Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2016, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 11:05 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 09:42 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 09:24 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  A-ha! Someone else sees it.

If there was no written canonical gospel record at the time, then Paul is relating an event that he was taught. In other words, he was "learning" things about Jesus from oral tradition.

However, there is plenty of evidence from Paul's letters that there were indeed gospels in existence during his time, and that things concerning Jesus had in fact been written down.

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

There may have been written gospels floating around, but not any of the four that ended up in the Bible. There is a strong consensus that they were all written later. In any event, the word "gospel" (in the second quote) may just mean another set of teachings -- not necessarily a written document. The word itself just means "good news". When Paul says "another gospel", he is comparing it to his own "gospel" -- i.e., his teaching. The Galatians are being led astray by teachings contrary to Paul's.

I don't dispute, though, that Paul probably learned this "good news" from someone else. I don't think he made it all up himself. He says in several places that he "received" it.

I would prefer to say, "There may have been written gospels floating around, but maybe not any of the four that ended up in the Bible" because we cannot exclude the possibility that at least one was actually in existence during his time. Although most scholars agree that the earliest any gospel was written around AD 70, the 1st person narrative in Luke-Acts- in which the author narrates his travels with Paul- not only demonstrates a possible contemporary of both Paul and Jesus, but also a written Gospel possibly around CE 63.

And that writer, who we believe was possibly Luke. says the following:

Luk 1:1 - 1:4  Since many took in hand to write up an account concerning the matters which have been borne out among us, even as those who from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, following all things accurately from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the certainty of those things in which you have been instructed.

This author tells us that before he wrote his version of events concerning Jesus, many other writers had previously written of these same events. Not only that, Luke tells us above that the previous writers were actually eyewitnesses.

This is de facto evidence that demonstrates that before Luke wrote this gospel, many other written gospels were in existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 10:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 05:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No one seems to understand my position.

I was agreeing with him.

That is why I said, "Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism."

Both are arguments from ignorance.

Right, both are arguments from ignorance but I only highlighted the one you professed as your own position.

I was professing that I lean more towards Determinism than I do Indeterminism.

But I have a problem with some logic here.

If both are merely arguments from ignorance- yet it appears that at least one must be correct- would that not invalidate a claim of argument from ignorance?

Unless there is a 3rd choice, then at least 1 of the 2 must be the truth because we "know" it is. If we know one must be the truth, how can we apply ignorance to this argument?

Help me here ...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 10:44 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Right, both are arguments from ignorance but I only highlighted the one you professed as your own position.

I was professing that I lean more towards Determinism than I do Indeterminism.

But I have a problem with some logic here.

If both are merely arguments from ignorance- yet it appears that at least one must be correct- would that not invalidate a claim of argument from ignorance?

Unless there is a 3rd choice, then at least 1 of the 2 must be the truth because we "know" it is. If we know one must be the truth, how can we apply ignorance to this argument?

Help me here ...

They are both arguments from ignorance until we find the evidence to determine which is more likely to be true. Then one will cease to be an argument from ignorance.

The biggest problem I see with the origin of the universe is that we are talking about something that occurred at the origin of space and time. Making questions of "before" irrelevant since "before" implies time before time. Which I can't parse. Can one "cause" something without time to do so? If not, then the universe is uncaused because its existence is coincident with the beginning of time. Ergo, cause and effect don't apply when time does not exist.

If there are arguments from quantum physics (which I don't know any better than the average Joe, but even Richard Feynman admitted that quantum mechanics is screwy enough that most physicists don't really understand it either) that make it possible for a cause to generate the universe, presumably we could test this. I presume that is precisely what quantum physicists are trying to do.

But how do you test the origin of the universe? We use particle colliders to try and understand the most basic principles of the fundamental particles and forces and make educated guesses about the early universe as far back as we can, but it isn't a simple question and certainly not a simple thing to test.

Caused or uncaused? I don't know, but I find the answer irrelevant for my views of the universe. It behaves in a manner I see as consistent with my atheism. That is to say that caused or uncaused, it doesn't appear to operate outside its own fundamental properties or boundaries.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-08-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 10:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:44 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  I was professing that I lean more towards Determinism than I do Indeterminism.

But I have a problem with some logic here.

If both are merely arguments from ignorance- yet it appears that at least one must be correct- would that not invalidate a claim of argument from ignorance?

Unless there is a 3rd choice, then at least 1 of the 2 must be the truth because we "know" it is. If we know one must be the truth, how can we apply ignorance to this argument?

Help me here ...

They are both arguments from ignorance until we find the evidence to determine which is more likely to be true. Then one will cease to be an argument from ignorance.

Okay, so although we know that at least one must be the truth, because we are ignorant about which one, the argument from ignorance is 100% valid until proven otherwise? Ergo, it's currently valid, but has a 50% chance of being overturned?

Am I understanding this properly?

Quote:The biggest problem I see with the origin of the universe is that we are talking about something that occurred at the origin of space and time. Making questions of "before" irrelevant since "before" implies time before time. Which I can't parse. Can one "cause" something without time to do so? If not, then the universe is uncaused because its existence is coincident with the beginning of time. Ergo, cause and effect don't apply when time does not exist.

If there are arguments from quantum physics (which I don't know any better than the average Joe, but even Richard Feynman admitted that quantum mechanics is screwy enough that most physicists don't really understand it either) that make it possible for a cause to generate the universe, presumably we could test this. I presume that is precisely what quantum physicists are trying to do.

But how do you test the origin of the universe? We use particle colliders to try and understand the most basic principles of the fundamental particles and forces and make educated guesses about the early universe as far back as we can, but it isn't a simple question and certainly not a simple thing to test.

Caused or uncaused? I don't know, but I find the answer irrelevant for my views of the universe. It behaves in a manner I see as consistent with my atheism. That is to say that caused or uncaused, it doesn't appear to operate outside its own fundamental properties or boundaries.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 10:37 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 09:42 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  There may have been written gospels floating around, but not any of the four that ended up in the Bible. There is a strong consensus that they were all written later. In any event, the word "gospel" (in the second quote) may just mean another set of teachings -- not necessarily a written document. The word itself just means "good news". When Paul says "another gospel", he is comparing it to his own "gospel" -- i.e., his teaching. The Galatians are being led astray by teachings contrary to Paul's.

I don't dispute, though, that Paul probably learned this "good news" from someone else. I don't think he made it all up himself. He says in several places that he "received" it.

I would prefer to say, "There may have been written gospels floating around, but maybe not any of the four that ended up in the Bible" because we cannot exclude the possibility that at least one was actually in existence during his time. Although most scholars agree that the earliest any gospel was written around AD 70, the 1st person narrative in Luke-Acts- in which the author narrates his travels with Paul- not only demonstrates a possible contemporary of both Paul and Jesus, but also a written Gospel possibly around CE 63.

And that writer, who we believe was possibly Luke. says the following:

Luk 1:1 - 1:4  Since many took in hand to write up an account concerning the matters which have been borne out among us, even as those who from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, following all things accurately from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the certainty of those things in which you have been instructed.

This author tells us that before he wrote his version of events concerning Jesus, many other writers had previously written of these same events. Not only that, Luke tells us above that the previous writers were actually eyewitnesses.

This is de facto evidence that demonstrates that before Luke wrote this gospel, many other written gospels were in existence.

It is not. It is an unverified claim. You choose to accept as evidence. Evidence of gospels would be the writing itself, that we could see. It was an era of pious fraud.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 11:03 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They are both arguments from ignorance until we find the evidence to determine which is more likely to be true. Then one will cease to be an argument from ignorance.

Okay, so although we know that at least one must be the truth, because we are ignorant about which one, the argument from ignorance is 100% valid until proven otherwise? Ergo, it's currently valid, but has a 50% chance of being overturned?

Am I understanding this properly?

Quote:The biggest problem I see with the origin of the universe is that we are talking about something that occurred at the origin of space and time. Making questions of "before" irrelevant since "before" implies time before time. Which I can't parse. Can one "cause" something without time to do so? If not, then the universe is uncaused because its existence is coincident with the beginning of time. Ergo, cause and effect don't apply when time does not exist.

If there are arguments from quantum physics (which I don't know any better than the average Joe, but even Richard Feynman admitted that quantum mechanics is screwy enough that most physicists don't really understand it either) that make it possible for a cause to generate the universe, presumably we could test this. I presume that is precisely what quantum physicists are trying to do.

But how do you test the origin of the universe? We use particle colliders to try and understand the most basic principles of the fundamental particles and forces and make educated guesses about the early universe as far back as we can, but it isn't a simple question and certainly not a simple thing to test.

Caused or uncaused? I don't know, but I find the answer irrelevant for my views of the universe. It behaves in a manner I see as consistent with my atheism. That is to say that caused or uncaused, it doesn't appear to operate outside its own fundamental properties or boundaries.

Thumbsup

"Okay, so although we know that at least one must be the truth, because we are ignorant about which one, the argument from ignorance is 100% valid until proven otherwise? Ergo, it's currently valid, but has a 50% chance of being overturned?

Am I understanding this properly?"


No. We know these are two plausible options, but:
1) we don't know that there are no other options
and
2) we don't know the likelihood of either of them. So it isn't 50/50. In fact, we can't put odds on either one because we have no information to assess the odds.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-08-2016, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 03:19 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 11:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not. It is an unverified claim. You choose to accept as evidence. Evidence of gospels would be the writing itself, that we could see. It was an era of pious fraud.

You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

Big Grin

The reality is that we both know that it is impossible to prove that pious fraud was in any way related to all these religious texts in antiquity. So all you are doing here is asserting it without evidence; concluding it based upon what you perceive to be lies, half-truth, tall-tales, etc.

And you assert pious fraud at the complete exclusion of all other, more probable, explanations.

Now, in respect to Luke-Acts, this author begins his version of events as though he is in a position of creating a report for Theophilus:

Luk 1:1 - 1:4:  Since many took in hand to write up an account concerning the matters which have been borne out among us, even as those who from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, following all things accurately from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the certainty of those things in which you have been instructed.

The opening statement in Luke is what makes Luke completely unique from all other records. He makes it quite clear that he is writing up a report for Theophilus on the events concerning Jesus. He makes no statements of being an eyewitness to Jesus himself.

There would be absolutely no reason why this author would be committing any act of fraud whatsoever with the above quoted verses. They are simple, direct, reasonable, and depict nothing extraordinary.

Also, we don't always have multiple attestations of other ancient works, and since we accept those other ancient works as representing the truth in regards to many of the mundane things they say, we have precedence to accept this rather mundane few verses of Luke the same way.

So no, not everything in ancient texts is written with the intention of pious fraud, and in fact the biggest reason any of these ancient writers wrote what they wrote is because, quite simply, they believed in gods with such intensity that no faith in the modern world could compare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 11:11 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not. It is an unverified claim. You choose to accept as evidence. Evidence of gospels would be the writing itself, that we could see. It was an era of pious fraud.

You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

Big Grin

I never said "everything" was pious fraud.
The contents of the gospels are replete with it. We are just so used to hearing it, we are deaf to much of it.
The ethos of the time was "if lying is good for them, it's OK".

""I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it.

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
(St.?) John Chrysostom

The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

"The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2016, 02:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:The “classical” understanding of the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy remained unchallenged, for the most part, until the modern period. Rather than
present an exhaustive history of scholarship, I have decided to focus on three
key moments in the history of its demise, each involving a fundamental question:
Did Jesus and his disciples teach an orthodoxy that was transmitted to the
churches of the second and third centuries? Does Acts provide a reliable account
of the internal conflicts of the earliest Christian church? And does Eusebius
give a trustworthy sketch of the disputes raging in the post-apostolic Christian
communities? The answer to all three questions, as now known, is probably
No.
Scholars who first propounded these answers engaged in daring, even risky,
historical work. But their conclusions are now so widely held as to be virtually
commonplace.


Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities Pg 168


Fascinating little book. Would scare the ever-loving piss out of jesus freaks if the dared to read it.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 03:23 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-08-2016 08:03 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 04:55 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  A large body of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus. Scripture tells us this not once, but twice! This is history... the written evidence, not to mention the archaeological evidence ( can you deny Damascus existed? Surely it had a road? How da fuck could people get there if there was no road?) The mythers and atheists who want to destroy the faith of children are denying the existence of roads, ghosts and Jesus! Unbelievable! I'm highly trained, and I believe I know a road, and a ghost, in context, when I see it. The vast majority of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

If you don't want to believe there was a Damascus or a road or a ghost, that's fine by me , but a consensus of professionals acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

I'm generally a fan of yours, Mark, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. It's quite possible to believe that there is an element of history both in the Gospels and in Acts (i.e., people like Jesus and Paul did exist, and did do some of the things attributed to them in those books) without accepting all of the miracles, etc. I myself think that Paul's "vision" on the road to Damascus is either a made-up story, or has some natural explanation (maybe an epileptic fit?), and that the miracles of Jesus (including the Resurrection) are bullshit, but I am willing to accept that Jesus and Paul were probably real historical people (and that Jesus really was from Nazareth -- it's the Bethlehem stuff that smells like bullshit to me). GoingUp has never said, or even suggested, that he thinks Paul saw the ghost of Jesus. Keep in mind that this entire thread is only about whether or not Jesus existed, not about his divinity or the truth of Christianity. The subject here is history, not theology or apologetics.

Also, the "consensus of professionals" thing can sound like a cop-out, but consider an analogous situation. You are a professional biologist (like, say, RocketSurgeon), and some creationist who thinks that evolution is bullshit keeps challenging you to provide a list of specific scholars who support evolution. Well, they all do! Where would you even start? The question is just silly. I'm not blindly accepting all of GoingUp's arguments, but if he is a professional in this field (history), and virtually all the other professionals in the field agree with him, it's perfectly reasonable for him to find this continual demand for citations irritating (especially since he has provided some citations).

"It's quite possible to believe that there is an element of history both in the Gospels and in Acts (i.e., people like Jesus and Paul did exist, and did do some of the things attributed to them in those books) without accepting all of the miracles, etc."


I totally agree. It is up to the historian to put forward opinions on what is truth and what is fiction.

I myself think that Paul's "vision" on the road to Damascus is either a made-up story, or has some natural explanation (maybe an epileptic fit?)


As Paul never mentions this amazing event in any of his numerous letters we can be 100% sure it is total fiction.


"Also, the "consensus of professionals" thing can sound like a cop-out,"


The consensus of professionals is a reasonable argument. Yet, in going up's case, there are serious issues.

Firstly, his so-called "consensus" is made up. Most commentators don't discuss the topic of Nazareth's first century existence. He can't prove any such "consensus."

Secondly, those who do happen to agree with him, at least most of them, very carefully choose their words, because the evidence is not that strong.

3. It has being pointed out to going up on numerous occasions that some of us don't buy Bart Ehrman's and Richard Carrier's opinions on this particular topic, and why that is so, yet he insists on simply repeating their conclusions rather than discussing the evidence.

4. He endlessly repeats the same argument ie the "consensus of historians " thing. This is very very tedious. Hence my "79, 80 etc." He'll do it again soon...he can't help himself.

5 He has repeatedly presented the same very dodgy "evidence," (the coins and pottery spiel.) and refused to discuss it further.

6. He has failed to address the fact that there is no village, or "hamlet" or "city"... Just the farm, one household, a well, and a few tombs.

7. He also failed to address the complete absence of any visits by Christians to Nazareth prior to the early fourth century.

8. He has failed to address the total absence in any literature outside the gospels verifying the existence of Nazareth prior to about the year 140.

9. He repeatedly resorts to ad hominems against anyone who disagrees with him. This is pathetic.

"but if he is a professional in this field (history),"

He doesn't behave like a professional. Professionals do not endlessly repeat themselves. Nor do they resort to ad hominems. They also take the time and trouble to understand the arguments of others, and they respond to those arguments in a professional way... he is not smart enough or informed enough to do this. Professionals do not 100% rely on the opinions of others... they examine the evidence for themselves. He is not good at this.

I'm not impressed by his "I'm an historian" claim. I strongly suspect his only real interest in history is that to do with hermeneutics, which, it must be admitted, is mainly just the art of making the bible say what you would like it to say. He quite clearly has no informed, nuanced understanding of events in the first and second century. He just knows what's written in his babble.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: