Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
I"m reminded of a great satirical piece by Rowan Atkinson. It's one of my favorite bits of comedy:




Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 10:23 AM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 10:14 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I"m reminded of a great satirical piece by Rowan Atkinson. It's one of my favorite bits of comedy:

Ah, turning water into wine at Cana, I have the origin of that one too. I should post it one of these days.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 04:52 PM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 07:46 AM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(10-12-2016 03:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi.

Thanks for posting this.

I can see the similarities between the stories.

I would appreciate you explaining the motives of the gospel authors. Why would they "mock" Josephus?

Josephus wrote a lot of things that are mock-worthy. The main theme is how he is constantly insisting that he was chosen by God to be a messenger to the fact that God's favor had "gone over to the Romans" and then stands by as the Romans slaughter his entire nation (including his mother, father, brother and son) in front of his face and still can find it in him to write propaganda for the Romans saying they were doing God's work and even fulfilling Jewish prophecy.

"Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of
mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation
... for the Jews... what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea..."
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, 5:4


“When Josephus heard him give those orders, he said that he had somewhat in his mind that he would willingly say to himself alone. When therefore they were all ordered to withdraw, excepting Titus and two of their friends, he said, "Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by God to thee, I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case? and how it becomes generals to die. Dost thou send me to Nero? For why? Are Nero's successors till they come to thee still alive? Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar and emperor, thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep me for thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me, but over the land and the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve to be kept in closer custody than I now am in, in order to be punished, if I rashly affirm any thing of God." When he had said this, Vespasian at present did not believe him, but supposed that Josephus said this as a cunning trick, in order to his own preservation; but in a little time he was convinced, and believed what he said to be true, God himself erecting his expectations, so as to think of obtaining the empire, and by other signs fore-showing his advancement... Yet did he not set Josephus at liberty from his hands, but bestowed on him suits of clothes, and other precious gifts; he treated him also in a very obliging manner...”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, 8:9

He always writes about himself in the third person and always very self flattering:

"However, in this extreme distress, he {Josephus} was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard..."
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, 8:7​
Then did Josephus take necessity for his counselor in this utmost distress, (which necessity is very sagacious in invention when it is irritated by despair,) and gave orders to pour scalding oil upon those whose shields protected them…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, 7:28​

Josephus claims he doesn't judge, but actually he does:

“However, I will not go to the other extreme, out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans nor will I determine to raise the actions of my countrymen too high; but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with accuracy…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Preface, :4

“And here a certain Jew appeared worthy of our relation and commendation…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, 7:21

“NOW as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person… for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where. Poor he was at first, and for a long time his wants were a hinderance to him in his wicked designs. He was a ready liar, and… thought it a point of virtue to delude people, and would delude even such as were the dearest to him. He was a hypocritical pretender to humanity… those mean wicked tricks which he was the author of…”
– Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Book II 21:1


"NOW the warlike men that were in the city, and the multitude of the seditious that were with Simon, were ten thousand... John, who had seized upon the temple, had six thousand armed men... the zealots also that had come over to him... and had the same commander that they had formerly, Eleazar... Simon held the upper city, and the great wall as far as Cedron... But John held the temple... and the valley called "the Valley of Cedron;" ... they returned to their former madness, and separated one from another, and fought it out, and did everything that the besiegers could desire them to do... But it {Jerusalem} was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown, while those that took it did it a greater kindness for I venture to affirm that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition... so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people, and the just vengeance taken on them to the Romans; as to which matter let every one determine by the actions on both sides.
– Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Book V 6:1

"I'm not going to judge who were the good guys, the Jews or the Romans, I'm just an impartial historian, but it was the Romans."

"...They confessed what was true, that they were the slaves, the scum, and the spurious and abortive offspring of our nation..."
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book V, 10:5​

Hehe. Just try to imagine the rebels acting out what Josephus says they did, all standing there saying "oh, yeah, sure, we confess that we are the slaves, the scum, and the spurious and abortive offspring of our nation, there's no reason why we should try to hide the truth."

But Josephus also wrote a lot of things that just don't make a whole lot of sense:

“When any persons entered into the temple, its floor received them…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book V, 5:5​

What is that even supposed to mean? Which building is there that you enter into where the floor does not receive you? Have you ever been received by the ceiling or walls, perhaps? Did everyone just fall on their face as soon as they entered the temple? What was he trying to say here?

"...those that opposed themselves fled away...”
– The Wars Of The Jews, Book VI 8:4​

Those that opposed themselves? Who was opposing themselves?

"...the ground did no where appear visible... as they ran upon such as fled from them…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, 5:1​

The ground was not visible, so they ran upon such as fled from them. Yeah, sounds like the islands were not seen and the mountains fled away. Strange.

“...valleys of such vast depth downward, that the eye could not reach their bottoms; they were abrupt, and such as no animal could walk upon, excepting at two places of the rock, where it subsides, in order to afford a passage for ascent... the one of these ways is called the Serpent, as resembling that animal in its narrowness and its perpetual windings... and he that would walk along it must first go on one leg, and then on the other…”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VII, 8:3​

First on one foot and then on the other? How does this guy normally walk??? Does he normally hop around like a bunny?

"...And I will begin my account of these things with what I call my First Chapter.”
– Josephus, The Wars Of The Jews, Preface:12​

Oh, really, Josephus, you're going to call your first chapter "your First Chapter"? Wow, that sounds amazing, I cannot wait to read it.

If this guy, preaching how God had just committed a justly deserved mass genocide of the Jews (his own people) through the Romans, and all the other ridiculous things he says, were to show his face on this forum he would be mocked ruthlessly by you guys here. Hell, I would mock him, that asshole that threw his entire nation and family under the bus to save his own ass. But first century Greeks didn't have anonymous online forums and you can't openly mock the adopted son of the "Lord of the inhabitable earth". So they used anonymous gospels which could only be understood "if it was given to you to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God".

And we know that Josephus really hated Greek satire:

"... nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) ...”
– The Life Of Flavius Josephus, 1:65​

“However, I may justly blame the learned men among the Greeks… they may be superior to the old writers in eloquence, yet are they inferior to them in the execution of what they intended to do… where it must be reproachful to write lies, when they must be known by the readers to be such… Yet shall the real truth of historical facts be preferred by us, how much soever it be neglected among the Greek historians. ”
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Preface, 5

Oh, burn! The Greek writers are not going to be happy about hearing this from the adopted son of the Lord of the inhabitable earth.

But we know that there did exist "Grecian fables" which were written to mock the Jews in general at his time:

“…He adds another Grecian fable, in order to reproach us…”
– Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book II :8​

But more than this, we know that they were writing these Grecian fables to mock specifically Josephus' history:

“…There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to calumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic performance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation and calumny this!…”
– Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book I, 1:10

He is just begging to be mocked more with every word he writes.

Now there were very many gospels written, possibly many that we don't know about today, but only four made it into the Bible. I would say this is likely because some of the apocryphal gospels make the joke a bit too obvious:

Like Philip or Thomas:
“His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."”
– Thomas 1:51

Jesus just comes right out and says it, the second coming and destruction of Israel already happened (the "preterist" view).

"The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
– Thomas 1:18

The three synoptic gospels and John are more subtle about the jokes, satire and irony and they make a better basis for a Roman friendly new religion to replace the dangerous Judaism, although they praise the Romans as the kingdom of heaven satirically, they curse the Jews for bringing their own destruction upon themselves, thereby absolving the Romans of one of the bloodiest genocides in recorded history, where the blood was enough to quench the fires in the cities, where they slaughtered men, women and children, spoiled the whole country and pounded every stone to dust so that you would never know that anyone had ever lived there. Nice to have a theological argument placing the blame for that on the Jews themselves and praising the Romans, even if it was originally intended to satirically make fun of Josephus for doing exactly that.

Thanks for making the effort to post all this.

I'm still having trouble buying your idea that the gospels were written purely as satire of Josephus. I think the gospels were written, based on Josephus, yet with the intent of creating a new religion, one that would water down the power of Judaism.

The gospels took off and were promoted for a reason... a political reason, no doubt, in my opinion. The government controlled the literature. They would not have allowed the spread of the gospels if the gospels were just making fun of their main propagandist. (Josephus) I think the new religion took off because it was promoted by the government.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 06:19 PM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for making the effort to post all this.

I'm still having trouble buying your idea that the gospels were written purely as satire of Josephus. I think the gospels were written, based on Josephus, yet with the intent of creating a new religion, one that would water down the power of Judaism.

The gospels took off and were promoted for a reason... a political reason, no doubt, in my opinion. The government controlled the literature. They would not have allowed the spread of the gospels if the gospels were just making fun of their main propagandist. (Josephus) I think the new religion took off because it was promoted by the government.

Remember that I have only shown you a few random examples, I have hundreds more and I will keep posting. Many of them are quite humorous in mocking Josephus without serving any "pro-roman" or theological agenda. One good example of that is "Jesus Finds Philip" (maybe I will post soon) but also one that I already posted about "Jesus Anointed by Mary" when Mary "chose the good part", it really serves no pro-Roman sense, why would they want to include a reference to such a horrific event? But that also can't serve any theological purpose that I could imagine. I think the only explanation is that it is highlighting all of the horrors which Josephus tells us are the works of God and mocking them as miracles of God to prove that point.

So, you have only really seen maybe a couple percent of this argument and the evidence behind it, so I would suggest you wait on making conclusions and I will show you more. It is a lot to take in and think about.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 06:46 PM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 06:19 PM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for making the effort to post all this.

I'm still having trouble buying your idea that the gospels were written purely as satire of Josephus. I think the gospels were written, based on Josephus, yet with the intent of creating a new religion, one that would water down the power of Judaism.

The gospels took off and were promoted for a reason... a political reason, no doubt, in my opinion. The government controlled the literature. They would not have allowed the spread of the gospels if the gospels were just making fun of their main propagandist. (Josephus) I think the new religion took off because it was promoted by the government.

Remember that I have only shown you a few random examples, I have hundreds more and I will keep posting. Many of them are quite humorous in mocking Josephus without serving any "pro-roman" or theological agenda. One good example of that is "Jesus Finds Philip" (maybe I will post soon) but also one that I already posted about "Jesus Anointed by Mary" when Mary "chose the good part", it really serves no pro-Roman sense, why would they want to include a reference to such a horrific event? But that also can't serve any theological purpose that I could imagine. I think the only explanation is that it is highlighting all of the horrors which Josephus tells us are the works of God and mocking them as miracles of God to prove that point.

So, you have only really seen maybe a couple percent of this argument and the evidence behind it, so I would suggest you wait on making conclusions and I will show you more. It is a lot to take in and think about.

Ok. Got that.

I will start reading your book tonight.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2016 07:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 06:19 PM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for making the effort to post all this.

I'm still having trouble buying your idea that the gospels were written purely as satire of Josephus. I think the gospels were written, based on Josephus, yet with the intent of creating a new religion, one that would water down the power of Judaism.

The gospels took off and were promoted for a reason... a political reason, no doubt, in my opinion. The government controlled the literature. They would not have allowed the spread of the gospels if the gospels were just making fun of their main propagandist. (Josephus) I think the new religion took off because it was promoted by the government.

Remember that I have only shown you a few random examples, I have hundreds more and I will keep posting. Many of them are quite humorous in mocking Josephus without serving any "pro-roman" or theological agenda. One good example of that is "Jesus Finds Philip" (maybe I will post soon) but also one that I already posted about "Jesus Anointed by Mary" when Mary "chose the good part", it really serves no pro-Roman sense, why would they want to include a reference to such a horrific event? But that also can't serve any theological purpose that I could imagine. I think the only explanation is that it is highlighting all of the horrors which Josephus tells us are the works of God and mocking them as miracles of God to prove that point.

So, you have only really seen maybe a couple percent of this argument and the evidence behind it, so I would suggest you wait on making conclusions and I will show you more. It is a lot to take in and think about.

"when Mary "chose the good part","

I can't find where you talk about this. Is this in the gospels or in Josephus? PS..just found it in the Mary and Martha thing. This is another Mary, not Mary the mother of Jeebus. Mmmmm.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 10:53 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2016 10:56 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
Ok, I understand what you are saying. I posted elsewhere that the Old Testament is written in the same vein, exaggeration ad absurdum as you put it. Take the story of David bringing down a pestilence on his people which wipes out 75,000 of them because he felt bad about making a census. The OT is full of those stories.

If that is what you are saying then it is a satire of...what?

For instance you could say that Jesus walking on water is a satire of a religion in which people believe their saviour can walk on water. Right?

I don't think what you are saying hangs together unless you are talking about a satire of something that people relate to. I am finding your comparisons of the NT with Josephus' works to be too abstruse. It may be, for instance, that the writers of the NT were chuckling to themselves about the parallels and subtle satires but who precisely was going to have access to these works to compare them and see all these satirical references?

I agree that the Romans wanted to paint a picture of a people who believe in nonsense but I am finding your analysis of it to be too abstruse. I think it mocks the religion of these people in a much more broad brush way by simply having Jesus do things which will be recognised as signs of their saviour. He raises Lazarus from the dead. Is this not a reference to "el Osiris"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 11:00 PM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
(11-12-2016 06:19 PM)fhqwhgads Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for making the effort to post all this.

I'm still having trouble buying your idea that the gospels were written purely as satire of Josephus. I think the gospels were written, based on Josephus, yet with the intent of creating a new religion, one that would water down the power of Judaism.

The gospels took off and were promoted for a reason... a political reason, no doubt, in my opinion. The government controlled the literature. They would not have allowed the spread of the gospels if the gospels were just making fun of their main propagandist. (Josephus) I think the new religion took off because it was promoted by the government.

Remember that I have only shown you a few random examples, I have hundreds more and I will keep posting. Many of them are quite humorous in mocking Josephus without serving any "pro-roman" or theological agenda. One good example of that is "Jesus Finds Philip" (maybe I will post soon) but also one that I already posted about "Jesus Anointed by Mary" when Mary "chose the good part", it really serves no pro-Roman sense, why would they want to include a reference to such a horrific event? But that also can't serve any theological purpose that I could imagine. I think the only explanation is that it is highlighting all of the horrors which Josephus tells us are the works of God and mocking them as miracles of God to prove that point.

So, you have only really seen maybe a couple percent of this argument and the evidence behind it, so I would suggest you wait on making conclusions and I will show you more. It is a lot to take in and think about.

So, you are saying that the crucifixion mocks Josephus?

Surely the better approach is to see the War with the Jews' reference to Mary barbecuing the baby is a satire of the Jewish people as they portray themselves in the OT. I mentioned Psalm 137 above. They are in captivity, upset, and they vow to take revenge by dashing children on the rocks. The OT portrays them as baby killers. That is the satire.

I am not sure where you are going with this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
It's no so far-fetched either. Look at the story of Abraham going to kill Isaac. According to this it was a ritual to kill your children. It's the behaviour of people who belong to a cult. Look at Rev. Jimmy Jones and the Jonestown massacre. Child sacrifice was common all around the world, South America for example. Also:

"The Tanakh denounces human sacrifice as barbaric customs of Baal worshippers (e.g. Psalms 106:37). James Kugel argues that the Torah's specifically forbidding child sacrifice indicates that it happened in Israel as well.[8] Mark S. Smith argues that the mention of "Topeth" in Isaiah 30:27–33 indicates an acceptance of child sacrifice in the early Jerusalem practices, to which the law in Leviticus 20:2–5 forbidding child sacrifice is a response.[9] Some scholars have stated that at least some Israelites and Judahites believed child sacrifice was a legitimate religious practice.[10]"

and:


Carthage was notorious to its neighbors for child sacrifice. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 AD) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius and Diodorus Siculus. However, Livy and Polybius do not. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet ("roasting place") by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites.[citation needed]

Some of these sources suggest that babies were roasted to death on a heated bronze statue. According to Diodorus Siculus, "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."(Bib. Hist. 20.14.6)

Sites within Carthage and other Phoenician centers revealed the remains of infants and children in large numbers; some historians[citation needed] interpret this as evidence for frequent and prominent child sacrifice to the god Baal-hamon.

The accuracy of such stories is disputed by some modern historians and archaeologists.[18] At Carthage, a large cemetery exists that combines the bodies of both very young children and small animals, and those who argue in favor of child sacrifice have argued that if the animals were sacrificed then so too were the children.[19] However, recent archaeological work has produced a detailed breakdown of the age of the buried children and based on this, and especially on the presence of pre natal individuals - that is still births, it is also argued that this site is consistent with the burial of children who had died from natural causes in a society that had a high infant mortality rate - as Carthage is assumed to have been. I.e. this data supports the view that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.[19]

Greek, Roman and Israelite writers refer to Phoenician child sacrifice. However, some historians have disputed this interpretation, suggesting instead that these were resting places for children miscarried or who died in infancy.[citation needed] Skeptics suggest that the bodies of children found in Carthaginian and Phoenician cemeteries were merely the cremated remains of children that died naturally.[20] Sergio Ribichini has argued that the Tophet was "a child necropolis designed to receive the remains of infants who had died prematurely of sickness or other natural causes, and who for this reason were "offered" to specific deities and buried in a place different from the one reserved for the ordinary dead".[21] The few Carthaginian texts which have survived make absolutely no mention of child sacrifice, though most of them pertain to matters entirely unrelated to religion, such as the practice of agriculture.[citation needed]

According to Stager and Wolff, in 1984, there was a consensus among scholars that Carthaginian children were sacrificed by their parents, who would make a vow to kill the next child if the gods would grant them a favor: for instance that their shipment of goods were to arrive safely in a foreign port.[22] They placed their children alive in the arms of a bronze statue of:

“ the lady Tanit ... . The hands of the statue extended over a brazier into which the child fell once the flames had caused the limbs to contract and its mouth to open ... . The child was alive and conscious when burned ... Philo specified that the sacrificed child was best-loved.[23] ”
Later commentators have compared the accounts of child sacrifice in the Old Testament with similar ones from Greek and Latin sources speaking of the offering of children by fire as sacrifices in the Punic city of Carthage, which was a Phoenician colony. Cleitarchus in his "Scholia" of Plato's Republic mentions the practice:

“ There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.[24] ”
This reference also seems to clarify that the statue itself was not made to move by the flames, but rather the burnt and shriveled body of the victim was contorted by them.

Diodorus Siculus too references this practice:

“ Himilcar, on seeing how the throng was beset with superstitious fear, first of all put a stop to the destruction of the monuments, and then he supplicated the gods after the custom of his people by sacrificing a young boy to Cronus and a multitude of cattle to Poseidon by drowning them in the sea[...] in former times they had been accustomed to sacrifice to this god the noblest of their sons, but more recently, secretly buying and nurturing children, they had sent these to the sacrifice ”
[25]

Plutarch in De superstitione also mentions the practice in Carthage:

“ they themselves offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young bird ”
[25]

These all mention burning of children as an offering to Cronus or Saturn, that is to Ba'al Hammon, the chief god of Carthage (see Interpretatio Graeca and Interpretatio Romana for clarification).

Claims concerning Moloch and child sacrifice may also have been created for negative effect.[citation needed] The Romans and Israelites describe child sacrifice as a practice of their 'evil' enemies. Some scholars think that after the Romans finally defeated Carthage and totally destroyed the city, they engaged in post-war propaganda to make their archenemies seem cruel and less civilized.[26] The topic of whether Phoenician child sacrifice was real or a myth continues to be discussed in academic circles, including the work of M'hamed Hassine Fantar[27] [28]" Wiki - Child Sacrifice

As the article points out, it may not be entirely true, but the satire is of this cult-like behaviour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2016, 12:58 AM
RE: Jesus Walks on Water (satire)
I suppose it was an early form of ex post facto birth control.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: