Splinz's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Splinz's Profile › Splinz's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 (of 152 pages)
Cc: Seun lalasticlala mynd44 Please don't you guys think these vital truths deserved front page? Lets hear what the Catholics have to say. |
Orikinla1:Historical eye witnesses like Colton's own? You mean He (Jesus) appeared in half glory to Colton? So Jesus is no longer the same yesterday, today, and forever? He now changes? Hmm. Deluded people everywhere! Go ahead and worship your brown hair, brown beard and blue sea eye jesus. We (at least I and my brother, DoctorAlien) do not know of such a jesus... |
Op, tell Colton that it is either he's such a great liar or possessed by some cheap demons. In fact, Colton is describing "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4). For the One and only true Jesus Christ of the Bible is described as "The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire..." (Rev. 1:14). Does this description sounds like anything Colton has described? And you supposed faith man, you're here celebrating utter nonsense! That Colton of a boy needs help. |
xyoung:Engagement right belongs to the girl. She's the one that has the right to either accept or reject the proposal. While marriage concerns belongs to the parent. They can as well either accept or refuse the marriage. So he doesn't need to consult the girl's parent before engaging his babe. |
Let him go ahead and propose to his love. |
DoctorAlien:Thanks bro. Have you notice that they've all deserted this thread because of the bitter truths? Apparently, these are hard truths too great for them to bear. I tell you, the lies in that church is unparalleled! |
Mr. Mathew sef no look like person wey head correct.
|
Oh not this overfed buffoon again!
|
EmilieJones:Try that shit with me and get one of your tooth knocked out! That's my fucking business! |
You gave your school fees to someone else and lost your own admission ![]() Oh my gawd! Why have you done this great evil!?
|
![]()
|
Telecommunication subscribers in the country may be in for a rough year as the network operators are said to be considering another increase of their tariffs soon in order to sustain services amidst a tough operating environment.Seems this government has bound itself by an oath to finish us off in this country!
|
sarrki:Seems your madam is breaking all known records of thieves within such a short while.... ![]() |
Simple. Boot Buhari and his thieving ministers out of Aso Rock into kirikiri prison. |
Cc:
DoctorAlien
Scholar8200 You guys need see these rock solid truths, straight from the Bible. |
Immee: Someone has a secondary school certificate and you called him an illiterate? What do you understand by the word "illiterate"? Anyways, lets just say the issue is that the said guy doesn't want to further his education, simple! So my advice is this. If you know you wouldn't be able to cope with his level of education, since it's obvious he doesn't want to further, then simply take a walk. |
Please say something else. Spare me this crap. |
PoliticalThuG:After you don suck all the juice finish, abi ![]() Oga... you must love her o... by fire by force!
|
pocohantas:Those are fuckboys. |
pocohantas:How did you know of this mission? ![]() |
Catalin:Am I not man enough for you?
|
TANKDESTROYER:Of course to "them them", that is their Jesus. Useless and meaningless photo that has no bearing with the true Jesus Christ. |
Women been scamming men since 100 BC. |
Every Catholic is taught and believes that the apostle Peter was the first Roman bishop—the first “Pope”—and that he resided at Rome. If this were true, God’s Word would state it. But, in fact, the Bible directly confirms the opposite. History seems to attest, however, and it is quite possible, that Peter was crucified in Rome. This said, here are a series of ten proofs, with scriptural support, demonstrating that Peter never resided at Rome: (1) Rome is in Italy. This means that Gentile Italians live there. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans: “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…” (15:16). He also described himself to the Galatians as having the gospel of the “uncircumcision”—the Gentiles—committed to him (2:7). (2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50. Acts 8:1 describes the “great persecution against the Church” and that “they were all scattered abroad” as a result. (3) Peter wrote his first general epistle from the city of “Babylon” (5:13). Many have assumed that this is Rome, when it is actually the Babylon of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that historians generally confuse—switch—scriptural references to Babylon by applying those that do apply to Rome as though they apply to Babylon, and vice-versa—in other words, those that do not apply to Rome are assigned Roman designation. (4) Paul told the Romans, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation” (15:20). Paul’s assertion would make no sense had Peter been resident at Rome, having established this congregation. (5) Then, in light of the previous point, why would Paul offer the following salutation to the Roman congregation, also if Peter had been there for years?: “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established” (1:11). Think how insulting this expression would have been to “Pope Peter,” had he been in Rome. (6) Paul concludes the Roman letter in chapter 16 with separate greetings to 30 different people in Rome—Mary, Andronicus, Junia—(these last two were probably apostles; Rom. 16:7)—Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles and 23 others—with no reference to the one who was supposedly the Pope, guiding the congregation and the entire New Testament Church from that city. No reasonable person could believe that Paul would so insult his own spiritual superior! (7) Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites (also see #9) had migrated, from AD 38 to AD 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians. ( Luke 22:24 states, “And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Here is why this passage is important. This debate took place after Christ, in Matthew 16:17-19, had supposedly designated Peter as the one who would become the first Pope. While not directly involving Rome, this provides its own proof that Christ never conferred, at least from the other apostles’ perspective, the office of “Pope” to Peter.(9) This point proves the other side of point 1. Already referenced, notice how Paul, who first describes himself, concludes his statement in Galatians 2:7, with this about Peter: “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [Gentiles] was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision [Jews and the other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7] was unto Peter…” (10) In II Timothy 4:11, Paul, commonly understood to be writing this epistle from Rome, states, “Only Luke is with me.” Further, in verse 10, he describes how one named Demas had “forsaken” him and gone back to the “world,” with Crescens and Titus having also transferred to other places of duty. None of this makes sense if the “Pope”—Peter—had been present. To find out who answered the title of a 'Peter' in Rome, please see this thread... https://www.nairaland.com/3558502/true-founder-history-catholic-church#52587802 |
Ubenedictus:"And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations" (Rev. 17:5) Is it clear now Keep on trying to drag the true apostle Peter into your false church. One wonders why Peter, a married man (Matt. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5), who was not a celibate priest but the very antithesis of what your pope represented, could be claimed to be your pope. Was it after Peter's reign as your pope that the rules were changed Lol... very funny dude. |
Ubenedictus:I refused to be a Christian of your kind. I refused to be part of Babylon! |
Ubenedictus:At this point, I'm convinced that you didn't read about Simon Magus well and his venturing into Rome. Did I not said that this sorcerer also parades himself as an apostle of Christ, and he was the one that bear the title of a 'peter' in Rome? Please go back and read well. |
Ubenedictus:No, you really need to try harder! All you keep doing is running from pillar to post. I have provided my own sources and they are verifiable. Where are your own sources ![]() PS: The earlier you deal with the true history and sorcerer founder of your church, the better for you. |
Ubenedictus:Tales by moonlight. Do I look to you like one of those pentecostal members? Please, find them and narrate these tales to them. |
Ubenedictus:I've already given you a brief of Eusebius, that he recorded both for the true and your false church. After all, he was a historian anyways, with greater loyalty to the enperor of course. So I have seen his works, both for the true Church and yours! Why can't you deal with other notably historians? What is it with Eusebius? Is he the only one I quoted? |
phililp:As every other human invention always sounds- silly! I advice that you don't listen to this kind of fiction, but always search the Scriptures to confirmed all things. The Bible makes it clear that at conversion and baptism, all sins are forgiven (Acts 2:38) and God Himself confirms that "He will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more" (Hebrews 10:17). So the question to op and his fictitious story is this: If this evangelist "mother in the lord" of yours wasn't forgiven of passed sins at baptism, how then did she becomes a Christian by receiving the holy Spirit? And where is this strange doctrine of restitution to God taught anywhere in the Bible? Cc: NFFGG |
Ubenedictus:Of course, you're free to excuse yourself. This is certainly beyond you. Insisting on Eusebius isn't a surprise. We know he was a promoter of your false church too. He was loyal to the emperor. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 (of 152 pages)



Luke 22:24 states, “And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Here is why this passage is important. This debate took place after Christ, in Matthew 16:17-19, had supposedly designated Peter as the one who would become the first Pope. While not directly involving Rome, this provides its own proof that Christ never conferred, at least from the other apostles’ perspective, the office of “Pope” to Peter.