New Testament History revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2016, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 02:27 AM by Deltabravo.)
New Testament History revisited
I am starting this thread to explain why I became so fascinated by the history of a particular man, Mr. J. Christ.

I grew up in the Alberta Bible Belt and was taken off to Sunday school by my parents, against my better judgment. After hearing about the crucifixion I thought, "naw, must have been a trick" and then I asked my parents if I could stop going. They were ok with that so from then on, at about age 11, I had no further involvement with Christianity except from people banging on our door wanting us to become Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists.

I did study religion at university because the head of our department was a former Jesuit priest in India and he recommended it. I found the New Testament very perplexing, as it didn't have the authors full names, had lots of things in it which were patently ridiculous etc etc. so I just thought it was nonsense that stupid people believe in because they are stupid and need comforting with that sort of stuff.

Anyway, now I am semi retired, I got interested in forums and joined up to Richard Dawkins org and Sam Harris' site and found out about Joe Atwill and then others like Ellis and David Donnini who put forward an alternate view. I have had a long time to ponder these.

Anyway, what happened is that I became interested in Sumerian as I live in the Near East and it became apparent that this area has been neglected in terms of historical analysis because of Islam which forces people in it to ignore history and focus on Allah and religious rites so there is a huge amount of this areas history which is yet to be properly examined. Gobelki Tepi for instance.

I read Atwill and thought he had a good point about the statistical probability of the New Testament being written as a collaborative effort in conjunction with the War with the Jews. I then read Ellis and he puts forward a different but connected view that the historical character behind this is Izates Manu Monobaz, a fairly well documented character who lived in the area and appears to have some similar features to Jesus, ie., his name, his being sent away to somewhere at an early age, his engagement in famine relief in Jerusalem, his becoming a Rabbi in Jerusalem, his conversion to a new and "Christian-like" version of Judaism being promulgated out of Alexandria.

I have a degree in classical political theory so I have a passing familiarity of the events of the late Roman republic and I was aware that Epicureanism had taken hold at the time but had been supplanted by emperor worship by Julius Caesar and the Claudians, the last of whom, Nero, came to a sticky end in 68 AD. Epicureanism was a rationalist philosophy and it occurred to me that this philosophy must have carried on at least covertly despite the excesses of the Claudians.

The death of Nero brought about the Year of Four Emperors which resulted in Vespasian being made Emperor as the first of the Flavians. It also saw the historian Josephus turning coat on the Jews after commanding the Jewish forces in Galilee and eventually being adopted by Vespasian and taking the name Josephus Flavius. Interesting.

So, I looked up this Izates character and realize he is actually an historical figure but of course there's no mention of his doing miracles or a crucifixion. But, I found that the earliest mention I could find of the publication of the New Testament was 78 AD which would have allowed Izates to be the foundation of the Jesus story.

My next question was "What religion were he and the people he was preaching to born into?". I think this is a very important question because we keep hearing that Jesus was a Jew. So, if he was, where do the ideas of virgin birth, crucifixion, a Messiah figure, miracles etc come from.

The more I thought about it, the more I thought that all of this is a way of giving this guy his credentials so I looked for a religion in the area which had these figures. As the Jews were supposed to have come from Egypt and there are all sorts of similarities between the Horus myth and Christ, I figured that a lot of this must be about preaching to members of this cult. Seems sensible.

So, for instance, why did Jesus have to walk on water? Hey, Horus walked on water too.

Then there is raising Lazarus from the dead. So, who is Lazarus and why does Jesus have to raise him from the dead. Well, he is "el Osirus", Horus's father who dies and is brought back to life.

Then we can look at things like the Cross which is a simplified Egyptian Ankh and the whole crucifixion motif of going up a hill carrying a cross and the physiological response of a death erection. With that you have the clearest indication that the Romans used crucifixion to mock a belief in followers of a star constellation god, namely Horus/Appollo/Orion because this star configuration has those features and appears at night, climbs into the sky, chases the darkness away, bringing the sun back, has a cross formation behind him with Jupiter at the top and has a "belt" which is a phallus like formation of stars called the Three Kings.

So, I figured that one can put all this together in a very interesting pattern.

1. The New Testament can be read intertextually, according to Joe Atwell. Doing so explains many of the inconsistencies. They are deliberiate because they give the work dimension. It allows the reader to see a progress of the story from different angles, at different times. For instance, the empty tomb story is played out over the four gospels and Jesus is observed, or not, at different times by different groups of people, to show his progress down the hill and off into town. You can't do that and be plausible if you only have one viewpoint because it would look like fiction. You have to have different observers and they are going to have different and flawed recollection. This gives the work plausibility, like when police officers "don't" write the identical think in their notebooks.

2. The miracles are intended to appeal to the readership who understand the significance of them. It may be that Jesus didn't actually bring Lazarus back to life, but the symbolism of the name and the appearance of this to people points to Jesus being the Messiah. Otherwise, he could have done any kind of miracle, made a rock levitate, or a carpet lift up and fly off. Equally miraculous but not a Horus type event.

3. The historical figure can be Monobaz. It really doesn't matter about the timing. No one was there! It's not like the New Testament was released as a paper back and people could point out historical inaccuracies.What it does by placing Jesus in that era is simply allows him to predict the fall of Jerusalem.

4. The moral message. This is important. What kind of religion was Jesus preaching to? If it was the blood and guts, enslaving, mysoginistic, murderous, ritualistic religion of the Old Testament, then when you combine this with what was going on in the Roman Empire, through the time of the Claudians, you have a reversion to paganism. The Romans were very glad to see the end of the Claudians and a return to Flavian style civilized life. The moral message of the New Testament is based on a god concept set out very clearly. This is not a god who has to be spoken to at the top of a mountain. The NT plainly says that god is the "logos". Nothing could be clearer. On this basis, the moral philosophy of the NT becomes "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". This is followed by parables which explain how to apply this philosophy and exhortations to the masses to follow this so they will get some reward.

There are two main themes I wanted to draw out of this. Life at that time was paganistic and religions were based on notions of deities who were star figures and men-gods like Julius Caesar and the Pharoahs who saw themselves as the embodiment of Horus. The dominant philosophical movement in Rome amongst educated people, however, was Epicureanism, which was secularist and rational.

For me, this means that Christianity and the New Testament is a work intended to use a real figure of a known person and to attribute to him Horus-like features so that he can be used to put forward a non-paganistic moral philosophy and end the domination of this religion both in the Rome and the Near East.

My second point is this: If, as "atheists" we want to debunk religions, then it is important to figure out what this "God" character was. He has become a nebulous, elastic concept which is trotted out to baffle and mystify people. Over the millennia he has retreated from being a big white haired man in the sky, painted on the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel, and become an "invisibility". I can't think of any other way of describing this phenomena.

Ancient peoples like the Greeks and Romans saw their gods as real and corporeal. Jesus is supposed to be "resurrected" because gods are "alive", not dead. So, Jesus, according to the New Testament, as it was intended to be preached, is still alive...somewhere, and he should be able to "come back" because he just needs to catch a plane and get here from where ever he is.

Look at the Cargo Cult. They found a picture of Prince Philliip in the wreckage of a cargo plane and thought that because it had come from the sky, and he was all dressed up, he was god. That is easy to debunk because these people have met Prince Phillip. However, if we keep going down the path of a "presentist" view of god as an "invisibility" then we fail to look at how the ancients saw their gods, not as all powerful and invisible. They looked to the heavens and they say a big man set out in a star configuration and they invented a system whereby a series of 12 other star signs follow him through the night sky. This is where we get the name Horoscope and why there are 12 Hours in a day and why this figure appears and disappears over the Horizon. It's staring right at us. The followers of this religion were given a patron saint "George" who is the embodiment of the Horus legend and they rode Horses which distinguished them from the Egyptians (Kemals) who rode Camels.

This is not really rocket science. There is nothing profoundly difficult about understanding that Christianity is a contrived, secular product of Hellenistic writers who were trying to end the dominance of paganistic religions in the Roman Empire after the barbarity of the Claudians. It weaves a story around a moral principle and uses an historical character which it embellishes with the mythology of the cult of Horus to get people to accept that this figure has come to them to tell them to abandon paganism and ritualistic religion and live according to Hellenistic moral principles.

All this crap about Jesus not being around in 32 AD, or being entirely myth is just missing the point and ignores the historical and cultural background of the time. Sadly, this religion did not take among the entire population and later, adherents to this old star and moon cult figure out that they also needed a book to rally political suppport and drive out the ruling classes who had adopted Christianity. Hence, Islam and this is why Islam, to this day is ritualistic and anti-Christian. It is just the product of an historical anomaly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2016, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2016 10:59 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New Testament History revisited
(18-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, I figured that one can put all this together in a very interesting pattern.

Yes indeed. We know all about your "interesting patterns".
Facepalm
(AKA "dot connecting")

You may not know much about the Sumerians, but REAL scholars and historians do.

Quote:The miracles are intended to appeal to the readership who understand the significance of them.

Wrong again. The gospels were written to be "proclaimed" in worship events. 5% or less of the population was literate. They were not written to "be read''. Anyone who has taken NT 101 knows that.

Quote:"The historical figure can be Monobaz."

Could also be the tooth fairy, for all you know.

Quote:4. The moral message. This is important. What kind of religion was Jesus preaching to? If it was the blood and guts, enslaving, mysoginistic, murderous, ritualistic religion of the Old Testament, then when you combine this with what was going on in the Roman Empire, through the time of the Claudians, you have a reversion to paganism.

Totally false.
Scholars , no longer talk about "paganism". The gospels writers were trying to simplify the Hebrew law into "Do unto others ... " as that was the ethic and concern of the rabbis in the late 1st Century after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the diaspora had occurred. "Paganism" implies that one group's god(s) are better and more authentic than others. You obviously share that view.

Quote:Life at that time was paganistic and religions were based on notions of deities who were star figures and men-gods like Julius Caesar and the Pharoahs who saw themselves as the embodiment of Horus.

LMAO. OF course Horus. Always Horus. Weeping
All humans think their gods are the real gods. The artificial line you draw between the presumed "real one god" and others is artificial and false. "Pagan" gods are no different that Yahweh, the Babylonian war deity.

Quote:My second point is this: If, as "atheists" we want to debunk religions, then it is important to figure out what this "God" character was. He has become a nebulous, elastic concept which is trotted out to baffle and mystify people. Over the millennia he has retreated from being a big white haired man in the sky, painted on the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel, and become an "invisibility". I can't think of any other way of describing this phenomena.

Total contradiction. Which is it ? Who he was, or what he has become, that is important ?

Quote:Ancient peoples like the Greeks and Romans saw their gods as real and corporeal.

So not pagans then, after all ?

Quote:Look at the Cargo Cult. They found a picture of Prince Philliip in the wreckage of a cargo plane and thought that because it had come from the sky, and he was all dressed up, he was god. That is easy to debunk because these people have met Prince Phillip. However, if we keep going down the path of a "presentist" view of god as an "invisibility" then we fail to look at how the ancients saw their gods, not as all powerful and invisible. They looked to the heavens and they say a big man set out in a star configuration and they invented a system whereby a series of 12 other star signs follow him through the night sky. This is where we get the name Horoscope and why there are 12 Hours in a day and why this figure appears and disappears over the Horizon. It's staring right at us. The followers of this religion were given a patron saint "George" who is the embodiment of the Horus legend and they rode Horses which distinguished them from the Egyptians (Kemals) who rode Camels.

Dot connecting bullshit. Are you on drugs ?

Quote:
This is not really rocket science.

You can fucking say THAT again.

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
18-10-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: New Testament History revisited
Quote:I read Atwill and thought he had a good point about the statistical probability of the New Testament being written as a collaborative effort in conjunction with the War with the Jews.


So stop to think about the political/military situation in 70 AD. Jerusalem was a smoking ruin. Roman soldiers were cleaning the blood off their swords and javelins.
The jews were utterly crushed. They were so crushed that in 115 when the 2d jewish revolt broke the ( the Kitos War) the jews in Judaea largely sat it out. Atwill would have us believe that the Romans, having just slaughtered the jews with great efficiency, would still be so worried about them that they would bother to go through this much trouble.

In the aftermath of the Year of the Four Emperors Vespasian had inherited a burned out city of Rome, a serious revolt in Germany/Gaul and a bankrupt treasury. He dealt with each of those problems. The fucking jews were the least of his problems.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
19-10-2016, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2016 10:45 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: New Testament History revisited
(18-10-2016 10:28 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:I read Atwill and thought he had a good point about the statistical probability of the New Testament being written as a collaborative effort in conjunction with the War with the Jews.


So stop to think about the political/military situation in 70 AD. Jerusalem was a smoking ruin. Roman soldiers were cleaning the blood off their swords and javelins.
The jews were utterly crushed. They were so crushed that in 115 when the 2d jewish revolt broke the ( the Kitos War) the jews in Judaea largely sat it out. Atwill would have us believe that the Romans, having just slaughtered the jews with great efficiency, would still be so worried about them that they would bother to go through this much trouble.

In the aftermath of the Year of the Four Emperors Vespasian had inherited a burned out city of Rome, a serious revolt in Germany/Gaul and a bankrupt treasury. He dealt with each of those problems. The fucking jews were the least of his problems.


If you take Josephus' view of who the "Jews" were, they were invaders from "Armenia". At that time, Armenia would have been most of Anatolia and the Near East down to around modern Lebanon, ie., the homeland of the Phoenecians, which explains how they invaded. Armenian simply means "Ar men", Aryans, or Sumerians. That ties in with the Old Testament description of Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldees and being a Keltoi.

What the Romans were fighting against were the proto-European tribes of the Near East who descended from the Aryans of Mesopotamia and whose civilization has spread northward. The "Turks" are merely modern Sumerians. Their language is Sumerian in grammatical construction and the word "Tur" is Akkadian for "Sumerian". Turkey now occupies what was Greater Armenia.

The Romans fought the "Jews" for a hundred years and these weren't bankers, accountants and Rabbis. The symbolism of the New Testament points towards Egypt and this pagan cult was eventually driven out of Egypt.

I don't see any issue with saying that Josephus collaborated with others under Roman guidance to make up the New Testament as a companion piece to the War with the Jews. He was a skilled religious writer and the Romans used literature to persuade.

I think this is what the road to Damascus conversion of Paul is about, that he had a "brain storm" and realized how he could pitch a new religion to Vespasian, and he would write it up, as the man, "Matthew", Jesus meets in the Gospel of Matthew.

My point generally is that if you understand the argument that Feuerbach makes, that god is an invention of man, and reflects the characteristics of the men who create him, look at the god of the Old Testament. He is a reflection of an old civilization that sacrificed children, coveted neigbour's wives, engaged in slavery, polygamy, and all other kinds of horrors. That civilization collapses at the end of the Old Testament and this coincides with Roman rule. This was not a nice bunch of people. According to Josephus they were barbarians, Wiki: "The Jewish War[edit]
Main article: The Jewish War
His first work in Rome was an account of the Jewish War, addressed to certain "upper barbarians"—usually thought to be the Jewish community in Mesopotamia—in his "paternal tongue" (War I.3), arguably the Western Aramaic language"

What we are seeing now is a retreat by Jewish scholars from the whole idea that the Jews were who Josephus says they were and that they ever went to Egypt. It's a major attempt at revisionism. Now they will say that the Jews never left Judea. That's fine with me. Invading conquerors don't take the whole population of an area with them when they invade. They take soldiers and other necessary trades, take local women for wives and develop a new civilization. The majority of the population stays behind. The Anglo-Saxons did not displace the Britons, for instance and Iceland was settled by Norsemen who took English women to Iceland. Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans who took ten of each kind of craftsman or tradesman, some farmers, dispossessed people, some unemployed people etc.

The point is that none of this really matters anyway. What you had in the Near East was a barbaric culture, as portrayed in the Old Testament. The Romans sought to subdue this militarily and then, with the help of Josephus, ie., Paul, they create a religion based on a secular, rational concept and they create a "god" who is the "logos" or reason. The moral principle which this leads to is so close to Kants' categorical imperative as to be indistinguishable. This is the key to understanding the significance of the New Testament, that it is a religion which uses an historical character, for political reasons, and appeals to an older religion using motifs from that religion. It is a polemic work, not four gospels which by happenchance tell similar stories of a miracle man.

Suppose today we had an Imam somewhere who the West was able to take as a role model for Muslims who taught peace. Islam is essentially the same in its morality as Judaism was back then. It is the same except for the Koran, which virtually no one reads. Islam is the continuation of the same Near East monotheism which is described in the Old Testament; similar rites and festivals, call to prayer, vengeful nasty god.

It makes more sense to read the New Testament this way, if you analyze it, because otherwise the book just twists your mind around endlessly. You have to pick a starting point and that has to be the concept of what the NT god is, ie., the logos, and then, according to Feuerbach, you have to look at what the characteristics were of the people who created this god. And they have to have been rational people. Then you look at the moral message and you begin to see this is the heart of the NT and that the rest is just a literary vehicle using a leader of the Jewish revolt and casting him as the messiah in terms which appeal to the religion of the day.

In this way you can see how important a religion it is, in that it turned an almost universal paganism on its head and imbued it with a rational moral philosophy instead of something more like a page out of an ISIS training manual...or the Old Testament story of David.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: New Testament History revisited
The Old Testament is long, many chaptered morality play of an ancient civilization, beginning in Ur. This is the story of the Sumerians. They are pagans and migrate north into the Near East and then into Egypt. The Kem (Egyptian) are the Sumarians. Its linguistically the same word. The morality of these people, based on divination of the motives of celestial gods and the imbuing of these gods with Alpha male qualities leads inevitably to the downfall of this civilization. These people, await the return of their independence under their own king. They are the major civilization of the ancient world and the Romans are merely upstarts.

The Romans face a civilization which is barbarian and untamable, much as Islam in the Near East appears to us today. What is needed is a religion and moral philosophy which departs from this tradition and which can be sold to these people. Therein lies the significance of Christianity, regardless of what anyone thinks of its narrative. It is a religion of reason in a world of barbarism and that is the message which actually underlies the Christian message, that Jesus saved mankind. It is the recognition of a "god" or grund norm which is rational and puts compassion to others at its center, replacing pagan ethical egoism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2016 11:20 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: New Testament History revisited
Oh, the speech went well. I got some good feedback. It was quite stressful as the audience were largely professors at the University of Paris medical faculty. I am used to speaking publicly as it was my job but not to an audience of academics on a completely new paradigm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2016 11:42 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: New Testament History revisited
Since coming to this forum and by virtue of watching the pseudo-conflict here in the Near East, and the atrocities committed in the name of Allah/Eloi, I have come to the conclusion that the New Testament is, in fact, the most important book ever written. I am a secularist and I see it as a work of secularist, Hellenistic polemicists who succeeded in changing the way people conceive of this "god" concept. Unfortunately, not everyone gets it but, even so, the message it contains is like a subliminal, buried in an ancient riddle.

As "non believer" I am happy with this because I can now put this demon to bed and move on. I don't now feel any need to delve into the identity of J. Christ, hippy-carpenter, or wonder who might Paul have been, because it is all irrelevant and a waste of time.

I think if you go through life troubled by religion but find some way of looking at it which leaves you satisfied that you understand what it is about in rational, explicable and ordinary terms, so that you can then be "put it to bed", you have won the battle.

What is sad is that in coming to an understanding of something which troubles atheists, and which is why this forum is here, as a place for atheists to come to find an understanding of why they are in the position they are, that one has to be harassed psychologically all the way along one's journey. It's sad and it reflects badly on the mindset of those doing the harassing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
I think people miss the point. What, for an atheist, is objectionable about digging into the origins of the Judeo-Christian "God" and finding that he was a star constellation? If anything it is a good thing because it highlights how, over time, religionists move from a view of their god as a real object, living somewhere, to a completely elastic concept. It's this elastification of "God" which I find so infuriating about religionists and why I am happy with the approach I have taken, whether or not I am entirely correct in my approach to research or in some of my terminology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 10:55 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Old Testament is long, many chaptered morality play of an ancient civilization, beginning in Ur. This is the story of the Sumerians. They are pagans and migrate north into the Near East and then into Egypt. The Kem (Egyptian) are the Sumarians. Its linguistically the same word. The morality of these people, based on divination of the motives of celestial gods and the imbuing of these gods with Alpha male qualities leads inevitably to the downfall of this civilization. These people, await the return of their independence under their own king. They are the major civilization of the ancient world and the Romans are merely upstarts.

The Romans face a civilization which is barbarian and untamable, much as Islam in the Near East appears to us today. What is needed is a religion and moral philosophy which departs from this tradition and which can be sold to these people. Therein lies the significance of Christianity, regardless of what anyone thinks of its narrative. It is a religion of reason in a world of barbarism and that is the message which actually underlies the Christian message, that Jesus saved mankind. It is the recognition of a "god" or grund norm which is rational and puts compassion to others at its center, replacing pagan ethical egoism.

Totally false.
Dismissed, as made up fiction from a totally unreliable, uneducated (on this topic) man, suffering from delusions and Dunning-Kreuger syndrome.
No referneces.

NOT ONE historian, (or Bible Scholar) in the entire world agrees with this fictional garbage.

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
19-10-2016, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2016 04:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New Testament History revisited
(19-10-2016 11:37 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What is sad is that in coming to an understanding of something which troubles atheists, and which is why this forum is here, as a place for atheists to come to find an understanding of why they are in the position they are, that one has to be harassed psychologically all the way along one's journey. It's sad and it reflects badly on the mindset of those doing the harassing.

Making up fake shit is no comfort or help to anyone. It's not AT ALL a help to any group, least of all to us, you and your false "help to atheism" nonsense.
The crap you cook up and post is NO LESS false than the garbage theists cook up and imagine.
You, pretending to know anything about History, is what is REALLY sad.
You seem to think that somehow we are supposed to just accept your bullshit, which has NO FOUNDATION, no references and no historical exposition, no facts.
You crap about "Sumerians from Ur" is 100 % false. Archaeology KNOWS when and where and by whom Canaan was settled. You do not have a clue.
The fact that in the MYTHS in Genesis, Ur was referenced when they made up the story, is NO indication that the people assembling the stories about the (mythical) Abraham
actually KNEW that there was one, (Abraham) or knew where he came from. In the videos you have been provided with multiple times, but cannot bother to learn anything from,
it points out that a journey from Ur to Canaan at the time it was posited, was not possible. Travel by non-royal herders, by camel, had not begun yet. There is not a shred of archeological evidence that journey happened or genetic or any other kind of evidence, for that migration. They MADE IT UP, and you repeat those FAITH CLAIMS as fact, and using the myth as part of the foundation for your FICTIONAL bullshit, is NO assistance to anyone. Least of all to atheists who don't buy the Biblical bullshit, in the first place. So stop pretending you have the "moral high-ground" here. You're as much of the problem as any religious fool is, who preaches their made-up crap.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: