|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2008 : 08:38:50 [Permalink]
|
Oh... got it now.
 |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2008 : 11:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by smoke
I'll give a brief outline only of the Synoptic Gospels because including John will probably have to double everything and probably even triple with authorship.
Firstly with Mark. Early tradition has the Gospel rooted in 65/67 and there is little reason to try and put it anytime earlier. I've seen it noted (I think it was a non-conservative) that Mark's contents could only have come from Peter, an eyewitness, but the developed church tradition in it is identifiable. ...
|
So you have Mark a desciple of Peter being attribute authorship of the Gospel of Mark by Papias in the early second century.
Mark was said to have been a disciple of Peter's who did not personally witness any of these events he described, but recalled and wrote down what Peter had told him.
|
We have Mark as not an eyewitness, but simply recording what he was told by Peter. Second hand information. As far as Peter being an eyewitness, empty tomb/resurrection appearance, we only know of this through the contents of the bible. So you are using the contents of the bible to evidence the contents of the bible. Why should I accept this as anything other than a testimony of your faith?
Originally posted by smoke
The objection that Matthew copied Mark and therefore could not be an eyewitness is somewhat misguided. ...
|
There is ome debate on primacy of Mark, but it seems that many more scholars favor the Two source hypothesis over other solution to the synoptic problem. But how do you establish that the authors of Luke and Matthew were eyewitnesses.
Originally posted by smoke
But even if Paul was not an eyewitness he had ACCESS to eyewitnesses! Does one suppose that someone with such a powerful support would risk his life about something About which there would be serious doubt if the Apostles never preached the Resurrection and miracles of Christ?
|
Risking ones life for a belief? You're kidding. Right? Can you think of any present day examples of individuals willingly risking, sacrificing, theirs lives for a belief? |
The relationship between Mark and Peter is very well attested. There is Papias from 130 and 1 Peter (5.12) from the late 1st century at latest if not by Peter himself. Again I refer to Nineham who says that Mark's information could only be from Peter, and Peter is a focal point in the Synoptics, somewhat. The Apostles would not risk their lives for something they would have known as a lie, and something that could have and would have easily been proven as a lie.
Originally posted by smoke
The myths about other people allegedly having been Resurrected are everything but accurate.
|
| These myths simply establish that risen savior gods did not originate with the resurrection of Jesus myth. |
|
When I said that the accounts of resurrected folks are inaccurate, I did not mean that their texts are mythological; that much everyone will agree. If I didn't say it: the accounts are later, and likely Christian immitations. apollonius of tyana? Account was written in teh 4th century. The alleged crucifix of orpheus from 200 BC? Actually from after 500 AD due to a number of features (from iidb). The mithra? All sources are post-Christian (roman mithra is different from the persian one which I dont think has anything to do with Christianity). Any myths that predate Christianity and one wishes to assign dependence are simply forcing links where none exist. With such loose criteria one can prove that Paul was Josephus (as at least apparently one person has sadly decided).
| The Greek play I mention has a scene has, almost line by line, been ripped of in the Conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus. |
You need to cite it because anybody can claim dependence on anything. There is literature by Greek plays cited in Acts, and I think in Paul's epistles, but none that I am aware of in the conversion account.
My point is that the Gospels show several signs of 'contamination' by external sources. This is not certainly not a problem (unless you happen to be a believer in the literal truth of the Bible).
However: a-It shows that not all the elements of the New Testament were as original as sometime advanced. |
Quoting a play in Acts makes it non-original? By this theory there'd be very little in this world that is, most of it having quoted somebody or used some phrase that isn't original. But again you have to show the citation.
b-That the oral traditions had time to incorporate external elements might suggest a later rather than earlier time of writing. |
Actually that's what a 60-65 date does not allow.
c-This also suggests that the chain of this oral tradition was tenuous at times and that apocryphe elements managed to creep in. |
It would be true for a 80-100 and after date indeed; but that doesn't have to be true, for example the Epistle of Barnabas.
d-These last points seem inconsistent with the tradition of the gospels being written by the original disciple. |
Not having been established these last points are. There are only three Apostolic sources for the four gospels: Peter, Matthew, and John. Peter is responsible for the narrative of the first three Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew can certainly have been the author of the sayings for Matthew and Luke (most of it in the case of Luke). John is definitely independent besides shady attempts to see it as a supplement to the Synoptics.
e-More than than that; some of these incorporation seems to have been made knowledgeably (the Greek play); which suggest a concious effort of writing rather than just a transcription of oral tradition with a possibility of a 'writer bias' especially considering that these writers were from a very different background than Jesus was. |
One quoting a non-canonical source can easily be attributed to the ancient practice of proving a point, as Jude does with Enoch. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 05/21/2008 11:31:15 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2008 : 11:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I think the association of Mark and Peter is an early one, but not one that someone should put much literal faith in. In Koester's Introduction to the New Testament, he writes:| The external attestation for the relationship of Mark to Peter appears in the writings of the Phyrigian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 100-150). He writes that his informant, whom he calls a 'presbyter,' had told him that Mark had been the interpreter of Peter and that he had recorded the words and deeds of the Lord accurately, but not in the (correct) sequence, as far as he could remember them. Papias adds the remark that Mark could not be blamed for proceeding in this way, since he had never heard the Lord himself, nor did he follow him; he was dependent upon Peter's lectures |
Koester notes, then that "we should not overestimate the value of this tradition," though he adds that the relationship "should not be completely overlooked," either. |
What do you make of 1 Peter 5:12 which was certainly written before Papias (130; quoted by Polycarp in c.120 if I'm not mistaken)?
| If I understand you correctly, you are placing Luke as early as 55, but I don't know anyone who puts Luke before Mark. Indeed, it is generally agreed that Luke (and Matthew) are dependent on Mark, and its date is probably somewhere ca. 90. |
Well I do know that the consensus favors the Markan priority theory, but I am not interested in argumentum ad populum; for a long time I resisted Q, but it is most likely a reality (one which does not even go against Christianity but is perceived so sadly; and some like Goodacre reject it and are not Christian). The Gospel of Luke shows the most primitive signs with respect to the portion of the text I examined (the first pericope of Mark). Matthew is a lot closer to Mark, but still has significant omission.
Again, this goes against general scholarly convention. Perhaps if you showed us what you meant, it would make a stronger case.
There's a lot to digest in the rest of your post and i had a hard time discerning what the thrust of some of your points were. Moreover, I'm trying hard to refresh myself on early Christianity, since I last dealt with it in a more serious level some time ago.
But you're right that starting with the Synoptics is a good idea.
|
Well I am thankful for at least one person as you :). Mainly it's more or less the general ur-Markan theory; that Matthew and Luke used ur-Mark, and in my opinion Luke used an earlier ur-Mark then Matthew. I don't think it is inconceivable that Mark made many revisions (and perhaps even Matthew and Luke), the earlier ones being used by Matthew and Luke's Gospels. I would definitely have to go more indepth with it, but I remember Cunningham when writing about the Gospel of John saying that the reconstructions of ur-Mark are convincing, and yet still disagrees with it. The objections to an ur-Mark have been weak as well. I could list the ones found in Kuemmel some time later. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2008 : 11:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Ok... I looked over the internet and, apparently my memory deceived me.
I was referring the the 'Bacchae' and there are a lot of similarities and even the sentence "to kick against the pricks." but apparently not as much as I might have remembered.
So mea culpa for this. |
My opinion about Saint Paul is that went the tension rose between him and the old guard he decided to write his point of view. And, because he did not find his real story interesting enough, decided to lift the plot from one of his preferred conversion story (that would probably not be known from his adversaries them being from a comparatively backward background)...
|
Galatians 1 implies an extraordinary conversion and is admitted by almost all (except some like the radical dutch critics) as Pauline; c.55 AD. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2008 : 11:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
a-It shows that not all the elements of the New Testament were as original as sometime advanced. |
Well heck, the Ethic of Reciprocity predates Christ by at least 568 years.
|
You can hardly attribute this, as I think it is from the Old Testament. I could be mistaken, but I think confucius' was the negative of the golden rule; that is: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. This is incomplete and does not display the love as the postive Golden Rule, since someone who doesn't help is technically still following the negative of it. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2008 : 12:55:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
You can hardly attribute this, as I think it is from the Old Testament. |
If you can quote chapter and verse of a formulation of the Ethic of Reciprocity from the Old Testament, that'd be interesting.| I could be mistaken, but I think confucius' was the negative of the golden rule; that is: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. This is incomplete and does not display the love as the postive Golden Rule, since someone who doesn't help is technically still following the negative of it. |
Don't think Chinese, think Greek. Sextus the Pythagorean had this formulation about 300 years before Jesus' alleged birth:What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them. That's at least as full of love as Jesus' version. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2008 : 13:03:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by smoke
The Apostles would not risk their lives for something they would have known as a lie... |
How is it that you know this? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2008 : 18:23:25 [Permalink]
|
Again, all this and not a single reference.
Originally posted by smoke
The relationship between Mark and Peter is very well attested. There is Papias from 130 and 1 Peter (5.12) from the late 1st century at latest if not by Peter himself. Again I refer to Nineham who says that Mark's information could only be from Peter, and Peter is a focal point in the Synoptics, somewhat.
|
I am not questioning the relationship, I was simply pointing out that Mark is said to have recorded the stories that he heard Peter tell. Mark was not an eye witness and the only source claiming Peter was an eyewitness is the bible. The only means by which any one should take a source as evidence for itself is faith. Faith is not a reliable method for validating the merits of an assertions.
Originally posted by smoke
The Apostles would not risk their lives for something they would have known as a lie, and something that could have and would have easily been proven as a lie.
|
As pointed out by DaveW by what means do you presume to know what the apostles knew. And we are still stuck with the problem that the stories were not recorded (by various estimates) until 30-60 years after the assumed dates of the events. Edited to add: So the events of Jesus life might well be fiction.
Originally posted by smoke
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by smoke
The myths about other people allegedly having been Resurrected are everything but accurate.
|
These myths simply establish that risen savior gods did not originate with the resurrection of Jesus myth.
|
When I said that the accounts of resurrected folks are inaccurate, I did not mean that their texts are mythological; that much everyone will agree. If I didn't say it: the accounts are later, and likely Christian immitations. apollonius of tyana? Account was written in teh 4th century. The alleged crucifix of orpheus from 200 BC? Actually from after 500 AD due to a number of features (from iidb). The mithra? All sources are post-Christian (roman mithra is different from the persian one which I dont think has anything to do with Christianity). Any myths that predate Christianity and one wishes to assign dependence are simply forcing links where none exist. With such loose criteria one can prove that Paul was Josephus (as at least apparently one person has sadly decided).
|
Let's consider Life-death-rebirth deities.
Osiris 2400 BCE
Adonis about 600 BCE
Zalmoxis 713 BCE
Inanna (also known as Ishtar) 4000 BCE
Persephone 1700 BCE
I am not assigning dependence, I am simply stating that dying and rising did not originate with the Jesus resurrection myth. It was what gods did 2000 years ago. An ability deemed necessary by their human creators. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 05/22/2008 18:28:27 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 17:48:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Osiris 2400 BCE |
Osiris was chopped into pieces and not pu together correctly if I remember correctly. Also he was not resurected. He was the ruler of the underworld not on earth.
| "The gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and thus restored Osiris to life[clarify] in the form of a different kind of existence as the god of the underworld." |
The followers of Osiris wanted to be buried in the same grave as Osiris and they viewed time as a circle revolving around the crop seasons. These were not attributes of Jesus.
The only texts we have that record adonis' death are dated fron the 2nd to 4th centuries AD. The texts before did not refer to a resurection.
This does not even say he died:
"Zalmoxis then had a subterranean chamber constructed (other accounts say that it was a natural cave) on the holy mountain of Kogaion, to which he withdrew for three years (some other accounts considered he actually lived in Hades for these three years).
After his disappearance, he was considered dead and mourned by his people, but after three years he showed himself once more to the Getae, who were thus convinced about his teachings:" |
This seems to be a reach to me:
"an episode that some considered to be a resurrection (Thus he can be seen a life-death-rebirth deity, parallel to Tammuz or Jesus.)"
Decending into the undeworld is not the same as dying.
She was abducted into underworld, she did not die and come back to life.
I am not assigning dependence, I am simply stating that dying and rising did not originate with the Jesus resurrection myth. It was what gods did 2000 years ago. An ability deemed necessary by their human creators. |
Some differences to think about:
1. None died for someone else. Jesus dieing so people can get to heaven is unique to christianity.
2. None died for others wrongdoing.
3. Jesus died once and for all and did not represent any cycle of life such as crops as some pagen Gods.
4. Jesus death was believed to be a true event supported by some evidence. pagen God deaths was not in historical context.
5. Jesus died voluntarily None of the pagan gods did.
6. Jesus death was considered a triumph. Followers of pagan gods mourned the death of their gods.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 18:44:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
4. Jesus death was believed to be a true event supported by some evidence. pagen God deaths was not in historical context. |
The only evidence for Jesus' death is from decades afterwards. It may be closer to a proper historical context, but it's still removed from the context proper.| 5. Jesus died voluntarily |
Except for the "why have you forsaken me" stuff.| 6. Jesus death was considered a triumph. Followers of pagan gods mourned the death of their gods. |
Which is, of course, why no Christian today claims that the Jews killed Jesus.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 19:13:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
4. Jesus death was believed to be a true event supported by some evidence. pagen God deaths was not in historical context. |
The only evidence for Jesus' death is from decades afterwards. It may be closer to a proper historical context, but it's still removed from the context proper. |
sure, but this assumes that they were going to write the gospels as soon as Jesus died. The gospel stories were spreading and people were converting at a fast rate. When they were written there were plenty of people around to dispute them if theywere wrong. Possibly even Mary or Joseph. The pagan myths have nothing close to this authenticity.
5. Jesus died voluntarily| Except for the "why have you forsaken me" stuff. |
|
In the garden he asked if it could be any other way. Because Gods wrath was in the cup. The why have you forsaken me stuff has nothing to do with his willingness to die. Only that he was agonizing over God the father turning his back on Jesus.
6. Jesus death was considered a triumph. Followers of pagan gods mourned the death of their gods.Which is, of course, why no Christian today claims that the Jews killed Jesus.
|
|
the Jews did crucify Jesus. but christians that have any hatred toward them are wrong. He died voluntarily when it was time. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 19:54:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
The gospel stories were spreading and people were converting at a fast rate.
|
But not nearly as fast as it did when it had the support of Rome early in the 4th century. Soon followed by that enlightened period in western Europe when religious options were further limited.
Originally posted by Robb
When they were written there were plenty of people around to dispute them if theywere wrong. Possibly even Mary or Joseph.
|
What was the average lifespan 2000 years ago? 35? 40? What percentage of people survived into the 50s? 60s? 70s?
Lets assume that Mary and Joseph were teenagers when Jesus was born, say 16 or 18. Jesus was supposed to have lived 33 years. Mary and Joseph would be 49 or 51 at the time of death. The earliest date for Mark is about 30 years after Jesus death. Mary and Joseph would be 79 or 81.
My money is on Mary and Joseph, if they even existed, being dead when the stories were recorded. And that there just were not that many people who could have witnessed the death and the first written record of Jesus life and death. Stories of Jesus could easily be fiction based upon the number of witnesses. What woud their motivation be? How many could read?
Originally posted by Robb
The pagan myths have nothing close to this authenticity.
|
If it wasn't for militaristic marketing I suspect that Jesus would be thought of in much the same way.
Authenticity If it feels good believe it.
Originally posted by Robb
5. Jesus died voluntarily| Except for the "why have you forsaken me" stuff. |
|
In the garden he asked if it could be any other way. Because Gods wrath was in the cup. The why have you forsaken me stuff has nothing to do with his willingness to die. Only that he was agonizing over God the father turning his back on Jesus.
|
Willingness? Agonizing? Seems like far fetched apologetics to me.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 23:05:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Robb
The gospel stories were spreading and people were converting at a fast rate.
|
But not nearly as fast as it did when it had the support of Rome early in the 4th century. Soon followed by that enlightened period in western Europe when religious options were further limited. |
? What does this have to do with the 1st century church?
What was the average lifespan 2000 years ago? 35? 40? What percentage of people survived into the 50s? 60s? 70s?
Lets assume that Mary and Joseph were teenagers when Jesus was born, say 16 or 18. Jesus was supposed to have lived 33 years. Mary and Joseph would be 49 or 51 at the time of death. The earliest date for Mark is about 30 years after Jesus death. Mary and Joseph would be 79 or 81.
My money is on Mary and Joseph, if they even existed, being dead when the stories were recorded. And that there just were not that many people who could have witnessed the death and the first written record of Jesus life and death. Stories of Jesus could easily be fiction based upon the number of witnesses. What woud their motivation be? How many could read? |
The account of Jesus spread by oral tradition. This was not a telephone game but a collective story in the culture. if some started spreading non truths then they could be corrected by others. they did not forget what happened 30 years later. I do not remember what I was wearing when the challenger blew up, but I remember that it blew up. If I started saying that the challenger was b
blown up by terrorists I would be corrected by many that witnessed the event and the facts that came out.
| Willingness? Agonizing? Seems like far fetched apologetics to me. |
No it is directly from the bible.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 05:47:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Robb
The gospel stories were spreading and people were converting at a fast rate.
|
But not nearly as fast as it did when it had the support of Rome early in the 4th century. Soon followed by that enlightened period in western Europe when religious options were further limited. |
? What does this have to do with the 1st century church?
|
Point being that I don't think you can support your rate of first century conversion assertion. That the only reason Jesus and Christianity has not been relegated to myth, like so many other religions, was the support of caesars, kings, and governments.
Originally posted by Robb
The account of Jesus spread by oral tradition. This was not a telephone game but a collective story in the culture. if some started spreading non truths then they could be corrected by others. they did not forget what happened 30 years later. I do not remember what I was wearing when the challenger blew up, but I remember that it blew up. If I started saying that the challenger was blown up by terrorists I would be corrected by many that witnessed the event and the facts that came out.
|
I, too, remember where I was when the challenger blew up. It was a significant event. Intentionally blew up just like the World Trade Center. Well, no one would believe that. 
The account of Jesus spread by oral tradition. So you are saying that stories spread by oral tradition can not possibly be embellished due to the self correcting mechanisms of the culture. Then the following challenge should be trivial since there were so many willing to point out conflicts in the stories when told.
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
|
they did not forget what happened 30 years later. Seems like some of the authors forgot the earthquake which I would consider a significant event.
Originally posted by Robb
| Willingness? Agonizing? Seems like far fetched apologetics to me. |
No it is directly from the bible.
|
Hate to break out Websters, but willingness and agonizing are what? In complete agreement? Something for everyone in the bible.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 07:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
if some started spreading non truths then they could be corrected by others. |
How many, today, believe that Barak Obama is a secret Muslim?
How many, today, believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
How many, today, believe that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet?
How many, today, believe that the bra was invented by Otto Titzling or that the flush toilet was invented by Thomas Crapper?
Communications is a zillion times faster today than 2,000 years ago, and access to correct information is mind-blowingly easy today as compared to then. Yet falsehoods persist for political reasons. Urban legends abound because they're much more interesting than real life. Your insistence that these sorts of things wouldn't have happened around an alleged historical Jesus should be rejected as wishful thinking and/or a denial of reality.
By the way, the "was it terrorists?" question was asked both of Challenger and Columbia, and apparently small fringe groups are keeping "open minds" regarding that possibility. There are hints on the Web that there is even a fake Challenger video that "proves" it was terrorism, although I haven't been able to find it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jesus the Evidence
