Jump to content

Um A Little Help From The Knowledgable


Matt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heya peeps, havent been on in a while.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/questweek.html

 

This is gotquestions.org a christians websites, response to did jesus really exist. Could anyone provide simple knowledge in each verse. Ive tried reading some of what people have said on the jesphoes guy, but nobody had explains the verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

 

Please read the other verses in gotquestions.org's response by Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger,The Babylonian Talmud ,Lucian of Samosata ,Mara Bar-Serapion to if jesus existed. Please provide a response other then simply Its not true, lol. As you probably know im 16 and sceptic, searching for the answers. At this time i have moved on to the existance of Jesus and accounts of him as my next stop on my journey of knowledge. :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heya peeps, havent been on in a while.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/questweek.html

 

This is gotquestions.org a christians websites, response to did jesus really exist. Could anyone provide simple knowledge in each verse. Ive tried reading some of what people have said on the jesphoes guy, but nobody had explains the verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

 

Please read the other verses in gotquestions.org's response by Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger,The Babylonian Talmud ,Lucian of Samosata ,Mara Bar-Serapion to if jesus existed. Please provide a response other then simply Its not true, lol. As you probably know im 16 and sceptic, searching for the answers. At this time i have moved on to the existance of Jesus and accounts of him as my next stop on my journey of knowledge. :vent:

 

Hey Matt....just a question:

 

How would Jesus existence/non-existence affect you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read the other verses in gotquestions.org's response by Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger,The Babylonian Talmud ,Lucian of Samosata ,Mara Bar-Serapion to if jesus existed. Please provide a response other then simply Its not true, lol. As you probably know im 16 and sceptic, searching for the answers. At this time i have moved on to the existance of Jesus and accounts of him as my next stop on my journey of knowledge. :vent:

You're making the same mistake as all cults and religions that have started the last couple of hundred years.

 

In newspaper you can read about the Church of Jehovas Witness. That means according to your POV the Jehovas Witness have a true religion. Whatever JW says, it must be true, since the paper is making a reference to them.

 

All these people you're talking about are referring to an organization that believed something. If Pliny for instance said that there was a group of people believing that Santa Claus existed and was riding a sled, in your mind then, Santa Claus must exist. All these are third, fourth, fifth generation references. Out of these people you're mentioning, who met Jesus eye to eye? None! They're not eyewitnesses, and they didn't even live or write when Jesus supposedly lived and died! So how can you count their reference to a church at that time as a proof of Jesus? The only thing it proves is that there was a Christian Church, which no one denies. But does it mean the Church was right just because it existed? Well then, all other religions ever invented must be true with the same measurement, and all they believed must be true, because they have either existed or still exists today, or someone has written something about them.

 

You can't stretch the truth to go further than the facts take you.

 

At the best, those references would only be considered circumstantial, and hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider another view to this, Jerusalem was destroyed 70 CE, and any eyewitness or document or artifact that would have proven Jesus existence were destroyed with it.

 

Now, ask yourself, who (in the spiritual realm) was responsible for this? If God exists, why didn't he prevent this from happening? Was it part of his plan? Did he want the evidence to be destroyed? If that's the case, why? Is it because he wants you to believe against evidence and facts, and not trust facts at all? Or is the simpler solution that he's not all-powerful, or maybe he doesn't exist at all, or the events never happened? You can see there are many options here, and it's only about what you want to believe, not what you can prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matt. The first reference that you cite is commonly referred to as the "Testimonium Flavianum" from Josephus' Antiquities. We have gone over this thing many times here. Heimdall addressed this as well as anyone I have read, so I'll cut and paste his article on it. It's rather detailed, but you said you weren't looking for a quick, trite answer. The biggest argument against it's authenticity to me is the fact that this passage was "discovered" in the fourth century by Eusebius.

 

So, here is Heimdall's excellent article on this:

 

In 93 CE, Flavius Josephus published his “Antiquities of the Jewish” in which we find the infamous “Testimonium Flavianum“ or officially “Antiquities 18.3.3” which is quoted below:

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

 

 

The Testimonium Flavianum is contentious for various reasons. Very few scholars accept it as is currently written, but many do accept it with interpolations of varying degrees. The major question here is what are the interpolations or is the entire Testimonium a forgery inserted no earlier than the 4th century CE by a Christian with an agenda? I find the likelihood of a pious Jews such a Josephus to pen the phrase “He was the Messiah” and remain a Jew extremely low. It would also be unlikely that an author writing a history of the Jewish people for Roman consumption and with the backing of the Roman Emperor to write something that would make him suspect of treason and open him up to the prerequisite punishments of such a charge. In “Wars of the Jews”, published prior to “Antiquities”, he had made the statement that Vespasian had fulfilled the Messianic oracles. Hardly the statement of a Jew converted to Christianity! Origen, wrote twice that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Either the passage “Antiquities 18.3.3 (the Testimonium) received a few interpolations or it is entirely an interpolation. The phrases “He was the Christ”, “If it be lawful to call him a man” and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" are the ones most often not accepted by those favoring partial authenticity. Even the name assigned to the passage, “Testimonium Flavianum” has a Christian ring to it, much like a Christian testimony. There as many points made against the validity of the passage, some of the more important are:

 

Josephus’ use of the phrase “to this day” is considered indicative of a writer writing long after the events being reported. Many Christians believe a span of 60 years between the death of Jesus and the publishing of “Antiquities” would be too close for Josephus to made a believable use of it and that the very survival of Christianity that long , would cause some surprise, since most cults vanish shortly after the death of their founders. This argument is very weak when you consider many of the modern cults like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc that are around and thriving long after the death of their founders.

Josephus’ description of Jesus is unusually shorter than his norm, less than half the size of John the Baptist’s. The Christian rebuttal to this is that it only serves to show Jesus’ lack of importance to populace of Judea at that time, that John and others such as the “Egyptian” were much better know, thus rated larger descriptions. This really doesn’t wash, because the “Antiquities” was targeted to a Roman audience who ould not have known John, Jesus, or the “Egyptian” from Adam, consequently Josephus gave in detail information on his characters. Something that he did not do in the “Testimonium”

 

When writing the “Jewish War” in the 70s CE, Josephus outlined two incidents in the section on Pilate that he used to begin chapter 3 of Book 18 of the Antiquities, incidents that had caused tumult in Judea during Pilate’s tenure as Governor. Whereas these incidents are followed immediately by the “Testimonium” in the Antiquities, in the corresponding section of the Jewish Wars (2.9/169/177) there is no mention at all of Jesus. Christian scholars argue that in the intervening decade between the books, that Christianity had become more important. This is highly unlikely since interpolations of the number of Christians in the late 1st century and 2nd century (based on number of Bishops and average number of churches under a Bishop and average church membership) indicate that only by the end of the 2nd century CE did the number of Christians reach over 100,000 out of a population of several millions in the Empire

 

The language Josephus used to describe John, although over twice as lengthy, when compared to the language of the “Testimonium” is extremely close, almost as if it were used as a template for the “Testimonium’s” description of Jesus. This is indicative of there being no reference to Jesus at all in the original version of Antiquities.

 

There is an ancient table of contents in the “Antiquities” that omits mention of the “Testimonium”; this is further indication that there was no such passage in the original version (this table of contents shows in the oldest existing manuscripts).

 

It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ." This is another reason to suspect this passage to be a later insertion. It was considered poor form in Josephus day to spell out a connection that was taken for granted.

 

The “Testimonium” seems to be out of context with the rest of Antiquities 18, whereas Josephus had be speaking of upheavals and the folly of Jewish rebels, governors and troublemakers, but there is no upheaval shown in this passage and it is completely supportive of Jesus and his followers. Contrary to his normal writing, there is no criticism of Jewish or Roman authorities; there is no moral or lesson. The closest the passage comes to criticism is in his statement, “and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross”, which if you cross your eyes and squint real hard, might look like criticism, and again might not. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. At best, with the “Testimonium” the flow from the previous paragraph to the “Testimonium” to the following paragraph is choppy and gives the impression of being not quite thought out. Without the “Testimonium” the flow from the previous paragraph to the final paragraph is natural and smooth, but the flow.

 

The passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. It is also argued that the continuity of the flanking passages works best when no passage about Jesus intervenes. The final thought of the previous paragraph flows naturally into the words of the one following, whereas the opening of the latter paragraph does not fit as a follow-up to the closing sentence of the Testimonium.

 

None of the early Christians cite the “Testimonium” in their works, not Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius,

nor Lactantius. Although each of these writers show familiarity with the works of Josephus, as pointed out by Michael Hardwick in “Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius”. Origen used passages from the Antiquities to establish the historicity of John the Baptist and would have been eager to quote the Antiquities to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Interestingly, It was for the purpose of proving that Jesus performed true miracles, not to establish his historicity, that Eusebius quoted the “Testimonium” in his “Evangelical Demonstration”. So we can show that the early Church Fathers would have gladly quoted an existing “Testimonium”. This is an absence of proof, but strong evidence of the “Testimonium” being a much later Christian interpolation.

 

The language style of the “Testimonium” shows several deviations from Josephus’ normal writing, in that it uses words in ways uncharacteristic of Josephus as pointed out by Steve Mason in “Josephus and the New Testament”. He continues on with the example of the word poietes (from which we get the word poet), translated as “worker” in the phrase “worker of incredible deeds”. Etymologically, it means “one who does” and so it can refer to any sort of “doer”. But in Josephus’ day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) – to speak of Greek poets like Homer (p. 169). Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169) Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signifies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170). Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

There are several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea. In his "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium", Ken Olson writes that in Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS. The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23). Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

As Earl Doherty stated in “ The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?”: "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say. Indeed, he condemns the whole movement of popular agitators and rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple, of the city itself, of the Jewish state. And yet the 'authentic' Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus." (pp. 210-211). It is argued that Josephus wrote the passage in a carefully neutral tone, however his readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213). Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple. True, the above is inconclusive, but are much stronger arguments than can be put forward for the authenticity of the passage.

 

 

For other writings by Heimdall, go here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, then, Matt: if you notice on the website you gave, they talk about the Babylonian Talmud, but they don't actually quote it. They only say it mentions that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.

 

This is a deliberate deception. If the evidence for Jesus is so good, why do apologists have to rely on half truths and deliberate concealment of the whole story? There are two primary Yeshu's referenced in the Talmud - Yeshu ben Pandira (80 BCE) and Yeshu ben Stada (100 CE). Both of these Yeshu's have dramatic differences and really bear no resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth.

 

For a very good article on the Talmudic "references" to Jesus, see this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And furthermore Matt, consider when and for what your skeptical and when you're not.

 

John Titor claimed he was a time traveler from 2036. He was active on some web forums until May 2001. He also made predictions that came true (and some that didn't - which can be explained by time continuum and that him being here, telling us things made things change and not happen.) 10% of the members on these forums believe that he actually was from the future. Now, do you believe this or not? If not, why? Are you a skeptic in this case? Consider that John Titor even sent pictures of his time machine and explained the science behind it.

 

What about Raelians? Did their leader really see aliens, and talk to them? He was an firsthand eyewitness, and wrote many books about this. Do you believe it? If not, why? Are you skeptic?

 

Next thing. Philo lived during Jesus time. He even went to Jerusalem for some time, and this guy was a Jew, and extremely interested in new interpretations of the religion. He wrote books that influenced Christianity later on. He most likely traveled through Israel too, but he never wrote one word about Jesus or the Christians. Why? Did God prevent him from doing that? Was he blinded, even though he wanted to find new ways of seeing God and believing in God? Can you explain why one of the few highly active writers during Jesus time, that was interested in the subject, didn't see Jesus, never heard of Jesus, but wrote bunches of other theological stuff?

 

The only ones writing about Jesus never met him, and didn't live during the time of Jesus!

 

Even Paul only saw Jesus in a vision! Not in real life. He never saw Jesus doing the miracles or die and be resurrected. His references where based on other eyewitnesses words. How come his writings were saved, but not anything from the eyewitnesses?

 

 

 

This is a deliberate deception. If the evidence for Jesus is so good, why do apologists have to rely on half truths and deliberate concealment of the whole story? There are two primary Yeshu's referenced in the Talmud - Yeshu ben Pandira (80 BCE) and Yeshu ben Stada (100 CE). Both of these Yeshu's have dramatic differences and really bear no resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth.

And I find it funny that they use Gospel of Thomas as a proof of Jesus existence, but then again most Christians believe its not describing "their" Jesus, or the "true" Jesus, but that the Gospel is heretic. So is the gospel describing a real Jesus but different from Christian's Jesus, or is it describing a false Jesus and then not a proof of the Christian Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use your head on some of the other non-christian references, Matt. They are, for the most part, over 100 years after the supposed time of Jesus. They prove that there were christians in the second and third centuries. They don't prove a Jesus.

 

We know that there were Mithraists back then. Devout followers of Mithra (or Mithras). Does this prove that Mithras was real?

 

People worshipped Hercules and believed him to be real. Built statues and temples to him. Does this prove he was real?

 

People today believe that Jesus came to the Americas and visited ancient tribes here. Does this prove it really happened?

 

People today believe that the Dalai Lama is the current incarnation of many previous Dalai Lamas. Does this make it true?

 

 

Think for just a second. If there had been a Jesus who performed everything as detailed in the Bible, wouldn't there be a lot more written about it than the skimpy few passages that are referrred to again and again?

 

Study a little. Look at the contemporaries of Jesus' day, and figure out why none of them had heard of him. Philo, Justus, Pliny the Elder, and Seneca, just to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow you guyz, your repsonses are quick, accurate and very appreciated and wow detailed. Thanks a lot. My Position is actually quite ex-christians atm.....Ive seen so much evidence against bible-god, and key christian theology proving points to be torn apart that i am at the stage of denial agaisnt christianity, but i always find thing that make me think what if, so i come here if i cant find my own answer to ask you guyz to help me clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Matt. The first reference that you cite is commonly referred to as the "Testimonium Flavianum" from Josephus' Antiquities. We have gone over this thing many times here. Heimdall addressed this as well as anyone I have read, so I'll cut and paste his article on it. It's rather detailed, but you said you weren't looking for a quick, trite answer. The biggest argument against it's authenticity to me is the fact that this passage was "discovered" in the fourth century by Eusebius.

 

So, here is Heimdall's excellent article on this:

 

In 93 CE, Flavius Josephus published his “Antiquities of the Jewish” in which we find the infamous “Testimonium Flavianum“ or officially “Antiquities 18.3.3” which is quoted below:

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he wa......

 

Phew. Would you care to give your input in the Lions Den, where this issue is being discussed, since you are a expert on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow you guyz, your repsonses are quick, accurate and very appreciated and wow detailed. Thanks a lot. My Position is actually quite ex-christians atm.....Ive seen so much evidence against bible-god, and key christian theology proving points to be torn apart that i am at the stage of denial agaisnt christianity, but i always find thing that make me think what if, so i come here if i cant find my own answer to ask you guyz to help me clear things up.

Oh. Cool. Kind of misunderstood you a little bit. Sorry. :)

 

You're for sure welcome to ask other questions too. We do have an extensive library of discussions, where some of important topics have been dealt with.

 

*edit*

 

We never use pebbles to stone our victims, we tend to throw boulders instead. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how that website mentions in passing the Gnostic Gospels, as though they are further proof that Jesus had existed. What they do in fact provide is a pretty good argument that the Jesus story was just a story, which evolved over time. The gnostic gospels completely undercut the message of the traditional gospel. It's very difficult to explain how gnosticism branched off from a recent historical man-jesus.

 

Salvation is found through gnosis (knowledge) and by looking within yourself, not from Jesus.

 

In most gnostic texts, the material world is evil. Jesus was not a real man, but a sort of phantom, an apparition, an allegory, similar to wisdom herself.

 

Before Irenaeus began cementing and defining what beliefs about Jesus were acceptable and what beliefs were not, people were absolutely all over the map with regards to what they believed about Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow you guyz, your repsonses are quick, accurate and very appreciated and wow detailed. Thanks a lot. My Position is actually quite ex-christians atm.....Ive seen so much evidence against bible-god, and key christian theology proving points to be torn apart that i am at the stage of denial agaisnt christianity, but i always find thing that make me think what if, so i come here if i cant find my own answer to ask you guyz to help me clear things up.

 

 

Wow.... Matt.... it is good to see a thread from you again. I'd been thinking a lot about you :)

 

You're coming to a good site, Matt... you'll always find honesty here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide a response other then simply Its not true, lol.

 

I cannot accept written diatribe as evidence that a god exists. Someone must show me their god for me to believe their god exists.

 

Most christians say, "here is the bible, therefore god exists". If the bible is your god, then your god is a bunch of paper with writing on its pages and bound together. It should also be accepted that there are billions of copies of your god, and not just one. And do not forget that it is man that creates your god, with the printing press and binderies and distribution.

 

Show me your god, and I will show you the manifestation of your imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.