Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity - Religion (26) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity (31475 Views)
1000 NAMES, TITLES, AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD (A-Z)WITH BIBLE VERSES / Is God A Creature Or A Creator?. / Biblical Quotes Proving That Jesus Is Not God And The Absence Of The Trinity. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 8:13pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Boomark:it is simply used as a conjunction and doesnt necesary imply b4 and after. See link [url]http://www.academia.edu/1040859/The_implications_of_until_in_English_and_Greek[/quote] No! His dominion over us has no end while He is subject to the Father and the Father remains all in all(no exceptions). Can you fault that?his dominion has been that he is all in all, that dominion has no end, he will alway b over all creature becos he created them all, so is the fada wu Jesus is subordinate to by relation. Good. Out of the Fathers substance He came be. Just like out your fathers substance you came to be. If you want, sumersault the meaning it must click.sumersault what? everything trinititous is against the word of God.mtcheeewwww |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 8:19pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: it is simply used as a conjunction and doesnt necesary imply b4 and after. See link [url]http://www.academia.edu/1040859/The_implications_of_until_in_English_and_Greek So now you understand that Christs dominion does not include the Father abi?? U understand that Christ been over all excludes the Father who Christ himself is a servant and subject to abi??... So I hope that you can now rationally conclude that Christ is head over all other things abi?? Why?? Because he is subject to some 1 who is God and Father over Him..... |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 8:31pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
ijawkid:d word 'other' is not there, u added it. U are trying to make d word of God say what it doesnt say. U are introducing words into scriptures. The answers have been staring right @ you.....yeah Jesus is the 1st of Gods creative works.....this isnt in the bible Let's read 1 corinthians 8:6thru him was everything made. The bible says nothing was made but by him. U are contradicting d bible, unles u are sayin he contradicted himself Let me bring out some pertinent points...my bible didnt say Jesus was created 2....Jesus through whom God created everything(excluding Christ himself who God created 1st)....Jesus exist because of d fada, that doesnt make him created. I exist cos of my dad dat doesnt mean my dad created me, no i he gave gave birth to me. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 8:35pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
ijawkid: As in, everything is clear with with link mechanism. If you want it in chain reaction, e dey. Its not like cut and join and quench. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 8:36pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 8:41pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
ijawkid:i wasnt argueing that point. U understand that Christ been over all excludes the Father who Christ himself is a servant and subject to abi??...being "servant" is a position he took for us phil 2:6, as for subjection, he has by relation always been subject to the fada. So I hope that you can now rationally conclude that Christ is head over all other things abi??he is head over all things, by thing d scriptures means created things. GOD isnt among "all things Why??by d very fact dat d fada is fada that means by relation d son is 'subject'. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 8:42pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Boomark:weytin dis one min? |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 8:43pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: d word 'other' is not there, u added it. U are trying to make d word of God say what it doesnt say. .... If u deny that God isn't the cause of Jesus' existence then we have to settle that through Jesus we didn't get life....God is the cause of everything....he kick started Jesus's existence.....the way u try to dodge from this lucid truth bewilders me.....would you have existed if your Father didn't beget you.....now that is humans who marry and re produce.... . Your dad pro-created or re-produced you... In Gods case creation is the only option.....bcause God did not marry any woman...use your head pan my catholic bro..... 1 corinthians says God created not give birth like a woman would beget a child...... Creation is the only option my bro.....Jesus was created....the evidence is in front of you.....Jesus is the 1st born son of God...... Jesus is the 1st of Gods creative works........... |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 8:50pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: i wasnt argueing that point. The son remains a servant for all eternity.... From past ,present, and forever the son remains a servant of Yahweh.....even before Jesus' descension to earth he was Yahwehs. Holy servant........ ........ You saying Jesus wasn't created by God is like saying Jesus wasn't ressurected by God..... 1st born applied to Jesus in all respect shows Jesus was part of Gods works and powers,but he was 1st.... Was it ressurection??Jesus was the 1st. To be ressurected from the dead,while Jesus became the agent through which God would ressurect millions.... Was it creation??Jesus was the 1st thing or person God created ,while he(Jesus) after been the 1st of Gods creative works became the agent through which God created all other things or persons.... Don't you get the point?? 1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 8:56pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
ijawkid:i didnt deny anything, the fada is d 'cause' of the son, that doesnt make d son 'created', he was begoten. Your dad pro-created or re-produced you...my bible didnt say so. I cant find wherd d bible says God can only create, he cant beget. 1 corinthians says God created not give birth like a woman would beget a child......that isnt in d bible Creation is the only option my bro.....Jesus was created....the evidence is in front of you.....Jesus is the 1st born son of God......where is it in d bible? What i can find is begotten, i cant find created. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 8:59pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: weytin dis one min? wetin dis one min be say, trinity defense from the bible na cut and join and quench. With twists and lots of mysteries wherever they quench. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 9:02pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
ijawkid:where is it in scriptures. My bible say phi2:6 show dat he only took d position of a servant wen he came to save us. From past ,present, and forever the son remains a servant of Yahweh.....even before Jesus' descension to earth he was Yahwehs. Holy servant........where is it in d bible? ........no! U made no point. I didnt see where it said Jesus was created. Where is it? |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 9:02pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
gbrookes02: Jesus Christ is The Yahweh God Almighty of the Old Testatment. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 9:03pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
gbrookes02: The Yahweh that Isaiah saw in the Old Testament is The Jesus Christ of the New Testament according to the apostle John, see "Isaiah saw Jesus as Yahweh (Compare John 12:37-41 with Isaiah 6:1-10)" at: |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 9:03pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Boomark:again u no dey make sense |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 9:05pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Trinity Proof Texts: Isaiah 6 Isaiah 6:1: In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Isaiah 6:8-9 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" And He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' I. Jesus is Yahweh: A. Isaiah saw Jesus Christ (Yahweh) "In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. " Isaiah 6:1 "For my eyes have seen the King, Yahwah of hosts." Isaiah 6:5 "Then I heard the voice of Yahweh, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" " Isaiah 6:8 "These things Isaiah said because he (Isaiah) saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41 B. The context of John 12:41: "These things Isaiah said because he saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41 The section focuses on Christ being glorified, with the Glory he had before creation (Jn 17:5) and how men were to believe in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. John quotes from Isaiah several times about how men could not believe in Jesus. The "Him" in John 12:41 can only be Jesus: when Jesus was glorified v16 the Son of Man to be glorified v23 Father, glorify Your name (by glorifying Jesus) v28 they were not believing in Christ v37 Lord, who has believed our report v38 to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed v38 these things Isaiah said because he saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ) v41 many even of the rulers believed in Him v42 Jesus cried out and said, He who believes in Me v44 He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me v45 A simple reading of the context of John 12 makes it clear that John is saying that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus Christ himself in Isaiah 6. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. C. Full context of John 12:41 proves Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. "These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him. " John 12:16 "And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. " John 12:23 ""Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." " John 12:27-28 "But though He (Christ) had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him (Christ). This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them." THESE THINGS ISAIAH SAID BECAUSE HE SAW HIS (CHRIST'S) GLORY, AND HE SPOKE OF HIM (CHRIST). Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him (Christ), but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him (Christ), for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. " John 12:37-45 II. Plural pronouns used of God proving the trinity: A. Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages. Remember the word God (elohim) is also plural every time it is used in the Old Testament. Gen 11:7 also includes a plural verb (confuse) which even further, through grammer reinforces the plural "elohim" and the plural pronoun US. "Our" Gen 1:26 "Us" Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8 "We" Isa 6:8 B. These are the four passages where God speaks for Himself and uses plural pronouns: "Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let Us [plural pronoun] make man in Our [plural pronoun] image, according to Our [plural pronoun] likeness" Genesis 1:26 "Then Yahweh God [plural elohim] said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us [plural pronoun], knowing good and evil" Genesis 3:22 "Come, let Us [plural pronoun] go down and there confuse [plural form of balal] their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7 "Then I heard the voice of the Lord [plural elohim], saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us [plural pronoun]?"" Isaiah 6:8 http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-isaiah6.htm Biblical Basis for Trinity THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD Deuteronomy 6:4 Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 44:6-8 OLD TESTAMENT EVIDENCES OF THE TRINITY Genesis 1:1,26,27 Isaiah 6:1-10 Isaiah 48:12-16 Zechariah 2:10-11 (Points I & lll are not contested by those who deny the Trinity, therefore little space is given them here.) THE FATHER IS GOD I Peter 1:17 John 5:17-23 THE SON IS GOD He Is Called God Explicitly Matthew 1:23, "Emmanuel-God with us." John 1:1, "The Word was God." (Note: There is no scholarly support for the NWT rendering it "a god." For a thorough treatment of this issue request our study on John 1:1) John 5:17-23, The Son is "equal" to his Father John 8:53-59, Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:1-15 John 10:28-33, Jesus and the Father are equal John 20:28 "The Lord of me and THE GOD of me." Romans 9:5, Christ is God over all Colossians 2:9, All the fullness of deity Titus 2:13, "our Great God and Saviour." Hebrews 1:8, "Thy throne O God." I John 5:20, "The true God." He Is Described In Terms Reserved Only For God Creator of ALL Things John 1:3 Ephesians 3:9 Colossians 1:16,17 Hebrews 2:10 Revelation 3:14 The Almighty Revelation 1:8 with 21:5-7; and 22:12,13,16,20 The First and Last Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 (Compare Isaiah 44:6) The Exact Representation of The Father Hebrews 1:3 John 12:45 and 14:6-11 Isaiah 46:9 He Is Worshipped As God. (See Luke 4: Revelation 5:11-13 (Compare Revelation 4:9-11) Hebrews 1:6 O.T./N.T. Cross-Reference Proves Jesus Is God Isaiah 40:3 with John 1:23 & 3:28 Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10,11 and Romans 14:11 Isaiah 44:24 with John 1:3 Isaiah 6:1-5 with John 12:37-41 Isaiah 8:13,14 with I Peter 2:7,8 Isaiah 42:8 with John 17:5 Isaiah 60:19 with Luke 2:30-32 Psalms 102:24-27 with Hebrews 1:10-12 Psalms 45:6,7 with Hebrews 1:8,9 Psalms 23:1 with Isaiah 40:10,11 and John 10,11 I Kings 8:39 with Revelation 2:23 Joel 2:32 with Romans 10:9-13 Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58,59 Malachi 3:1 with Matthew 11:10 Exodus 19:18-21 with Hebrews 12:18-26 Zechariah 12:10 & 13:6,7 with John 19:34-37 Zechariah 14:4,5 with Matthew 24:29-31; Matthew 25:31; Jude 14,15; II Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 19:11-21 Jesus Is God Made Flesh Philippians 2:5-8: Jesus "being in the form of God" (i.e., deity), did not consider it something to cling to, but emptied himself of his divine glory and perogatives, NOT his divine nature, and took UPON his divine form "the form of a servant" (i.e., humanity), in order to suffer death. John 1:1,14: "In the beginning was (eternally) the Word and the Word was with God (i.e., the Father and Holy Spirit), and the Word was God (deity)." "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Hebrews 1:3 and 2:9-18: Jesus is the "EXACT REPRESENTATION of His (God's) VERY BEING" (NWT). No creature could possibly do that! But, Jesus set aside his infinite glory to become one of us so that he could be to us an, example in faith, the perfect sacrifice, our High Priest, Comforter, and Saviour. Who Is The "Angel Of Jehovah?" Genesis 16:7-13 Genesis 18:1,13,17,20-22,26,33; 19:24 Genesis 22:11-18 Genesis 31:11-13 Genesis 32:24-30 (compare Hosea 12:4,5) Genesis 48: 15,16 Exodus 3:1-15 (compare vs. 5 with Joshua 5: 14,15) Exodus 23:20,21 Judges 6:11-23 Note: In these passages the "Angel of Jehovah" speaks as Jehovah, is called Jehovah, does the works of Jehovah, and is worshipped by those to whom He appears. He is Jesus, the Son of God. "Angel" means "messenger" and is applied to the angelic beings, men (evangelists), and to God (see above) Answers To Common Antitrinitarian Prooftexts John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." Just as the husband is positionally greater than the wife so the Father is greater the the Son. Both husband and wife are equally human as the Father and Son are equally divine. Colossians 1:15 "the Firstborn of all creation." "Firstborn" (Gr. Prototokos), not "first created" (Gr. "Protoktistos". Firstborn is term that means first in importance. These scriptures bear that out: Genesis 41:51,52 with Jeremiah 31:9; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; Exodus 4:22; and Job 18:13. Revelation 3:14 "the beginning of the creation of God." We derive many words such as architect, archangel, arch-rival, from the Greek word "arche" translated "beginning" in this verse. It means "origin," "source," "chief," and "ruler." Jesus is the origin of ALL, or the creator. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD He Is Called God Acts 5:3,4 Lying to the Spirit is lying to God II Corinthians 3:17 "The Lord is that Spirit." (compare this with Exodus 34:29-35) He Is Omnipotent Isaiah 40:12-14 (See Romans 11:34 and I Corinthians 2:16) He Is Omniscient I Corinthians 2:10,11 Isaiah 40: 13,14 He Is Omnipresent Psalm 139:7 He Is Eternal Hebrews 9:14 He Has The Attributes Of Personality Intellect Romans 8:27, "The MIND of the Spirit." I Corinthians 2:10-12, The Spirit "KNOWS." Will I Corinthians 12:11, "The Spirit WILLS." Emotion Ephesians 4:30, "GRIEVE" not the Spirit His Self-Cognizance Is Shown By These Actions: He Speaks Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2; 21:11 Revelation 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22 He Teaches Luke 12:12 John 14:26 I John 2:26,27 Says "I" Acts 10:20 If the Holy Spirit is a self-cognizant personality, and is also eternal, then He must be God, for God is the only eternal being. Conclusion "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God." (from The Athanasian Creed) http://www.watchman.org/articles/general-topics-doctrine/biblical-basis-for-trinity/ |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 9:06pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
gbrookes02: Trinity Proof Texts: Isaiah 6 |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 9:07pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Who Is the Angel of the Lord? (Judg 6:22-23) IF GIDEON ONLY SAW AN ANGEL, WHY DID HE FEAR THAT HE MIGHT DIE? Many interpreters believe that an angel takes God's place and acts as his representative. However, others do not feel this explanation fits all the data. Who, then, is this "angel of the LORD"? The angel of the Lord first appears in Genesis 16:7 and then intermittently throughout the early Old Testament books. In other passages an individual manifesting himself in human form is frequently called "the LORD" (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1). If this angel actually were God, why is he called an angel? Since the root meaning of angel is "messenger" or "one who is sent," we must determine from context whether the word refers to the office of the sent one or to the nature of created angels as finite beings. Initially, some contexts of the term "angel of the LORD" appear to refer to nothing more than any other angel (as in Judg 6:11). But as the narrative progresses, that angel soon transcends the angelic category and is described in terms suited only to a member of the Trinity. Thus in the Judges 6 episode, we are startled when verse 14 has the Lord speaking to Gideon, when previously only the angel of the Lord had been talking. Many Old Testament passages state that this angel is God. Thus, after being told that Hagar had been speaking with the angel of the Lord (four times in Gen 16:7, 9-11), Genesis 16:13 informs us that Hagar "gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: `You are the God who sees me.'" Jacob's testimony in Genesis 48:15-16 is even more striking. He identifies the God in whose presence his fathers Abraham and Isaac had lived as "the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm." This angel spoke to Jacob earlier in a dream and identified himself by saying, "I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me" (Gen 31:11, 13). Likewise in Exodus 3:2-6 the phrase "the angel of the LORD" is used interchangeably with "the LORD." In fact the angel claims, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6). The passage, however, that really clinches this remarkable identification is Exodus 23:20-23. There God promises to send his angel ahead of the children of Israel as they go through the desert. The Israelites were warned that they must obey and not rebel against this angel. The reason was a stunning one: "Since my Name is in him." God would never share his memorial name with anyone else, for Isaiah 42:8 advised that he would never share his glory with another. Thus the name of God stands for himself. And when a person is said to have the name of God in him, that person is God! This angel has divine qualities, prerogatives and authority. He has the power to give life (Gen 16:10) and to see and know all (Gen 16:13; Ex 3:7). Only God can forgive sin, yet this angel did the same in Exodus 23:21. The angel performed miracles such as keeping a burning bush from being consumed (Ex 3:2), smiting Egypt with plagues (Ex 3:20), calling forth fire on the rock to consume the meal set for him (Judg 6:21) and ascending the flame of the altar (Judg 13:20). Finally, this angel commanded and received worship from Moses (Ex 3:5) and Joshua (Josh 5:14). Angels were not to receive worship. When John attempted to worship an angel in Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9, he was corrected quickly and told not to do it. It is clear from this abundance of evidence that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was a preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus Christ, who would later permanently take on flesh when he came as a babe in Bethlehem. But mark it well: the one who came after John had already been before--he was that angel of the Lord. His full deity was always observed and yet he presented the same mystery of the Trinity that would later be observed in "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30) and "my other witness is the Father, who sent me" (Jn 8:18). It is that word sent that ties together the angel, messenger or sent one into an Old Testament theology of christophanies, appearances of God in human form. See also comment on GENESIS 32:23-33; EXODUS 24:9-11; 33:18-23. http://www.ivpress.com/title/exc/1423-8c.php |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 9:11pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: i didnt deny anything, the fada is d 'cause' of the son, that doesnt make d son 'created', he was begoten. Then you are on a long thing..... Since God no marry wife Jesus was created..... And from the dictionary I've shown you the numerous definitions of begotten........... Pro create,create,produce,cause....etc...... Many of us theists have been trying to convince the atheist that the universe had a ""cause"".... How else was the universe caused if not created?? Except God marry o b4 you go fit escape the truth wey dey right in front of You...... Jesus is called the ""1st born of"" all creation.....for the 30 times the expression ""first born of"" occured in the scriptures and been applied to living things it meant one and the same thing........ It meant the person under consideration was part of the family of those who was caused... E.g... ##1st borns of the egyptians were themselves egyptians but the 1st of the group .... ##1st borns of the isrealites were themselves isrealites but the 1st ......... ##1st borns of the wild beast were themselves animals but the 1st of it.... From the scriptures Jesus being the 1st born of Gods creations clearly means Jesus is part of creation,but the 1st of it........ Truth is standing right in front of you... 1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 9:21pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: i wasnt argueing that point. what of as the Father being His God? Does it mean subjection is not applied in this case? he is head over all things, by thing d scriptures means created things. GOD isnt among "all things Ok. While God is the head of all thing and also all in all with no exception. by d very fact dat d fada is fada that means by relation d son is 'subject'. How about the Father being His God? Does that not make Him his subject? Because a king of a community, have the people of that community as his subjects. 1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 10:03pm On Oct 18, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: where is it in scriptures. My bible say phi2:6 show dat he only took d position of a servant wen he came to save us. Please read isaiah 53 and see that God in advance said his holy servant would be sent to redeem mankind.....Jesus has always been and will always be a servant of God.... Even Jesus himself confirms this fact @ matthew 12: 16-18.... 16 Yet He warned them not to make Him known, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: 18 “Behold! """My Servant"" whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased! I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He will declare justice to the Gentiles. Jesus has long been Yahwehs servant....... Learn to understand that and the trinity will leave your brain... Also read acts 3:13...... New International Version (©1984) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his ""servant"" Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ..... Past,present and forever Jesus remains Yahwehs servant.... There's no escaping from this clear fact.... 2 Likes |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 1:08pm On Oct 19, 2012 |
Hmmm! This is revealing. No escape indeed. 1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Nobody: 1:22pm On Oct 19, 2012 |
Boomark: Hmmm! The Trinity doctrine has been 'massacred' , lol.  1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by aslan333: 1:32pm On Oct 19, 2012 |
@ frosbel answer these please. Thank you. Jesus made it clear that no man has seen the Father (John 6vs 46) but clearly men saw God in the Old Testament. • And they SAW the God of Israel and ate in his presence (Exodus 24vs 1-12) who did Moses and the elders see? • Whose form did Moses see? (Numbers 12vs 6 -  • God says I ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread the earth by MYSELF (Isaiah 44 vs. 24), yet we believe Christ created all things (Colossian 1 vs. 6) • God loved Jesus BEFORE the world began (John 17 vs. 24) • Jesus had glory with God BEFORE the world began John 17 vs. 5) • Jesus said” I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (pre-existence) • Jesus said “that ALL may honor me JUST AS they honor the Father”. How do we honor the Father? How can a mere creature claim equal honor with the Father? (John 5vs 23) • Who did Abraham speak with before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? • Isaiah saw the messiah’s glory (John 12 vs. 41) yet John quotes the vision in Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw the glory of the God of Israel. Who was the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament? He spoke to Moses from WITHIN the burning bush (Exodus 3 vs. 2), yet Exodus 3 vs. 4 says it was God that was WITHIN the burning bush. He spoke as God in Judges 3 vs. 1 – 12. When he spoke to Hagar she called him “the God that sees me”. (Gen 16 vs. 7-16). Yet he is distinct from God (pleads with God on behalf of Jerusalem. (Zechariah chap 1 vs. 12) People went through tortuous pain, persecution and death from the ancient world because they believed Jesus to be God (read eusebius church history). We insult their martyrdom and memory when we sit behind a username and deem ourselves more knowledgeable then those who lived and DIED for such beliefs. Ireneus book: against heresies, Justin martyr apology etc. these documents are there for us to see even before the RCC emerged as a dominant world power. Let us at least TRY to understand the HYPOSTATIC UNION before we go on a posting spree. We who have suffered so little believe we know more than those who lived in the times of the apostles. I do not support a lot of the RCC believes but we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by aslan333: 1:32pm On Oct 19, 2012 |
@ frosbel answer these please. Thank you. Jesus made it clear that no man has seen the Father (John 6vs 46) but clearly men saw God in the Old Testament. • And they SAW the God of Israel and ate in his presence (Exodus 24vs 1-12) who did Moses and the elders see? • Whose form did Moses see? (Numbers 12vs 6 - • God says I ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread the earth by MYSELF (Isaiah 44 vs. 24), yet we believe Christ created all things (Colossian 1 vs. 6) • God loved Jesus BEFORE the world began (John 17 vs. 24) • Jesus had glory with God BEFORE the world began John 17 vs. 5) • Jesus said” I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (pre-existence) • Jesus said “that ALL may honor me JUST AS they honor the Father”. How do we honor the Father? How can a mere creature claim equal honor with the Father? (John 5vs 23) • Who did Abraham speak with before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? • Isaiah saw the messiah’s glory (John 12 vs. 41) yet John quotes the vision in Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw the glory of the God of Israel. Who was the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament? He spoke to Moses from WITHIN the burning bush (Exodus 3 vs. 2), yet Exodus 3 vs. 4 says it was God that was WITHIN the burning bush. He spoke as God in Judges 3 vs. 1 – 12. When he spoke to Hagar she called him “the God that sees me”. (Gen 16 vs. 7-16). Yet he is distinct from God (pleads with God on behalf of Jerusalem. (Zechariah chap 1 vs. 12) People went through tortuous pain, persecution and death from the ancient world because they believed Jesus to be God (read eusebius church history). We insult their martyrdom and memory when we sit behind a username and deem ourselves more knowledgeable then those who lived and DIED for such beliefs. Ireneus book: against heresies, Justin martyr apology etc. these documents are there for us to see even before the RCC emerged as a dominant world power. Let us at least TRY to understand the HYPOSTATIC UNION before we go on a posting spree. We who have suffered so little believe we know more than those who lived in the times of the apostles. I do not support a lot of the RCC believes but we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by gbrookes02: 2:36pm On Oct 19, 2012 |
Granville Sharp's Rule Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 by James White This information sheet is divided into two sections. The first is a brief, basic discussion of what is known as "Granville Sharp's Rule." This rule is very important in translating and understanding Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 (as well as other passages), and as these passages bear directly on the discussion of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, we feel Christians should be informed on the subject. The second section of this paper is a much more in-depth discussion of the same subject, providing references for those familiar with the Greek language and the translation of the New Testament. Section 1 Basically, Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the"  while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exceptionless. One must argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised. Not that many have not attempted to do so, and are still trying. However, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the above interpretation. Lets look at some of the evidence from the text itself. In Titus 2:13, we first see that Paul is referring to the "epiphaneia" of the Lord, His "appearing." Every other instance of this word is reserved for Christ and Him alone.(1) It is immediately followed by verse 14, which says, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The obvious reference here is to Christ who "gave Himself for us" on the cross of Calvary. There is no hint here of a plural antecedent for the "who" of verse 14 either. It might also be mentioned that verse 14, while directly referring to Christ, is a paraphrase of some Old Testament passages that refer to Yahweh God. (Psalm 130:8, Deuteronomy 7:6, etc). One can hardly object to the identification of Christ as God when the Apostle goes on to describe His works as the works of God! The passage found at 2 Peter 1:1 is even more compelling. Some have simply by-passed grammatical rules and considerations, and have decided for an inferior translation on the basis of verse 2, which, they say, "clearly distinguishes" between God and Christ.(2) Such translation on the basis of theological prejudices is hardly commendable. The little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five "Granville Sharp" constructions. They are 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 2:20, it is obvious that both "Lord" and "Savior" are in reference to Christ. Such is the case in 3:2, as well as 3:18. No problem there, for the proper translation does not step on anyone's theological toes. 1:11 is even more striking. The construction here is *identical* to the construction found in 1:1, with only one word being different. Here are the passages as they are transliterated into English: 1:1: tou theou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros Iesou Christou Notice the exact one-to-one correspondence between these passages! The only difference is the substitution of "kuriou" for "theou". No one would question the translation of "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:11; why question the translation of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at 1:1? Consistency in translation demands that we not allow our personal prejudices to interfere with our rendering of God's Word. Dr. A. T. Robertson examined this very subject, and in conclusion said, Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers. There is no solid grammatical reason for one to hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," and Tit. 2:13, "our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus."... Scholarship, real scholarship, seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed.(3) Hopefully all involved can echo Dr. Robertson's words. We need not think that God's Word is our enemy, or that we must twist it around to suit our needs. God's truth will stand firm, despite all of mankind's attempts to hide it, or twist it. Christians are looking for that blessed hope; the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the meantime, let us do good deeds to others, living in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. ******************************************** Section 2: Anyone familiar with the koine Greek, the language of the common people in Jesus' day, knows that it is a very expressive and full language. It is indeed complicated, and it rarely follows its own rules all the time. A common joke amongst Greek students is the foolishness of using the word "always" when asking a question of the professor. There is seemingly always an exception to the rule. One would expect, then, to find a number of exceptions to the rule here under consideration, that of Granville Sharp. But before that can be determined, we need first to define the rule itself. That sounds simple, but it has been my discovery that it is not. Take, for example, the definition given by Curtis Vaughn and Virtus Gideon: "If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first."(1) Kenneth Wuest, in his _Word Studies in the Greek New Testament_ defines it this way: "We have Granville Sharp's rule here, which says that when there are two nouns in the same case connected by a kai (and), the first noun having the article, the second noun not having the article, the second noun refers to the same thing the first noun does and is a further description of it."(2) Note the absence of the second part of Vaughn and Gideon's definition, that of the two nouns both with articles. Dana and Mantey give probably the most accurate definition when they write: "The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person."(3) However, much to my surprise, I have found that none of these definitions, even the one by Dana and Mantey, accurately reflect what Granville Sharp actually said or meant. It has been due to these less- than-accurate definitions that Sharp's rule has come in for a lot of the criticism that it has. One of the longest and best discussions that I have been able to find is found in A. T. Robertson's fine work, _The Minister and His Greek New Testament,_ pages 61 through 68, under the title, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ." It was here that I first found an accurate rendering of Granville Sharp's actual rule. Since that time I have been fortunate enough to track down an 1807 edition of Granville Sharp's actual work entitled, _Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version._ This work actually puts forth six rules, the other five being corollaries of the first. Granville Sharp's rule, according to Granville Sharp, is: "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person."(4) The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp's work is this: *Sharp's rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is not intended to be applied to proper names*. His rule only applies to persons, not things. As you can see, Granville Sharp's rule is much more limited in its scope than the more modern definitions reveal. Does this more accurate and definite definition make a big difference? Indeed it does! There are 79 occurrences of "Granville Sharp" constructions in the writings of Paul, using Vaughn and Gideon's definition. Hence, here we have constructions that mix singulars and plurals, descriptions of places and things, and constructions that reflect both nouns as having the article. A quick glance over the list reveals a maximum of 15 exceptions, and a minimum of five. Even this ratio would be considered very good for a general rule of grammar. However, Sharp claimed that the rule *always* held true. Obviously, if the modern versions of his rule are accurate, Sharp was not. But when the constructions in the New Testament that truly follow Granville Sharp's rule are examined, a very unusual thing happens: *it is found to be entirely exceptionless!* As Robertson quotes from Sharp's work, "But, though Sharp's principle was attacked, he held to it and affirms (p. 115) that though he had examined several thousand examples of this type, "the apostle and high priest of our confession Jesus" (Heb. 3:1), he had never found an exception."(5) From my own research, I concur with Sharp. The rule, in its pure form, is exceptionless. An examination of a few key texts is in order. The two that have most triggered the controversy over the rule are Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both passages exhibit what might be called "classical" Sharp constructions. Titus 2:13: ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou, and 2 Peter 1:1: tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou. Titus 2:13 is correctly translated as "the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," and 2 Peter 1:1, "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." The reason for the controversy is, of course, quite obvious. Should these texts stand, the Arian theological position becomes untenable. Hence Greek grammarians of the rank even of George B. Winer have taken their best shot at these passages, all to no avail. The 2 Peter passage seems to be the strongest of all the passages, especially due to its context. Four other Sharp constructions occur in 2 Peter, a rather high occurrence in a letter that is only three chapters long. The other examples occur in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, and 3:18. For brevity's sake, I will examine only 1:11, as it is almost identical with 1:1 in wording (exchange kuriou for theou), and it *is* identical in form: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." No one has any problem seeing that both "Lord" and "Savior" refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, and that both nouns are to be taken under the one article. Why, then, balk at correctly translating 1:1?? It is an identical construction. Titus 2:13 also occurs in a context that strongly supports the contention of Sharp's rule. First, the term epiphaneian is never used of the Father anywhere in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, Tit. 2:13).(6) Hence, the anti-trinitarian argument is in trouble from the start. Verse 14 continues, "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." It is interesting to note also that Psalm 130:8 says that it is Yahweh that redeems from all iniquities. There is no contextual, syntactical, or grammatical argument that can be urged against either of these passages. Only a theological prejudice could interfere with translation. Why, then, does the AV, the ASV, and a few other older versions incorrectly translate these passages? Robertson maintains that it is mainly due to the influence of George B. Winer and his grammatical work. For three generations his work was supreme, and many scholars did not feel inclined to "fly in his face" and insist on the correct translation of these passages. However, Winer himself, being an anti-trinitarian, admitted that it was not grammatical grounds that led him to reject the correct rendering of Titus 2:13, but theological ones. In the Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by Robertson), page 162, Winer said, "Considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that soteros is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with theou, Christ being first called megas theos, and then soter." However, Robertson put it well when he said, "Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers."(7) Kenneth Wuest in his _Expanded Translation_ brings out the Sharp constructions in a number of other instances. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:12 reads, "in accordance with the grace of our God, even the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 5:21: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of our God, even Jesus Christ,..." and 2 Timothy 4:1: "I solemnly charge you as one who is living in the presence of our God, even Christ Jesus,..." All these demonstrate further examples of Sharp's rule. Not all examples, of course, deal with the fact of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 3:2 reads, ton adelphon hemon kai sunergon, "our brother and fellow-worker," in reference to Timothy. Philemon 1 contains a similar reference, and Hebrews 3:1 is yet another example. One of the most often repeated examples has to do with the idiom, "God and Father." Pure Sharp constructions occur at 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thessalonians 3:11. Finally, other examples of Sharp constructions occur at 1 Corinthians 5:10, 7:8, 7:34, Ephesians 5:5, Philippians 2:25, and Colossians 4:7. There are, of course, others outside the writings of the Apostle Paul. Having seen that Granville Sharp correctly identified a rule of grammar that the ancient koine Greek writers faithfully followed, next we will examine whether the more modern and far less accurate definitions of Sharp's rule can be used effectively. Some examples that follow Sharp's principle (but are not actually Sharp constructions) include Romans 3:21, "by the law and the prophets," demonstrating the use of the article with both nouns. Others are Romans 15:4, "through the grace and through the exhortation," 2 Corinthians 8:4, "the gift and the fellowship," and 1 Thessalonians 3:6, "your faith and your love." Some that have only the one article are Philippians 1:20, "according to my eager expectation and hope," 2:17, "upon the sacrifice and sacrificial offering of your faith," and Colossians 2:8, "through philosophy and empty deception." There are, however, a number of exceptions, such as Philippians 1:19, "through your entreaty and the support of the Spirit," and 2 Corinthians 1:6, "your encouragement and salvation." Robertson( demonstrates that when both nouns have the article, they are to be distinguished. He lists Mt. 23:2, Mk. 2:18, 6:21, 11:9, 11:18, 12:13, Lk. 11:39, 15:6, 23:4, Jn. 4:37, 1 Cor. 3:8, Jas. 3:11, Acts 26:30, Rev. 18:20, adding that the list can be extended indefinitely. He also mentions that at times, the use of one article with two nouns can demonstrate that the author was viewing the two things as one, even though they might be numerically or generically distinct. Also noted is the fact that differences in number and gender tend to bring the article into play. On the basis of the foregoing, unless the context demands otherwise, the interpreter would do well to consider the possibility that the author, when using a construction that utilizes two nouns, the first having the article, and the second not, had in mind one object for both nouns (participles or adjectives). Also, when both nouns have the article, it is quite likely that the writer meant to keep them quite distinct. Though these suggestions do lend themselves to exceptions, they can be generally quite helpful. When discussing the real Granville Sharp rule, however, totally different considerations need be applied. A real Sharp construction will hold to what Sharp actually said, and will hold true in all cases. Hence, Sharp's rule is an invaluable instrument in the interpreter's bag. Unlike so many rules, one does not have to worry about the many exceptions to the rule. It is amusing to imagine the Apostle Paul listening in on a discussion amongst modern grammarians, and being very confused as to just what "Granville Sharp's rule" is. He certainly would acknowledge the fact of what he wrote and what it meant, but we must remember that all Granville Sharp did was accurately observe a principle that had been around for over 1700 years. Paul never kept Granville Sharp's rule: Granville Sharp correctly followed Paul's rule (and Peter's and James' and so on). Sharp's rule has stood the test of time, and will continue to be a strong force to be reckoned with in the future. Footnotes: (On Section 1  1. 2 Thess. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:14, 2 Tim. 1:10, 4:1, 4:8, Tit. 2:13. W. F. Moulton, A. S. Geden, H. K. Moulton, Concordance to the Greek Testament, 5th edition, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980) p. 374. 2. Alford, New Testament for English Readers, p. 1671. 3. A. T. Robertson, The Minister and his Greek New Testament, pp. 66-67. (On Section 2 1. Curtis Vaughn, and Virtus Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 83. 2. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies In the Greek New Testament, 2:195. 3. Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 147. 4. Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3. 5. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 62. 6. W. F. Moulton, and A. S. Geden, Concordance to the Greek Testament, p. 374. 7. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 66. Further scholarly corroboration of this interpretation of these passages can be found in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, vol. 6, pages 147-148, in Nicoll's Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 5, p. 123, and in B. B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 68-71. Grundmann, in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 540 says, "Hence we have to take Jesus Christ as the megas theos. This is demanded by the position of the article, by the term epiphaneia ..., and by the stereotyped nature of the expression...Hence the best rendering is: "We wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." 8. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 786-787. http://vintage.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 10:29pm On Oct 21, 2012 |
ijawkid:so God must marry before he can begot a son abi? Weldone ijawkid wants to fit God in his head even in nature there are many that reproduce without having a 'wife'. Remember ur biology class? |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Boomark(m): 11:31pm On Oct 21, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: so God must marry before he can begot a son abi? Weldone ijawkid wants to fit God in his head even in nature there are many that reproduce without having a 'wife'. Remember ur biology class? This is what is called 'Dodgingcology'. Just because he mentioned wife as illustration, you now pick it as what to use as shield. |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 2:54pm On Oct 23, 2012 |
Boomark:he didnt just mention 'wife'. He said God can only create he cant beget because he doesnt have a wife. That is nonesense |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by ijawkid(m): 3:05pm On Oct 23, 2012 |
Ubenedictus: he didnt just mention 'wife'. He said God can only create he cant beget because he doesnt have a wife. That is nonesense Ubenidictus why u dey talk like this?? I was only trying to tell you that you are left with 2 option... 1....Its either Jesus was created... 2...Or God married a wife and gave birth to Him(Jesus)..... Its up to you to discern how and what the word begot,beget means...... I think I can aDd a 3rd option.. 3.....Or God adopted Jesus from another God who is greater than both the Son and the Father........ Its up to you....... Because it is clear Jesus' existence and life's sustenance was caused and has a source...... 1 Like |
| Re: Dilemma : Is GOD a Trinity by Ubenedictus(m): 11:20pm On Oct 23, 2012 |
ijawkid:goodluck trying to put the infinite in your finite mind. Do u want a list of organism that beget without a wife, huh dont tell me you are poor. |
(1) (2) (3) ... (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (Reply)
"Only God Will Bring Buhari Back" - Primate Ayodele / How I Used Sea Salt For Cleansings, Luck & Attraction / Muslims Celebrate Christmas At Pastor’s House In Kaduna
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 295 |