It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Researching the historical jesus?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Congratulations on your recent nomination for the 'smart@ss comment' award. I hope you get it.


When people cannot get basic words right - what does they say about their general ability to check things and make sure they have it correct ?


Iasion




posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
What nonsense.


Remember kids, unless you agree with Iasion whole-heartedly, it's nonsense.


Originally posted by Iasion
We can just as easily say -
No-one has ever proved that Josephus is authentic.


Josephus wrote about many things. For example, coins. He period dated many coins. When archeologists have dug up coins, guess what they found? The coins he described in great detail. Surprise, surprise. One example of many. Read up on Antiquities, it's a fascinating subject of verification.


Originally posted by Iasion
History does NOT do "proof".


Very well then, yesterday you did not exist Iasion
. Funny how when history works against you, it's suddenly crap. Make up your mind.


Originally posted by Iasion
Proof is for mathematics and moonshine.


Are you writing a "Life's Little Instruction Book for Snappy Wannabe Catch-Phrases" as well? You're either a prideful math-major or have a distillery in your basement. Hard to do both however.


Originally posted by Iasion
Only fundamentalists believe the T.F. is wholy authentic.


Only oranges are found in the produce section


[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
We have no writing or evidence from ANYONE who met any historical person Jesus.

NOT ONE single Christian book was written by anyone who met any Jesus.


Dude, did you bother to read my post? Care to address it? Or do you think insisting something makes it true?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The great thing about Iasions' monologue is s/he makes such all-caps absolute statements that all I have to do is discount one of them and the credibility of the whole thing is shot. I could go through and knock down the dominoes one by one, but rather than doing so, I'll start the chain and allow the reader to dig in for the next one in the series:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. " - 2 Peter 1:16-18

Oops, try again Iasion.


2 Peter ?
Wow !

You really have absolutely no idea that this letter is considered a FORGERY by modern scholars, do you?

You have never studied NT history at all, have you saint4God ?

That's the problem with apologists - they never check the facts, they just preach their FAITHFUL BELIEFS as if they are true.

Anyone who has studied modern NT scholarship, (which saint4God clearly has not), would know that 2 Peter is the LATEST book of the whole NT and considered the LEAST reliable of the entire book !

You can study the reasons why 2 Peter is considered a forgery here :
earlychristianwritings.com...

Or,
you can read commentarys such as Brown's or Ehrman, or the New Jerome - I have read all these and more - they all agree 2 Peter was a forgery.

Here are some of the reasons why 2 Peter is considered to NOT be by Peter -


1. The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17.

This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 προγινωσκοντεσ). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the αρετη of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (θειασ κοινωνοι φυσεωσ) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term εποπται comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).


...



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
When people cannot get basic words right - what does they say about their general ability to check things and make sure they have it correct ?


It means they're better at thinking than spelling. Others are better at spelling than thinking it seems.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
...

3. The letter has a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians' expectation of the parousia. 1:12 ff already deals with the hope of the parousia, which is based on the fact of the transfiguration of Jesus and the OT prophecy. In 3:3 ff there is a direct polemic against those who deny the parousia. These ask scornfully, "Where is the promise of the parousia of Christ?" and draw attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). In I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff too, there is adduced a writing which was obviously read in Christian circles, in which is laid down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have, therefore, historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the disdainful skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff. But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis. A more exact determination is not possible, however.

4. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged. This point of view can be confirmed through two further facts.

5. As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship (see above, p. 430). The auther adduces his authority not only on the basis of the fiction of a "testament of Peter" but also by reference back to I Pet in 3:1 f, intending II Pet only to "recall" (1:12, 15; 3:1 f) what was said in I Pet to the extent that it corresponds to the interpretation which the author of II Pet wants to give to I Pet. This appeal to the apostolic authority of Peter and his letter is obviously occasioned by the sharpening of the Gnostic false teaching which is being combated in Jdue, as a result of a consistent denial of the parousia of the false teachers. In this way, the apostle has become the "guarantor of the tradition" (1:12 f), and as a consequence of the abandonment of the near expectation (3:8) the parousia is stripped of its christological character and functions as an anthropologically oriented doctrine of rewards. In its consistent quality the pseudonymity betrays the late origins of II Pet.

6. In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhwere mentioned in the second century. The apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested (αμφιβαλλεται). Eusebius lists it among the antilegomena. . . Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.


So there we have it -
the reasons why scholars agree that 2 Peter is forged.

Sadly, saint4god has NO KNOWLEDGE of what modern scholars say - instead he ignores the facts and just preaches his faithful beliefs over and over with no support except quotes from the Bible.

Only an apologist can believe that Bible stories supports other Bible stories.

I am quite sure that saint4god will NEVER read any modern NT scholars and will never even open earlychristianwritings.com.

Because then he would have to face the fact that his faithful beliefs are wrong.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
You really have absolutely no idea that this letter is considered a FORGERY by modern scholars, do you?


I am a modern scholar and don't find evidence of fogery. So what?


Originally posted by Iasion
You have never studied NT history at all, have you saint4God ?


Surely I have.


Originally posted by Iasion
That's the problem with apologists - they never check the facts, they just preach their FAITHFUL BELIEFS as if they are true.


I'll keep that in mind when I meet an apologist...but with your blanket generalizations, I doubt it to be true.


Originally posted by Iasion
Anyone who has studied modern NT scholarship, (which saint4God clearly has not),


This is a lie.


Originally posted by Iasion
You can study the reasons why 2 Peter is considered a forgery here :
earlychristianwritings.com...


You believe everything you read from there without investigation, eh?

Next time you have the urge to cut and paste, don't. I'm interested in having conversations with people.


[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Dude, did you bother to read my post? Care to address it? Or do you think insisting something makes it true?


Your faithful claims about 2 Peter?

You really have no idea that all modern NT scholars agree 2 Peter was NOT WRITTEN by Peter, do you ?

Have you ever even heard of Raymond Brown? Bart Ehrman? Bruce Metzger?

I certainly appears that you have never studied anything about modern NT scholarship.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Looks like a questionable list.


Really?
But you fail to make any questions.


Originally posted by Sun Matrix
There seems to be a problem with dates on some of the old testament books as well. This usually occurs because the prophesies are so accurate that the blind has to dispute the truth and arrive at a date after the fulfillment of the prophecy.


Very funny.
No-one but faithful Christian believers believe that nonsense.

The Jews wrote the Tanakh - they do NOT agree it has any prophecies about Jesus.

How do you explain that Sun Matrix ?

Why do the people who WROTE the book reject the claims of prophecies about Jesus in it?

Hmmm?

Did you know that the NT has many exact prophecies about Mohamed?
This proves Mohamed is Lord.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Your faithful claims about 2 Peter?

You really have no idea that all modern NT scholars agree 2 Peter was NOT WRITTEN by Peter, do you ?


Not all. Even if it were forgery, your statement that I cleary have not is still false. I've demonstrated that somewhere in the bible someone who knew Jesus wrote about him.


Originally posted by Iasion
Have you ever even heard of Raymond Brown? Bart Ehrman? Bruce Metzger?


The names don't sound familiar, but don't have reason to remember them if I did.


Originally posted by Iasion
I certainly appears that you have never studied anything about modern NT scholarship.


Appear as it may, your statement was false. Looks like your grammar is falling apart as well - "I certainly appears that you" ? Maybe you should be a little slower pointing the English language-snobbery finger next time.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Iasion
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.



"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. " - 2 Peter 1:16-18


[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]


Yeah, Peter is pretty problematic to the claim made.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion


We can just as easily say -
No-one has ever proved that Josephus is authentic.

History does NOT do "proof".
Proof is for mathematics and moonshine.



As I stated, and stand firm on, the doubt cast on the statement in Josephus's writing is mere speculation and has not been proven. You can dance around that FACT all you want, but that's the fact.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, Peter is pretty problematic to the claim made.


Not a problem to me, it's a problem to Iasion because someone did in fact write they knew Jesus in the New Testament.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

History does NOT do "proof".
Proof is for mathematics and moonshine.



P.S. If history doesn't do "proof" then every post you've made in this thread trying to state there is no proof of Jesus' existence just went out the window. I've got 4 gospels, multiple epistles (written by at least one man who spent some time with Jesus), and references from non-scriptural writers. You've just the argument that just fell through the floorboards...because history does NOT do "proof".

I think I just witnessed logical suicide.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
P.S. If history doesn't do "proof" then every post you've made in this thread trying to state there is no proof of Jesus' existence just went out the window. I've got 4 gospels, multiple epistles (written by at least one man who spent some time with Jesus), and references from non-scriptural writers. You've just the argument that just fell through the floorboards...because history does NOT do "proof".

I think I just witnessed logical suicide.


Where is the "Way Above Top Secret Award" button? I can't seem to find it. Did they do away with it or have I used all my votes for the month?



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Remember kids, unless you agree with Iasion whole-heartedly, it's nonsense.


What bollocks.
Unless you can provide EVIDENCE for claims, they are nonsense.

I provide evidence for my claims.
saint4God just preaches and quotes the Bible.



Originally posted by saint4God
Josephus wrote about many things. For example, coins. He period dated many coins. When archeologists have dug up coins, guess what they found? The coins he described in great detail. Surprise, surprise. One example of many. Read up on Antiquities, it's a fascinating subject of verification.


What?
What does this have to do with Jesus?
NOTHING.

Here we see clearly that saint4God has no evidence for Jesus - so he blusters on about coins etc.

So what?
We are not discussing coins - do you think we are arguing about whether coins existed?

admin edit: removed cildish name calling/off topic and worthless rudeness.\

We are arguing about evidence for Jesus, and the fact that the T.F. is considered tampered with, or totally forged.

That's the best "evidence" apologists have for Jesus - a passage that has been TAMPERED with, or FORGED.




Originally posted by saint4God
Very well then, yesterday you did not exist Iasion
. Funny how when history works against you, it's suddenly crap. Make up your mind.



admin edit: removed cildish name calling/off topic and worthless rudeness.

History is not about "proof".
History is about evidence.
We form conclusions based on evidence.

There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus.
There is NO evidence of ANYONE who met any Jesus.

That's why saint4God is forced to bluster and dance around with irrelevent nonsense - in the hope we can avoid the nasty fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus.

saint4God cannot present any, so he is forced to play games.



Originally posted by saint4God
Are you writing a "Life's Little Instruction Book for Snappy Wannabe Catch-Phrases" as well? You're either a prideful math-major or have a distillery in your basement. Hard to do both however.



admin edit: removed cildish name calling/off topic and worthless rudeness.

This is a well-known phrase.

So,
page after page - saint4God insults and blusters and waffles on - anything to avoid the facts :

There is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus.

NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.
That is the view of modern NT scholars.

saint4God will never ever even bother to read one.
Instead he will keep on preaching his faithfule beliefs.


Iasion


[edit on 8-31-2007 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

The Jews wrote the Tanakh - they do NOT agree it has any prophecies about Jesus.

How do you explain that Sun Matrix ?

Why do the people who WROTE the book reject the claims of prophecies about Jesus in it?

Hmmm?


You have made this entirely too easy. I think you should ask the Jew, why it is prophesied that they would reject the Messiah. We know the reason for that also if you get confused. We can find mention of Jesus all through the Old Testament as Jesus is the fulfillment.


Psalms 118:19-29
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.







Did you know that the NT has many exact prophecies about Mohamed?
This proves Mohamed is Lord.
Iasion


I challenge you to produce this exact prophecy about Mohamed in the New Testament.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I am a modern scholar...


I don't believe you.
Please list the papers you have had published.
please tell us the university where you lecture.
Please list the books you have written.
Please give your real name so I can check your published papers.
Please list some scholars who consider you a scholar.



Originally posted by saint4God
and don't find evidence of fogery. So what?


What ?!

You don't FIND the evidence of forgery?

I POSTED the evidence from Kummel - right here in this thread -
but you couldn't FIND it? Even though it was right under your nose?

I linked to the page which gave the arguments against 2 Peter -
but you couldn't FIND it?

You pretend to be a scholar -
but then you claim you CAN'T FIND the evidence - evidence that is POSTED HERE on the thread, evidence that is available online, evidence that is found in any NT commentary.


How pathetic -
what you really mean is - you IGNORE the evidence, you REJECT the evidence, you won't even LOOK at the evidence.

I POSTED the evidence right here.
You pretended you cound't even FIND it.

A more perfect example of a closed-mind could not be imagined.



Originally posted by saint4God
Surely I have.


Well,
your posts show ignorance of basic NT scholarship - e.g. you seem to have NO IDEA that 2 Peter is a pseudo-graph.

Have you read Brown? Ehrman? Metzger? Fitzmyer?

Please list the modern NT scholars you have read.


Iasion



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

You really have no idea that all modern NT scholars agree 2 Peter was NOT WRITTEN by Peter, do you ?


I'm assuming you'll prove that, right? You're almost required to at this point in order to keep a horse in this race. Seriously, you've "gorded yourself in the vugular jein and you're hemorrhoiding to death" as we speak.

[edit on 8-31-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
What bollocks.


Remember kids, unless you agree with Iasion whole-heartedly, it's nonsense.


Originally posted by Iasion
Unless you can provide EVIDENCE for claims, they are nonsense.


I did, you said no where in the Bible and I showed you where. Just because you doubt the validity doesn't mean it isn't there. Close your eyes all you want, it still exists.


Originally posted by Iasion
I provide evidence for my claims.


You provide cut and paste from a website you think is true.


Originally posted by Iasion
saint4God just preaches


Thank you, but you're the monologuer, I'm the dialoguer. Take a look back a few posts.


Originally posted by Iasion
and quotes the Bible.


You wanted me to



Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by saint4God
Josephus wrote about many things. For example, coins. He period dated many coins. When archeologists have dug up coins, guess what they found? The coins he described in great detail. Surprise, surprise. One example of many. Read up on Antiquities, it's a fascinating subject of verification.


What?
What does this have to do with Jesus?
NOTHING.


Let me break it down for ya. If people doubt the accuracy of Josephus, one must look at all he wrote and see if validation could be attributed to his works. If yes, he's less likely to "make stuff up" for one small section if the rest is fact. It's possible, but improbable.


Originally posted by Iasion
Here we see clearly that saint4God has no evidence for Jesus - so he blusters on about coins etc.


I don't care who you try to rally for your cause Iasion.


Originally posted by Iasion
So what?
We are not discussing coins - do you think we are arguing about whether coins existed?


See above.


Originally posted by Iasion
What childish stupidity this is.


You're the one having a conversation with someone who is uttering "childish stupidity". What does that make you?


Originally posted by Iasion
We are arguing about evidence for Jesus, and the fact that the T.F. is considered tampered with, or totally forged.

That's the best "evidence" apologists have for Jesus - a passage that has been TAMPERED with, or FORGED.


Even if it is, your statement is still false.


Originally posted by Iasion
More childish nonsense.
You seem to have no understanding of simple concepts.


You're repeating yourself Iasion. Why? Are you not very convincing the first time? Does it make you feel better suggesting you have understanding of 'complex' concepts?


Originally posted by Iasion
History is not about "proof".
History is about evidence.
We form conclusions based on evidence.


Keep tap-dancing, the show is already over.


Originally posted by Iasion
There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus.
There is NO evidence of ANYONE who met any Jesus.


Play it again Sam, maybe someone will start listening to the tune.


Originally posted by Iasion
That's why saint4God is forced to bluster and dance around with irrelevent nonsense - in the hope we can avoid the nasty fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus.


I have evidence already, sorry that you do not.


Originally posted by Iasion
saint4God cannot present any, so he is forced to play games.


It isn't my job to present any ^_^


Originally posted by Iasion
Idiot.


This I will ask for a warning from the moderators. If not, I'll be sending them word shortly. I don't care but that kind of tongue is out of line for others on ATS.


Originally posted by Iasion
So,
page after page - saint4God insults and blusters and waffles on - anything to avoid the facts :

There is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus.


Play it again Sam, the record seems to be broken.


Originally posted by Iasion
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.


You've no proof otherwise...because it's history.


Originally posted by Iasion
That is the view of modern NT scholars.


Of 3 of them it seems. How many more you got? I'm 1 who says otherwise, I'm sure there's more.


Originally posted by Iasion
saint4God will never ever even bother to read one.
Instead he will keep on preaching his faithfule beliefs.


You're starting to bore me with the repetition.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join