviv you contradict yourself.

@Ogaga4luv. The bible is all about Jesus and nobody else. So dat all eyes and all focus will be on him. A historian could be shocked too dat there is no talk about Joseph, all his apostles, and every other character in d bible except how they relate to Jesus. It doesn't mean they were
or are not important or did not have lives separate from Jesus, its just dat d bible is all about Jesus for He is d beginning, middle and end of making it to heaven.Every other person, Mary included, shows us how to live in union wit Jesus cuz they were once ordinary human beings like us.

If the bible is all about Jesus, why focus on mary. Why is mary the one appearing to the catholics and asking the followers to believe in her and everything will be alright? Why do people go to Lourdes and bow at her feet/statue? Is that not marian worship

A Christian is a follower of Christ (being Christ-like)

OK, fine you honour her as the mother of Jesus, no worries. Why do you sing to her, pray to her and ask her to pray for you? The last Pope said he belongs to mary. I thought he claimed to be a Christian (follower of Christ) and not Marian (follower of mary)

I repeat, the suffering that Jesus suffered is mocked by honouring mary. The bible says do not be deceived, God is not mocked whatever a man sows he shall reap.

@coolviv, where in the scriptures did it say Mary was assumed into Heaven? Please provide proof. If no proof is provided, what yu guys are practicing is idolatry. Where did it say that we should honour mary? Where did it say that we pray to someone else to get to God. Please provide bible passages,

Thanks.

If they can show where she was assumed into heaven (in the bible), then and only then will i believe it. Thank God for the internet, eyes are now open!

So if Pope John Paul and perhaps other catholics belong to mary, you guys make a mockery of the suffering Jesus suffered on the cross!!! This marian worship sef I tire

Effectively what you are saying is that instead of looking to Jesus, you guys looked to Padre Pio because of bleeding hands.

Even atheists avoid us cuz our miracles r not circus magic but pure and uncontestable even by scientists who don't believe in God. Like d unveilin of d coffin of a priest Padre pio who died decades ago and his half of his bother was as smooth and clean as a live person.

The same Priest Padre Pio that was found to have used carbolic Acid to maintain bleeding hands and the Church tried to suppress the reports How on earth does someone's hands bleed continuously to emulate Jesus bleeding hands on the cross/. What is the significance of that? What are trying to achieve?

Taking out and adding to God's complete word!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100117995/padrio-pio-and-carbolic-acid-could-the-saint-really-have-been-a-fraud/

I would equally be ungrateful if I did not share one of the many testimonies God has given me. This I have shared before in Church perhaps because its the one I remember so readily even though God spared my life this year from a collapsed lung (2nd time of it happening).

This happened in 2004. I had a rental car and was fascinated by it. I liked to think I am a fantastic driver and I always liked to time the traffic lights to perfection. Once the lights change from Red then Amber to Green the car is already in gear ready to shoot off. The rental car is a left hand drive and I was driving in the UK (they drive on the right for those of us who are not aware). In effect I am sitting on the wrong side of the road when driving. No big deal right? After performing my trick on so many traffic light, I got to this particular one. At the moment the lights started changing from Red to Orange tried to put the car in gear but the car wouldn't go in gear. bearing in mind now that the lights had changed to green. Suddenly a truck came from the left side of the junction and drove across me. Brothers and sisters, the truck jumped the lights that were Red! And remember I sat on the left side of the car. There was no way the truck would have missed me. I remember that day and I bless the Lord because I was not a Christian then. He obviously had use for my life that at that moment the car refused to go into gear.

Bless the Lord for Hi mercies.

It is not possible. All Chrislam elements at the moment are just cluching at straws. Utter delusion. The basis for Christianity is that Jesus Christ was crucified and the third day he rose again from the dead by the power of God. Islam believes Jesus Christ although crucified did not die but he was swapped with someone else and God ascended him unto heaven without dying.

If that is the case we have no basis Chrislam.