Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Alright I've had enough, I originally started this thread and have watched you start a debate, it is time for me to respond.

MMMMM fresh meat Drooling

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Funny it certainly sounds like a threat. Also Prove that Hell exists.

Jesus loves you, Worom Yes

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Bible is not proof, there is no proof of the resurrection in any other text, again Prove that the resurrection actually happened.

Why can't the Bible be used as evidence?

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes there is and here is my evidence. Multiple books all confirming the same event by multiple authors that meet the requirements to be considered historical documents, That and we found the actual place that the assassination happened so theres that. This is only a small sampling by the way.

Multiple books confirming the Resurrection, too. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul...Tacitus also confirms that a "mysterious superstition" was held by followers of Jesus after his death.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  No it doesn't, the earliest this would have been written would have been 25 years after the alleged resurrection event and we don't know if Paul actually wrote the thing

Well, I guess we kinda draw the conclusion that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians because the books starts off with "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God".

But let me guess...someone interpolated it? Forged it? Put Paul's name on it? The lengths people will go through to remain in their unbelief Facepalm

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and the writing style of 1 Corinthians reads as a creed, there is no mention of time or location either and includes statements of faith.

Right, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 reads as a creed, and Paul said he RECEIVED this creed...which means that he received it from earlier believers, which means the belief in the Resurrection was something that was believed shortly after the death of Jesus...and he confirmed that some of the people that witnessed the Resurrection was STILL ALIVE at the time that 1 Corinthians was written, which means that the belief of the Resurrection was not some stuff that originated decades and decades after the crucifixion, but shortly thereafter.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  And since a creed is a profession of faith it is not evidence.

It isn't a profession of faith when he said he RECEIVED the creed. That is personal testimony.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also our oldest copy is 150 years after the date it was supposed to have been written. A lot can happen in 150 years of copying and recopying where things could have been inserted, especially since 1 Corinthians has a different writing style.

Dude, 150 years after the date is like a newsflash when compared to other writings of antiquity.

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Check out good ole Matt Slick's summary of this...and also check his sources..and also find any historian that disputes Matt, or his sources.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since the bible doesn't meet the standards of evidence for a historical document, then this isn't a fallacious argument. Here are the requirements of a historical document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis

When these methods are applied to the Bible it fails miserably

Nonsense. There are historians that believe the Bible fits the historical method criterion. What I need is specifics.

I can make a positive case that the Gospels was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples...and they were all written before 70 AD, which was no later than 40 years after Jesus' death.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Prove it

Easter Sunday.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is not a primary source as he didn't witness the event, secondary sources (hearsay) have strict requirements to be accepted. Which the Bible also fails miserably at.

Nonsense. If you talk to Peter, disciple of Jesus...and James, brother of Jesus...you are not talking to a secondary source..you are talking to first hand sources.

I honestly don't know what part of that you guys aren't understanding. Paul spent two weeks with Peter, and last I checked, Peter was one of Jesus' right hand men. It doesn't get any more first hand than that.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  There is a massive mountain of evidence for evolution, you are giving a statement from personal incredulity which is you don't understand it or find it difficult to understand therefore you think it's wrong.

Please go to a lab, and demonstrate how inanimate matter go to the point where it came to life and began talking. Forgive me for asking you to actually conduct a scientific experiment to back up your scientific claims.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  What historical evidence? I have yet to find any.

Because you do not wish to find any. Ever heard of Gary Habarmas, Bill Craig, Mike Licona?

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is not a primary source as he didn't witness the event, secondary sources (hearsay) have strict requirements to be accepted. Which the Bible also fails miserably at.

Peter and James witnessed the event. Paul had two weeks worth of chats with Peter...therefore, Paul spoke to a primary source.

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  It's not an unsupported assertion, the Bible fails the requirements to be considered a historical document, ergo a book of myths and stories. And therefore not evidence.

That is what you say...I say the Bible meets the requirements.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(23-06-2015 09:09 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 07:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You're absolutely correct. The question is who's plan? Consider

Ummm, God's plan, perhaps? Just an accurate shot in the dark here.

An accurate shot in the dark.

That sums up your ideology so well. It's not the stab I question, but the accuracy in the dark.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
24-06-2015, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2015 12:06 PM by Worom.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  The Bible is not proof, there is no proof of the resurrection in any other text, again Prove that the resurrection actually happened.

Why can't the Bible be used as evidence?

(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Yes there is and here is my evidence. Multiple books all confirming the same event by multiple authors that meet the requirements to be considered historical documents, That and we found the actual place that the assassination happened so theres that. This is only a small sampling by the way.

Multiple books confirming the Resurrection, too. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul...Tacitus also confirms that a "mysterious superstition" was held by followers of Jesus after his death.

All four of those books have contradictory accounts

Here are the accounts of the event at the tomb

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Matthew 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
John 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
John 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
John 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
John 20:10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
John 20:11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

So in Matthew we have that the tomb was closed and that a single angel came down and opened the tomb during the dawn. and Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there. Then we go to the Book of Mark and we now Mary Magdalene, and Mary, mother of James and Salome and it's early morning, then they ask themselves how are they going to move the giant stone in front of the tomb because it's big and heavy, then when they get to the Tomb it's already open. We now have a contradiction, the book of Matthew says the tomb was closed and was rolled back by an angle when both Mary's got to the tomb and that there was an Earthquake, Mark says that the tomb is already open and doesn't mention the Earthquake at all. Then we get to the next contradiction Matthew says that an Angel was sitting on the top of the stone door, Mark makes no mention of this and says there is a young man sitting inside the Tomb on the right side. Then we get to Luke where the problems continue, Luke says they went to the tomb, so we don't know who is the author is referring to when he says they. Then there are two men that are outside the tomb that talk to them. Then we finally find out who the author was referring to when he said they, Which is yet another contradiction as we now have an unknown number of people that went to the the Tomb, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James were mentioned specifically and then it refers to other woman. Then we get to John and the contradictions continue. So now we have it still dark and only Mary Magdalene is going to the tomb and she sees it's open then goes running off and gets Simon Peter and another Disciple, Then the three of them run to the tomb and this time there are two angels sitting at the head and feet of where Jesus was.

So now we have 4 books that can't agree with each other on who was there, what time it was, whether or not there were angels there, the number of men or angels there. whether or not there was an earthquake, and if the tomb was open or closed. For something that Christians say to be the core event of their entire faith, you would think there would be no differences between any of the books. The contradictions also can't be reconciled, there is no physical evidence, or other writings describing these events either. Therefore they can't be considered historical.

As for Tacitus

(17-11-2014 03:32 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

In regards to "christus".

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."

The Christian-preferred Latin of this sentence is as follows:

Iudaeos impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings "of the Greeks in all ages, pre-Christian as well as post-Christian." Examples of these epithets can be studied in August Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. We read elsewhere that the epithet "Chrestos" appears commonly on the epitaphs of most citizens of Larissa, Greece, specifically in the form of chrestos heros , this latter term meaning "hero" and "demigod." The Greek word chrestos was popular also as an epithet or on epitaphs at various Egyptian funerary sites as at Alexandria and elsewhere.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation. Another artifact with significance in this analysis of the uses of chrestos in antiquity is the chi-rho symbol.

Chrestus/christus being disingenuously presented to mean christ or christians is disingenuous and conjecture at its best.

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  No it doesn't, the earliest this would have been written would have been 25 years after the alleged resurrection event and we don't know if Paul actually wrote the thing

Well, I guess we kinda draw the conclusion that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians because the books starts off with "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God".

But let me guess...someone interpolated it? Forged it? Put Paul's name on it? The lengths people will go through to remain in their unbelief Facepalm

Nice Strawman argument there, Those were not my arguments we simply just don't know as we don't have anything else to suggest who wrote it other than the document itself

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  , and the writing style of 1 Corinthians reads as a creed, there is no mention of time or location either and includes statements of faith.

Right, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 reads as a creed, and Paul said he RECEIVED this creed...which means that he received it from earlier believers, which means the belief in the Resurrection was something that was believed shortly after the death of Jesus...and he confirmed that some of the people that witnessed the Resurrection was STILL ALIVE at the time that 1 Corinthians was written, which means that the belief of the Resurrection was not some stuff that originated decades and decades after the crucifixion, but shortly thereafter.

A creed is still a creed regardless if paul got it from someone else or not, it's still not a historical source because its based on faith. And what is your proof that people that supposedly witnessed the resurrection were still alive at the time that 1 Corinthians was written? Also I'm well aware of the line saying 500 people saw the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians. Where are the independent accounts of those 500 people??

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  And since a creed is a profession of faith it is not evidence.

It isn't a profession of faith when he said he RECEIVED the creed. That is personal testimony.

The creed is still a profession of faith, The author saying that he received a creed doesn't change that it's a creed.

Definition of creed:

noun
a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.
"people of many creeds and cultures"
synonyms: faith, religion, religious belief, religious persuasion, church, denomination, sect
"people of many creeds and cultures"
a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.
noun: Creed; noun: the Creed
synonyms: system of belief, set of beliefs, beliefs, principles, articles of faith, ideology, credo, doctrine, teaching, dogma, tenets, canons
"his political creed"
a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.
"liberalism was more than a political creed"

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Also our oldest copy is 150 years after the date it was supposed to have been written. A lot can happen in 150 years of copying and recopying where things could have been inserted, especially since 1 Corinthians has a different writing style.

Dude, 150 years after the date is like a newsflash when compared to other writings of antiquity.

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Check out good ole Matt Slick's summary of this...and also check his sources..and also find any historian that disputes Matt, or his sources.

The net is so flooded with apologetic sources on this topic that it's impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion with my current level of knowledge, I need an independent source, not an apologetic source to consider your argument.

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Since the bible doesn't meet the standards of evidence for a historical document, then this isn't a fallacious argument. Here are the requirements of a historical document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis

When these methods are applied to the Bible it fails miserably

Nonsense. There are historians that believe the Bible fits the historical method criterion. What I need is specifics.

I can make a positive case that the Gospels was written by either disciples, or friends of the disciples...and they were all written before 70 AD, which was no later than 40 years after Jesus' death.

Prove it then

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  Prove it

Easter Sunday.

This is not a proof, I could make a similar argument by saying you only get new Fat people on Fat tuesday

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is not a primary source as he didn't witness the event, secondary sources (hearsay) have strict requirements to be accepted. Which the Bible also fails miserably at.

Nonsense. If you talk to Peter, disciple of Jesus...and James, brother of Jesus...you are not talking to a secondary source..you are talking to first hand sources.

I honestly don't know what part of that you guys aren't understanding. Paul spent two weeks with Peter, and last I checked, Peter was one of Jesus' right hand men. It doesn't get any more first hand than that.

Definition of Primary Source: Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way. Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source.

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  There is a massive mountain of evidence for evolution, you are giving a statement from personal incredulity which is you don't understand it or find it difficult to understand therefore you think it's wrong.

Please go to a lab, and demonstrate how inanimate matter go to the point where it came to life and began talking. Forgive me for asking you to actually conduct a scientific experiment to back up your scientific claims.


You're talking about the theory of abiogensis, that is not part of the theory of evolution, evolution by natural selection describes how we got from the simplest forms of life to the life we see today and those processes are still continuing. Evolution doesn't describe how life started. So again you gave another argument from Personal Incredulity

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  What historical evidence? I have yet to find any.

Because you do not wish to find any. Ever heard of Gary Habarmas, Bill Craig, Mike Licona?

Yes I have, they are all Apologists and therefore heavily biased. Try again this time with independent sources.

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  This is not a primary source as he didn't witness the event, secondary sources (hearsay) have strict requirements to be accepted. Which the Bible also fails miserably at.

Peter and James witnessed the event. Paul had two weeks worth of chats with Peter...therefore, Paul spoke to a primary source.

See above

(23-06-2015 09:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 08:40 PM)Worom Wrote:  It's not an unsupported assertion, the Bible fails the requirements to be considered a historical document, ergo a book of myths and stories. And therefore not evidence.

That is what you say...I say the Bible meets the requirements.

And once again, PROVE IT!

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
― Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Worom's post
24-06-2015, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2015 02:25 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Nice post Worom.

Bollox - a christian - hope I ain't missed the twat.

Firstly, whoever wrote that Tacitus wrote in 109 AD is a few years out. It was actually 116 AD. Tacitus wasn't even born when jebus died so he can't be a primary source. He doesn't quote his source so it is likely that he got to hear about jebus from 'a guy down the pub' who knows this guy who became a christian based on what he was told about this guy called jebus.

The interesting jebus quotes are from Josephus in 93/94 AD, though and there are two. One is an acknowledged fraud because the passage has been found to be an insert by early christians. That's acknowledged even by christian historians. The second may be an early christian insert too but there's little proof either way.

So, if jebus really existed, how come his historicity needs early christian lies?

Next. Josephus lived less than 30 minutes walk from where jebus was supposed to have lived. So, how come Josephus never mentions this fact? From what we know about Josephus, had he lived less that 30 minutes walk from where jebus was supposed to have lived, he would have mentioned it. Yet, he doesn't. Josephus wasn't even born when jebus died so he can't be a primary source. He doesn't quote his source so it is likely that he got to hear about jebus from 'a guy down the pub' who knows this guy who became a christian based on what he was told about this guy called jebus and decided to become a christian.

The damming proof of jebus' non-existence is the fact that he supposedly went round Galilee doing all this groovy miracle shit, he preached to crowds of 5,000 which, for those days, was a huge, he preached, as a boy, in the temples and turned over the usurers' tables at the temple and yet, not one word was ever written about him during his lifetime. And all this in a time when Romans were documenting anything and everything. Yeh, right, of course jebus existed. Like fuck he did.

It says in the babble that mary and joseph went to Bethlehem for a census. Er, no. There was no census at the time jebus was supposedly born and, there is no census where people ever had to go back to the town where their fathers' were born.

Oh, and jebus wasn't born of a virgin as it says in the babble. The original text that the babble is based on is written in Aramaic. It says that jebus was born of Alma. Alma means Young Girl - Not virgin.

Whoever thinks jebus really existed needs to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like god has no twitter account's post
24-06-2015, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2015 03:31 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  All four of those books have contradictory accounts

Here are the accounts of the event at the tomb

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Matthew 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Luke 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
John 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
John 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
John 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
John 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
John 20:9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
John 20:10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
John 20:11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

One thing you forgot to mention:

We talk about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as though they actually wrote the gospels. We may as well have called them Steve, Dave, Eric and Gordon because we have no idea who the hell wrote those gospels - nor why for that matter.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like god has no twitter account's post
24-06-2015, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2015 07:33 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(23-06-2015 07:39 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-06-2015 04:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  let me try to explain to Wail of the Child what a witness testimony is. Lets say a man alive at the time of jesus was lucky enough to physically see one of these alleged miraculous events, THEN, goes and writes it down. THAT would be eyewitness testimony.

Paul met and spoke with eyewitnesses to Jesus and his Resurrection (Peter and James). You can keep on trying to sweep that shit under the rug all you want, but it isn't going anywhere.

(23-06-2015 04:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  What is NOT eye witness testimony is some jackass born after the death of jesus and the disciples, who begins to write down hearsay he gathers from alleged eyewitnesses years later who tell marvelous tales of magical events....this is called HEARSAY. Get it?

Paul wasn't born after Jesus' death. So this is actually a nonsense straw man you are setting up here.

(23-06-2015 04:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Further debunked when no one of a contemporary perspective bothered to record these magical events either.....Consider well that is odd, perhaps Justus who lived in Galilee? Nope, perhaps reknowned historian philo of alexandria?

So for Jesus to NOT have these men write ANYTHING about him, Jesus surpassed all of these men when it comes to the glory of his name, and the legacy after his death.

The average Joe Schmo walking down the street may not know Justus, or Philo of Alexanderia...but I garandamntee the average Joe Schmo knows Jesus.

So in other words, Jesus didn't need those "other" guys writing things about him. The plan was for the Gospel to spread far beyond first century Palestine...and it did, despite those other guys having not wrote anything about him.

Look at the legacy of Jesus, and look at the legacy of those other cats and you tell me who could have used the "extra penmanship" Laugh out load

(23-06-2015 04:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  nope, not only did he fail to record any of these magical events like zombie invasions, resurrecting self proclaimed saviors and global darkness midday....in fact, he doesnt even mention jesus...almost like he didnt exist...Consider or was so insignificant, he didnt bother. Yes

The name of Jesus and his glory spread regardless of whether those other guys wrote anything about him. Honorable mentions from Justus and Philo just isn't needed, GWOG.

As Jesus would probably tell you..."thanks, but no thanks" Cool

You really are slow on the uptake aren't you?

Allegedly "Paul met and spoke with eyewitnesses to Jesus and his Resurrection"

Thanks for yet again proving my assertions.....allegedly "met and spoke with eyewitnesses" is not a direct eyewitness testimony now is it child? If I told you a story about my magical life creating purple bigfoot in my backyard, and you were ignorant enough to believe me and go spread the story, and then someone else took that ridiculous story you told and wrote it down, he is NOT an eyewitness....that does not credibility make.

"Paul wasn't born after Jesus' death."

Paul never met jesus, what else you got? Again, you really suck at biblical historicity.

Philo of alexandria was a reknowned historian who resided and recorded the events in the area...never mentions jesus. Argumentum ad populum is not the litmus test for truth child. How many people have heard of jesus has zero bearing on anything, you can thank emperor Constantine who banished all other forms of worship under royal decree and threat of death, for the popularity of christianity. Again, biblical history is not your strong suit.

Please seek an education in christianity, biblical history and background of jesus before you try to enter the ring with the pros child. Here, a recommendation for you...

Price, Robert M. Deconstructing Jesus. New York. Prometheus Books. 2000. Print.

Dr Price by the way is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of 150 writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, the organizer of a Web community for those interested in the history of Christianity.

Education
BA, MTS (1978)
PhD in Systematic Theology (1981)
PhD in New Testament (1993)

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
24-06-2015, 03:40 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Paul supposedly wrote 14 epistles. However, only 7 are thought to be genuine. The rest are thought to have been created by early christians. Now why do you supposed that they did that?

Carrier has an interesting take on Paul's genuine epistles. To cut a long story short, it would appear that Paul's wording suggests that jebus didn't actually have an Earthly existence and was, in fact, a god. Although this seems far fetched, it fits perfectly with other things that were happening at the time i.e. the creation of new religions by the merging of two older ones and attributing Earthly existences to gods.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
24-06-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Big Grin

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
25-06-2015, 02:36 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2015 03:34 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
Call of the wild:

Just admit it. Just like other christians, you believe, not because there is proof of god, but because you want to believe. That way, you don't need to provide this fallacious 'proof' which, let's face it, is easy to destroy. Then, you can go back home and retain at least some semblance of dignity.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like god has no twitter account's post
26-06-2015, 12:02 AM
RE: Much Happier now that I'm an Atheist
(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  So in Matthew we have that the tomb was closed and that a single angel came down and opened the tomb during the dawn. and Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there. Then we go to the Book of Mark and we now Mary Magdalene, and Mary, mother of James and Salome and it's early morning, then they ask themselves how are they going to move the giant stone in front of the tomb because it's big and heavy, then when they get to the Tomb it's already open. We now have a contradiction, the book of Matthew says the tomb was closed and was rolled back by an angle when both Mary's got to the tomb

Nonsense. I will tell you the same thing I told GWOG. Matthew 28 stated that the women "went to look at the tomb" (v1). It isn't clear whether or not they arrived to the tomb just as the angel opened the tomb, or whether the tomb was already open before they arrived. We only know when the women reached the tomb by verse 5, when the angel spoke to them.

For all we know, verses 2-4 could be describing what happened BEFORE the women arrived to the tomb, and as long as this is even possible, it makes the entire account non-contradictory.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  and that there was an Earthquake, Mark says that the tomb is already open and doesn't mention the Earthquake at all.

The earthquake thing is a non-issue. Just because one writer felt the earthquake was important to mention and another writer felt it wasn't important to mention doesn't imply a contradiction. Again, how much information is placed within any written work is at the discretion of the writer, not the readers. But far from a contradiction, or discrepancy.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Then we get to the next contradiction Matthew says that an Angel was sitting on the top of the stone door, Mark makes no mention of this and says there is a young man sitting inside the Tomb on the right side.

Right, so after you read both accounts you rationally conclude that there was one angel sitting on top of the stone door, and another angel sitting inside the tomb. Matthew didn't state that there was no angel inside the tomb, nor did Mark state that there was no angel outside the tomb.

This is what you would expect when you have independent accounts. If all Gospel's were exact carbon copies, then we wouldn't need more than one, would we?

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Then we get to Luke where the problems continue, Luke says they went to the tomb, so we don't know who is the author is referring to when he says they.

Um, Luke 24:1 clearly states "...the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb". Who were the women? Just a hunch, but probably the same women that are mentioned in the other THREE Gospels.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Then there are two men that are outside the tomb that talk to them.

Actually, the two men appeared and talked to them as they were inside the tomb (v3-4).

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Then we finally find out who the author was referring to when he said they, Which is yet another contradiction as we now have an unknown number of people that went to the the Tomb, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James were mentioned specifically and then it refers to other woman.

Um, we already knew that the "they" of whom the author was referring to was "the women", from Luke 23:55, followed by Luke 24:1. Then in Luke 24:10, Luke clearly states by name who was there, even though it plainly states that others were with them.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Then we get to John and the contradictions continue. So now we have it still dark and only Mary Magdalene is going to the tomb and she sees it's open then goes running off and gets Simon Peter and another Disciple, Then the three of them run to the tomb and this time there are two angels sitting at the head and feet of where Jesus was.

It looks like John's account of the empty tomb was strictly from Mary Magdalene's perspective, she is the only woman mentioned at the empty tomb. But that is not to say that the other women weren't there, that just means that John chose to FOCUS on Mary Magdalene, for whatever reason. Non-contradictory.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  So now we have 4 books that can't agree with each other on who was there, what time it was, whether or not there were angels there, the number of men or angels there. whether or not there was an earthquake, and if the tomb was open or closed. For something that Christians say to be the core event of their entire faith, you would think there would be no differences between any of the books.

So if I went to a baseball game, and my mother called me and somehow, my cousin Gary came up in the conversation, and I tell my mother "Oh, I am with Gary right now, we are at the baseball game"...and eventually, me and my mother end our conversation.

An hour later, my Uncle calls me, and asks me "Have you seen my son Brandon?", and I tell him, "Not only have I seen him, but he is with me; we are at the baseball game", and eventually, me and my uncle end our conversation.

So my mother and my uncle are on the phone talking, and my mother tells my uncle, "Kevin is at the baseball game right now with Gary"...and my uncle says "No he isn't, he is at the baseball game with Brandon".

When my mother and uncle compare notes, it would appear as if there is a contradiction between what I told my mother, and what I told my uncle.

But it just could be the case that I am at the baseball game with BOTH Gary, and Brandon!!! Just because I didn't mention the fact that Gary is with me to my uncle, doesn't mean that Gary isn't there....and vice versa (to my mother).

The majority of all concerns about the Gospels have to do with faulty logic and reasoning, all on the skeptics part.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  For something that Christians say to be the core event of their entire faith, you would think there would be no differences between any of the books.

These differences are what we expect when dealing with independent accounts, and it is because of these differences that people like you can't go around saying that all four authors got together and began to piggy-back off of each, because if they did, then we wouldn't have these differences, now would we?

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  The contradictions also can't be reconciled

They can, and they are.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  , there is no physical evidence

Where is the physical evidence that Caesar was stabbed?

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  , or other writings describing these events either. Therefore they can't be considered historical.

Nonsense. Again, assuming that the Gospels need external documents to support them. The truth value of whether or not the narratives are true is independent of whether there are outside books to corroborate them. The Gospels (1 Corinthians) are all independent books. So you have at least five independent sources describing these events...that makes it..HISTORICAL.

(17-11-2014 03:32 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  As for Tacitus, Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus.

Taxi cab fallacy. The entire genre of history is based on "historians" writing about things "well" after the fact, and based on your logic there wouldn't even be a historic discipline of egyptology, because all egyptologists that are alive today are writing about stuff "well after the alleged events".

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44)

Hmmm...Christus...Jesus Christ, I can see the relation.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  , which he wrote around 109 C.E.

Again, taxi cab fallacy...you say that as if it is a surprise that a historian would write about something years after the event. This is an obvious double standard and we may as well wipe the entire genre of history out if we use your nonsense logic.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  He gives no source for his material.

He also gave no sources when he mentioned Emperor Nero, and Pontius Pilate. But we are only gonna play the role of super duper skeptic when it comes to things concerning Jesus, right...but everything and everyone else gets a free pass, huh? Nonsense.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Nonsense. So if I asked you to name me the President of the United States that was in office during the U.S. Civil War...and you answer "Abe Lincoln"...how do you know that he was President during that time? After all, your birth "happened after the alleged war", so that would mean that your answer is based on hearsay accounts, because you weren't there. That is the same nonsense logic you are using when it comes to Jesus and the Gospels. The same exact thing.

Taxi cab fallacy, again.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologists and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

I am talking about the Tacitus account in his Annals, and in it he is clearly talking about Christ when he mentioned Christus, which confirms what the Gospels had been saying...and to sum it up, he is saying that there was a guy whose name (or was called) Christus, and he had a bunch of followers who were called "Christians", and he was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate, and a "mysterious superstition" resulted after his death....what Tacitus wrote in a nut shell just HAPPENS to sum up the Gospel, in a nut shell.

But oh no, we can't have anything outside the Bible corroborating what the Bible has to say...we can't have that, can we? It is time to put on the super duper skeptic mask and fight such evil!!! Dodgy

Now of course, you can downplay those implications all you want to, but you have to dig really hard to do so and if you are honest with yourself, whether you believe in the Resurrection or not you shouldn't sit there and try to convince yourself that Tacitus isn't talking about Jesus Christ and the early Christian movement.

Where I'm from, we call it "keeping it real".

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  The term χρηστός chrestos was utilized not only in secular situations but also within ancient religion, philosophy, spirituality and the all-important mysteries, which concerned life and death, including near-death experiences and afterlife traditions. "Chrestos" was one of the titles for the dead in tomb writings "of the Greeks in all ages, pre-Christian as well as post-Christian." Examples of these epithets can be studied in August Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. We read elsewhere that the epithet "Chrestos" appears commonly on the epitaphs of most citizens of Larissa, Greece, specifically in the form of chrestos heros , this latter term meaning "hero" and "demigod." The Greek word chrestos was popular also as an epithet or on epitaphs at various Egyptian funerary sites as at Alexandria and elsewhere.

As another example of the Pagan use of the word chrestos, in 2008 an evidently pre-Christian cup or bowl was found at Alexandria, Egypt, with the genitive form chrestou inscribed on it. This artifact could predate the common era by decades, part of the genre of magical bowls used for protection and incantation. Another artifact with significance in this analysis of the uses of chrestos in antiquity is the chi-rho symbol.

I could care less about the documentary you want to do on the term or title Christus, because in the context of Tacitus brief mention, it is clear as to who he is talking about....unless you want to tell me who the hell else had a group of followers that were called Christians by the population (which corroborates Acts 11:26, btw), and a "mysterious superstition" came as a result of his death (which sounds an awful lot like what a Resurrection would be called to a pagan, just sayin').

All of the long documentary stuff you want to preach about regarding Christus means absolutely nothing in light of the context of Tactius' passage in his Annals.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Nice Strawman argument there, Those were not my arguments we simply just don't know as we don't have anything else to suggest who wrote it other than the document itself

Then lets just take that reasoning and apply it to any other ancient document, book, annals, poem, biography, etc...lets apply that logic to anything written in antiquity...but you wouldn't dare do that, would you? Only when it comes to the Bible is it time to put on the super duper costume.

But then again, it is worth mentioning that the author of 1 Corinthians has never really been in dispute anyway. Only the uneducated critics who want to play the role of super duper skeptic by denying any and everything when it comes to Biblical stuff, those are the only ones that would raise an issue of whether or not Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  A creed is still a creed regardless if paul got it from someone else or not, it's still not a historical source because its based on faith.

Ok, fine..but the point is that the belief in the Resurrection itself, that was a belief that was developed EARLY, that is the point. Paul was a contemporary of Peter, James, and the rest of the original disciples. The point is, if he is getting a creed from these original followers of Jesus, and within the creed it has "Resurrection" and "post mortem appearances" written all over it, then all of this "decades after the fact" crap is inaccurate, and pointless.

Just old and played out quips by unbelievers that don't know the facts.

Second, it is not based on faith, since the belief in the Resurrection came from the original followers of Jesus...so either they were lying, or they were telling the truth. The whole "faith" thing is geared towards us..but to them, there was no faith...there was simply "we saw the risen Messiah, either you believe us, or you don't".

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  And what is your proof that people that supposedly witnessed the resurrection were still alive at the time that 1 Corinthians was written?

Because in 1 Corin 15:6, he clearly states that most of those that saw the risen Jesus was alive, although some have "fallen asleep". If, at the time that the book was written, and all of those who witnessed Jesus' after the Resurrection had since died, then it wouldn't make any sense to pass along a creed that states "most of whom are still living", if they were all dead at the time that Paul passed the creed along.

Or at BEST, when Paul passed the creed along, those that witnessed the Resurrection was alive...at best (I am making a distinction from when Paul said he PASSED the creed on, from when the actually WROTE 1 Corinthians).

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Also I'm well aware of the line saying 500 people saw the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians. Where are the independent accounts of those 500 people??

There probably were accounts, just not written accounts. Not everyone could read or write during that time, so the word was passed along orally...and as fast as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire in just 30 years from the crucifixion, 500 independent people spreading the word around town would seem to make sense.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  The creed is still a profession of faith, The author saying that he received a creed doesn't change that it's a creed.

Definition of creed:

noun
a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.
"people of many creeds and cultures"
synonyms: faith, religion, religious belief, religious persuasion, church, denomination, sect
"people of many creeds and cultures"
a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.
noun: Creed; noun: the Creed
synonyms: system of belief, set of beliefs, beliefs, principles, articles of faith, ideology, credo, doctrine, teaching, dogma, tenets, canons
"his political creed"
a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.
"liberalism was more than a political creed"

Right, but in the creed he also stated in verse 8 "and last of all he appeared to me also." So as I said, personal testimony.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  The net is so flooded with apologetic sources on this topic that it's impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion with my current level of knowledge, I need an independent source, not an apologetic source to consider your argument.

Understood. But you could simply look at the sources, and cross-reference the sources. Hell, he is only stating how long after the fact were the writings of other famous historians when compared to the Bible...and that is stuff that can be easily verified or debunked, because it is for the public record for all to see.

See, when you are telling the truth, you don't need to hide anything.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Prove it then

Debate me on the authorship & time frame at which the Gospels were written (including 1 Corinthians and Acts)

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  This is not a proof, I could make a similar argument by saying you only get new Fat people on Fat tuesday

If the case for the Resurrection wasn't so strong, there would be no Easter Sunday to celebrate.

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Definition of Primary Source: Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way. Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source.

When Paul talked to Peter, he was talking to an original disciple of Jesus that had not been "altered or distorted in any way".

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  You're talking about the theory of abiogensis, that is not part of the theory of evolution, evolution by natural selection describes how we got from the simplest forms of life to the life we see today and those processes are still continuing. Evolution doesn't describe how life started. So again you gave another argument from Personal Incredulity

Nonsense. From a naturalistic "God does not exist" standpoint, there is no way you can claim that evolution is true, if you don't now how life originated. If the proposition "life arose naturally from nonliving materials" is false, then you don't have a theory of evolution.

Evolution assumes abiogenesis..but abiogenesis has yet to be proven...therefore, evolution has yet to be proven.

Nice syllogism right there Laugh out load

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  Yes I have, they are all Apologists and therefore heavily biased. Try again this time with independent sources.

Independent sources like those that don't believe in Christianity, who are also "biased" Laugh out load

(24-06-2015 09:40 AM)Worom Wrote:  And once again, PROVE IT!

Accept the debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: