Ubenedictus:
Image123 pls tell me again who killed galileo?

That's a ridiculous thing to want to argue of everything said. The point was clearly made.

italo:


Just to add...there is only one Church founded by Jesus on St Peter 2000 years ago.

Those things you call denominations aren't churches.

Don't deceive yourself. There is no evidence that Peter went to Rome. He preached the first message at Pentecost after Christ's resurrection where 3,000 people got saved.

OLAADEGBU:


Don't deceive yourself. There is no evidence that Peter went to Rome. He preached the first message at Pentecost after Christ's resurrection where 3,000 people got saved.

There is evidence. Scriptural, historical and scientific.

Image123:


That's a ridiculous thing to want to argue of everything said. The point was clearly made.

actually my dear, it isn't ridiculous, i simply wanted to point out that your post was side stepping the question. Italo talked about "contradictory doctrines" and you were busy talking about judicial pronoucements, that shows a clear attempt to sidestep the question.

In your quick rage to point out "fact" about legal pronoucement and run away from the issue of doctrines, you started to post misinformations and lies (i do not mean to call you a liar) by boldly claiming that a pope KILLED galileo, sorry galileo was not killed he died a paceful death inside his own mansion.


Now please inform us how manage you believe it is ok for every Christian to hold and teach contradictory DOCRINES when scriptures clearly says we should hold "one faith" and in another place say that "if an angel teaches a different gospel...let him be anathema"

italo:


There is evidence. Scriptural, historical and scientific.

Give us at least one Scriptural evidence and I do not mean the "evidence" that comes from your church tradition that only started in the 4th century.

1Pet5:13

Babylon was a code name for Rome.

Show me where scripture told you Peter never went to Rome.

OLAADEGBU:


Give us at least one Scriptural evidence and I do not mean the "evidence" that comes from your church tradition that only started in the 4th century.

italo:


1Pet5:13

Babylon was a code name for Rome.

Show me where scripture told you Peter never went to Rome.

The Scriptures never said Peter went to Rome. You can only claim this from your "church tradition" which started in the 4th century 400 years after Peter, which is not credible unless you are referring to another Peter. Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7).

Where was babylon?

Where did scripture say "Peter never went to Rome?"

OLAADEGBU:


The Scriptures never said Peter went to Rome. You can only claim this from your "church tradition" which started in the 4th century 400 years after Peter, which is not credible unless you are referring to another Peter. Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7).

italo:


Where was babylon?

Where did scripture say "Peter never went to Rome?"

The Scripture did say Peter wrote from Babylon.

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13).

The onus is on you to provide the Scriptural evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.

Ubenedictus:


actually my dear, it isn't ridiculous, i simply wanted to point out that your post was side stepping the question. Italo talked about "contradictory doctrines" and you were busy talking about judicial pronoucements, that shows a clear attempt to sidestep the question.

In your quick rage to point out "fact" about legal pronoucement and run away from the issue of doctrines, you started to post misinformations and lies (i do not mean to call you a liar) by boldly claiming that a pope KILLED galileo, sorry galileo was not killed he died a paceful death inside his own mansion.


Now please inform us how manage you believe it is ok for every Christian to hold and teach contradictory DOCRINES when scriptures clearly says we should hold "one faith" and in another place say that "if an angel teaches a different gospel...let him be anathema"

It doesn't sidestep, if not you would not be talking about me believing it's okay to hold contradictory position. The pope declared Galileo an heretic, it's not the same today. That was the simple point. Understanding of doctrines is not the gospel.

Babylon did not exist at the time of the apostles.

Babylon was a code name for Rome.

Is there anywhere scripture says Peter never went to Rome?

If yes, where?

If no, why are you adding your personal tradition to scripture?

Also, what do you mean by scripture? That bible that Jesus or the apostles never mentioned but came from Catholic tradition in the 4th century?

OLAADEGBU:


The Scriptures never said Peter went to Rome. You can only claim this from your "church tradition" which started in the 4th century 400 years after Peter, which is not credible unless you are referring to another Peter. Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7).

The Pope never declared Galileo a heretic. Stop lying.

But how else can you defend your errors?

Image123:


It doesn't sidestep, if not you would not be talking about me believing it's okay to hold contradictory position. The pope declared Galileo an heretic, it's not the same today. That was the simple point. Understanding of doctrines is not the gospel.

italo:


Babylon did not exist at the time of the apostles.

My research shows that you are probably correct on this point.

italo:


Babylon was a code name for Rome.

Probably true.

italo:


Is there anywhere scripture says Peter never went to Rome?

If yes, where?

No.

italo:


If no, why are you adding your personal tradition to scripture?

It did not categorically say he went to Rome either but we can deduce that he did. Acts 12:17 shows that Peter departed to "another place" and he did not surface again until when he spoke again in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7). During this period it is most likely that Peter had travelled to the Gentile world to preach the gospel.

italo:


Also, what do you mean by scripture? That bible that Jesus or the apostles never mentioned but came from Catholic tradition in the 4th century?

What I mean by Scriptures is the God breathed Word of God written by holy men of God from Genesis to Revelation by the OT prophets and apostles of Christ and these did not come from the Catholic tradition.

In the course of my research I stumbled across a goldmine can of worms showing Peter most likely went to Rome and how the RCC originated. Below is the overwhelming conclusion of that link.

The Overwhelming Conclusion!

The only conclusion we can come to (unless we are totally blind), based on OVERWHELMING evidence, is that Peter not only came to Rome just before his death there in February of 68 A.D., but also immediately after his release from prison under Herod in 43 A.D. He founded the Church of God in the Imperial City and, in the almost 25 years between his two visits, preached the gospel of Christ throughout Europe, Britain and Asia.

With the loving assistance of his wife and children, he trod the highways and byways of the Roman Empire bringing the message of the Kingdom of God to the descendants of Israel. On his last visit to Rome in the latter part of 66 A.D., he preached the Good News to the people of Rome before being imprisoned in the Mamertine for some nine months. Upon Nero's return to Rome he was put to death -- along with his wife and daughter Petronilla.

In 42 A.D. (just before Peter's first visit) Simon Magus arrived in Rome and, during a 25 year "episcopate," built up a RIVAL RELIGION that amalgamated some aspects of Christianity WITH ELEMENTS OF THE PAGAN BABYLONIAN MYSTERY RELIGION. THIS religion of Simon's eventually became known as the UNIVERSAL OR CATHOLIC CHURCH!

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits that Simon Magus "afterwards went to Rome, worked miracles there by THE POWER OF DEMONS, and received Divine honors both in Rome and in his own country. Though much extravagant legend afterwards gathered around the name of this Simon...it seems nevertheless probable that there must be some foundation in fact for the account given by Justin and accepted by Eusebius. The historical Simon Magus no doubt founded some sort of religion AS A COUNTERFEIT OF CHRISTIANITY in which he was to play a part ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF CHRIST" (Vol. 7, p. 699 -- article: "Impostors".)

YES, Peter the apostle WAS in Rome, but NO, he did NOT become the first pope -- Simon Magus did!

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

Very interesting exchange. Interesting for reasons that might be different from the subject of this thread.

OLAADEGBU:


My research shows that you are probably correct on this point.

First, a miraculous event. Though I believe Olaadegbu does not have the decency in him to say 'I was wrong', we have to give him kudos for at least admitting that Italo was, Not correct but, only merely probably correct. Knowing how difficult it must be for him to concede this I should applaud him. The implications of course are that Olaadegbu was wrong when he said:

Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.

It is one thing to err but he didn't just say that Babylon existed, he said that it had a large jewish population. Where did the extra information come from? To what extent are his other posts nothing but works of his own imagination? Why is it that when he concedes someone else's point he says 'it's probably true' yet when he states his own falsehoods he does it with brash certainty?

Probably true.

Now we know that this is the best he can muster when he concedes a point. Read, 'true, I agree'.

No.

A sure and steady improvement.

It did not categorically said he went to Rome either but we can adduce that he did. Acts 12:17 shows that Peter departed to "another place" and he did not surface again until when he spoke again in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7). During this period it is most likely that Peter had travelled to the Gentile world to preach the gospel.

According to Ola's research. I wonder what his tune would be if he couldn't find the info in his various websites.

What I mean by Scriptures is the God breathed Word of God written by holy men of God from Genesis to Revelation by the OT prophets and apostles of Christ and these did not come from the Catholic tradition.

In the course of my research I stumbled across a goldmine that shows that Peter most likely went to Rome and how the RCC originated. Below is the overwhelming conclusion of that link.

God has been inspiring people since the dawn of time. Even the bible says it is not everything Jesus said and did that made it into the bible. Of all the texts that were once considered inspired it is the body that we know today as the Catholic church that decided the canon of the bible.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

And once again these dudes unleash their imaginations. At least now you are admitting that Peter came to Rome and founded a church there. That is a big step. This other part about Simon Magus is where you take off again to cuckoo land. What church did Eusebius belong to, by the way?

First you have to tell us what the doctrines of Simon Magus' church is and compare it to the RCC.

PastorAIO:


Very interesting exchange. Interesting for reasons that might be different from the subject of this thread.



First, a miraculous event. Though I believe Olaadegbu does not have the decency in him to say 'I was wrong', we have to give him kudos for at least admitting that Italo was, Not correct but, only merely probably correct. Knowing how difficult it must be for him to concede this I should applaud him. The implications of course are that Olaadegbu was wrong when he said:

Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.

It is one thing to err but he didn't just say that Babylon existed, he said that it had a large jewish population. Where did the extra information come from? To what extent are his other posts nothing but works of his own imagination? Why is it that when he concedes someone else's point he says 'it's probably true' yet when he states his own falsehoods he does it with brash certainty?


Now we know that this is the best he can muster when he concedes a point. Read, 'true, I agree'.




A sure and steady improvement.



According to Ola's research. I wonder what his tune would be if he couldn't find the info in his various websites.

Saying that italo was probably correct does not mean that it is evidently spelt out in the Scriptures. It only means educated assumptions. It is only the God breathed word of God that is absolutely true not human traditions.

PastorAIO:


God has been inspiring people since the dawn of time. Even the bible says it is not everything Jesus said and did that made it into the bible. Of all the texts that were once considered inspired it is the body that we know today as the Catholic church that decided the canon of the bible.

God inspiring people and God breathing on people are not the same. The Scriptures are God breathed Church traditions are not.

PastorAIO:


And once again these dudes unleash their imaginations. At least now you are admitting that Peter came to Rome and founded a church there. That is a big step. This other part about Simon Magus is where you take off again to cuckoo land. What church did Eusebius belong to, by the way?

First you have to tell us what the doctrines of Simon Magus' church is and compare it to the RCC.

If you read the well researched article you will not be here asking these kind of uneducated questions. The article confirmed my assumption that the RCC was founded on another "Peter" not the Apostle Peter of the Bible.

Image123:


It doesn't sidestep, if not you would not be talking about me believing it's okay to hold contradictory position. The pope declared Galileo an heretic, it's not the same today. That was the simple point. Understanding of doctrines is not the gospel.

but the gospel is full of doctrines! The bible clearly say that sound doctrines should be taught. Why then do you think that is is somehow ok to how false doctrines?


Remember i am talking about doctrines not judicial pronucements.

OLAADEGBU:


My research shows that you are probably correct on this point.



Probably true.



No.



It did not categorically said he went to Rome either but we can adduce that he did. Acts 12:17 shows that Peter departed to "another place" and he did not surface again until when he spoke again in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7). During this period it is most likely that Peter had travelled to the Gentile world to preach the gospel.



What I mean by Scriptures is the God breathed Word of God written by holy men of God from Genesis to Revelation by the OT prophets and apostles of Christ and these did not come from the Catholic tradition.

In the course of my research I stumbled across a goldmine that shows that Peter most likely went to Rome and how the RCC originated. Below is the overwhelming conclusion of that link.
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

since you seem to now think that peter did go to rome and preach in rome and even die in rome, that is an improvement.


Your link mention justin and eusebius as the people who write about this "magnus simon", so which Church did Justin and eusebius belong to? Is it d manus church or the christian church?

@Ola

I want to know why Babylon didnt exist in the first century C.E. Isaiah didnt support that.

Ubenedictus:


but the gospel is full of doctrines! The bible clearly say that sound doctrines should be taught. Why then do you think that is is somehow ok to how false doctrines?


Remember i am talking about doctrines not judicial pronucements.

The gospel is not full of doctrines, the gospel is simply the good news. The good news that gets us saved and free as it were.

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The above is an instance where Jesus was telling people that believed on Him about further truth. Believing is basic and is the gospel. Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, like the thief on the cross. Anyone can believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved, that is the gospel. Doctrines are further knowledge and instructions, they are not requirements for eternal life. The thief on the cross probably knew little or no doctrine but he got the gospel. His views on hell and heaven, tithes and baptism may be different and less than or more(superior to) mine. i don't really care, but he is my brother nonetheless, and i expect to see him in paradise. This is what i'm talking about, i'm not saying false doctrine or false teaching is okay, i'm saying it is not a major requirement to belong to Jesus or the Body of Christ(the Church).
In the same chapter i quoted, Jesus Christ said He did not condemn a woman that was caught in adultery. It doesn't mean He supports adultery. In a similar vein, God wants all believers to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth(Jesus). Not everybody has that same knowledge or sees things the same way. That would happen, but it is yet to happen.

OLAADEGBU:


My research shows that you are probably correct on this point.

Probably true.

No.

1. In your quote below, you said I could only infer that Peter went to Rome from my Church tradition. Now that you and your internet pastors are inferring that Peter went to Rome, founded the Church and died there, where are you getting that from, my Church tradition or your protestant tradition?

2. Where then did you get the lie bolded below from? Your protestant tradition?

3. You no longer believe in Sola scriptura?

OLAADEGBU:

The Scriptures never said Peter went to Rome. You can only claim this from your "church tradition" which started in the 4th century 400 years after Peter, which is not credible unless you are referring to another Peter. Babylon had a large Jewish population at the time Peter wrote his epistle and he had evidently gone there to preach the gospel. Paul who wrote a letter to Rome around the same time did not hesitate to call the city of Rome by name.
"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7).

OLAADEGBU:
What I mean by Scriptures is the God breathed Word of God written by holy men of God from Genesis to Revelation by the OT prophets and apostles of Christ and these did not come from the Catholic tradition.

Then show me where Jesus or the Bible mentioned the books to be in the Bible.

Tell me where and when the scriptures told you that God had stopped breathing his word through holy men, prophets and apostles. (Wasn't it the Catholic Church that declared the canon of Scripture closed?)

OLAADEGBU:
In the course of my research I stumbled across a goldmine that shows that Peter most likely went to Rome and how the RCC originated. Below is the overwhelming conclusion of that link.



http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm

As you have already been asked: which Church did Justin and Eusebius belong to?

Ubenedictus:


since you seem to now think that peter did go to rome and preach in rome and even die in rome, that is an improvement.


Your link mention justin and eusebius as the people who write about this "magnus simon", so which Church did Justin and eusebius belong to? Is it d manus church or the christian church?

Who is d manus? Read the link and stop asking irrelevant questions.

JMAN05:
@Ola

I want to know why Babylon didnt exist in the first century C.E. Isaiah didnt support that.

Unbelievers use C.E. believers use BC or AD. Having said that let's not derail the topic.

OLAADEGBU:


Who is d manus? Read the link and stop asking irrelevant questions.

It is not an irrelevant question.

The link doesn't say which Church Eusebius and Justin belonged to...that's why we are asking you, a disciple of the link.

The only reason you and your link cannot say is that you know they belonged to the one true Church - The Catholic Church.

The Church is the assembly of saints.

The Church doesn't hold on to contradictory doctrines neither does the Church teach differently from what the Apostles taught as revealed in the epistles.

italo:


It is not an irrelevant question.

The link doesn't say which Church Eusebius and Justin belonged to...that's why we are asking you, a disciple of the link.

The only reason you and your link cannot say is that you know they belonged to the one true Church - The Catholic Church.

Address your first pope on this thread. ==> https://www.nairaland.com/2054395/first-pope-simon

OLAADEGBU:


Unbelievers use C.E. believers use BC or AD. Having said that let's not derail the topic.

And the above is in line with the thread shey? For your info, the question I asked is in line with the thread, unless your post was not in line with the thread.

Image123:


The gospel is not full of doctrines, the gospel is simply the good news. The good news that gets us saved and free as it were.

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The above is an instance where Jesus was telling people that believed on Him about further truth. Believing is basic and is the gospel. Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, like the thief on the cross. Anyone can believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved, that is the gospel. Doctrines are further knowledge and instructions, they are not requirements for eternal life. The thief on the cross probably knew little or no doctrine but he got the gospel. His views on hell and heaven, tithes and baptism may be different and less than or more(superior to) mine. i don't really care, but he is my brother nonetheless, and i expect to see him in paradise. This is what i'm talking about, i'm not saying false doctrine or false teaching is okay, i'm saying it is not a major requirement to belong to Jesus or the Body of Christ(the Church).
In the same chapter i quoted, Jesus Christ said He did not condemn a woman that was caught in adultery. It doesn't mean He supports adultery. In a similar vein, God wants all believers to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth(Jesus). Not everybody has that same knowledge or sees things the same way. That would happen, but it is yet to happen.

hehee, my keyboard is bad, i'll reply la'er

adsonstone:
The Church is the assembly of saints.

The Church doesn't hold on to contradictory doctrines neither does the Church teach differently from what the Apostles taught as revealed in the epistles.

u can discus dis wih, image (s)he disagrees

OLAADEGBU:


Who is d manus? Read the link and stop asking irrelevant questions.

so u are hiding? Oya defend ur link!

Ubenedictus:


so u are hiding? Oya defend ur link!

Why are you running scared of posting on the relevant thread?

adsonstone:
The Church is the assembly of saints.

The Church doesn't hold on to contradictory doctrines neither does the Church teach differently from what the Apostles taught as revealed in the epistles.

Tell that to image123. He believes the Church can teach contradictory doctrines.

italo:
Tell that to image123. He believes the Church can teach contradictory doctrines.

Duh, can is sure different from should. Face the reality, i don't have to be roman catholic to be a child of God.