Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,237 members, 7,780,465 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 02:57 PM

The Falsehoods Of Paul - Religion (7) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Falsehoods Of Paul (10965 Views)

Dr Paul Enenche's Visit To Agatu Land / Of Paul And James / Some Falsehoods Portrayed By Atheists (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (11) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 6:41pm On Aug 03, 2014
Sarassin:

To say I truncated the author arbitrarily to serve a devious purpose is disingenuous at best, the quotation shows otherwise. Whichever way you consider the argument i.e on academic grounds (a new one for you) or on theological grounds, the outcome remains the same.

St. Jerome is very clear when he states that the latin authors use subtle arguments against Celsus. He criticizes them that they may sometimes say things considered "needful" and on occasion they may even employ the assertions of the Gentile themselves understandably. Of Paul, his criticisms are scathing, he accused him of calumny, you should look up the meaning of the word to grasp the seriousness. If Paul were truly inspired by God as Christians never tire of telling us, then why the need to resort to such underhand methods? Perhaps it is now your position that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to such calumnious acts.

You say there are no other negative opinions of Paul by Jerome? what a joke, how many more would you think would suffice? The statement is the opinion of Jerome on Paul the progenitor of Christianity as we have it today, a calumnious founder for all posterity.

And just out of curiousity, what does Justin Martyr have to say about Paul? Nothing, not a word, what about Josephus the historian who it is documented studied under Gamaliel and would have been a contemporary of Paul if not a fellow student had Paul actually attended? Not a comma concerning Paul, Lucian perhaps...? their silences......deafening, indictments....implicit.
Please do your homework very well before hitting the keyboard. St Jerome never accused Paul of calumny in the piece you posted but used the verb/word "calumniate" in drawing inferences. Can you please look up the meaning of the verb/word "calumniate" in a standard dictionary and apply the meaning in that excerpt. Does the tone of that quotation suggest a negative disposition of St Jerome to Paul? Please note that if St Jerome was trying to denigrate Paul, he would have made a DEFINED position on the propriety of Pauline literature in biblical canon. Such a weighty position would have elicited a major reaction/effect on the extant christian establishment. But you and I know that St Jerome was a venerated theologian:in fact here was a doctor of the church. Where am I going? St Jerome was an orthodox/in-line theologian and was not branded a heretic like others who held views at variance with the general thought of that time. In other words, you need to shows the historical consequence of your supposed discovery on the church in St Jerome's day...
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 6:43pm On Aug 03, 2014
Paul and his duplicitous ways and contradictory teachings:

John, in effect, tells us in 1 John 4:2-3 to regard Paul as uninspired and a liar, no matter how appealing Paul’s theological arguments may sound.

Paul even late in his ministry claims to be a Pharisee in Acts 23:6 and Jesus tells us in Luke 12:1 to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, then shouldn’t we obey Jesus and beware of Paul?

Paul claims in Acts 9:10-16 that his mission to the Gentiles was delivered through Ananias but then contradicted himself later by saying it was told to him directly by Jesus without going to Damascus later in Acts 26:16-18. Is it possible that Ananias refused to corroborate his earlier story and he had to change it? These two contradicting stories can't be true at the same time, so which version should we believe?

Given what we find in 1 John 4:1-3, is it then really any coincidence that by the hand of the same John, Revelation 2:2 depicts someone as a liar who told the Ephesians he was an apostle but he was not?

Jesus told the original Apostles to “go unto all nations” in Matthew 28:19. Should we believe Paul that Christ took this away from them in Galatians 2 leaving twelve guys to minister to the Jews and only Paul in charge of the Gentiles? And to think that Paul said that everyone is the same:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."◄ Galatians 3:28 ► How can everyone be the same and yet Paul was sent to the Gentiles only?

How come Jesus kept his Apostles in the dark about Paul in Matthew 28? Why didn’t he tell them Paul would be showing up to make some changes in his teachings?

If Gamaliel encouraged everyone to leave the believers in Jesus alone in Acts 5:34, and if Paul was his student as Paul claims in Acts 22:3, then why was Paul trying to do exactly the opposite as his teacher was teaching?
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 6:46pm On Aug 03, 2014
Paul, Yahweh and Jesus on Marriage:

Yahweh says:

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."◄ Genesis 9:7 ►
"He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22

Jesus said: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” Mark 10:8.

Paul contradicted Yahweh and Jesus:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."◄ 1 Corinthians 7:1 ►
"If you have a wife, do not seek to end the marriage. If you do not have a wife, do not seek to get married."◄ 1 Corinthians 7:27 ►

Christian enthusiasm for marriage is certainly not supported by Paul. Here’s what He says: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). So much for the celebrated need to "be fruitful and multiply." if Christians had followed Paul's teachings on marriage, they would have been extinct by now.

I know Paul's supporters would rush in here to say that I am quoting the verses out of "context." To that I would say don't make a nebulous charge. If you have such concerns, put the verses in context yourselves and let's see how you can rescue Paul's mendacity. Some might plead that Paul also said: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). However, according to Paul, marriage is the second best option. The best option according to Paul of course is that Christians should neither get married nor have sexual relations with each other.

How many of you supporters of Paul have taken his advise? Should we heed Yahweh's injunction to "go multiply" and Jesus' teaching that "[a] man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” Mark 10:8 or remain un married as Paul charged?

For those of you that are single or unmarried and Paul supporters, Paul says that you should remain single. Why not obey him and stop searching for a suitor? It is better for you to remain single according to Paul. On the other hand, if you have disobeyed Paul and got married, your best bet is not to "touch" your wife.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 9:32pm On Aug 03, 2014
maestroferddi: Please do your homework very well before hitting the keyboard. St Jerome never accused Paul of calumny in the piece you posted but used the verb/word "calumniate" in drawing inferences. Can you please look up the meaning of the verb/word "calumniate" in a standard dictionary and apply the meaning in that excerpt. Does the tone of that quotation suggest a negative disposition of St Jerome to Paul? Please note that if St Jerome was trying to denigrate Paul, he would have made a DEFINED position on the propriety of Pauline literature in biblical canon. Such a weighty position would have elicited a major reaction/effect on the extant christian establishment. But you and I know that St Jerome was a venerated theologian:in fact here was a doctor of the church. Where am I going? St Jerome was an orthodox/in-line theologian and was not branded a heretic like others who held views at variance with the general thought of that time. In other words, you need to shows the historical consequence of your supposed discovery on the church in St Jerome's day...

You simply refuse to come to terms with what is staring you in the face. I will not split hairs with you on semantics, however it is fair to say Jerome gave a defined position with respect to Paul's character, it was not an exegesis on his theology. Your surprise seems to stem from the fact that the church "correctors" missed it and the vicious orthodoxy allowed it.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 10:40pm On Aug 04, 2014
In my penultimate submission I would state there is a huge theological contrast between the sermons of Paul in the Book of Acts penned by Luke and Paul’s own writings. It has to do with one of the most fundamental questions of Christian doctrine: how is it that Christ’s death brings salvation?

Paul had a definite view of the matter; clearly so did Luke the author of Acts. What we see is that Paul and Luke express their doctrines of salvation quite differently. According to Paul in his writings Christ’s death provides atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness. These are not the same thing.

The idea of atonement is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice is made that compensates for the fact that someone has transgressed divine law. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.

The idea of forgiveness is that someone lets you off the hook for something that you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. This is quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which is the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ was sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.

Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? When you read through the speeches in Acts the answer becomes quite clear Jesus’ death, for Luke, is not atonement for sins; it is an occasion for repentance. It is the repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, and thus a restored relationship with God.

And there you have it, both cannot be right.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 8:29pm On Aug 05, 2014
I thank you for you response because I truly did not know that Arabia was a region that encompassed Jordan and up to Damascus in Syria.

However having said that there still remains the points as follows. Luke is trying to demonstrate a connection between Paul's Ministry and the rest of the Church while Paul himself is trying in his letter to the galatians to distance himself from Jerusalem and thus to throw off any authority that they may be seen to have over him.

Whether we can connect Luke's 'Certain Days' with Paul's '3 years' and say that they refer to the same time period would depend on knowledge of Luke's colloquialisms and use of language. I don't have that kind of knowledge but in my own experience when a period is measured in days, even if they were talking about very many days I would not imagine that they were talking about a period of years.

Paul insists that he did not confer with anybody but went to Arabia. Luke says he met with Ananias who gave him back his sight and he met other christians. We agree that he only later went to Jerusalem and had started to preach before he went there. The bottom-line is that Paul is claiming an independent inspiration while Luke fits him in the milieu of other christians before him.

mbaemeka:

2 Corinthians 11:32-33King James Version (KJV)
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me
:

Aretas was in Damascus in Paul's day. That's the first aspect. Secondly, the capital of then Arabia was Petra. Petra was occupied by Nabataeans (at the north) that live in modern day Jordan. At their peak they extended from Dedan into Damascus (1 BC), meaning that Damascus had to be inside the whole of Arabia that also encompassed Jordan. http://www.ancient.eu.com/Arabia/



Luke said he spent certain days in Damascus with the disciples in verse 19. He did this till verse 22. Then he went into the northern (rural areas) of Arabia. This is where the Galatians 1:17 account happened. He spent "many days" here before returning again to Damascus.

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

For him to 'return again' to Damascus it implies that he must have been there before going to Arabia which is what I said earlier.

When he returned to Damascus after many days and when he had to be helped out of Damascus due to the plot till he got to Jerusalem took about 3 years in total. That's why I said it is difficult to ascertain how the stay was apportioned between Arabia and Damascus. We know it took 3 years altogether. Then he got to Jerusalem. It adds up.

Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:43pm On Aug 05, 2014
maestroferddi: I honestly cannot see your point. The primary human validator of Paul's apostleship/discipleship was Ananias, a reputed prophet and, to some extent, Barnabas, an able disciple. Paul's meeting with Peter and the rest cannot be to validate his office as an apostle because we should suppose that the witness and reputation of Ananias ought to have gotten to their knowledge. Paul had a direct instruction of the mode and means of his ministry so I really do not see where the need to be tied to the apron strings of Peter and the rest arose. Paul and Barnabas/Silas met with the rest as the occasion called like the council in Jerusalem.

My point is that there is a discontinuity between the Early Church before Paul and the Teachings of Paul. This caused a lot of friction in those days. Hence the polemical nature of a lot of Paul's letters, especially Galatians. In acts there isn't a single whiff of this conflict and it is made to seem as if Paul blended in with the other christians.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:46pm On Aug 05, 2014
maestroferddi: We really need to cut Apostle Paul some slack. In paganism just like other religions, there abound some moral truths. The question then is whether we expect Apostle Paul and other christian leaders/writers to stand the truth on its head just because a particular religion was the first to make a particular assertion or statement of truth.

This isn't just a small matter of some moral truths. The prophecy that Paul was quoting was about the supposed death and resurrection of Zeus. Unless you want to equate Zeus with Jesus. this is not just a matter of Moral truths. This is a matter of syncretism.

Paul does it again in Athens when he tells the citizens that a shrine that he found in Athens was the shrine of the God that he is preaching to them.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 10:47pm On Aug 05, 2014
Sarassin: In my penultimate submission I would state there is a huge theological contrast between the sermons of Paul in the Book of Acts penned by Luke and Paul’s own writings. It has to do with one of the most fundamental questions of Christian doctrine: how is it that Christ’s death brings salvation?

Paul had a definite view of the matter; clearly so did Luke the author of Acts. What we see is that Paul and Luke express their doctrines of salvation quite differently. According to Paul in his writings Christ’s death provides atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness. These are not the same thing.

The idea of atonement is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice is made that compensates for the fact that someone has transgressed divine law. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.

The idea of forgiveness is that someone lets you off the hook for something that you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. This is quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which is the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ was sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.

Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? When you read through the speeches in Acts the answer becomes quite clear Jesus’ death, for Luke, is not atonement for sins; it is an occasion for repentance. It is the repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, and thus a restored relationship with God.

And there you have it, both cannot be right.
I have to confess that doing musical chairs is not my strongest forte. I have taken out time to address all the concerns you raised both theologically and logically about Pauline theology.

I cant really situate this latest attempt of yours to jumble issues together.
Paul dwelt on forgiveness whilst Luke broached the salvific message from the standpoint of atonement; so you averred.

You said both Paul and Luke cannot be mutually correct. Beyond flowery language, you need to demonstrate how Luke's message contradicted the forgiveness as made possible by Christ's death on the cross. You are free to specify contradictory scriptures, please.

Please note that our engagement is on academic grounds since you have earlier stated that you are not a christian.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 11:30pm On Aug 05, 2014
PastorAIO:

This isn't just a small matter of some moral truths. The prophecy that Paul was quoting was about the supposed death and resurrection of Zeus. Unless you want to equate Zeus with Jesus. this is not just a matter of Moral truths. This is a matter of syncretism.

Paul does it again in Athens when he tells the citizens that a shrine that he found in Athens was the shrine of the God that is preaching to them.
I am still finding your logic pretty nebulous. Are you saying Paul should have preached a different message since there was a subsisting legend on the death and resurrection of Zeus? Did Paul substitute Zeus for Jesus or make any kind of obeisance to Zeus? What do you really understand by syncretism? I think some understanding of demonology will come handy to you.


You are leaping to abrupt conclusions on the Athenian spectacle. Paul never coveted a heathen shrine. When he got to Mars Hill, he saw a SIGN marked with the inscription: "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD". Now, who is the unknown God? He definitely cannot be Satan. Satan invariably has an identity. If you view religion from the God-Satan dialectic or good-evil relationship, you would see that what is not of Satan must be of God as the two are the only forces in contention. Compare the foregoing with the statement Jesus made that those who are not against Him must be for Him.

If I meet a man who believes God exists but is trying to access Him via a wrong channel or who doesn't know how to access God, am I suppose to refute the very existence of God and manufacture a new one? No, that would be counter-productive. What Paul did was to confirm the existence of God but declaim the only means of accessing Him which is via Jesus Christ. There is nothing syncretic about that!
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:52pm On Aug 05, 2014
maestroferddi: I am still finding your logic pretty nebulous. Are you saying Paul should have preached a different message since there was a subsisting legend on the death and resurrection of Zeus? Did Paul substitute Zeus for Jesus or make any kind of obeisance to Zeus? What do you really understand by syncretism? I think some understanding of demonology will come handy to you.


You are leaping to abrupt conclusions on the Athenian spectacle. Paul never coveted a heathen shrine. When he got to Mars Hill, he saw a SIGN marked with the inscription: "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD". Now, who is the unknown God? He definitely cannot be Satan. Satan invariably has an identity. If you view religion from the God-Satan dialectic or good-evil relationship, you would see that what is not of Satan must be of God as the two are the only forces in contention. Compare the foregoing with the statement Jesus made that those who are not against Him must be for Him.

If I meet a man who believes God exists but is trying to access Him via a wrong channel or who doesn't know how to access God, am I suppose to refute the very existence of God and manufacture a new one? No, that would be counter-productive. What Paul did was to confirm the existence of God but declaim the only means of accessing Him which is via Jesus Christ. There is nothing syncretic about that!

Syncretism.:


Syncretism /ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm/ is the combining of different, often seemingly contradictory beliefs, while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

Who is the God in whom we live and Move and have our Being? Ask any Christian today and he will say Jesus. Ask any Hellenic pagan and he will say Zeus.

By quoting from a prophet of Zeus that all Cretans are liars he is making a very direct reference to Zeus. In the Hellenic world in which he lived that would be totally unmistaken. By claiming that that was the God that he was preaching it cannot be seen as anything less than syncretism.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Who were the Greek poets talking about? Who is it that 'we are all also his offspring.'?

The Greek poets state quite explicitly that it is zeus.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:57pm On Aug 05, 2014
They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.
- Epimenides

It is also a common accusation thrown at christians from pagans in the Roman empire that the Christians were saying nothing new.

When we call Christ the Logos, do we mean that in the sense that the Greeks understood the term or is there another sense in which we understand the word Logos?

So we find Christianity all over the pagan world, the only difference is that the concepts have been given new names but a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 12:30am On Aug 06, 2014
PastorAIO:

Syncretism.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

Who is the God in whom we live and Move and have our Being? Ask any Christian today and he will say Jesus. Ask any Hellenic pagan and he will say Zeus.

By quoting from a prophet of Zeus that all Cretans are liars he is making a very direct reference to Zeus. In the Hellenic world in which he lived that would be totally unmistaken. By claiming that that was the God that he was preaching it cannot be seen as anything less than syncretism.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Who were the Greek poets talking about? Who is it that 'we are all also his offspring.'?

The Greek poets state quite explicitly that it is zeus.
You are shifting the goalposts. Let us take it one thing at a time: Can the "a" part of Acts17:28 be legitimately applied to God? In other words, can a christian make that devotional sentence without sounding paganistic? If your answer is a yes, then the charge of syncretism falls on its face.
If it is a no, then you need to tell us why. Is that sentence not universal, religion speaking?


Now your major grouse is apparently to the reference to poets. If you start from V22, Paul hinted on the superstition of the Athenians and the fact that were seeking God ignorantly.
Now the assumption that the unknown God must be Zeus is your own invention. Zeus has a name so the allusion to him is, at best, an unfounded allegation.

Paul could not have been contemporaraneous with the referenced poets. However, there are three avenues through which he could have known their philosophy viz:
- through reading their works,
- through hearing their works,
- through divine revelation
Now are we saying that it is impossible for Paul to have read or heard their works and realised by divine confirmation that what they they were ignorantly looking for was God? (remember they sang/spoke about an THE UNKNOWN GOD). Extended a little bit, is it impossible for God to impart Paul with what these poets were speaking about without even seeing or reading their works? If we believe that God can do all things then this wouldn't be difficult to understand.

The syncretism charge must be such that the practice is alien to Pre-Paul Christianity or that a particular practice is not in line with the bible. From my explanation, there is nothing untoward in Paul's conduct in the cases reviewed.

3 Likes

Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 10:11am On Aug 06, 2014
PastorAIO:

My point is that there is a discontinuity between the Early Church before Paul and the Teachings of Paul. This caused a lot of friction in those days. Hence the polemical nature of a lot of Paul's letters, especially Galatians. In acts there isn't a single whiff of this conflict and it is made to seem as if Paul blended in with the other christians.
Conflict or contradiction? Please may we know what you deem conflicting?

1 Like

Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:51am On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: You are shifting the goalposts.

From where to where? Nothing has shifted, if you've seen any shifts please point out exactly where it is shifting.

Let us take it one thing at a time: Can the "a" part of Acts17:28 be legitimately applied to God? In other words, can a christian make that devotional sentence without sounding paganistic? If your answer is a yes, then the charge of syncretism falls on its face.
If it is a no, then you need to tell us why. Is that sentence not universal, religion speaking?

Can an Ifa worshipper make that statement? Can an hindu make that statement? Can a Greek pagan make the statement? Can a christian make the statement? If the answer to all of these is yes then it's open season for Syncretism.

If they make that statement knowing that it is a reference to the Greek God Zeus then the case for syncretism is pretty much an established fact.


Now your major grouse is apparently to the reference to poets. If you start from V22, Paul hinted on the superstition of the Athenians and the fact that were seeking God ignorantly.
Now the assumption that the unknown God must be Zeus is your own invention. Zeus has a name so the allusion to him is, at best, an unfounded allegation.

No, it is not my invention. You need to look up the verses by Epimenides. And also by Callimarchus. I'll quote it out for you here:



Epimenides was a 6th-century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

Denying the immortality of Zeus, then, was the lie of the Cretans.

The phrase "Cretans, always liars" was quoted by the poet Callimachus in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides:

O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.

— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Those words were taken straight out of the Hymn to Zeus. So you see, I'm not just inventing things by bring up Zeus. Those two phrases, 1)Cretans are always Liars, and 2) In whom we live move and have our being, are taken straight from Poems written by prophets of Zeus in honour of Zeus.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:01pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi:

The syncretism charge must be such that the practice is alien to Pre-Paul Christianity or that a particular practice is not in line with the bible. From my explanation, there is nothing untoward in Paul's conduct in the cases reviewed.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick. I never said that syncretism was a bad thing or was wrong. If you look at many of my posts on Nairaland and many of the reactions against me it has been often the accusations of syncretism, though maybe not in those words exactly. While I've often argued that it is the same religious truth articulated variously by various cultures.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Horus(m): 12:05pm On Aug 06, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC8avNUiRfk

[size=15pt]Paul Disciple or Deceiver (Dr. Malachi Z. York)[/size]
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:11pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: Conflict or contradiction? Please may we know what you deem conflicting?

The whole of the letter of Galatians and it's polemical tone is enough for you to know that there was conflict in the early church between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by mbaemeka(m): 12:35pm On Aug 06, 2014
PastorAIO: I thank you for you response because I truly did not know that Arabia was a region that encompassed Jordan and up to Damascus in Syria.
However having said that there still remains the points as follows. Luke is trying to demonstrate a connection between Paul's Ministry and the rest of the Church while Paul himself is trying in his letter to the galatians to distance himself from Jerusalem and thus to throw off any authority that they may be seen to have over him.
Whether we can connect Luke's 'Certain Days' with Paul's '3 years' and say that they refer to the same time period would depend on knowledge of Luke's colloquialisms and use of language. I don't have that kind of knowledge but in my own experience when a period is measured in days, even if they were talking about very many days I would not imagine that they were talking about a period of years.
Paul insists that he did not confer with anybody but went to Arabia. Luke says he met with Ananias who gave him back his sight and he met other christians. We agree that he only later went to Jerusalem and had started to preach before he went there. The bottom-line is that Paul is claiming an independent inspiration while Luke fits him in the milieu of other christians before him.

It's more important for one to understand the spirit of all Paul's writings so as not to conflate things. In Paul's letter to the Galatians (a people he had once visited prior to this letter) he was correcting some teachings that had infiltrated his church from people who 'claimed' they were members of the Jerusalem church. So Paul had to explain why the Jerusalem church had nothing to add or subtract from his teachings. In this case he had taught the Galatians that they didn't need to be circumcized or observe Jewish ordinances (like ceremonial cleaning or avoidance of sacrificed meat) to be considered saved. When he left for a while to preach to other regions some 'brethren from James' in the Jerusalem church came to the Galatians and said the contrary- that if they were not circumcized et al- they were not saved. This information rattled the Galatians (who had assumed that the earlier apostles wielded more authority than Paul) who then relayed their complaints to their Pastor, Paul. So Paul had to explain to them how he didn't get his teachings from any of the Apostles but 'from Jesus himself' in his own words.


As per Lukes account, Luke only wrote the gist of Paul's journeys. So he is allowed to make estimations like 'many days' and 'certain days'. Paul's own account of his itinerary should be more detailed and therefore hold more water. If Luke says many days and Paul says 3 years, then Paul has to be more correct.

Luke didn't say that Paul got his teachings from Ananias but that he received his sight. Paul didn't need to mention it to the Galatians because it was surfeit to the idea he was trying to communicate to them, which was that the information he passed to them concerning salvation was in no way of less verisimilitude than the one's they were getting from fellow brethren in Jerusalem. If anything, his was superior as he was sent to the Gentiles more so than any other man.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 12:51pm On Aug 06, 2014
PastorAIO:

From where to where? Nothing has shifted, if you've seen any shifts please point out exactly where it is shifting.



Can an Ifa worshipper make that statement? Can an hindu make that statement? Can a Greek pagan make the statement? Can a christian make the statement? If the answer to all of these is yes then it's open season for Syncretism.

If they make that statement knowing that it is a reference to the Greek God Zeus then the case for syncretism is pretty much an established fact.



No, it is not my invention. You need to look up the verses by Epimenides. And also by Callimarchus. I'll quote it out for you here:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Those words were taken straight out of the Hymn to Zeus. So you see, I'm not just inventing things by bring up Zeus. Those two phrases, 1)Cretans are always Liars, and 2) In whom we live move and have our being, are taken straight from Poems written by prophets of Zeus in honour of Zeus.
You keep introducing introducing extraneous issues that could lead to our veering off the issue at hand.


Yes, an Ifa worshipper, a Hinduist, Greek pagan or a Buddhists can all make the statement alluding to their concept of higher being(s) each time. But are they right? The answer is a resounding No. They all have an inkling of supreme being(s) but their apparent knowledge is a grievous IGNORANCE. Note that Paul accentuated the foregoing in V22. He was like, you guys have the spiritual consciousness of God but you clearly do not know how to access Him. That is why you dub Him "UNKNOWN". If you had known how to find Him, you would have gone to Jerusalem because salvation is of the Jews. If you had gone to Jerusalem, you would have heard of the ministry of Jesus. But alas, you did not make the sojourn! Now here I am, Paul, to give you guys with THE answer to the very God you guys have been seeking to know. And he proceeded to explain...
If an Ifa priest, for example, makes a statement calling his god kind and benevolent; does it mean a Christian who wants to praise God cannot use the preceding phrase while alluding to the Almighty God?


Thankfully, they did not address the statement to Zeus. They dedicated it to an UNKNOWN GOD. In order words, they disowned Zeus (assuming in the unlikely case they did subvert Zeus' worship/obeisance to Almighty God). Since Zeus couldn't do anything about it , I don't see why it should be an issue or are you fighting for Zeus?


Is the so-called verse from Epeminides different from a typical worshipful line? The problem you have is that Epeminides was quoted to have made it. Well, Pharaoh could also have made it thousands of years earlier. By the same token, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Moses could have made it to the Almighty God without your knowing. Position: statement is a mundane devotional/supplicatory line. You cannot prove that it was first made to Zeus.

The same logic applies to the statement about Cretans...
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 1:48pm On Aug 06, 2014
PastorAIO:

The whole of the letter of Galatians and it's polemical tone is enough for you to know that there was conflict in the early church between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem.
Maybe you also need to show that being polemical equates to being contradictory. Paul was entitled to deploy the most effective methodology to achieve maximum results. I don't see anything wrong with that provided he was not contradicting existing scriptures.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 2:24pm On Aug 06, 2014
mbaemeka:

This is very easy to explain. Aretas was the king of then Arabia that encapsulated regions such as Edom, Jordan and Damascus. He had governors under him that reported to him and relayed taxes of course. The 'unknown' governor in Paul's account was in charge of the Damascenes province that had many devout Jews living there. Just like during the days of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Jews at times put pressure on the governors to either arrest someone for them or kill them. Similar to how Jesus and then James was killed and also how Paul was imprisoned on many occasions. In Damascenes (at this point in time) that was the case. The Jews put pressure on the governor to have Paul arrested.

Secondly, use the King James version to study that story and cross-reference it with what Luke said in Acts. It checks out. The KJV said Paul was lowered down through the Window of city wall. So your question becomes pleonastic. (I would post the scriptures for you later if you are still in doubt).

As per whether he moved to Arabia and back to Damascus. I have explained it before to the Pastor and I will try to belabor myself. Paul was on his way to Damascus. When he got close to it (precisely at the Arabian deserts) he met with Jesus and was blinded by the light. Then he was led into Damascus to meet with Ananias who healed him. Paul stayed in Damascus for a short while preaching to people around there especially in Damascenes. As he preached he drifted to areas like Bashan and other parts of Northern Arabia (which is still in Arabia as whole). This where he received the bulk of his revelations from Jesus. The Acts account states that Paul stayed here "many days". Then he RETURNED AGAIN to Damascus. The Galatians account was more specific. He said he spent about 3 years between Arabia and Damascus. It was when he returned to Damascus (with his revelations of getting saved by Grace) that the Jews began to plan to kill him. The message of Grace annoyed and continues to annoy them till date. So his fellow believers helped him escape to Jerusalem where he met with the Apostles. Thats why he said none of their messages added anything to him. He had already received his revelations from Jesus and had preached for 3 years before meeting them.

Hope this helps.

I accept the plausibility of the Jews instigating the Governor of Damascenes to seek the death of Paul, even though there are slight discrepancies in his manner of escape, in the great scheme of things it is inconsequential.

I take issue with the second part of your posting relating to Paul’s movements, even though we seem to have taken a bit of a geographical expedition. My point is this, reading the gospels, as they were meant to be read, i.e as individual accounts, one deduces from the writer of Acts of Apostles that Paul meets with the Jerusalem apostles immediately after his conversion on the road to Damascus.
Paul himself makes it crystal clear in his writings he did not meet with the apostles after his conversion, particularly at pains to show he received no instructions on gospel from them. Irrespective of hair-splitting over whether days meant “years” , it is only by conflating the two accounts, creating in effect a "supra-gospel" you are able to arrive at your position.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:14pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: Maybe you also need to show that being polemical equates to being contradictory. Paul was entitled to deployed the most effective methodology to achieve maximum results. I don't see anything wrong with that provided he was not contradicting existing scriptures.

Na wa for this your style of conversation. Please where did you see the world 'contradictory' in any of my posts and what was it in reference to?

I spoke of 'conflict'. At least you agree that galatians is polemical, so therefore there must have been conflict. Let's not shift the goal post from conflict to 'contradictory'.

(aside: why is it that certain people do something and straightaway they accuse everybody else of doing that very thing that they are doing while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are the worst culprit of that thing they are complaining about? This matter of psychological projects is really terrible on Nairaland.)

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:35pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: You keep introducing introducing extraneous issues that could lead our veer off the issue at hand.


Like what? Where is the extraneous issue? What is the issue at hand for you?

maestroferddi:
Yes, an Ifa worshipper, a Hinduist, Greek pagan or a Buddhists can all make the statement alluding to their concept of higher being(s) each time. But are they right? The answer is a resounding No. They all have an inkling of supreme being(s) but their apparent knowledge is a grievous IGNORANCE. Note that Paul accentuated the foregoing in V22. He was like, you guys have the spiritual consciousness of God but you clearly do not know how to access Him. That is why you dub Him "UNKNOWN". If you had known how to find Him, you would have gone to Jerusalem because salvation is of the Jews. If you had gone to Jerusalem, you would have heard of the ministry of Jesus. But alas, you did not make the sojourn! Now here I am, Paul, to give you guys with THE answer to the very God you guys have been seeking to know. And he proceeded to explain...
If an Ifa priest, for example, makes a statement calling his god kind and benevolent; does it mean a Christian who wants to praise God cannot use the preceding phrase while alluding to the Almighty God?
Thankfully, they did not address the statement to Zeus. They dedicated it to an UNKNOWN GOD. In order words, they disowned Zeus (assuming in the unlikely case they did subvert Zeus' worship/obeisance to Almighty God). Since Zeus couldn't do anything about it , I don't see why it should be an issue or are you fighting for Zeus?
Is the so-called verse from Epeminides different from a typical worshipful line? The problem you have is that Epeminides was quoted to have made it. Well, Pharaoh could also have made it thousands of years earlier. By the same token, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Moses could have made it to the Almighty God without your knowing. Position: statement is a mundane devotional/supplicatory line. You cannot prove that it was first made to Zeus.
The same logic applies to the statement about Cretans...

Why would an Ifa worshipper, a Hindu etc by wrong? Why a resounding no? Please explain.

Who is not Grievously ignorant of God? Are we not all looking through a glass, darkly? Did Paul ever claim absolute knowledge? Or did he say 'whether there be knowledge it will vanish away'?

That we cannot know God absolutely is attested to in many religions and cultures. In Egypt they worshipped Amun as 'The Hidden One'. In Rabbinical traditions they still insist that God is beyond our grasp.

The rest of your arguments are based on sheer speculations. How do I know that someone else didn't say those phrases before epimenides? I don't know. And neither do you? But if you want to base your argument on what we don't know rather than on the information available to us then that is your choice. I'm not down with wild speculations. At least not on this matter. Many on another topic if you get me in the right mood then we can speculate on what we don't actually know until the cows come home.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 3:59pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: I have to confess that doing musical chairs is not my strongest forte. I have taken out time to address all the concerns you raised both theologically and logically about Pauline theology.

I cant really situate this latest attempt of yours to jumble issues together.
Paul dwelt on forgiveness whilst Luke broached the salvific message from the standpoint of atonement; so you averred.

You said both Paul and Luke cannot be mutually correct. Beyond flowery language, you need to demonstrate how Luke's message contradicted the forgiveness as made possible by Christ's death on the cross. You are free to specify contradictory scriptures, please.

Please note that our engagement is on academic grounds since you have earlier stated that you are not a christian.

Aplogies if you feel engaged in musical chairs, I do think you have rather jumbled-up issues yourself, a cursory glance at my post should reveal the following, I stated Paul preaches that the death of Jesus brings about atonement of sins in his own writings whilst Luke, preaches forgiveness. Not the other way round as you have expressed.

The keyword is "different" not contradictory as you imply I say. It all depends on if you believe there is a difference in doctrines of "atonement" and "forgiveness", if you don’t then no matter.

My view is that the apostles themselves do not necessarily preach the atonement doctrine in their evangelism, there is no real doctrine of atonement to be found in Acts. It is all about forgiveness and this pre-dates Jesus’ death. For instance; Here are Luke’s words;

Luke 24:47 : “and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”

Luke 3:3 : "He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins".

Acts 13:38 (Luke quoting Paul) “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

And to show you it is not an isolated doctrine, here is Luke quoting Peter;

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

Paul on the other hand uses the language of righteousness and sacrifice and to my knowledge professes forgiveness only once in the Ephesians, his overall doctrine is clear;

2 Corinthians 5: “For our sake God made him who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
Paul evidently means the word “sin” here to stand for “sin-offering,” as it does in Leviticus 4:24

Further testimony of Paul’s doctrine.

Colossians 1:22 “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation”

Ephesians 2:15-16 “by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility”

The parable of the two debtors amplifies the theological differences between the doctrines of atonement and repentance/forgiveness.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 4:23pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: You are not doing your homework at all. To impute subjectivity to Lukan writing, you must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had direct collaboration with Josephus. It might interest you to note that Josephus was never a Christian so you should show us the connexion between his works and canonical writings of the New Testament apart from mere speculations and supposition. It is also very instructive to note that the histriography of Josephus played zero role in the translation of the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate. It was merely alluded to by some of the church fathers in signposting the historicity of New Testament christianity.

We have seen Paul in the pastoral epistle to Titus quote Epimenides, there is no reason why the author of Luke would not quote Josephus as an historical back-drop, Josephus would have written around the same time as the author of Luke. The nature of the error is such that there can be no doubt he drew from Josephus’ writings. He made an honest mistake, no big deal he was human after-all.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by mbaemeka(m): 5:23pm On Aug 06, 2014
Sarassin:

I accept the plausibility of the Jews instigating the Governor of Damascenes to seek the death of Paul, even though there are slight discrepancies in his manner of escape, in the great scheme of things it is inconsequential.

I take issue with the second part of your posting relating to Paul’s movements, even though we seem to have taken a bit of a geographical expedition. My point is this, reading the gospels, as they were meant to be read, i.e as individual accounts, one deduces from the writer of Acts of Apostles that Paul meets with the Jerusalem apostles immediately after his conversion on the road to Damascus.
Paul himself makes it crystal clear in his writings he did not meet with the apostles after his conversion, particularly at pains to show he received no instructions on gospel from them. Irrespective of hair-splitting over whether days meant “years” , it is only by conflating the two accounts, creating in effect a "supra-gospel" you are able to arrive at your position.


If it gives you some respite to accept your own position of things then be my guest. I can very well read and understand texts in context. I see no statement or word that suggests Luke claiming that Paul met with any elders in Jerusalem before teaching. For anything, his message was primarily to the Gentiles while they were commissioned to preach to the Jews.

If you can site any of such allusions in Lukes writings please direct me to it forthwith. I am already getting the sense that when a man has made up his mind to hang his dog, any thread will do.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 5:47pm On Aug 06, 2014
Sarassin: In my penultimate submission I would state there is a huge theological contrast between the sermons of Paul in the Book of Acts penned by Luke and Paul’s own writings. It has to do with one of the most fundamental questions of Christian doctrine: how is it that Christ’s death brings salvation?

Paul had a definite view of the matter; clearly so did Luke the author of Acts. What we see is that Paul and Luke express their doctrines of salvation quite differently. According to Paul in his writings Christ’s death provides atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness. These are not the same thing.

The idea of atonement is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice is made that compensates for the fact that someone has transgressed divine law. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.

The idea of forgiveness is that someone lets you off the hook for something that you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. This is quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which is the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ was sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.

Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? When you read through the speeches in Acts the answer becomes quite clear Jesus’ death, for Luke, is not atonement for sins; it is an occasion for repentance. It is the repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, and thus a restored relationship with God.

And there you have it, both cannot be right.
Please take your time to review this post you forwarded earlier especially your concluding sentence. You said both Paul and Luke cannot be correct as per their approaches. Just put your fingers on that. I will get back as soon as I am chanced...
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by Nobody: 5:58pm On Aug 06, 2014
maestroferddi: Please take your time to review this post you forwarded earlier especially your concluding sentence. You said both Paul and Luke cannot be correct as per their approaches. Just put your fingers on that. I will get back as soon as I am chanced...

For sure. And bear in mind I am not arguing the in's and outs of salvation, whether it is attained via atonement or forgiveness. I am saying Luke presents a different viewpoint to salvation than his hero Paul. Both viewpoints are not the doctrines of Paul.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 12:01am On Aug 07, 2014
PastorAIO:

Na wa for this your style of conversation. Please where did you see the world 'contradictory' in any of my posts and what was it in reference to?

I spoke of 'conflict'. At least you agree that galatians is polemical, so therefore there must have been conflict. Let's not shift the goal post from conflict to 'contradictory'.

(aside: why is it that certain people do something and straightaway they accuse everybody else of doing that very thing that they are doing while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are the worst culprit of that thing they are complaining about? This matter of psychological projects is really terrible on Nairaland.)

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
I still maintain that you are playing a game of musical chairs.


You thought you could pull a fast stunt on us by playing with nuanced adjectives viz polemical and conflicting. Two adjectives that on the surface look neutral but nonetheless have negative connotations.

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary - 8th Edition, pp 304 & 1131:

Conflict (verb): conflict (with something) if two ideas, beliefs, stories etc conflict, it is impossible for them to exist together or for both to be true.
Synonym: clash
Example Sentences: conflicting emotions/interests/loyalties * These results conflict with earlier findings * Reports conflicted with on how much of the aid was reaching the famine victims *


Polemical (adjective) <formal>: involving strong argument for and against sth, often in opposition to the opinion of others.

If the foregoing is not contradiction, then you tell me what is!

Paul's argument in Galatians is that justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation in contradistinction to the Jewish belief in justification through the law.

Let us know who the Book of Galatians clashed with Lukan narratives or indeed any of the salvation messages.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by maestroferddi: 12:20am On Aug 07, 2014
Sarassin:

We have seen Paul in the pastoral epistle to Titus quote Epimenides, there is no reason why the author of Luke would not quote Josephus as an historical back-drop, Josephus would have written around the same time as the author of Luke. The nature of the error is such that there can be no doubt he drew from Josephus’ writings. He made an honest mistake, no big deal he was human after-all.

Oga I may have to exit this interchange if you continue slouching behind. Paul quoted Epimenides: how? Can you build a watertight case? The Bible was written by men under divine inspiration. There were no need to seek authentication from unreliable human narratives. You can do better than to default to wild assumptions and extrapolation by providing conclusive proofs.
Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:49am On Aug 07, 2014
maestroferddi: I still maintain that you are playing a game of musical chairs.


You thought you could pull a fast stunt on us by playing with nuanced adjectives viz polemical and conflicting. Two adjectives that on the surface look neutral but nonetheless have negative connotations.

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary - 8th Edition, pp 304 & 1131:

Conflict (verb): conflict (with something) if two ideas, beliefs, stories etc conflict, it is impossible for them to exist together or for both to be true.
Synonym: clash
Example Sentences: conflicting emotions/interests/loyalties * These results conflict with earlier findings * Reports conflicted with on how much of the aid was reaching the famine victims *


Polemical (adjective) <formal>: involving strong argument for and against sth, often in opposition to the opinion of others.

If the foregoing is not contradiction, then you tell me what is!

So we are now doing english lessons!! shocked

Contradiction refers to two statements that negate each other. There is conflict in the middle east. There isn't a contradiction in the middle east, there is a conflict. These two words are very different. Stop squirming.

There is nothing neutral about polemics, or conflict. They both mean 'negative' things. I don't disagree with you, and there is no fast one that I'm pulling. Paul's letter to the galatians was polemical. if you see that as negative that is your problem. The fact is that it was polemical and it addressed a conflict that was going on in the church in Galatia. I'm not trying to be 'neutral', I'm stating facts. Can you deal with them?

I notice in all your 'English lesson' that you've failed to answer any of my questions. If you know you can't answer it then just take your leave from this thread. Otherwise answer. Let me repeat these ones:


As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (11) (Reply)

I Will Never Be Ungrateful To You Lord / Six Ways To Obtain Wisdom From God / Have You Ever Seen An Angel Before?

(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. 188
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.