₦airaland Forum

She being kept in cooler by the police to micro manage her and family, to forestall the probable sequelae from a possible outburst with information on involvement of various persons (including the Emir of Kano), since trying unsuccessful to take back their daughter earlier

adsonstone: Well, I don't plan on teaching you because I believe you know these things....by the way, I know the history of both the church to a very good extent not in its entirety.

You made a point which I really like which reads:
'The teachings and practises of the Church have essentially always been the same...though not entirely.' The fact that you did not say 'The Catholic Church.'

I'll like to draw your attention to something (though I know you may not agree). The church Jesus established wasn't a Catholic Church. It was (generally) the Christian Church where the teaching and practise today is exactly the same as what Christ as his Apostles taught and practised when it started out.

And where do find that Church today. And what are the qualities or characteristics by which you will recognise it. Any idea on howto go about your search? Let me help you.
1; Sanctity
2; Unity/ Oneness/ Universality
3; Antiquity
4; Apostolic succession (an Unbroken chain of ordination back to the Apostles)

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the Bishop presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters (Priests) in the place of the council of the Apostles and the Deacons who are most dear to me. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop (unbroken successors of the Apostles) shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catolic Church". IGNATIUS of Antioch {Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c.A.D. 110)}

ON THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Is "The Rock" of Matthew 16:18 St. Peter? Or His Confession of Faith?
FOLLLOW THE ANALYSIS FOR YOURSELVES OBJECTIVELY

First, let's examine the Scriptural passage in context (Matthew 16:13-19):

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In the span of just three of those verses, Jesus addresses Peter personally ten times. Yet under the Protestant interpretation, we’re supposed to believe that this passage wasn’t meant to apply to Peter personally. It’s allegedly addressed to any Christian making such a profession like the one that Peter makes: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

There are a couple glaring problems with this theory. First, we hear Martha making this exact declaration in John 11:27, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” And you know what Christ doesn’t do? Change her name to Petra, and promise to build the Church upon her. Nor do we see any of the other Christians in the New Testament renamed Peter. The only person in Scripture ever referred to as “Peter” is the Apostle Simon. This looks a lot like Jesus meant to build the Church upon Peter, and not just anyone willing to declare Him the Messiah.

But okay, we don’t know whether Martha or Peter’s confession of faith came first. So maybe Jesus addresses Matthew 16:18 to Peter because Peter got there first?

Well, this raises the other, even more-glaring problem: Peter didn’t get there first. John 1:32-49 eliminates any room for the Protestant interpretation of the “Upon This Rock” passage. Here it is:
And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” He said to them, “Come and see.” They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” Now Philip was from Beth-sa′ida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathan′a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathan′a-el said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathan′a-el coming to him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” Nathan′a-el said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathan′a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

This passage is fantastic. We hear a series of proclamations of the faith:

John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:34) and the Lamb of God (John 1:36).
The Apostle Andrew, Simon’s brother, proclaims Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ (John 1:41).
The Apostle Philip proclaims Jesus as “him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote,” which is to say, the Messiah (John 1:45).
The Apostle Nathaniel proclaims Jesus as “the Son of God” and “the King of Israel” (John 1:49).

In fact, the only person named in this passage who doesn’t profess faith in Christ is Simon Peter. He’s not recorded as saying anything. And yet right in the midst of this flurry of Messianic proclamations, Jesus does something astounding. He turns to Simon, and as if He has been waiting for him, says “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas.” It’s remarkable that Jesus should do this: He calls Simon by name, including his family name (so to speak). He does the exact same thing in Matthew 16:18. This is as personal as it gets. And as St. John notes, Cephas is the Aramaic word for rock, and is translated into Greek as Petros, and into English as “Peter.”

So John 1 basically shows us that: (1) everyone but Simon proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah; (2) Jesus then announced that Simon, Son of John, was the one He would choose as the Rock; and (3) Protestants are left spending five hundred years trying to explain why this passage doesn't mean that Simon is really the Rock, or is personally the Rock, etc.

Bear in mind, this event happens at the very start of Jesus’ public ministry, long before the events of Matthew 16. This eliminates any chance that Simon is named Peter because he’s the first to declare Jesus the Christ. Jesus was being declared as Messiah before Peter had even met Him. Instead, Jesus has made it abundantly clear that He, the Sovereign God, specifically chose Peter as the Rock.

Peter is hand-picked from among the crowd, even when he is surrounded by men who seem like they would be better candidates. It is another reminder that “the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). And Peter alone is renamed. We may all be rocks (Peter calls us “living stones” in 1 Peter 2:5) but Jesus (the “Living Stone” in the fullest sense, 1 Peter 2:4) chose one from among of us, the Apostle Peter, to be the Rock upon which He built the Church.

Enigma: At the Blue Bolded: now if this is referring to the Christian Church or the catholic i.e. universal Church, it is OK. BUT if it is referring to either "The Catholic Church" (capital C) or the Roman Catholic Church ---- then it is false.

All the red bolded, among other things, are false! (EDIT)

Christianity started with the Hebrew Bible. The first book to have the title "The Bible" is The Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover the New Testament of the Bible started to be written within a few years of the day of Pentecost and were completed by AD 100 (according to most scholars)

"Pope" Damasus did not compile anything in AD 367 at all -- though in fairness he encouraged Jerome in his translation work.

It was Athanasius who was NOT a Roman Catholic who in AD 367 presented a list of the Bible canon which he said had been handed down as accredited and divine. So it was not even he who decided their status --- he simply presented what had been handed down.

Athanasius' presentation of the canon in AD 367 came beofre anything that the Roman Catholics can claim as where they set a/their canon.

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the Bishop presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters (Priests) in the place of the council of the Apostles and the Deacons who are most dear to me. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop (unbroken successors of the Apostles) shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catolic Church". IGNATIUS of Antioch {Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c.A.D. 110)}

Christianity is not a book religion. The Westminister confession on which protestants professed their faith states, "The Bible contains the whole council of God." Therefore the concept of "Solar Scriptura". The irony is where do you find those in the bible. The Church established by Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Timothy 3:15
So the Church also conveys message and teaching by oral traditions

Christians show me were you the following in the scriptures: Bible, Trinity, Christmas

adsonstone: The church in Rome (possibly Catholic)
I don't know exactly when it was compiled...probably in the early centuries.

Christ establish a book, but He established a Church. Christ did not leave us any book, but He left us His Church

Before a line in the New Testament was written
1; Christ established the Church
2; Apostles preached and taught the Gospel
3; Peter had converted 3000 Jews
4; The Council of Jerusalem had assembled
5; The Jewish ceremonial laws abrogated

Before the last book of the New Testament was written
1; The Catholic (Universal) Church had celebrated 100 years
2; Eleven Apostles had died.

Christianity existed and thrieved morte than 300 years without the Bible.

In 367 AD Pope Damasus compiled the books which he felt were genuine and divinely inspired (after the Council of Laodecia were permited to produce the first canon of books) and order St. Jerome to translate them to Latin the official language of the Roman Empire. It took St. Jerome 30 yrs finish and he called it the "Latin Vulgate". In 397 AD Pope Sirius name the canon of books the "Bible". Few of the books like the Revelation/ Apocalypse were not accepted by all Early Christian scholars as genuine but infallible decision of Pope Damasus made them acceptable by all.

This has been a theological debate for about 500 years. It wasl not call to a lengthy debate prior to this. http://catholicdefense..com/2013/10/is-rock-of-matthew-1618-st-peter-or-his.html?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferad9fc&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

Have you discussants heard about the Early church fathers? (they are first few generation disciples of the Apostles). From their writing we can get to know what the Apostles taught them about the faith and its practices. Thank God for the information age it is easier getting their writings than before. They include Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smynr both students of John the longest surviving Apostle, Ireneus student of Polycarp and Clement of Rome student of Peter the Apostle just to mention a few. Most of the questions you have, have been asnwered before by them.