NewStats: 3,263,521 , 8,180,426 topics. Date: Friday, 06 June 2025 at 10:57 AM 3vl1z

The special assistant to God on judgement day matters has spoken.

Dtruthspeaker:


I know you cannot process the Truth nevertheless it must be stated that not every anticatholic is a pentecostal church promoter.

And the bottom line is that you Catholics are pagans and idolaters which is what God would find when He Comes to Judge

btoks:

Might want to check your source again as this is false information. The Catholic church cannot ordain females as priests. You probably heard about another denomination.
Neither can the church approve same sex marriage.

I am a catholic. Stop running away from the truth, just because it taints your image.

I was watching an interview on CNN after he ed, and it was said right there. He gave his consent to it.

BIAFRAISASPIRIT:
The special assistant to God on judgement day matters has spoken.

Bordey:
I was surprised when I read the history of Pope. The first was Peter, Jesus disciple that is filled with holy Ghost, casted out demons, heal the sick and raised the dead. The second Pope was Linus and he was mentioned by Paul. He was filled with holy Ghost too and was the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman church...

Stop deceiving yourself.

Catholic church is a Roman creation created long after Peter, so when and how did he become a Pope to a Roman institution?

Secondly, the Romans hated Christians and sought to quench the increase and popularity of this sect so how could they now claim the same foreigner who they despised and hated to make him their Pope?

You people are exactly like the cult jws

xtianchris:

Greetings my brother...

I Troway greetings my brother!

AVECDEO:
GOD be with him.

amen

Emaprince:
I am a catholic. Stop running away from the truth, just because it taints your image.

I was watching an interview on CNN after he ed, and it was said right there. He gave his consent to it.

You are no Catholic or a poorly cathecized one if you believe what you've posted.
Where is the link to the pope approving female ordination or same-sex marriage on CNN??!!!!

Try doing some more research and not rely on hear say.

Dtruthspeaker:


Stop deceiving yourself.

Catholic church is a Roman creation created long after Peter, so when and how did he become a pipe to a Roman institution?

Secondly, the Romans hated Christians and sought to quench the increase and popularity of this sect so how could they now claim the same foreigner who they despised and hated to make him their Pope?

You people are exactly like the cult jws

All your anti catholic posts won't change christian history. Haven't you read that the bulk of Bishops of Rome were matryed in the first 3 centuries under the Roman empire when Christians were persecuted??! Don't you realise that the word "pope" later became associated with the bishop of rome. Not everything that happened in early Christianity was recorded in scriptures. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine.
You do realise that Peter's remains are within St Peter's Basilica in the vatican just as St Paul's remains are within St Paul's outside the Walls basilica.

You can deny all you want but the fact remains - you can't change christian history with your NL posts

Bordey:
I was surprised when I read the history of Pope. The first was Peter, Jesus disciple that is filled with holy Ghost, casted out demons, heal the sick and raised the dead. The second Pope was Linus and he was mentioned by Paul. He was filled with holy Ghost too and was the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman church.

Why am I writing this? Today the pope so far are just mere men with respected position. They can't pray for sick to be healed or cast out demons or even raise the dead.. One even said blessing should be given to same sex marriage that Paul condemned. Are they in line with the spirit of God. Definitely NO. What's the essence of being a Pope if you are not walking in the light of God's word. Lets see if this one will be different from the ones we have seen so far.

Where did you read that the first pope was Peter the disciple

Dtruthspeaker:


Stop deceiving yourself.

Catholic church is a Roman creation created long after Peter, so when and how did he become a pipe to a Roman institution?

Secondly, the Romans hated Christians and sought to quench the increase and popularity of this sect so how could they now claim the same foreigner who they despised and hated to make him their Pope?

You people are exactly like the cult jws

Grab a book man. I forgot you black😂. They don't read

btoks:

You are no Catholic or a poorly cathecized one if you believe what you've posted.
Where is the link to the pope approving female ordination or same-sex marriage on CNN??!!!!

Try doing some more research and not rely on hear say.

Just wait. In this same catholic, you will hear about it.

Bordey:


Grab a book man. I forgot you black😂. They don't read

If you are not Lying present the report of your own book and let us see if it would stand the test of Truth and reason

btoks:

All your anti catholic posts won't change christian history. Haven't you read that the bulk of Bishops of Rome were matryed in the first 3 centuries under the Roman empire when Christians were persecuted??! Don't you realise that the word "pope" later became associated with the bishop of rome. Not everything that happened in early Christianity was recorded in scriptures. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine.
You do realise that Peter's remains are within St Peter's Basilica in the vatican just as St Paul's remains are within St Paul's outside the Walls basilica.

You can deny all you want but the fact remains - you can't change christian history with your NL posts

No human can change the past neither am I trying to.

Plus, you are changing the question and moving post to "bishops of Rome"/Pope later became bishop" instead of proving when and how Peter became a Pope of Rome, when he and all Christians were actually an enemy of the state of Rome.

And this is not sola scriptura but simple ordinary logic and natural common sense which sifts hearsay Lies from Truth.

So appealing to unchallenged Lies sold by the very people accused of Lying just proves that you guys are Lying.

Dtruthspeaker:


No human can change the past neither am I trying to.

Plus, you are changing the question and moving post to "bishops of Rome"/Pope later became bishop" instead of proving when and how Peter became a Pope of Rome, when he and all Christians were actually an enemy of the state of Rome.

And this is not sola scriptura but simple ordinary logic and natural common sense which sifts hearsay Lies from Truth.

So appealing to unchallenged Lies sold by the very people accused of Lying just proves that you guys are Lying.

In simple , Peter was clearly the chief apostle as he's mentioned more times than all the other apostles combined. Jesus gave him a unique role as per Matt 16 18 - 19 and John 21:15-17. Also in Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus singled Peter out and prayed for him strengthen the apostles.

Peter himself says he's at Rome using the coded word 'babylon'(1 Peter 5:13). Early christians referred to Rome in code due to persecutions.
Thr early church always knew the See of Rome was associated strongly with Peter as he was matryed there. Clement of Rome about 96AD confirmed Peter's matryedom in Rome, so did other church fathers.This is the main reason why church fathers would say that the church of rome is the one that presides in love e.g. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD). Thus, we see a seed form of the bishop of Rome,(the successors of Peter) becaming the defacto leader of the church. Eventually, the word 'pope' was used to describe this bishop.

Despite the Roman empire, Christianity carried on through persecutions and I already mentioned the highnumber of bishops matryed.
If you believe these are unchallenged lies, where is your prove otherwise 2000 years later? (Multiple denominations with differing beliefs- is that the truth?) Even the eastern orthodox church acknowledges the primacy of the see of Rome/ Peter/ successor popes although disagree on supremacy - east west politics. Your posts don't come even across like you're eastern orthodox and I don't know what unchallenged lies you refer to.
Been lieing for 2000 years you say and still standing solidly?!!! Lots of strong anticatholics have said the same and ended up becoming to catholics.

Dtruthspeaker:


If you are not Lying present the report of your own book and let us see if it would stand the test of Truth and reason

Go to the library man and READ.

Bordey:

Go to the library man and READ.

Clearly, you don't have any thing. You already know that all the things you want to say do are Lies and will not tests of Truths

btoks:

In simple , Peter was clearly the chief apostle as he's mentioned more times than all the other apostles combined. Jesus gave him a unique role as per Matt 16 18 - 19 and John 21:15-17. Also in Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus singled Peter out and prayed for him strengthen the apostles.

[b]Peter himself says he's at Rome [/b]using the coded word 'babylon'(1 Peter 5:13). Early christians referred to Rome in code due to persecutions.
Thr early church always knew the See of Rome was associated strongly with Peter as he was matryed there. Clement of Rome about 96AD confirmed Peter's matryedom in Rome, so did other church fathers.This is the main reason why church fathers would say that the church of rome is the one that presides in love e.g. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD). Thus, we see a seed form of the bishop of Rome,(the successors of Peter) becaming the defacto leader of the church. Eventually, the word 'pope' was used to describe this bishop.

Despite the Roman empire, Christianity carried on through persecutions and I already mentioned the highnumber of bishops matryed.
If you believe these are unchallenged lies, where is your prove otherwise 2000 years later? (Multipledenominations with differing beliefs- is that the truth?) Even the eastern orthodox church acknowledges the primacy of the see of Rome/ Peter/ successor popes although disagree on supremacy - east west politics. Your posts don't come even across like you're eastern orthodox and I don't know what unchallenged lies you refer to.
Been lieing for 2000 years you say and still standing solidly?!!! Lots of strong anticatholics have said the same and ended up becoming to catholics.

I thought you said we should not be based on sola scriptura? We know all the bible said about Peter and we know that Peter directly led the disciples and people who chose follow Christ Jesus in the territory of Isreal.

So now by valid evidence even if outside the bible when did that same Peter go to Rome and become a Roman?

And when did Rome become a Christian ground in the life time of Peter that could now go there to even sit at its head, when you yourself acknowledge that the Romans hated and pursued them?

For you err in thinking Peter was in Rome via 1 Peter 5:13 whereas he was not there but was only writing to all the churches in the area.

1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Thus, you still cannot show by valid and irrefutable evidence that Peter went to Rome.

All you have are horrible hearsay evidence of people who we cannot examine to see if they were lying.

So now I challenge these old claims and obviously Lies and I have not seen anyone anywhere give valid proof and evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:


I thought you said we should not be based on sola scriptura? We know all the bible said about Peter and we know that Peter directly led the disciples and people who chose follow Christ Jesus in the territory of Isreal.

So now by valid evidence even if outside the bible when did that same Peter go to Rome and become a Roman?

And when did Rome become a Christian ground in the life time of Peter that could now go there to even sit at its head, when you yourself acknowledge that the Romans hated and pursued them?

For you err in thinking Peter was in Rome via 1 Peter 5:13 whereas he was not there but was only writing to all the churches in the area.

1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Thus, you still cannot show by valid and irrefutable evidence that Peter went to Rome.

Not going by sola scriptura means not going by written scripture only. It doesn’t mean you can't go to scripture at all - in fact it's where the basis of info sits. The fact is you need sacred tradition to fill in gaps that may not be in the written scriptures. E.g. what happened in the immediate aftermath of the death of all apostles and info about early christianity beliefs and interpretations.
I'll like to see which early church interprets Peter as not being in Rome. I think you need to re-read 1Peter 5 13. Where exactly was the babylon is referred to?

Who.said Peter was head of Rome? Peter was the chief apostle and he later moved to the see of Rome. This is clear from early christian church fathers. Please show where else Peter was at the end of his life. Which other city lays claim to Peter having died there?

All you have are horrible hearsay evidence of people who we cannot examine to see if they were lying.

Who else can you examine to see if the claims of the scriptures are true going by your logic? Please don't beat round the bush in responding

So now I challenge these old claims and obviously Lies and I have not seen anyone anywhere give valid proof and evidence.

You challenge these old claims ( and lies as you call them) based on what authority or what proof otherwise? Why do you even believe the scriptures at all, if the same church that told you they are scriptures is the one whose claims you challenge? i.e. Peter being at Rome.

See some church father quotes, please provides quotes that state otherwise
Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215)
(Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1)

“When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who ed his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Ignatius of Antioch regarding Peter,- Letter to the Romans, c. 107 Ad:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a convict.”

Gaius c. 170AD speaking on Peter and Paul ( preserved by Eusebius)
“I can show you the trophies of the apostles. For if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”

Peter and Pauls remains are still in Rome as of today.

Dtruthspeaker:


Clearly, you don't have any thing. You already know that all the things you want to say do are Lies and will not tests of Truths

Just glance through your post, didn't know I was talking with someone that has bipolar. Arguing about historical evidence.

Bordey:

Just glance through your post, didn't know I was talking with someone that has bipolar. Arguing about historical evidence.

Reading through the thread shows that you are the one talking like some who has down disease repeating "read" even after being told to present whatever he has read.

btoks:

Not going by sola scriptura means not going by written scripture only. It doesn’t mean you can't go to scripture at all - in fact it's where the basis of info sits. The fact is you need sacred tradition to fill in gaps that may not be in the written scriptures. E.g. what happened in the immediate aftermath of the death of all apostles and info about early christianity beliefs and interpretations.

I know you can use the scriptures and you even need to use the scriptures for Peter starts in the Bible. Thus, use of the bible cannot be dispensed with.

btoks:

I'll like to see which early church interprets Peter as not being in Rome. I think you need to re-read 1Peter 5 13. Where exactly was the babylon is referred to?

I don't know nor care about church interpretations but I know common sense tells all of us that Peter cannot go to Rome. It is like Islamic bandits taking over Nigeria them a Christian will think of running to Afghanistan? Can't happen!

Thus, 1Peter 5 13, did not say Peter is in Rome for that is not the beginning of Peter's speech. And 1Peter 1:1 already tells us that he was writing to the churches in the area.

So, common sense tells every reasonable person that Peter never went to Rome, not to talk of Rome now making him their Pope and not to talk of them having his body there

Dtruthspeaker:


I know you can use the scriptures and you even need to use the scriptures for Peter starts in the Bible. Thus, use of the bible cannot be dispensed with.



I don't know nor care about church interpretations but I know common sense tells all of us that Peter cannot go to Rome. It is like Islamic bandits taking over Nigeria them a Christian will think of running to Afghanistan? Can't happen!

Thus, 1Peter 5 13, did not say Peter is in Rome for that is not the beginning of Peter's speech. And 1Peter 1:1 already tells us that he was writing to the churches in the area.

So, common sense tells every reasonable person that Peter never went to Rome, not to talk of Rome now making him their Pope and not to talk of them having his body there

Whether you care or not, historical fact is historical fact. It was known throughout the early church that Peter was in Rome and was matryed there. If in 2025, you feel you know better that's up to you. I'll urge you to do more research on this topic

btoks:

Whether you care or not, historical fact is historical fact. It was known throughout the early church that Peter was in Rome and was matryed there. If in 2025, you feel you know better that's up to you. I'll urge you to do more research on this topic

I care to know Truths and since I discovered that many historical facts were not put in their proper truthful light eg Nigeria's colonialism which today we now know is just the same as the banditry going on especially in the north, I now carefully check and recheck every story of the past to if they truly occurred and played out as they say.

And as you yourself can see, no one can reasonably and satisfying prove this claim.

And history still reported that the Roman Catholic church (as if there was any other Catholic church) was Lying, thus the need to claims arises.

Dtruthspeaker:


I care to know Truths and since I discovered that many historical facts were not put in their proper truthful light eg Nigeria's colonialism which today we now know is just the same as the banditry going on especially in the north, I now carefully check and recheck every story of the past to if they truly occurred and played out as they say.

And as you yourself can see, no one can reasonably and satisfying prove this claim.

And history still reported that the Roman Catholic church (as if there was any other Catholic church) was Lying, thus the need to claims arises.

Where, according to you, was Peter buried? Where in history do we have someone say the catholic church is lying. Please be specific, is it the protestant reformers in the 16th centuries that broke away from the church. Was it orthodox in the the 1054AD Great Schism, the last 100 with evangelicals and pentecostals ?please clarify .

btoks:

Where, according to you, was Peter buried?

I stand to be corrected but common sense and the tradition of the Israelites already tells me that Peter must be buried somewhere in the land of Isreal because he is an Isrealite, Exactly how it is expected that Buhari must be buried in Nigeria, even if we are not told.

btoks:

Where in history do we have someone say the catholic church is lying. Please be specific, is it the protestant reformers in the 16th centuries that broke away from the church. Was it orthodox in the the 1054AD Great Schism, the last 100 with evangelicals and pentecostals ?please clarify .

I don't know how old you might be but you may not know that most southerners are Catholic and have Catholic basis by virtue of the proliferation of the Catholic church. So we have seen many things and have heard many things and have heard both the salient questions and queries vs the ridiculous and untrue ones. And what you don't know is that many of us refused to believe it at the first, but deep down they gnawed on our hearts and disturbed our spirits. Thereby creating the need to check for confirmation and verification.

Thus, I am not the first to note that there are irregularities with the claims of the Catholic church.

https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/1540773/51-lies-propagated-roman-catholic#19956939 -See no.17.

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135393795]

I stand to be corrected but common sense and the tradition of the Israelites already tells me that Peter must be buried somewhere in the land of Isreal because he is an Isrealite, Exactly how it is expected that Buhari must be buried in Nigeria, even if we are not told.

Nothing like common sense to refute a historical fact almost 2000 years after the event!!
There are many quotes of church fathers closer to the time that talk about Peter's matrydom in Rome.
Please read Clement of Rome's 1st epistle to the Corinthians from 96AD referring to Peter's matrydom.
Read Irenaeus agaisnt heresis (Book 3, Chapter 3 ) c.180AD referring to Peter and Paul.in Rome
Read Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History - 325AD) talking about Peter's matrydom in rome
And several more. All found on online ( try new advent.org)
Talkless of archaeological evidence of Peter's remains being under St Peter's Basilica Vatican. A site known throughout church history and reconfirmed in recent decades.
Note that no ancient source claims Peter was buried in Judea or Israel!

I don't know how old you might be but you may not know that most southerners are Catholic and have Catholic basis by virtue of the proliferation of the Catholic church. So we have seen many things and have heard many things and have heard both the salient questions and queries vs the ridiculous and untrue ones. And what you don't know is that many of us refused to believe it at the first, but deep down they gnawed on our hearts and disturbed our spirits. Thereby creating the need to check for confirmation and verification.

Thus, I am not the first to note that there are irregularities with the claims of the Catholic church.

https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/1540773/51-lies-propagated-roman-catholic#19956939 -See no.17.

My age doesn't matter. People have questions everywhere, even in the holy land!
Oddly enough, I reading that eaxct thread back in 2013 and just laughing off the ignorance. You're relying on a NL post to determine the supposed lies the Catholic church has told!! All those reders have been debunked over centuries and even here on NL. Do some research and understand catholic teaching not rely on hear say. Common sense doesn't explain a lot about the details of Christian history. Research- Research- Research!!!

btoks:
Nothing like common sense to refute a historical fact almost 2000 years after the event!!
There are many quotes of church fathers closer to the time that talk about Peter's matrydom in Rome...

Note that no ancient source claims Peter was buried in Judea or Israel

Do you not see the fall of this statement? The church is accused of Lying and you are saying the church's father's" said it? Like saying APC is lying then an APC er says that it is true because Oshiomhole said it. That is a very very bad evidence.

Also, note that the bible does not tell is where the Isrealites eg Mathew, James, Jude, Joseph, Nicodemus etc were buried. But we have common to reasonably tell us that they must have been buried in the land of Isreal according to their tradition.

btoks:
My age doesn't matter. People have questions everywhere, even in the holy land!
Oddly enough, I reading that eaxct thread back in 2013 and just laughing off the ignorance. You're relying on a NL post to determine the supposed lies the Catholic church has told!! All those reders have been debunked over centuries and even here on NL. Do some research and understand catholic teaching not rely on hear say. Common sense doesn't explain a lot about the details of Christian history. Research- Research- Research!!!

My points were many people in southern Nigeria have Catholic roots and we have seen the claims the Catholic church made and the irregularities there are in them and thus questions have been raised.

And I did not rely on the post cited I only gave it as an ensample that people have identified several irregularities claimed by the church like me and in line with this thread is the No 17 in that post.

And you say they were debunked but this thread clearly shows that you do not have a valid answer proving this claim to be true.

All you have given is the popular bad and not acceptable evidence called "Hearsay Evidence"

So, this claim of Peter died in Rome and was buried remains A Lie, in absence of valid undisputable and unimpeachable evidence

Dtruthspeaker:


Do you not see the fall of this statement? The church is accused of Lying and you are saying the church's father's" said it? Like saying APC is lying then an APC er says that it is true because Oshiomhole said it. That is a very very bad evidence.

Also, note that the bible does not tell is where the Isrealites eg Mathew, James, Jude, Joseph, Nicodemus etc were buried. But we have common to reasonably tell us that they must have been buried in the land of Isreal according to their tradition.



My points were many people in southern Nigeria have Catholic roots and we have seen the claims the Catholic church made and the irregularities there are in them and thus questions have been raised.

And I did not rely on the post cited I only gave it as an ensample that people have identified several irregularities claimed by the church like me and in line with this thread is the No 17 in that post.

And you say they were debunked but this thread clearly shows that you do not have a valid answer proving this claim to be true.

All you have given is the popular bad and not acceptable evidence called "Hearsay Evidence"

So, this claim of Peter died in Rome and was buried remains A Lie, in absence of valid undisputable and unimpeachable evidence

let me buzz into this discussion, they said that Apostle Peter was the First Catholic Pope, Apostle Peter was married, but how come all the other subsequent Popes that came after Peter till date, were not married, abi na fabricated story, and there's no scriptural backing, to suggest that Apostle Peter was the First Pope, abi this are all man made church doctrine, and again we have just the 5 Fold Ministry, nothing like Cardinal, ArcBishop or Pope etc

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=135398690]

Do you not see the fall of this statement? The church is accused of Lying and you are saying the church's father's" said it? Like saying APC is lying then an APC er says that it is true because Oshiomhole said it. That is a very very bad evidence.

you want to discard church father evidence!! How exactly do you believe in the bible books? You do realise it was these same church fathers as part of the early church that recognised, preserved, and ed down those very texts. You do realise the bible didn't just fallnout of the sky?
The bible (NT in particular) was written to an existing church.
You may come with your "common sense" argument 2000 years later but it holds no water against historical fact.

Also, note that the bible does not tell is where the Isrealites eg Mathew, James, Jude, Joseph, Nicodemus etc were buried. But we have common to reasonably tell us that they must have been buried in the land of Isreal according to their tradition.

This is where Sola Scriptura falls short. Bible doesn’t claim to give us every single detail historical detail. In fact, there was a church during scripture writing and after. That’s why we have Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium through which many other truths and practices have been faithfully preserved and ed down. For instance, it's through sacred tradition we know the writers of Matthew,Mark, Luke. Their names were never part of scriptures as the authors, likewise burial sites of many(not all) figures are well known through sacred tradition .Burial sites of all apostles well known with references (try do do some research) e.g James the greater buried in Santiago de compostela, Spain, Thomas buried in India etc

My points were many people in southern Nigeria have Catholic roots and we have seen the claims the Catholic church made and the irregularities there are in them and thus questions have been raised.

And I did not rely on the post cited I only gave it as an ensample that people have identified several irregularities claimed by the church like me and in line with this thread is the No 17 in that post.

And you say they were debunked but this thread clearly shows that you do not have a valid answer proving this claim to be true.

All you have given is the popular bad and not acceptable evidence called "Hearsay Evidence"

So, this claim of Peter died in Rome and was buried remains A Lie, in absence of valid undisputable and unimpeachable evidence

I'll urge you to keep researching with an open mind and you'll find that Christian history is much deeper and richer than Sola Scriptura allows. dismissing Sacred Tradition and historical testimony, will leave gaps in understanding the full picture of the faith and its origins.

The early Church didn’t rely on written texts only. It preserved the faith through lived tradition, eyewitness testimony and the the Magisterium. The claim about Peter dying and being buried in Rome is not mere hearsay, it’s rooted in consistent testimony from early Christian writers, archaeological findings beneath St. Peter’s Basilica, and continuous Church tradition for almost 2,000 years.

You dimissing the so called "lie" without providing any stronger counter evidence but relying on "common sense" is intellectually weak. Keep researching, the truth is not afraid of scrutiny.