Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2012, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2012 09:34 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 07:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2012 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I just did. And your Josephus talks about them.
You most certainly did not.

Vespasian? You think Josephus regarded him as a Messiah? You are confusing your history.

What Josephus did was reinterpret Messianic prophesies to predict that Vespasian would rule the entire world. He did not say that Vespasian, a Roman, would become the Jewish Messiah.

That's ridiculous.

Are you also not aware that Josephus not ONCE mentions the word "Messiah" in his works of Antiquities of the Jews or The Jewish War? Also, are you not aware that Josephus only mentions the word "Christ" in reference to Jesus, and no one else in all his works?

As I pointed out above, (and your forgetfulness must again have gotten the better of you), there is a slam-dunk case against the forgery/interpolated text in Josephus 18. So he called NO ONE by that title, as he was not interested in ANYONE other than Vespasian *being seen* as such. Josephus was not waiting for *another* messiah, as he was a client of Vespasian. And Vespasian WAS seen as such, by some. http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/mes...nts13.html
And BTW, Josephus DID say, (in the Wars of the Jews 3.399-404), that Vespasian fulfilled the Jewish ("oracles") prophesy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian More evidence above poster never really read Josephus.
http://www.netours.com/index2.php?option...df=1&id=84
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/mes...nts13.html

From post #129
"Apart from the fact, (as this poster has personally observed in the Museo Ambrsiano in Milan) that it's an a different hand and different ink than the original document, there is the obvious and all one has to do is read it to start laughing. :
a. It's a statement of faith. "lawful to call him a man" implies he was something greater than a man, (ie a messiah or a god).
It says he rose from the dead. It's a statement about the miracles, as being other than normal. It claims he WAS the Christ.

It has Josephus gushing over Jebus like a 13 year-old over Justin Bieber.

The forger makes three other mistakes.

1. It calls them "Christians" when in fact the Romans, or they, did not call themselves that until AFTER Josephus was dead.
2. It says "tribe" of Christians, which was an error of the forging scribes to try to make it appear a Jew was writing the interpolated text.
3. It refers to "gentiles", which was a word which Josephus NEVER used even once, anywhere else.

BTW, something else that's often missed here by those who don't really understand Hebrew culture, or have no training in Biblical Studies, is that a "messiah" had more than one meaning. Only a few Jews expected a "future" messiah. Not all the sects expected one at all. A "messiah" was one who (now) *establishes God's kingdom*, or *makes present* the reality of God's kingdom, here and now". And in that context, every High Priest and King were seen as messiahs, as they visibly "establish God's kingdom", in their day, and they were all anointed to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshiach Even the Assyrian Cyrus the Great was called a messiah, by the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great Isaiah 45:1. So a non-Jew, (as in Vespasian) as messiah, had a precedent. It wasn't until Simon bar Kochba, that that messiah was thought of ONLY as the (final) ruler of the End Times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...l_Prophets
So the question is not "who claimed messiah-ship ?", but "who would have been seen as a messiah ?", in that culture. And in that context, one does not have to be specifically *called* one to *have been seen* as one. Which is why Vespasian's little sniveling client, Josephus, goes to all the trouble to debunk so many would-be messiahs, even while never naming them as such. It's also one of the reasons why we KNOW the interpolated text is not authentic. It just doesn't "fit", not only in the text, but also in Josephus' thought.

The apostles certainly thought Jebus was an apocalyptic preacher, but they were uncertain of his messiah-ship. He did not claim it in Q or Mark. In Acts 1:6, they ask him ; "Wilt thou O Lord, at this time restore the kingdom to Isra-el ?" He did not give them a straight answer, (in Acts). So they did not know for sure if he was one, or whether he would be raised to that status, at that point.

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
12-11-2012, 09:32 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 09:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-11-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  Thank you, please read below.






Actually, I did check out the Wiki reference, and it made me wonder how much further investigation you and Janus did to support the claims made by that Wiki title of "Jewish Messiah Claimant."


Are both of you aware that not one of the people on the list from the 1st century has ever been actually entitled as "Messiah" or "Christ?" Nor, has any of them ever been referred to in any way as a Messiah or Christ in antiquity?


Hmmm...


Please find me just ONE person other than Jesus who actually was entitled, or even directly referred to, as "Messiah" or "Christ."

I keep hearing this "assertion" from numerous different people online about the existence of all these so-called "Messiahs and Christs," but for the life of me I have been completely unable to find a single stitch of evidence of anyone else from the 1st century being referred to as "Messiah" or "Christ."


Thank you.

Shy




Hi Free, the reason you keep hearing about them is because there were so many.


In Yeshua’s day there was a widespread hope among most Jews that a Messiahwould lead the people in a revolt to establish the kingdom of God, in which the world’s wealth would be distributed evenly, not condensed in Roman hands and aristocratic families. Josephus, writing in the late first century, explains this:“That which chiefly excited them to war was an ambiguous prophecy, which was also found in the sacred books, that at that time someone, within their country should arise, that should obtain the empire of the whole world. For this they had spoken of one of their nation; and many wise men were deceived with the interpretation” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews).

Two secular Romans say something similar:“There had spread all over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judea to rule the world.” (Seutonius, Life of Vespasian, 4.5).“The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world.” (Tacitus, Histories 5.13).

Throughout the first century revolutionary groups of zealots led by hopeful messianic leaders commonly formed, promised apocalyptic deliverance, but achieved nothing lasting.

The Qumran community, who compiled the Dead Sea Scrolls, was one such group. They had a pathological hatred for the Romans (whom they called the “kittim”) and the Sadducees. After years of Roman domination, they dreamed of a bloody revenge. A part of the Scrolls describes a fantasy of a battle in which the Kittim were crushed:“This shall be a time of salvation for people of God, and age of dominion for all the members of His company, and of everlasting destruction for the company of Satan… The dominion of the Kittim shall come to an end and iniquity shall be vanquished, leaving no remnant for the sons of darkness, there shall be no escape. The sons of righteousness shall shine over all the ends of earth; they shall go on shining until all the seasons of darkness are consumed and, at the season appointed by God, His exalted greatness shall shine eternally to the peace, blessing, glory, and long life of all the sons of light”(1QM1). The leader of the Essenian army who led them in this fantasized battle is unequivocally called the “messiah” (http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/...4q521.html). They were obviously fanatical and totally deluded. None of this ever came true.


The poorer classes pondered over this political pipe dream.Any charismatic Jew brave enough to claim he was the messiah could soon collect a gang of Galilean paupers to back him up, particularly if he was said to be a descendant of David. A young Yeshua must have wondered who the messiah was going to be.

Judas, son of Ezekias, was one....
Galileans were so enraged with the Roman occupation they started skirmishes in 4 BCE, possibly the year Yeshua was born. Judas, son of Ezekias, gathered together a band of bandits who broke into the royal armory at Sepphoris, and stole weapons and money. Further south at Jericho, 30 kilometers from Jerusalem, another Jew named Simon led a pack who torched the royal palace. A shepherd named Athronges raised a rabble that roamed the countryside for a few months. Soon most of Galilee was in revolt. The Roman army responded with brutal force by marching into Galilee, burning towns and villages, and crucifying anyone resisting Roman rule. Three thousand Jews were massacred. There must have been much terror and many innocent people murdered. (http://www.josephus.org/causesOfWar.htm).
There is no mention of this violence in the Gospels, yet Mary, Joseph and their families must have been involved, either as participants or observers. Mary was a young girl vulnerable to rampaging troops. It is possible Yeshua’s biological father was a Roman soldier.

Judas of Galilee was another one....
Zealots were practitioners of armed military resistance against the Romans. As such they were more a militant political than a religious movement, but as with most things Jewish, their ideals were inspired by their religion. Galilee was the heartland of zealotry. Judas of Galilee (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot, the disciple - who was also a zealot) was an important zealot figure in 6 CE. This is part of what Josephus had to say about him.“Judas the Galilean was the author of the fourth branch of Jewish philosophy. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.”
Josephus didn’t document what happened to Judas, but interestingly the author of Acts, wrote, “And then there was Judas the Galilean, at the time of the census, who attracted crowds of supporters; but he got killed too and all of his followers dispersed” (Acts 5:38, NJB). The author didn’t mention that Roman soldiers killed Judas because he didn’t want readers drawing parallels with Jesus. We know from other historians that most of Judas’ followers weren’t dispersed; they were killed in battle or captured and crucified.



Then there were three others in the first Jewish war...Josephus writes that there were a number of prominent zealots who entered Jerusalem and claimed they were the messiah.


The first was Menahem. Josephus states, “In the meantime, one Menahem, the son of that Judas, who was called the Galilean, took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open King Herod's armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition.”Menahem captured the governor's palace at Jerusalem, laid siege to some minor Roman fortifications, and ordered the execution of the high priest Ananias. At this point, as the only leader of the Jewish revolt, he could boast remarkable successes. However, he incurred the wrath of Ananias’ son, Eleasar, who was the leader of the temple guard. Josephus continues:“The overthrow of the places of strength, and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Menahem, that he became barbarously cruel; and as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant. But Eleasar and his party made an assault upon him in the temple, for he went up thither to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armor. Eleasar and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the rest of the people; taking up stones to attack him withal, they threw them at the scholar, and thought, that if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would fall to the ground. Menahem and his party made resistance for a while, but when they perceived that the whole multitude were falling upon them, they fled which way every one was able; those that were caught were slain, and those that hid themselves were searched for. A few of them escaped privately to Masada. As for Menahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private; but they took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those that were captains under him also.” Menahem’s moment of glory was short-lived.

Simon bar Giora was a more significant messiah, a competent commander of forty thousand soldiers. He set foot in the city in the spring of 69 CE. Archaeologists have unearthed coins in Jerusalem that have Simon’s stamp on them.

Finally, there was John of Gischala. In the first stages of the war, he and Josephus commanded armies in Northern Galilee. John and six thousand men later travelled south to defend Jerusalem.




Hello Mark,

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier to other posters, none of those references can be accompanied with any written evidence from their time period that any of those ancient people had ever self proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah or Christ, nor is there any evidence that anyone else from their time period had ever considered them to be a Messiah or Christ.

One of the problems with modern scholarship is that there is an over abundance of the use of the Historian's Fallacy, in which some historians will view the past through the lens of present understanding. The only true way to understand what was going on in ancient times is to immerse ones self into the time period, and eat, sleep, and drink the culture from 2000 years ago. As they say, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

However, the incorrect concept of numerous 1st century Messiahs & Christs is so ingrained in our current culture that most people automatically assume it is true, when the reality is that there is simply no good evidence to support it. I'm not saying there were no other Messiah's or Christs, but only that there is no good evidence at all to get our teeth into.

We must understand that the list of ist century Messiah claimants only exists in modern literature, and not in ancient history. There simply is no actual historical evidence to support the assertions.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Actually an example of te Historian's Fallacy is the demanding that one be named or called as a messiah to have been seen as one. As posted above "

"BTW, something else that's often missed here by those who don't really
understand Hebrew culture, or have no training in Biblical Studies, is
that a "messiah" had more than one meaning. Only a few Jews expected a
"future" messiah. Not all the sects expected one at all. A "messiah" was
one who (now) *establishes God's kingdom*, or *makes present* the
reality of God's kingdom, here and now". And in that context, every High
Priest and King were seen as messiahs, as they visibly "establish God's
kingdom", in their day, and they were all anointed to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshiach Even the Assyrian Cyrus the Great was called a messiah, by the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
Isaiah 45:1. So a non-Jew, (as in Vespasian) as messiah, had a
precedent. It wasn't until Simon bar Kochba, that that messiah was
thought of ONLY as the (final) ruler of the End Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...l_Prophets

So the question is not "who claimed messiah-ship ?", but "who would have
been seen as a messiah ?", in that culture. And in that context, one
does not have to be specifically *called* one to *have been seen* as
one. Which is why Vespasian's little sniveling client, Josephus, goes to
all the trouble to debunk so many would-be messiahs, even while never
naming them as such. It's also one of the reasons why we KNOW the
interpolated text is not authentic. It just doesn't "fit", not only in
the text, but also in Josephus' thought."

One can restate a falsehood as often as one will. It does not make it true.

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
12-11-2012, 10:12 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:As I pointed out above, (and your forgetfulness must again have gotten the better of you), there is a slam-dunk case against the forgery/interpolated text in Josephus 18. So he called NO ONE by that title, as he was not interested in ANYONE other than Vespasian *being seen* as such. Josephus was not waiting for *another* messiah, as he was a client of Vespasian. And Vespasian WAS seen as such, by some.


As for you, I will be content to simply pick apart your post to demonstrate the fallacies and lack of reason and intellectual honesty to demonstrate to anyone here that you are full of hot air, and have no actual debating skills.

Firstly, since the question I asked you was to provide any actual evidence to support the claim from the Wiki link that those people on the list had actually self proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah or Christ (or that anyone else from the 1st century considered them to be as such, and you failed to do so), and because you are bringing up totally unrelated issues, you are therefore guilty of the following fallacies:

Non Sequitur: since you are failing to respond to the question I asked, and instead decided to talk about how Josephus' text was a forgery, then your response simply does not follow.

Circular Reasoning: I asked you to supply direct evidence of anyone self proclaiming themselves to be a Messiah, or that anyone else considered them to be a Messiah. You keep pointing back to the Wiki link, yet provide no evidence whatsoever that anyone evcer self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah. Do you think that if you keep going back to the Wiki link that it will somehow provide any evidence? This is not unlike a Christian who keeps pointing back to the Bible when asked if he can verify the "truth" of the Bible, and he responds with, "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true."

You keep arguing about Vespasian, yet provide no evidence whatsoever that Josephus considered him to be a Messiah. Obviously you haven't read any of Josephus' works, otherwise you would understand that Jospehus re-interpreted Messiancic prophesies to predict that Vespasian would rule the world, and did not predict that a Roman Caesar would become a Jewish Messiah. Josephus did not use the word "Messiah" even once in regards to Vespasian, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else regarded Vespasian to be a Jewish Messiah.

Vespasian was a fucking Roman, idiot. We are talking about claims of Jewish Messiahs. How the fuck can you miss this obvious point?


Quote:From post #129

"Apart from the fact, (as this poster has personally observed in the Museo Ambrsiano in Milan) that it's an a different hand and different ink than the original document, there is the obvious and all one has to do is read it to start laughing. :
a. It's a statement of faith. "lawful to call him a man" implies he was something greater than a man, (ie a messiah or a god).
It says he rose from the dead. It's a statement about the miracles, as being other than normal. It claims he WAS the Christ.

It has Josephus gushing over Jebus like a 13 year-old over Justin Bieber.

The forger makes three other mistakes.

1. It calls them "Christians" when in fact the Romans, or they, did not call themselves that until AFTER Josephus was dead.
2. It says "tribe" of Christians, which was an error of the forging scribes to try to make it appear a Jew was writing the interpolated text.
3. It refers to "gentiles", which was a word which Josephus NEVER used even once, anywhere else.

Who the fuck is talking about the Testimonium Flavium here? I only see YOU bringing up that interpolated text, when this discussion has clearly pointed out several times that we are not talking about the Testimonium Flavium, but instead we are talking about the section written on James.

I consider this to be an intentional misdirection on your part, since you have no good argument about the section on James in which it lists James as the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.

But please continue with your intentional mis-direction so that the people of reason and intellectual honesty on this forum will see that you do not belong among them.

Quote:The apostles certainly thought Jebus was an apocalyptic preacher, but they were uncertain of his messiah-ship. He did not claim it in Q or Mark. In Acts 1:6, they ask him ; "Wilt thou O Lord, at this time restore the kingdom to Isra-el ?" He did not give them a straight answer, (in Acts). So they did not know for sure if he was one, or whether he would be raised to that status, at that point.

You contradictory bastard! You say that that the bible is laughable and cannot be used for evidence but here you are, trying desperately to win a point by ... using the bible for evidence?

Go the fuck away, kid.

Just do it.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually an example of te Historian's Fallacy is the demanding that one be named or called as a messiah to have been seen as one. As posted above "

"BTW, something else that's often missed here by those who don't really
understand Hebrew culture, or have no training in Biblical Studies, is
that a "messiah" had more than one meaning. Only a few Jews expected a
"future" messiah. Not all the sects expected one at all. A "messiah" was
one who (now) *establishes God's kingdom*, or *makes present* the
reality of God's kingdom, here and now". And in that context, every High
Priest and King were seen as messiahs, as they visibly "establish God's
kingdom", in their day, and they were all anointed to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshiach Even the Assyrian Cyrus the Great was called a messiah, by the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
Isaiah 45:1. So a non-Jew, (as in Vespasian) as messiah, had a
precedent. It wasn't until Simon bar Kochba, that that messiah was
thought of ONLY as the (final) ruler of the End Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...l_Prophets

So the question is not "who claimed messiah-ship ?", but "who would have
been seen as a messiah ?", in that culture. And in that context, one
does not have to be specifically *called* one to *have been seen* as
one. Which is why Vespasian's little sniveling client, Josephus, goes to
all the trouble to debunk so many would-be messiahs, even while never
naming them as such. It's also one of the reasons why we KNOW the
interpolated text is not authentic. It just doesn't "fit", not only in
the text, but also in Josephus' thought."

One can restate a falsehood as often as one will. It does not make it true.


So now you are changing the criteria to say that it's not a matter of anyone self-proclaiming themselves to be a Messiah, but instead it's a matter of how others viewed them?

I have a response to that:

Red Herring:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
  1. Topic A is under discussion.
  2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
  3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...rring.html

Aside from that, we have no evidence whatsoever that anyone else viewed any of them as a Messiah/Christ.


Please, keep talking. We are enjoying this complete and total exposure of your inadequacies.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2012 11:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Mountains of evidence have been provided.
Above poster, instead of addressing points, instead attempts deflection,
even while making assertions with no counter evidence, ever.
Evidence is provided for viewers in posts above for all readers to see.
Readers can and will make up their own minds.
It's not about "fallacies" or unsupported assertions, or winning arguments. The goal here is to try to understand the ancient Near East.
Drinking Beverage

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
12-11-2012, 11:37 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 10:12 AM)Free Wrote:  Go the fuck away, kid.

Just do it.
Not gonna happen.
You wish.
So you can just post shit like you attempted on the other thread with your monumental oversight of *conditional* logic.
Sorry.
You post crap, I pull it apart, just like I have here, old man.

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
12-11-2012, 11:42 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 11:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mountains of evidence have been provided.
Above poster, instead of addressing points, instead attempts deflection,
even while making assertions with no counter evidence, ever.
Evidence is provided for viewers in posts above for all readers to see.
Readers can and will make up their own minds.
It's not about "fallacies" or unsupported assertions, or winning arguments. The goal here is to try to understand the ancient Near East.
Drinking Beverage






Assertion is not evidence and never will be.

Using your line of fallacious reasoning, should we believe that Jesus walked on the water, rose from the dead, and then flew up to heaven just because somebody said he did?

You have provided not one single piece of evidence that anyone on that list self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah/Christ, nor have you provided any evidence that anyone else ever considered any on that list to be a Messiah/Christ.

The goal here is not about understanding the "Near East," but about providing evidence to support the claims that anyone from 1st century, aside from Jesus, was entitled as a Christ/Messiah, or if they self proclaimed themselves to be as such.

Why do I have to keep hammering you with the point of this debate, and why do you keep trying to change it into something it isn't? Why do you keep using Red Herrings?

The answer is obvious: You have utterly failed to provide any evidence of the claim.

Full stop.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Lots of cool info being passed around here and I'm trying to understand what your definition of acceptable evidence is, Free. If I read correctly, you're asking for a written record from that specific time period (excluding Biblical references)?

I'm still trying to learn the process by which we develop a consensus on history...

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 11:48 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 11:42 AM)Free Wrote:  Full stop. Laughat
Readers will read the links and context above, and decide for themselves.
Old men, stomping their feet, saying, "get lost" to "inconvenient kids are really funny.
(still not one counter argument), supported by anything except assertions.
Poster think if he BOLDS something false, it makes it true. Laughat

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: