Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,666 members, 7,959,013 topics. Date: Thursday, 26 September 2024 at 09:17 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising (7565 Views)
Discourse And Anecdotes On Dreams / The Theory Of Hell And Matters Arising. / My Reading Of The Holy Bible And Matters Arising (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
@ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Goshen360(m): 10:23pm On Mar 21, 2013 |
In my promise to start another thread for us to discuss matters that arose from the Bible Study Course - https://www.nairaland.com/1226596/expository-bible-study-course-raising. I hope to find peaceful talk here with ourselves and others that might join in this discussion. 1. Goshen360: And your response was, italo: And I further asked, Goshen360: Again, you response was, italo: 2., second subject of discussion. Goshen360: Your response, italo: 3., third subject of discussion. Having debosky on the scene now, debosky: ^^^ My response was to debosky was, Goshen360: ^ And you, italo picked up from the highlight above asking, italo: My response was, Goshen360: italo: ^^^ debosky: ^^^ Goshen360: Thread officially opened for discussion. First subject of discussion first and then to the second and lastly the third. Thank you! |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by debosky(m): 8:38pm On Mar 24, 2013 |
My concern is simple - italo wants to arrogate all 'authority' to the Catholic Church organisation headed by the pope, while the bible (regardless of whether it was 'compiled' by a previous gathering of Christians) doesn't support this view. Jesus spoke to specific church groupings in Revelations without referring to a monolithic church. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe in the unity of the Church under Jesus as its head. That church is identified by its adherence to Jesus' teachings and the instructions of the apostles. It is not defined by 'belonging' to the RCC. 1 Like |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Nobody: 10:27pm On Mar 24, 2013 |
debosky: My concern is simple - italo wants to arrogate all 'authority' to the Catholic Church organisation headed by the pope, while the bible (regardless of whether it was 'compiled' by a previous gathering of Christians) doesn't support this view. Jesus spoke to specific church groupings in Revelations without referring to a monolithic church. But this is precisely the point. There is no negotiation on this fact. Jesus is the head, no other person has the right to arrogate to himself privileges and rights that only belong to the Son of GOD. 1 Like |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Nobody: 5:59am On Mar 25, 2013 |
Another ploy by Pope Gohen the infallible head of Hateism and Cardinal frosbel, the head of the congregation for the propagation of the faith of Hateism, to eliminate all those who do not agree with them. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 7:56am On Mar 25, 2013 |
@ Debosky, kindly note that you did not address specifically, Goshen360's No. 1 issue listed. Thank you. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 8:16am On Mar 25, 2013 |
@ Goshen360, I think you deliberately omitted what I would call the "genesis" of this thread. Goshen360: What you did not mention are the key "contributions" that led to this No. 1 point on this thread. italo: However, I disagree with your 2nd post saying essentially that the sure way to arrive at the truth is to "let scripture interpret scripture." While it is good to read a verse in context and compare and contrast it with other verses and passages, it is by no means a sure way of arriving at the truth. This was part of my first post in reply to you on that other thread. Clearly, I set out to refute you teaching that "letting scripture interprete scripture" will lead us to the truth. You then asked me to tell how to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture without adequately proving your theory right. My summary is: in as much as you want me to prove that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret God's teaching (Scripture and otherwise), you must first prove that your own "let scripture interpret scripture" theory is accurate...or at least we must do it side by side. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 8:20am On Mar 25, 2013 |
Can you please answer to this post of mine now? italo: In order to just cut the long story short and prove to you that this your "let scripture interpret scripture" method is not a sure way of arriving at truth and is not devoid of private interpretation, let us put it to practice on a particular issue. Please go ahead. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 8:36am On Mar 25, 2013 |
@ Goshen360 and others, Regarding my submission that the Catholic Church should be the one to interpret God's teaching (scripture and otherwise), what specifically, is your objection to that? |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by debosky(m): 9:30am On Mar 25, 2013 |
italo: @ Debosky, kindly note that you did not address specifically, Goshen360's No. 1 issue listed. Thank you. Apologies for the oversight. My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion. If I recall correctly, this is your view: I believe the sure way to know God's teaching is to listen to the Catholic Church. I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church. Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't. After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection. Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping. I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more. Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son. 1 Like |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 10:29am On Mar 25, 2013 |
italo: @ Goshen360 and others, well....am not Goshen360 and others, but i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders. for me it all comes down to the issue of the church being seen as infallible. this is not year 50A.D, the apostles are out of the picture, so what is the church elders reading that i don't have access to? (unless you are telling me they have some documents in there that i will never get to see). Should the catholic church be the one to interpret God's teaching? if the catholic church is the one interpreting God's teaching, there will be no other denomination. It's already too late for that so you need to rephrase your question. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Enigma(m): 10:40am On Mar 25, 2013 |
^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church". https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 10:46am On Mar 25, 2013 |
debosky: I agree with this. Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 10:53am On Mar 25, 2013 |
debosky: I will have to align with italo on the bolded. if it is the holy spirit doing the teaching, how come we have hundreds/thousands of interpretations? |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 10:56am On Mar 25, 2013 |
Enigma: ^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church". seen. am leaving a comment there for you. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by debosky(m): 11:42am On Mar 25, 2013 |
Zikkyy: I answered this already - there are some 'tests' of an interpretation one can carry out: In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion. Secondly, I don't believe we have to practice uniformity on each and every issue - for example some will support drinking in moderation, while others will support total abstinence - I believe the fundamentals of faith should be strong and held on to. Other issues that are secondary should be treated as secondary. Finally, the truth is that the enemy seeks to cause confusion and human beings will look for teachings that meet their own individual tastes. Sticking to 'Catholic authority' will not prevent that as such erroneous teaching can still creep in. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 5:19am On Mar 26, 2013 |
debosky: There are millions of people and "churches" all over the world, teaching differing and contradictory doctrines "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Is it that there are millions of '"holy spirits" or it is the one Holy Spirit that is teaching all of them different things and causing confusion? What about 'scripture compilation?' Who was it reliant on? The Holy Spirit? When then, did the Holy Spirit compile the Bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not? debosky: In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. You mean 'your interpretation of a part of scripture needs to be contextual and not contradictory to your interpretation of other parts of scripture.' Adeboye and/or Pastor Chris could also see their own interpretation (which might be contradictory to yours) of the first part as scriptural and not contradictory to their own interpretation (which might again be the opposite of yours) of the other parts of scripture... ...And you, Adeboye and Pastor Chris would all say that the Holy Spirit has taught you the truth, while saying contradictory things. debosky: I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion. John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. John 14:26: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." "Who was Jesus talking to in those verses? Everybody or his apostles - the leaders of his (Catholic) Church? Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to his Church to teach it all things so that the Church can teach the people of God. debosky: Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't. It is not merely a "direct connection." The Catholic Church is the "early Church." The Church only began to be called "Catholic" around the year 100 to distinguish it from the many heretical groups that were springing up. The Church that wrote the New Testament and taught the people of old in biblical times is the same (Catholic) Church that compiled the Bible and declared what was and what wasnt Scriptural in the fourth century (long long after the apostles had died). That same Church continue's to teach the people of God today. If you believe their 1st and 4th century teachings and declarations to be God's teachings and declarations, why do you doubt them in the 21st century? debosky: After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection. Please show me a "teaching" that was challenged by anybody within the Church. I am unaware of such. debosky: Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping. Firstly, I dont know what you mean by "church grouping." My Lord, Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church that teaches ONE Faith. Secondly, the Catholic Church compiled the Bible because it has the authority to do so. That is why we Catholics believe that it is the inspired word of God. You protestants also believe the Bible is God's word because the Catholic Church declared it so...BUT YOU WONT LIKE TO ADMIT IT. The Bible gets its validity from the authority of God's Church which compiled it. debosky: I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more. How do you know that there was a common recognition among "church groups" led by the Holy Spirit? Dont you know that there were hot debates about several books? The Catholic Church wrote the new teastament and canonized the Bible with its Councils. You deliberately refused to mention that it was Catholic Church councils that canonized the Bible. Where were your imaginary "church groupings" then? debosky: Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son. What you are practicing is what the millions of people and "churches" teaching contradictory doctrines are practicing. You protestants have been doing it for 500years and every year, the confusion, division and heresy only gets worse. I never taught I'd see a "gay church" but ALAS! Cant you see that it is the devil that has sown this pride in your hearts that make you think every man can teach himself? Who do you think is responsible for this division? Jesus or satan? I know my questions are many but I would appreciate if you could answer them. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Goshen360(m): 5:25am On Mar 26, 2013 |
@ italo, Please permit me, I will join today when I wake up. It's my own time to sleep over here. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 5:35am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Zikkyy: My brother, humans and fashion may change but the things of God remain the same. If the Church was infallible in 50AD, then it will remain infallible to the end of time. That is why the apostles laid hands on their successors to give them the Spirit in a special way. Except your are telling me that the Holy Spirit that made the Church infallible has 'washed off' So make up your mind. Was the Church infallible in 50AD? Zikkyy: Should the catholic church be the one to interpret God's teaching? if the catholic church is the one interpreting God's teaching, there will be no other denomination. It's already too late for that so you need to rephrase your question. Even in the time of the apostles, there were already heretics (what you call denominations) teaching the wrong thing in the guise of being "church." But the (Catholic) Church continued to teach God's word and declared the Canon of Scripture and you accepted. There is NO denomination. There is only ONE Church that teaches ONE faith. If one group says "Jesus is God"; and another says "Jesus is not God," can they both be "denominations" of God's church? NO. God does not teach such confusion. ONE Church is true, the rest are not. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 5:42am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Zikkyy: If the could teach you a lie, then it is also possible that the Church could have lied about the Canon of Scripture. Maybe "Mark" wasnt written by Mark... And maybe "The Acts of Peter" was scriptural but the Catholic Church dubiously threw it out. Have you considered the implication of that? There would be no Christian faith if the Catholic Church could teach error. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Nobody: 5:52am On Mar 26, 2013 |
This is great! If all of u r hear to discuss maturely ii will advice dat no one 'like' any post. If u r happy with an argument pls keep ur 'like' to urself in order for dem to focus on the truth and validity of each others arguments as against trying to entertain d crowd. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 5:53am On Mar 26, 2013 |
debosky: What if one group thinks drinking alcohol is a sin and is a fundamental issue, while the other group thinks that it is not a sin if done in moderation and it is a secondary issue? Who decides what is "fundamental" and what is "secondary?" Who is speaking God's mind? YOU WOULD RESORT TO YOUR VARIOUS PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, WOULDNT YOU? debosky: Finally, the truth is that the enemy seeks to cause confusion and human beings will look for teachings that meet their own individual tastes. You know this yet you allow the enemy succeed through you. debosky: Sticking to 'Catholic authority' will not prevent that as such erroneous teaching can still creep in. You cant just declare this. Show us how sticking to Catholic teaching will not prevent us having erroneous teaching. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Nobody: 6:42am On Mar 26, 2013 |
italo:A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. What say ye? Is it scriptural or not? |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 7:49am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. I believe we are not here on this thread to make wild allegations (as is common here on nairaland and even elsewhere). I am talking about what The Catholic Church teaches, not what one or two or even many "Catholics" say. I am not aware of any Catholic Church teaching or official document that say that the 'gift of tongues' has been done away with. If you know of such, please provide the evidence, if not, I will take this as another wild allegation and move on. *bear in mind that all of Catholic Doctrine is well documented and mostly available on the internet, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church* Bidam: What say ye? Is it scriptural or not? Of course, we believe the 'gift of tongues' is scriptural. What might not be scriptural is pretending to have the gift of tongues and blabbering rubbish when you do not have such gift... And you know those who are mostly guilty of this. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by italo: 7:54am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Lest we digress from the main issue at hand. We are talking about how to know the true interpretation of scripture. Goshen360 says: let scripture interprete scripture. Italo says: listen to God's (Catholic) Church. What say ye? |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Syncan(m): 8:54am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Zikkyy: Exactly the point! If Peter and Paul had been allowed to continue with their divergent views on circumcision, Imagine the chaos it would have caused...No one can accuse Peter or Paul of not being led by the holy Spirit, or is there? But they had to seek clarification from the council, and when the council decides, then..."it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..."see (Acts 15). What could be more certain than the decision of the church. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Syncan(m): 9:06am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Zikkyy: The problem lies when we start looking at "the church" as separate from us, as a group of people with hidden agenda. Imagine the sheep distrusting the shepherd and going on it's own. The major church teachings are ratified by councils, and these are a congregation of church leaders from all over the world where the church exists. Believe me, contrary views are heard, research and deliberations made in prayers and a final decision taken at the end. This is a rather more trust worthy means than relying on ones own interpretation. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Syncan(m): 9:08am On Mar 26, 2013 |
Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. What say ye? Is it scriptural or not? Go carefully through Italo's submissions on this, nothing can be more precise and correct than that. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 9:21am On Mar 26, 2013 |
italo: You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes. italo: I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false. The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible. italo: Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package. italo: I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings. italo: True. The question is, who is correct. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by debosky(m): 9:38am On Mar 26, 2013 |
italo: This question is redundant but I'll answer it yet again. The Spirit does not bring confusion - the confusion is based on incomplete understanding, selective reading or a number of other deficiencies. The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.
No I don’t - there should always be a common starting point - for Christians that is Jesus’ death that gives us salvation. That doesn’t require any interpretation.
This is possible, but what’s your point?
As I said earlier simply saying ‘the Holy Spirit’ taught me isn’t proof that the Holy Spirit indeed taught you. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Ubenedictus(m): 9:43am On Mar 26, 2013 |
italo: @ Goshen360, I think you deliberately omitted what I would call the "genesis" of this thread.lemme break it down. An open bible placed on a table or pulpit lacks d ability to interprete it self. The ethopian said to philip "how am i to understand if no one preaches to me". Paul says "faith cometh by hearing". The word needs a preacher or it is just words!!! The bible verses bear witness to dem selves but they do not interprete themselves, that is d word of d spirit thru d ministry of d church. I just left d obadiah thread and i witness a great...bible disaster by my opinion. Obadiah would use is bible to interprete and concluded dat d fowls dat died in d time of noah were d leaders, he posted another scripture were d foul were d elect. I laughed, which of them is d fowl, d elect, d rulers of the people or the literal fowl? It all comes down to d fact that those passages do not interprete themselves, even after laying precept on precept we still had 3 possible interpretation for one word: fowl. We also have so many preachers each preaching contradictory doctrines and we must ask ourselves. What was paul taking about when he said "d church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"? Is he refer to frosbel d one man church? D church they established and left their teaching authority with? Or the church as a totality of believers? |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Syncan(m): 9:49am On Mar 26, 2013 |
^^^ and of which he led by example in Gal2:1-2, where he went to get a confirmation that he "Paul" was still preaching what is true. |
Re: @ Italo, Debosky And Others - Re: Bible Study Discourse And Matters Arising by Zikkyy(m): 9:54am On Mar 26, 2013 |
italo: If you want my honest view, then i say it's a possibility. My very little understanding of church history gives the impression that what was included in scriptures was arrived at based on simple majority (or influenced majority ), so do we have the complete scriptures? i don't know. Maybe there were some other letters by apostle Paul not in wide circulation or were destroyed (poorly handled) prior to the time the church compiled the bible. italo: What's my own if Mark was not written by Mark? It's also possible that the "Acts of Peter" was scriptural. The thing is i don't have info to substantiate these possibilities. i no dey there, so I have taken a decision to accept what was presented. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
Idol Worshipping In IṢẸṢE Is Propaganda / Obama Thanks Satan, Could This Be True? / The Wrong Way To Be An Atheist
(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. 137 |