11-22-2009, 05:26 AM
|
#16
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Stupid cow wrote
Uh, I just cut and paste a rather detailed weighing of the known historical evidence to show that there is no obvious mistake at work. If you don't agree, I am afraid that you will have to consult the primary sources involved and see what you think doesn't add up.
Huh? What does this mean? Romulus as in Romulus and Remus? There is no wolf suckling abandoned brothers on the road to Emmaus. There is no great city being founded. There are two grieving followers of Jesus walking and talking, whom he joins and, eventually, reveals himself to.
Well, it kinda is since we know there was at least one census for sure that fits the time period and strong evidence for others. Again, I would review the source I provided. However, there are 32,000 others on Google which treat the same material-- some of them, of course, are crap, but a lot of what you will find is scholarly and worth considering.
I think it is also important for you to know that while every Christian loves the Gospels, and many do probably think every word of them must be true, as written, the Church never has. Obviously, as spiritual biographies they contain a great deal of historical matter. But all the doctrines of Christianity were first recorded and reported to us by Paul. People tend to lose sight of the fact that Paul comes first in time and in most cases, nearness to the events recorded, even though the Gospels are placed first in the New Testament. If you look at the Nicene creed (or the Apostle's creed) you will note what the irreducible core doctrines of Christianity are. You won't find a word there about Christ's birth, beyond that he was born of the Virgin Mary.
I'm sorry. I fail to see the significance of this. This has been true since the beginning of time-- cultural and religious adaptations occur as people and movements grow and go their own way. Why do you think this is particularly important?
It most certainly does have to do with the forgiveness of sins! It has everything to do with the forgiveness of sin. Any Christian who doesn't know this is seriously uninformed. It cleanses one from all sins committed prior to baptism (which is why in the early centuries of Christianity, people like Constantine put off being baptized until they were on their death beds, figuring that that would ensure them a free pass to heaven. They were wrong. At Baptism one is joined to Christ and marked as his own. Christ is the Church. It is his body.
This is what the Catholic Catechism says and you will find precious little disagreement among any Catholic, Orthodox or mainline Protestant denominations:
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."
1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ ...
John was surprised by that too. But read the Gospel account of his baptism and see!
|
Thanks for more examples that show your whole story is a batshit bananagram whose only strength is that many people have fallen for it (or been forced to fall for it). This is not just my delusion; five out of six people worldwide think you and your cross-dressing pals are deranged.
You are a merchant of lunacy and since, as you yourself have observed, my current lunacy level is more than adequate, I am not buying your toxic product. Have you considered partnering with Union Carbide?
Bad hateful cow, bad.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 05:34 AM
|
#17
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
An atheist asking a theist for credible evidence is like a scientist asking a redneck to explain how aliens travel between galaxies.
By the way, would a Saul-Paul type of conversion be believed in modern times? If a Nazi who had been known to persecute Jews claimed he had had a vision of YAWEH on the road to Dachau and wanted to convert, would he be well received?
|
Yes, he would be very well received ... into one of his own mass graves.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 10:18 AM
|
#18
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 894
|
Quote:
Lily wrote
Demi- There is direct historical evidence of several censuses. That is information that I linked you to and which can be found in a thousand places. The paper I linked you to is a very interesting look at how historians arrive at the dates of Jesus life and ministry. There are unknowns. Nevertheless, it is the fact of various censuses that helps pinpoint the date of Jesus' birth.
|
Like I said, Luke used the knowledge that there were censuses done regularly to make Jesus come to Bethlehem. None of the other gospel writers mention it and none of the primary historians (like Josephus) mention it at the time of Jesus' birth. Like many historians today I think he was trying to figure out when Jesus was born and made a stab at it (obviously he wasn't actually there at Jesus' birth so there was no way he could have confirmed it).
Quote:
Lily wrote
Utter nonsense. Even without mentioning a single similiarity (and no, in an era of foot travel, people meeting on a road is not a similarity in any meaningful sense of the word) the idea is preposterous. But lay out the similarities and we'll see.
|
Perhaps I wasn't clear. As Carrier tells it, in the Romulus myth Romulus is seen by people on the road after his death. As in Luke the sight of Romulus frightened people, thinking he was a ghost, then Romulus then tells the Romans that he came down to found this great empire, and is then taken up into heaven (to see the full story read Plutarch's Romulus). Carrier says that although we cannot say Luke copied the Romulus story, he seems to have incorporated some elements of it into his gospel.
Quote:
Lily wrote
This is thoroughly old news. The most recent book I know of to rehash this stuff, David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History (2004 or 2005) plows this ground too. Of course Jesus was thoroughly a Jew.
|
I see you still haven't grasped the full meaning of the documentary. The Jesus that is portrayed in the gospels is thoroughly Jewish, yet later Christians (especially Paul) removed the importance of his Jewishness and made him into a gentile hero. It emphasized his dying and rising as the important thing, not his Jewish teachings. His teachings have also been disassociated with Judaism (in the gospels Jesus is seen to be the opposite of the Pharisees) when in actually his teachings are completely Jewish in origin. And finally, the gospels increasingly put the blame on the Jews for Jesus' death, as if Jesus was rejected by his own people.
Quote:
Lily wrote
Paul changed nothing. This is so old and so tired a charge! Paul, himself a Jew's Jew, would have had to be quite the magician to pull that off.
|
Paul proposed overriding the law of Moses with the new testament of Jesus Christ. I figure that's about an un-Jewish as one can get as a true Jew lives and dies by the Torah. Even if Jesus can somehow be shown to be the messiah it still doesn't follow as a messiah was supposed to be a warrior-king in the line of David (a human being, not a god or demigod) who frees the Jews from foreign oppression and establishes peace. Nothing about the messiah suggests a dying-and-rising redeemer.
Quote:
Lily wrote
Did Paul invent Peter and the other apostles as well? Did he invent each of the independent sources that led to the writing of the Gospels within 30-60 years after the crucifixion? What about the book of Acts? Many of the historical details have been confirmed by external sources. If all of this was made up, then Paul was a really, really good liar. That he could create the details surrounding Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and turn the whole thing into a dominant world religion that would last for over 2000 years and counting is quite an accomplishment. Quite honestly, it’s just not a theory worth taking seriously.
|
I said Paul converted Jesus the Jew into Jesus the Christ, not that he made up the entire religion. He changed the focus of Jesus, he turned a Jewish teacher and philosopher into a dying-and-rising savior and made that the core of his theology. Note that virtually everything Paul talks about is Jesus' savior role; he rarely mentions anything about Jesus' life before his death, nor does he preach anything that Jesus taught. If it wasn't for Paul, Jesus would be regarded as just a wise Jewish teacher (and he ought to be). As the narrator says, one day Jesus will hopefully be taken back by the Jews as one of their greatest teachers.
Religion - it gives people hope in a world torn apart by religion.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 10:33 AM
|
#19
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Demigod79 wrote
As the narrator says, one day Jesus will hopefully be taken back by the Jews as one of their greatest teachers.
|
After 2000 years? fat chance!
The rest of this and your summary of the attempts to explain away the historical record simply won't do the job of debunking that you hope they will. This stuff has been studied and argued about for 2000 years. You need to actually read some of the majority scholars, instead of only the guys on the fringe.
Quote:
Demigod79 wrote
Perhaps I wasn't clear. As Carrier tells it, in the Romulus myth Romulus is seen by people on the road after his death. As in Luke the sight of Romulus frightened people, thinking he was a ghost, then Romulus then tells the Romans that he came down to found this great empire, and is then taken up into heaven (to see the full story read Plutarch's Romulus). Carrier says that although we cannot say Luke copied the Romulus story, he seems to have incorporated some elements of it into his gospel.
|
There is no such story in Plutarch. Not even the hint of one. Now it may be that I am completely blind but Plutarch's chapter on Romulus isn't that long. I don't think I could miss it. Have you actually read it or are you depending on Carrier's word for it?
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 12:45 PM
|
#20
|
Guest
|
I must say that I have spent a rainy, dreary morning/early afternoon in a most enjoyable way, thanks to trying to hunt down Carrier’s story. I dug out my old (and I do mean old) History of Rome text book reviewed it, reread Plutarch and Livy on Romulus and yes, I now know what Carrier was talking about (sort of). I was thrown off by your reference to Oblonga. It all fell into place when I realized you were mishearing “Alba Longa”. Carrier is full of hot air, of course. Keeping in mind that Plutarch was writing in 75 A.D. about a mythological founder of Rome (one of several), the story he tells is this: in the 38th year of his reign, Romulus who had become increasingly autocratic and unpopular, was out haranguing the Senate and people of Rome one day when a nasty storm blew up that sent the people running for cover. The Senate, however, stayed in place. When the storm blew over and the people returned, there was neither hide nor hair of Romulus to be seen. Plutarch writes:
The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god."
He tells us further that while some people rejoiced, the others were certain that the senators had killed the king. The matter was grave and, Plutarch writes, it took a patrician friend of Romulus to quiet things down which he did by taking an oath that he had met the ghost of Romulus “looking taller and comelier than ever” while travelling (presumably between Alba Longa and Rome, the text doesn’t say). Further more, the ghost tells Proclus (the friend) to tell the people that he was now a god.* Sorry, I am not seeing anything but the most superficial parallels. The patrician Romans all claimed to be descended from gods so there is nothing new there. Proclus claims to have seen a ghost not a real man, etc. I have put the rest of the passage below, so that you can compare it with the gospel story.
*Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 12:58 PM
|
#21
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Did Jesus have a circumcised cock?
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 01:18 PM
|
#22
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
Yes, and it was written that it would grow three times.
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 01:57 PM
|
#23
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
Kate wrote
Yes, and it was written that it would grow three times.
|
There was the pissing cock, that wrote His name all over the desert; The raping spunking cock, that He used on His mum; & the dripping syphilitic cock He exposed to innocent passers by.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 02:56 PM
|
#24
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Bovina wrote
...
...
He tells us further that while some people rejoiced, the others were certain that the senators had killed the king. The matter was grave and, Plutarch writes, it took a patrician friend of Romulus to quiet things down which he did by taking an oath that he had met the ghost of Romulus “looking taller and comelier than ever” while travelling (presumably between Alba Longa and Rome, the text doesn’t say). ...
...
oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; ...
|
No wonder you can't keep your stories straight, you apparently only read every fifth word.
Bad hateful evil cow.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 03:00 PM
|
#25
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
Kate wrote
Yes, and it was written that it would grow three times.
|
you wouldn't deny it though
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 06:16 PM
|
#26
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 894
|
Quote:
Lily wrote
After 2000 years? fat chance!
The rest of this and your summary of the attempts to explain away the historical record simply won't do the job of debunking that you hope they will. This stuff has been studied and argued about for 2000 years. You need to actually read some of the majority scholars, instead of only the guys on the fringe.
|
It's called biblical criticism, which only really took off during the enlightenment (17th century and onwards) but which has gained a lot of traction since. The commentators in the documentary are anything but "fringe" scholars (both Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and James Tabor are well-established scholars -- look them up if you don't believe me). I can understand why you would dismiss them (Ratzinger himself spoke out against contemporary biblical scholarship) but it doesn't mean their ideas are not credible.
Quote:
Lily wrote
I must say that I have spent a rainy, dreary morning/early afternoon in a most enjoyable way, thanks to trying to hunt down Carrier’s story. I dug out my old (and I do mean old) History of Rome text book reviewed it, reread Plutarch and Livy on Romulus and yes, I now know what Carrier was talking about (sort of). I was thrown off by your reference to Oblonga. It all fell into place when I realized you were mishearing “Alba Longa”...
He tells us further that while some people rejoiced, the others were certain that the senators had killed the king. The matter was grave and, Plutarch writes, it took a patrician friend of Romulus to quiet things down which he did by taking an oath that he had met the ghost of Romulus “looking taller and comelier than ever” while travelling (presumably between Alba Longa and Rome, the text doesn’t say). Further more, the ghost tells Proclus (the friend) to tell the people that he was now a god.* Sorry, I am not seeing anything but the most superficial parallels. The patrician Romans all claimed to be descended from gods so there is nothing new there. Proclus claims to have seen a ghost not a real man, etc. I have put the rest of the passage below, so that you can compare it with the gospel story.
|
Yeah, I was just about to mention it (sorry for the confusion, been a while since I looked at it). Anyways, the only point that I was making was the similarity between meeting Jesus/Romulus on the road after their deaths. As Carrier said we cannot say for sure that Luke copied the story from Romulus, just that he may have incorporated some elements of the story from it.
Anyways, to get the thread back on-topic, there are still the other questions you haven't addressed, such as the Jew's claim that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecy, as well as the demonization of the Jews in the bible (leading to the demonization of the Jews in real life). From what I can see the Jews have every reason to believe that Jesus was not the messiah as he did not establish God's kingdom on earth. This was also something that I doubted, even when I was a Christian. Jesus' coming and dying didn't really seem to have changed anything - the world and its people still seemed unredeemed. I also think the demonization of the Jews was also mostly political - with all the trouble that the Jews had made in the first and second centuries it was important to de-emphasize the Jewishness of Christianity if you wanted to sell it to the Romans.
Religion - it gives people hope in a world torn apart by religion.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 06:38 PM
|
#27
|
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
you wouldn't deny it though
|
I'm not that desperate.
"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 08:04 PM
|
#28
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Demigod79 wrote
It's called biblical criticism, which only really took off during the enlightenment (17th century and onwards) but which has gained a lot of traction since. The commentators in the documentary are anything but "fringe" scholars (both Jerome Murphy-O'Connor and James Tabor are well-established scholars -- look them up if you don't believe me).
|
I know what biblical criticism is; I have been reading it for 30 years. Demi, you haven't read widely enough. You are reading a far too narrow selection of scholars, so you aren't really hearing the full range of arguments. (I have not said that your guys aren't fine scholars. Bart Ehrman is also a fine scholar whom you should probably read. But he is ultimately wrong, I believe in the things that matter most.) You need to look at the first rate conservative scholars like N.T. Wright, Raymond Brown, F.F. Bruce, Richard B. Hays, James Dunn, Ben Witherington and a whole host of others who are careful historians and accept the historicity of most of the Gospel accounts. How did they come to their conclusions? You should know this, in order to test the reliability of the conclusions the "liberals" have come to.
Quote:
Yeah, I was just about to mention it (sorry for the confusion, been a while since I looked at it). Anyways, the only point that I was making was the similarity between meeting Jesus/Romulus on the road after their deaths. As Carrier said we cannot say for sure that Luke copied the story from Romulus, just that he may have incorporated some elements of the story from it.
|
Apart from the fact that there is nothing but the most superficial resemblance, Plutarch was writing in 75 AD. The most commonly accepted dates for Luke's Gospel is 70-80 A.D. The idea that Luke copied from Plutarch is as plausible as the idea that Plutarch copied from Luke. Or maybe both ideas are preposterous.
Quote:
Anyways, to get the thread back on-topic, there are still the other questions you haven't addressed, such as the Jew's claim that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecy, as well as the demonization of the Jews in the bible (leading to the demonization of the Jews in real life). From what I can see the Jews have every reason to believe that Jesus was not the messiah as he did not establish God's kingdom on earth.
|
Yes, that is certainly what the Jews were expecting. And when the disciples tried to cast Jesus into the expected role, they were usually amazed at his response. On one occasion, you will recall, Peter rebuked him when Jesus told him that he was going to suffer and die, which provoked the famous "get behind me satan" response. Really, the issue is not that there were lots of prophecies, that Jesus did or did not fulfill. There were. But the prophecies were pointers; they were not the full revelation of what God intended to do. The disciples themselves did not get it at first. Everything Jesus said and did, extends the notion of messiahship well beyond anything his followers (or other Jews) expected. In fact, we are told that it was only after his Resurrection that Jesus explained to them fully just how the scriptures (the Old Testament, of course) had pointed to him. But just to look at one obvious way in which he overthrows their expectations, there is this parable that Mark records:
"With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade" (Mark 4:30-32).
They may have expected a triumphant general marching in to overthrow all enemies but this parable makes it clear that the kingdom will begin like a tiny seed, that will eventually end up as a giant plant. When? When the time comes. This lines up perfectly well with the prophecy in Ezekiel:
"I myself will take a sprig
from the lofty top of a cedar;
I will set it out.
I will break off a tender one
from the topmost of its young twigs;
I myself will plant it
on a high and lofty mountain.
On the mountain height of Israel
I will plant it,
in order that it may produce boughs and bear fruit,
and become a noble cedar.
Under it every kind of bird will live;
in the shade of its branches will nest
winged creatures of every kind. (Ezek 17:22-23)
The Gospels are full of these surprising revelations that overthrow what the Jews were expecting, in favor of something far grander and more lasting than an earthly kingdom.
Quote:
This was also something that I doubted, even when I was a Christian. Jesus' coming and dying didn't really seem to have changed anything - the world and its people still seemed unredeemed.
|
What should it have changed? I think it is hard to look at world history wherever Christianity has reigned and not see some small improvements. We don't (most of us) approve of slavery anymore, nor do we set men to killing each other in Shea stadium for our amusement. But far more to the point, the work of becoming like Christ starts over in each new human born. It isn't cumulative, where individuals are concerned. Each individual must be redeemed and, as CS Lewis pointed out, each and every human is destined to become either a creature so perfect, so glorious as to be beyond any imagining, or a horror such as one meets only in nightmares, if at all. (I am paraphrasing but that is reasonably close.)
Quote:
I also think the demonization of the Jews was also mostly political - with all the trouble that the Jews had made in the first and second centuries it was important to de-emphasize the Jewishness of Christianity if you wanted to sell it to the Romans.
|
The Jewishness of Christianity could scarcely be de-emphasized. As I pointed out earlier, the demographic evidence seems to suggest that most Jews converted to Christianity. (However, historical demography is notoriously a slippery subject) The worst of the demonization of the Jews qua Jews probably started later, as Christianity spread beyond the nations of the diaspora. Ancient literature is somewhat helpful helpful on this subject. The Germanic tribes had a very strong "comitatus" ethic which made disloyalty to the king (really, dirty tribal leaders with grandiose notions) the most serious of betrayals. I see a lot of that thinking driving attitudes towards the Jews at a later period. Of course, by the time the Middle Ages come around, there was a real fear that tolerating those who had betrayed Christ (thus, rejecting God) would, if tolerated, call down God's wrath on the whole nation. But this is a subject for someone else to speak to. I am not up to anything more than these gross generalities.
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 08:56 PM
|
#29
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
Kate wrote
Yes, and it was written that it would grow three times.
|
That's amazing! Once for his father. Once for his son. Once for some horny goat. My faith in Him has grown three sizes this day.
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
11-22-2009, 08:58 PM
|
#30
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
dogpet wrote
There was the pissing cock, that wrote His name all over the desert; The raping spunking cock, that He used on His mum; & the dripping syphilitic cock He exposed to innocent passers by.
|
Yes, I remember reading about that in the Bible, something about "blessed are the piss makers".
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 PM.
|