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.

 

If it is not in the Bible, what would you do?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



We where built in his Image, we have the kingdom of god inside us, we are the father the son and the holy ghost experiencing life and ego on physical level that is what allows us to verify this knowledge, but only to ourselves. A seed can only be planted in the rest .




posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

jhill76
As I read many threads here on ATS. I being to wonder, what do you do in an instance where you can not find scripture to back up a claim made by another?

Yes, the Bible can be used to base many things of this world off of, but what do you do about some specific? For instance a name of an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven, etc?

I see many people will discount something, because it is not written. But, if Father allowed all to be written, the Bible could never be read from beginning to end.

So, do you discount, or do you try to understand?


As Skorpion mentioned, there are several beliefs the church supports which are based on conclusions drawn from vague statements in the bible. His example of the Holy Trinity being made up to explain away something else that's uncomfortable is a good one.

As far as "what if it's not there", ask yourself why it's not there. The things in the bible you are reading are only some of the books that were inspired by the Abrahamic faiths. The reason you are reading the ones in your copy of the bible and not the others is because of a council that got together and decided on it. Catholics. So, in my eyes, if you believe the Catholic church is wrong, then you must also believe that the version of the bible you are reading is also wrong.

If so... wouldn't that make it a moral imperative for you to seek extra-biblical doctrine to feed your spiritual beliefs? If I were a Christian (or a Muslim or Jew, for that matter), I would think it my obligation to not take the bible as infallible and to seek other "inspired" sources in addition to what the church promotes.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
We have had other 'bibles'- the Illiad, Norse Mythologies, and more recently the Koran.
Personally I don't believe man was built in God image as this assumes there is something special with man. Yetin the last few years, whales have shown to be self aware,, monkeys make tools and pigeons can show superstitious behaviour and so the pillars of uniqueness for man are tumbling.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

jhill76
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 




The Bible is not a complete book of all things God. What is recorded from Genesis to Revelation is for man and concerning man.


Interesting. I agree with this statement as well. The inner workings of above, etc. are for above, and the Bible is for man to live life down here.

But, what do you do when information is presented that can not be easily found in the bible, but not a contradiction, just extra info?


An issue of faith. For me personally if it isn't there it is not important for me. If you can give an example that I may answer on maybe I could give a answer to a specific. From my many readings of the Bible I have found every plot to every book or movie ever portrayed on TV or at the Movies is found in the Bible. One of the first is a man dying for a woman Gen 3.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


We shouldn't just concentrate on the one christian bible and what it says, we should concentrate on the bigger picture, what all these texts tell us, what the core message is and yes they do share similar morals. Love thy neighbor, be humble yet love yourself, don't do unto others what you do not want done unto you, life is everlasting etc

You don't see anything special about us? Sure some animals can use tools, built things and form basic social structures but they do this as best to survive. The massive differences between animal and human are obvious in my opinion, not to say we are better than them, just something different the main similarity being that we are both physical living things and have the same basic building blocks.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

CosmicDude
reply to post by jhill76
 

That's an interesting question. Fact is the bible is maybe the major influence for people behaviour now and in the past, so I too wonder how things would be if there was no bible

edit on 23-11-2013 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)


Lets assume that Jesus never came and preach his message and Paul created a religion based on it helped by Roman Politicians. Rome would still need a culture to spread to gain a more homogenized empire.

Would they have created another religion based on dualistic ideas of being the right culture apposed to others. I am pretty sure they would have since they wanted to be the right team against the wrong. Would they have found other spiritual leaders that they could use as example instead of Jesus.

What about Mithras?
www.near-death.com...



The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from.


The real question would they have hidden the energy system within the body that spiritual people can manipulate or would they have hidden it? I believe they would have hidden it just like they did with Christianity since knowledge is power and subjects with power and knowledge are dangerous to rulers and manipulators.
edit on 23-11-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

RevelationGeneration
reply to post by jhill76
 


That's kind of a fallacy. In regards to an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven etc.. you have to see if what it is stacks up against scripture. As God or an angel of God will never contradict the Bible. If it does then you can know it is demonic.


How can you know when you do not know gods definition of demonic? Just because it is opposite of your view or Pauls view do not mean it is not Jesus view or gods.
edit on 23-11-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
op, christian beliefs aren't necessarily rooted in the bible. Christian doctrine and the print in the bible are 2 different things. Christians usually apply unrelated verses to suit a belief system. For example, the use of the royal plural ''we'' in genesis is used to 'prove' the trinity. The truth is that there are several direct verses which contradict the very idea of the trinity.


show us them



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


I would love to open a thread for a discussion on the TRINITY but can't at this moment (how many posts do I need? Just curious).

Claiming to be God doesn't prove much. Take for example: Lucifer wanted to be God or like God and all his followers are all claiming to be Gods. Just look around here at ATS and you might find a few claiming to be or implying that they're Gods. For Jesus to claim to be God with the direct saying, "I AM GOD" doesn't really prove much since anybody nowaday can make such claim and look at the madness. It is the deeds that He does that you need to pay careful attention to and if He does only what God can do then does He need an introduction? There you see the humility. From an unbeliever's perspective, He doesn't claim to be God and yet He does things that only God can do. Now look at the idols and false gods who claim to be God saying "I AM GOD" and can't do what God can. There is, however, a much deeper revelation that Jesus came to reveal and I'm assuming that you're a Muslim? The deeper revelation is that God is a Father and this is one title or name that Allah is not known for (why is that?).

One more thing I would like to add: Jesus does claim to be God by claiming to be the "Son of God." You will only see and understand this if you read the Bible from the culture that it was written and not looking at it from the 21st century perspective.

edit on 23-11-2013 by VoiceInTheWilderness because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 


Maybe for the same reason he wasn't called father in the bible until Jesus came along?


Muslims admit that God is the Creator of all, though.


By the way ALL Christians are Gods, sons of The Most High (Psalm 82:6) and Jesus references this (John 10:34).


The Lord's Prayer starts off with "OUR" Father in Heaven, not just Father of Jesus but "Our".
edit on 24-11-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

jhill76
As I read many threads here on ATS. I being to wonder, what do you do in an instance where you can not find scripture to back up a claim made by another?

Yes, the Bible can be used to base many things of this world off of, but what do you do about some specific? For instance a name of an angel, a message from God, a description of heaven, etc?

I see many people will discount something, because it is not written. But, if Father allowed all to be written, the Bible could never be read from beginning to end.

So, do you discount, or do you try to understand?


There is nothing new under the sun, only understood better as we go into new eras.

For instance, the world in the time the Bible was written did not have satellite TV or iPads or even internet, so how would one understand the concept of "the whole world will see at one time"? We have now entered a time when the whole world can see at one time.

People don't want the natural teaching, they only want the allegorical, and then apply allegorical in everything until it takes them to places of their own imagination, at the same time accusing believers of taking it too literal, because we can't see their imagination.

There is a place for allegory and there is a place for literal, and Zechariah proves that not all is allegory, even if he described things that were impossible for his time. But we see how it is possible now. So visions were more than allegory, it was that words could not describe what he saw.

There was no ATS in the Bible either, but this forum falls under "Come, let us reason together". There is nothing new under the sun, but people don't want to read and apply.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

arpgme
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 


Maybe for the same reason he wasn't called father in the bible until Jesus came along?


Muslims admit that God is the Creator of all, though.


By the way ALL Christians are Gods, sons of The Most High (Psalm 82:6) and Jesus references this (John 10:34).


The Lord's Prayer starts off with "OUR" Father in Heaven, not just Father of Jesus but "Our".
edit on 24-11-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Actually, God was called a Father in the OT.

God was called the Father of Israel, the nation.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

LittleByLittle

CosmicDude
reply to post by jhill76
 

That's an interesting question. Fact is the bible is maybe the major influence for people behaviour now and in the past, so I too wonder how things would be if there was no bible

edit on 23-11-2013 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)


Lets assume that Jesus never came and preach his message and Paul created a religion based on it helped by Roman Politicians. Rome would still need a culture to spread to gain a more homogenized empire.

Would they have created another religion based on dualistic ideas of being the right culture apposed to others. I am pretty sure they would have since they wanted to be the right team against the wrong. Would they have found other spiritual leaders that they could use as example instead of Jesus.

What about Mithras?
www.near-death.com...



The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from.


The real question would they have hidden the energy system within the body that spiritual people can manipulate or would they have hidden it? I believe they would have hidden it just like they did with Christianity since knowledge is power and subjects with power and knowledge are dangerous to rulers and manipulators.
edit on 23-11-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)


Can you explain how Paul helped the Roman politicians? When did Paul live and when did Rome Catholicism begin?
And here's the biggie, if the Romans were well-aware of Mithra, a Persian deity by the way, then why did the Romans not say that it was? Nero and Domitian never, ever said that Christianity was Mithras worship, and if it was, then why didn't the Romans embrace Christianity?

Would you care to go back to any original source and show us how the Romans thought of Christianity and where they thought it was Mithras? The Romans in Paul's time, never mentioned that.

But while you are at it, can you tell us which Roman Emperor made Christianity the state religion? It wasn't Constantine....


Hint..it was Theodotian.

And did you know, Domitian issued a decree that he was to be called "Dominus et Deus", which means master and god? Why didn't Domitian just go ahead and say Christianity was Mithras?

Could you please tell us also which Roman Empire was in charge during the time of Paul and then in the time of Constantine? Two branches of the Roman Empire, Constantine was head of the Byzantine (Eastern branch). So which Roman politicians was Paul helping? Nero, Domitian, Constantine or Theodotian?



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


WarminIndy: "Actually, God was called Father in the OT. God was called the Father of Israel, the nation."

Yes in a general sense but No in a personal/relational sense. One great example of this is to look at the Muslims and see how they approach Allah. Even if the Muslims acknowledge that God is the Father (in the sense that He created all things and is the Father of all) but they can not come to Allah as a loving Father. There is still a major gap between the Muslims and Allah. With Christ there is no gap.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

arpgme
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 


Maybe for the same reason he wasn't called father in the bible until Jesus came along?
Muslims admit that God is the Creator of all, though.

By the way ALL Christians are Gods, sons of The Most High (Psalm 82:6) and Jesus references this (John 10:34).

The Lord's Prayer starts off with "OUR" Father in Heaven, not just Father of Jesus but "Our".
edit on 24-11-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


I just came across this article and it affirms the point I made above how claiming to be God doesn't really prove much but instead we should focus on the deeds:



Well they knew what He was claiming, no question about it. He was claiming to be God. They were right. And as I say, the Jews got the message and a lot of people today who come around trying to tell you that Jesus never claimed to be God just don't really know as much as the blind, unbelieving Jews do. They regarded Jesus as a mere man who committed the terrible sin of claiming to be God. And this was to be punished by death. Isn't it an amazing thing, though, how unbelief disqualifies all the evidence? Isn't that interesting? Have you ever tried to talk to somebody about Christ and you've given them evidence and evidence and prophecy and science and miracles and your experience and what Christ...and they just nothing, zero, zonk, nothing. You know, unbelief eliminates all the possibility of evidence. These Jews never even considered His deeds. They were totally plagued with His blasphemous utterance and they could have cared less about what He did. They didn't even see the deeds in their perspective. They heard what they wanted to hear. He claimed to be God and they're ready to kill Him.

So we see the confrontation, the claim and the charge. Then we see the challenge. And this is really good. Jesus challenges them. He challenges them to be objective. He challenges them with objectivity. Now let me show you what I mean by this. And Jesus really takes the bull by the horns here and gives us a very good passage to use in terms of dealing with people who are considering Christ.

Now there's two different kinds of approaches to any problem. One is the subjective approach, and the other is the objective. The subjective approach means that you have a preconceived conclusion and then you accept the evidence which supports that and throw out all the rest, see. In other words, don't bother me, I have my mind made up, don't confuse me with the facts. That's the kind of attitude it is. And you know what the point is? Here you have this approach to Jesus. The Jews said, "You aren't God. You're a blasphemer therefore all your miracles didn't happen." See. Or, "The devil did them." You see, that's subjective. That's like going to your laboratory as a scientist and saying, "I think all of these ingredients will make Pepsi Cola, I know they will," and just pour it all in there and blow your brains out. That's not how you do research. You don't start with a pre-conceived conclusion and then disregard the facts. That's subjective research. Objective says, "Aha, unbiased, I take the facts and they lead to a conclusion." Jesus says, "Listen, folks, will you be objective about Me?" This is what He's going to say in these verses. "Will you just be objective. Will you get rid of this preconceived idea." This is what people do to Jesus. "Wow, Jesus isn't the Son of God." How do you know? "Well, I know He's not the Son of God." Oh, you've read...I always say to people, "You must have studied the Bible a long time to come to that conclusion." "Well, no, I haven't really studied the Bible, I just know." That...you can't come to any conclusions subjectively, all you're going to do is eliminate all the evidence because it doesn't fit your already conclusion, see.

So Jesus tells them to be objective and He does it from two angles, and I want you to see it in verse 34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law I said you're God?" By the Law He means the Old Testament, here He quotes Psalm 82:6. He says, "Well look here, fellows, you're all really bent out of shape because I claim to be God. God is only a word. I mean, God, of course, is a person, but the term that designates God, G-o-d, or whatever it may be, theos in the Greek, it's only a word, it's only a term. What are you so uptight about just because I claim to be God? I mean, after all...now watch the reasoning here...verse 34, "In your Old Testament, in your Old Testament, is it not written ye are gods?"

Now what does He mean by that? Here it comes, you've got to get this or you won't understand these three verses. In the Old Testament there were certain judges that were set to rule over Israel. They were to effect justice. And these judges had the responsibility of judging the people of Israel. They were like magistrates. They judged in the place of God who was, you know, the supreme judge. Any justice they did was God's justice. Any judgment they gave was God's judgment. Any rebellion against them was rebellion against God. They ruled in the place of God and so they were called in the Old Testament gods. It's just a term that means authority or rule. They were called gods. And so the term referred then to those judges of Israel. They received their office by divine appointment. They were called gods since they ruled in the place of God.

Now, watch verse 35, "If he called them gods, that is human judges, okay? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came...right? Those guys who were already on earth were called gods and to them the word came and the Scripture can't be broken." In other words, He throws that in lest they say, "Well, that was a mistake, didn't mean to call them gods, using the wrong word, probably the writer got mixed up." No, no, Jesus reminds them you can't mess with Scripture, that's what it says. If he called them gods and the Scripture doesn't error, if he called them gods and all they were were human judges...now look at verse 36, "Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemeth cause I said I am the Son of God?" You see what He's saying here?

These guys were on earth to start with and they were called gods. Can't I even be called Son of God when I was up there to start with? In other words, He says if your own Old Testament, fellas, if you're all bugged about this idea of calling somebody God, if your own Old Testament called human judges gods, you think maybe your Messiah might be called the Son of God? Pretty good argument. And He takes them right at the point of their law. Be objective, He says. There are many judges, there is only one Messiah, may I not have the same title that your magistrates had?

-- www.gty.org...


I recommend that you visit that link and read the rest.

EDIT: Forgive me if I went off-topic. Discussion of this kind can get very lengthy.
edit on 24-11-2013 by VoiceInTheWilderness because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 




One great example of this is to look at the Muslims and see how they approach Allah. Even if the Muslims acknowledge that God is the Father (in the sense that He created all things and is the Father of all) but they can not come to Allah as a loving Father. There is still a major gap between the Muslims and Allah.


Where did you get that from?
Muslims understand that one of God's names/titles is al-Wadoud, meaning "the All- Loving". So there is no "major gap" at all.

The relationship between a Muslim and God is like the relationship between creation and the Creator. Love is just one aspect of it, but not the only thing.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


"Where did you get that from?"

From my study of the Bible and knowing who the true and living God is. I have carefully studied the Person of Christ.

"Muslims understand that one of God's names/titles is al-Wadoud, meaning "the All- Loving". So there is no "major gap" at all.

"All-Loving" is not the same as "Is Love" or being called "Abba"



ABBA. Aramaic word for "father," which is a customary title of God in prayer. It was transliterated into Greek and then into English and is found three times in the NT (Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). The corresponding Hebrew word is Ab. The word abba is found in the Babylonian Talmud where it is used as an address of a child to his father and as a type of address to rabbis. It is equivalent to papa. This term conveys a sense of warm intimacy and also respect for the father. Because the Jews found it too presumptuous and nearly blasphemous, they would therefore never address God in this manner.

Jesus called God "Father" and gave that same right to his disciples (Mt 6:5-15). Paul sees this as symbolic of the Christian's adoption as a child of God and of possession of the Spirit (Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).
-- media.zondervan.com...




One of the most well-known statements of the Christian faith is the Lord’s Prayer, which begins with the words “Our Father which art in heaven.” This is part of the universal treasury of Christendom. When I hear Christians in a private gathering praying individually, almost every single person begins their prayer by addressing God as Father. There’s nothing more common among us than to address God as our Father. So central is this to our Christian experience that in the nineteenth century, there were some who said the basic essence of the whole Christian religion can be reduced to two points: the universal brotherhood of man and the universal fatherhood of God. In that context I am afraid we have missed one of the most radical teachings of Jesus. A few years ago, a German scholar was doing research in New Testament literature and discovered that in the entire history of Judaism—in all existing books of the Old Testament and all existing books of extrabiblical Jewish writings dating from the beginning of Judaism until the tenth century A.D. in Italy—there is not a single reference of a Jewish person addressing God directly in the first person as Father. There were appropriate forms of address that were used by Jewish people in the Old Testament, and the children were trained to address God in proper phrases of respect. All these titles were memorized, and the term Father was not among them. The first Jewish rabbi to call God “Father” directly was Jesus of Nazareth. It was a radical departure from tradition, and in fact, in every recorded prayer we have from the lips of Jesus save one, he calls God “Father.” It was for that reason that many of Jesus’ enemies sought to destroy him; he assumed to have this intimate, personal relationship with the sovereign God of heaven and the creator of all things, and he dared to speak in such intimate terms with God. What’s even more radical is that Jesus says to his people, “When you pray, you say, ‘Our Father.’” He has given to us the right and privilege to come into the presence of the majesty of God and address him as Father because indeed he is our Father. He has adopted us into his family and made us coheirs with his only begotten Son (Rom. 8:17). -- www.ligonier.org...


Adoption:

Planned by the Father (Eph 1:4-5)
Accomplished by the Son (Galatians 4:4-5)
Applied to us by the Spirit (Romans 8:15-16)
Will be revealed and consummated in the coming great day (Romans 8:19)



"If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God's child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means he does not understand Christianity very well at all." -- J.I. Packer


"The relationship between a Muslim and God is like the relationship between creation and the Creator. Love is just one aspect of it, but not the only thing."

Is Allah your heavenly Father? Is your relationship with Allah like that of a loving father and a son?
edit on 28-11-2013 by VoiceInTheWilderness because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by VoiceInTheWilderness
 


sk0rpi0n : "Where did you get that from?"

From my study of the Bible and knowing who the true and living God is. I have carefully studied the Person of Christ.
A study of the Bible/person of Christ does NOT tell you about Muslims relationship with God. So your statements about there being a "gap" are just your opinions.



"All-Loving" is not the same as "Is Love" or being called "Abba"

That doesn't change the fact that Muslims understand God as all-Loving, and so they naturally approach God as all-Loving. Calling God "Abba" (which means "Dad") is human behavior.... God will remain "all-Loving" regardless of what His creations call Him.



Is Allah your heavenly Father?

"Heavenly Father" is a purely metaphorical term used by the Israelites... to symbolize God as the Creator.
Muslims know God as the Creator, but stop short of calling God "Father", simply because "father" is a human term that is ALSO used for a man who has fathered children.

This goes against the important teaching that “There is nothing like unto Him" (Koran 42:11) . Even in the Bible we read With whom, then, will you compare God? (Isaiah 40:18). So why compare God to human fathers by calling Him "Father" ?

Either way, "Father" is simply a figure of speech, when it comes to addressing God. It is not literal, and so calling God "Abba" or "Father" doesn't make you any special in the eyes of God.



Is your relationship with Allah like that of a loving father and a son?

Do you, as a created being, submit to your Creator? Or do you tell yourself that God loves you so much that you don't need to?



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

If it is not in the Bible, what would you do?

Scripture itself says that it doesn't hold all of Jesus teaching.
Jesus Himself said that He had more to teach but the people weren't ready for it yet.
Therefore, there is a whole lotta' truth out there that isn't in the bible.

As far as the Trinity in scripture goes ... yes it's there. (non christians think they know scripture better than Christians ...it's comical). Christian scripture is MUCH more reliable of a source about the life of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit then the fictions written 600+ years later. If a person want's to know Jesus ... read the GOSPELS. Oh .. and scripture is very clear .. the Holy Spirit (also called The Paraclete) is God, part of the Trinity, and is NOT any other person... living or dead.

- It is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. For there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. 1 John 5:7

For more quotes on the Holy Spirit ... ATS Thread - YES, the Holy Spirit is in Christian Scripture and is Part of the Holy Trinity

edit on 11/29/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
double post
edit on 11/29/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join