₦airaland Forum

Dongreat:
My friend shut up. You go to every topic and comment thinking you are versatile not knowing you are dumb troll with no focus plan. You know nothing about medicine or Pharmacology. Do you think everyone in Nairaland is an average joe or some unemployed youth?
Do you know the steps it takes to discover a drug? When did they undergo a random screening to get a lead for a potentially drug? Which machine was used to conduct the screening? When did they carry out a clinical trial on the said drug? is it bioactive like they claim and not toxic?
Next time you want to quote/troll in a science section make sure it with a person of similar low IQ like you. Now please move to your political section, and not fool yourself here.

Calm down and read again, the proposed drug has already been tested for toxicity.

erico2k2:
Oh boy we do, I live in one. Infact the west is the capital of applauding shady people, just bring your dark money to invest in teh Uk and you will get OBE!

I guess its only half sane.

erico2k2:
Note we said in a SANE COUNTRY, you seem to 4get that bit.

Yeah in a sane country people do not come out to appaud shady people.

newbornmacho:
Thanks for commenting . like I said the simple faith message acquired encumbering paraphernalia as time went on due to people attempting to help God. Your differing opinions falls there as well.

The paraphernalia never affected church unity, infact by d year 300, the church of romd had different rituals from the church in antioch and even different from d church in ephesus...etc and yet the was no denominations. The false teachers were know and exposed. Not once did the difference in rituals cause divisions, becos at d core d rituals had a basic similarity.

Each time the was division is was heresy, is it d judaiser? D arians? The eastern schism of 500's and 1054? Or it is even protestanism?

Do you even know how protestanism began and how all these new churches came abt? It is alway a man with a differing opinion that begins it and believes he is mr know it all who alone has d holy spirit.

Rituals didnt even come in.

luckyCO:
Ref in the phases of the kingdoms;
Bible said the kingdom of God is within you(that happen when you receive the Holy Spirit) and the millennial kingdom rule of Christ, which of them is peter your prime minister and what is going to do with the keys given to him?

Ha! you have been fed horse dung.

You do not need to wait till the milenium to be a member of God's kingdom, the kingdom has began already, the son of man has already receive the kingdom and all sovereignty.

The prophesy of scripture say that a King is coming who will reign on the throne of his father david, Jesus is that king and the reign has began.
The davidic kingdom has someone who receive and holds the keys of the kingdom Isaiah 22:22, the keys are the unmistaken insignia of the prime minister, so when Jesus d davidic king gives someone the keys of his kingdom, that clearly show he had made him prime minister of his kingdom.

Splinz:
Of course, you're not far from the truth. Here are some refreshing history:



To learn more about this Simon Magus, check out this thread of mine: https://www.nairaland.com/3558502/true-founder-history-catholic-church#52587802

oya lets roll out the conspiracy theory

luckyCO:
What is then then meaning of prime minister?
In the coming kingdom everybody is equal. Apostle is not biger or better than teachers. He gave gifts according to His mercy.

I ask which kingdom are you talking about?
If you are talking about anti-christ kingdom then your version of peter can be your prime minster.

But the coming kingdom(milenium) Christ is our prime minister,king,ruler,Judge etc such that all be in him and He in the Father that God will be all in all.

My dear, the bible says the kingdom of God is alread in your midst, if u don't know this i wonder what they teach u guys in church.

Christ is king and he gave peter the symbol of the office of prime ministe cf. Is 22

newbornmacho:
Yes I think there was. I think a close reading if the bible, particularly the Acts of the apostles reveals two streams of action coexisting side by side.there was the spirit led stream of action where the holy spirit virtually micromanaged the fledgling Christian movement. Telling them where to go, and who to meet and so on. An example is Philip the evangelist.
Then there was the man-led stream of action where men decided how to go by a combination of guesswork, popular vote, and natural logic. Examples abound as in the Jerusalem council of Acts 14, selection of apostle Matthias, etc. This continued into the later centuries with the human stream winning more people, and using their influence to spread their own narrative. A narrative which has resulted in a deeply human arrangement now called church. There was always an alternative. The spirit led way was our alternative.

All d cases above are works of the spirits what is ur issue with d council in jerusaleM

newbornmacho:
Thank you. Denominationalism is used here to depict both the denominationalization and institutionalization of the christian faith which resulted in groups that have developed an acculturated rather than a spirit led Christianity.
In my view the origins are very early in the history of our faith, when men designed worship protocols, systems and structures. These structures outlived the good spirit and intentions of the pioneers and became ritualized.
Thats the life history of any group formed by men around these truths. They fossilize and become tombs harbouring the dead revivals of yesteryears.

Sorry dear but rituals didnt cause denominations, it was differing opinions ie heresy that brought them.

Xano:
Interesting

It would do you good to see and say the truth. Visit Edo, enquire from indigenes of the State.

We know you almost blindly support APC(also lie in your support). But truth would always prevail.

I'm frm edo, osho did well while he was govenor, that is hard to dispute.

luckyCO:
It was this heresy that lead to the death of many believers you know where some people said they dont believe in Pope as peter's succession.

Christ is the prime minister of the Kingdom Peter is fellow servant in the kingdom. He clearly states in the house of Cornelius.
I state again, the key given to peter was not key to personal elevation but key to Open doors of free salvation that Christ brought which gives the knowledge of whom Christ is.
He used the key on the Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius.who is the peter that is your prime minister.

what nonesense did u write @ bold?

How can u call Jesus the prime minister of d kingdom when he is KING? IS KING AND MINISTER THE SAME? Is it mistake or ignorance?

DoctorAlien:
I'm confused: how does strengthening the brethren mean being their head or prime minister or overseer?

You are yet to show me where even Peter himself acted like he was over the church, or where he hinted at someone succeeding him as the head.

The prime minister position was giving in matt 16:18,19, in luke 22:32, Jesus tells us that the guy with the key of the kingdom(authority) is also to strengthen d brethern.

DoctorAlien:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matt. 19:28

Here, after Matt. 16:18, we see Jesus promising His apostles that they would sit on 12 thrones and judge Israel. He does not say anything whatsoever that implied that Peter's was a special position, or that he would be the prime minister. He does not say that Peter's throne would be more exalted that the others.

Or has Jesus forgotten what He said to Peter in Matt. 16:18?

You are the one who forgot it, that is why you aren't interpreting scriptures holistically. You have somehow deleted it from ur mind that Jesus already gave peter a new name and the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus said it bt i guess u dont believe it.

DoctorAlien:
So let's ask the disciples who is the "greatest" among them and if Jesus had given any one of them the position as leader:

Now this is AFTER Matthew 16, so surely they should know who is the leader of them, because Jesus had already told them. The problem is, they clearly understood Jesus' words in Matthew 16 to be pointing to Himself, NOT Peter. Which is why they are now arguing as to which one of them should be the leader. And what about Jesus' reply to their arguing? He will surely clear this up and tell them that Peter is now the leader right? Wrong. Jesus confirms no such thing. In fact, He states that WHOEVER wants to be the greatest, needs to be the least.

OYA READ!
The problem is you do not read becos a few verses later Jesus tells us who has the duty of strengthening the brethren and it is peter

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren.

DoctorAlien:
I don't want to believe that you have comprehension problems.

Oya what bible verse gives those date or did u just pull out some traditions?

DoctorAlien:
Eph. 2:20 says the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, not apostle. Why didn't Paul make a distinction between Peter and the others? Why didn't Paul say "principally Peter"? Surely Paul knew of the encounter between Jesus and Peter in Matt. 16:18?

Paul doesnt need to remind them, it is something they should all know.

DoctorAlien:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8

Did Paul teach the Galatians that Peter was the foundation of the church?

Why did Paul make no distinction whatsoever between James, Peter and John in his epistle to the Galatians, but called all of them pillars of the church?

More importantly, where did Peter acknowledge, or even act like he was over the whole church?

JESUS IS THE ONE WHO GIVES US THE DISTINCTION BTW PETER, JAMES AND JOHN.
Sorry dear, i dont need paul to acknowledge it, i already have the clear words of Jesus on the matter. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[b] loosed in heaven.”. Matthew 16:19

DoctorAlien:
The same time that Peter supposedly ends his ministry in Rome. Yes, Paul was imprisoned the second time in 67 AD. Now again he wrote a couple of letters. He wrote the book of Hebrews. InHebrews 13:24, it says from Italy and then he also wrote 2 Timothy shortly before his death. This is the very year that Peter supposedly was martyred and you know what? There’s still no mention of Peter. Peter was not there. Peter was not in the city of Rome or ever in the city of Rome. In 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. Paul says only Luke was with him. Peter never was in the city of Rome. The whole organizational structure of the Church of Rome is built on false tradition and tragic misinterpretation of our Lord's words. It is built on tradition that is just not true.

1. The dates u are mentioning are not in d bible just tradition.
2. hebrew may have been written by anyone, there is no agreement on the writter.
3. Your arguement is a logical fallacy called arguement from silence.

luckyCO:
Ok, thanks.
My line of though is pointing you to Christ while you keep pointing me to man.
If you understands your quotations you know the revelation behind them is simple Christ alone no matter whose name mentioned.

Eg. The star that lead 3 wise men to Jesus disappeared once they met with Jesus. We didn't hear anything about the start again

No sir, you are pointing me to heresy while i am showing the plain words of Jesus. It was Jesus who gave peter the keys in matt 16:19 making him the prime minister in his kingdom. cf is 22.

DoctorAlien:
This is who he was writing to and as he wrote to them, when you come down to the last chapter of the book ofRomans, he sends greetings to27 members of the church, members of the body of Christ, the saints in Rome, BUT he doesn’t mention any Peter! He said nothing whatever about the Apostle Peter, and according to the tradition of the Church of Rome, Peter was there from 42 to 67 AD. When did Paul write the book of Romans? He wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. Now if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 AD that means by 58 AD, that Peter should have been there for about 16 years. Not only that but their tradition tells us that he was the head of the church. He was the chief pastor in the city of Rome.

Where does the bible give those date?
oh, dont tell me you are relying on tradition.

DoctorAlien:
Why didn't you specify the keys Jesus said He had in Revelations?

Did Peter see himself as the only shepherd of the church? Why are you lying against Peter?

peter is not the only sherpherd no, he isnt, but he was the servant who was specifically given charge of the sheep. That is the meaning of having d keys, the keys is given to d prime minister...there are other ministers but only 1 has d keys i.e D prime minister

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11

Ephesians 2:20
New International Version
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

We dont need to build another foundation, Jesus already founded the church on the apostles and principally peter matt 16.

DoctorAlien:
Where did Paul acknowledge that the Church was built on Peter? Where did Paul acknowledge that the church was handed over to Peter?

So paul has to acknowledge what Jesus has said before it will become true? what silly arguement is that? Jesus already told peter that he will receive d authority, key of d kingdom, so paul now has to acknowledge what Jesus expressly say for it to be true?
are u kidding me?

luckyCO:
I sincerely hope you understand the meaning all the verses quotes you made because if you do you would not use it to defend Pope rather magnify Christ.

After the Pentecost where the Holy Ghost of adoption was release unto all that believe, you will see that peter was not heading Apostle anymore since the head of the Christians is the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ and was going about doing the work of Apostle to the Jews which Christ has handed over to him the reason for his reward in the millennium.

Apostles are called primarily then secondarily the prophets, thirdly the Evangelist, fourthly the Pastors and teachers(1 Cor 12:28 , Eph 4:11-13).

However if studying, praising and appreciating Peter ( As catholics have everywhere) makes you to look Christ instead of taking him a brother in the Lord, then that is you but not for me

round and round he goes.

luckyCO:
I appreciate studying the bible via greek/hebrew or other translation to get the better understanding of a verse but also Holy Spirit is the one that decodes the meaning of every scripture such that we will go closer to Christ.

The main issue here is not literally rock or peter else we concentrate on shadows leaving the substance.
Christ is pointing out that there is something in peter that has something to do about him( The knowledge about what He is and what has come to do and in that revelation he is building His church which is his body. The church is yet to be finished, once the church is finished he stands up and come to rule there) just as in the case of the temple.

THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ENOUGH AND THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS JUST FINE.
1. Jesus changed his name, which means he change his destiny and marked him out 4 an important role.
2. He say he will buid his church on him.
3. He gives him d keys i.e authority over d church.
4.power 2 bind nd lose

DoctorAlien:
You need to stop reading Roman Catholic Bibles.

see your protestant bible
John 1:42
New International Version (NIV) 42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a])

. Footnotes: a. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock


EXB Then Andrew took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (“Cephas”
means “Peter.”) [C Both Aramaic Cephas and Greek Petros mean “rock.”]

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Please browse other sites apart from your catholic forums. Kephas is translated stones.

sorry dear
Strong's Concordance Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to
the apostle Peter
Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas') Short Definition: Cephas
Definition: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the
new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
of Aramaic origin Definition
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the
apostle Peter
NASB Translation
Cephas (9).

biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Gal. 2:7-8 states that the gospel of the circumcision(i.e. to the Jews) was committed by GOD to Peter, while the gospel to the uncircumcision(i.e. to the gentiles, which included the Romans) was committed to Paul.

Why would Peter leave his ministry in Judea to go and dwell in Rome, a gentile area?

The same reason that would make him leave judea and go to antioch.

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. It says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about thirty miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

IN gal paul says peter was in antioch, are u aware dat isnt in acts?

DoctorAlien:
Wht are you peddling lies?

1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; Isa. 28:16 all identify the Rock Christ was talking about.

Even Peter himself knew that he was not the Rock which Christ was talking about(1 Pet. 2:6).

Protestants have the worst view of theology.
The fact that Jesus is rock doesn't prevent him from making another rock. Infact Jesus also say in revelation that he has the keys yet in matthew he clearly says he gives it to Peter, Jesus calls himself Good sherperd and tell peter to do the work of a sherpherd ie tend the sheep, he is the rock that is why he could make peter the rock and call him cephas.

BeardedMeat:
So why is Efcc losing all their cases? My fren, goan sidown!

BECAUSE D JUDICIARY IS DEAD

bobby56:
But Magu and his EFCC outfit does not have CONCRETE evidence(s) to prosecute these cases. You don't win a corruption/criminal case by mere MEDIA Propaganda, you must present genuine evidences and prove your case beyond every reasonable doubt. So friend, stop whinny over a lost case. BUHARI had only tried to whip up sentiments through his Anti-corruption crusade (while he steals the Nation blind- another ABACHA style) and pursue a refined version of decree 101 to hurl perceived enemies and political opponents into prison (and seized their monies), but that method had backfired because this is Democracy. No matter how fast evil can travel, TRUTH will always catch up with it.

The posession of disportionate wealth is itself proof needed EFCC 18(3)

Eazybay:
Okay u love argument, dis should put it to rest.
Onus probandi I quid icit non equi negat that is to say, d burden of proof lies on he who proves not on he who denies.

Simple Justice template

EFCC ACT 18(3)