Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 427 (540270)
12-23-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-22-2009 8:11 PM


Hi Brian. The virgin happened to be betrothed to Joseph who was to become through marriage, the father of Mary's son. Genesis bears this out:
And what is the legal basis for this Buzz?
Jesus reminded his desciples betimes that he was to die for the sins of the world, that he would be resurrected and at the Mt of Olives that the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled before he would return in the clouds, send his angels to gather up his elect before the great day of Gods wrath etc when he would come to rule and reign on earth. It's all through the OT prophets as well as the NT.
So you agree with me that Jesus was never crowned King of Israel or anywhere else?
Perhaps, Brian, if you would diligently and objectively study up on scripture, you would come to understand it's true message and it's value.
I have studied it Buzz. I think perhaps you need to take your Jesus glasses off and study it diligently and objectively, you will be amazed how obvious it is that Jesus was no messiah.
Though he was not prophesied to become king of Israel at this time,
The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
he was crowned on the cross by Pilot, the governor, over the objections of the Jews.
Jesus was never anointed king Buzz, but don’t let the OT get in your way. Why do you ignore so much of the Bible Buzz?
As well, when he rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass as his followers hailed him as Hosannah, he fulfilled Zechariah 9:9,10, one of the scores of messianic prophecies as follows:
And your proof that Jesus rode in to Jerusalem is what exactly Buzz?
Let’s have a wee look at your reference:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace unto the nations: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Behold thy king, and we know Jesus was never king, thus this part of the prophecy has failed.
I see no relation to Jesus in any of the rest of this reference Buz, what is it exactly that akes you think that this parallels Jesus’ life in some way?
LOL. According to the OT prophets, messiah must die for the people must have his garments parted by the soldiers, must be brutally beaten and rejected, must ride into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, etc, etc, etc.
What book are you reading Buz?
Where does the OT say that the Messiah must die and have his garments parted by the soldiers, or even be brutally beaten and rejected!!!!
The Jews must be scattered worldwide, Israel must become a desolate wasteland and at the time of the advent of the messianic kingdom, a ISRAEL MUST BE RESTORED, THE PEOPLE REGATHERED FROM THE NATIONS FAR AND WIDE AND ALL OF THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE PROPHESIED MUST COME TO PASS.
Again, nothing like anything relating to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-22-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2009 9:29 AM Brian has replied
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Brian has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 427 (540278)
12-23-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
12-23-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
If the author of Luke lists women in his genealogy then it is fairly obvious that he would have had no problem listing Mary. The whole idea is just silly.
I thought only Matthew mentioned the moms occasionally...
Both genealogies are of Joseph, they were probably just two of many genealogies 'doing the rounds'.
That is a good point, I believe there is some quote of "Paul" somewhere that mentions that we need to stop worrying about all the competing genealogies. In one of the Pastoral Epistles isn't it?
We also have to consider the reliability of the Gospel of Matthew given the whole range of errors that the author of Matthew makes regarding the OT prophecies, he pulls so many out of context and invents quite a few of his own that we really need to question how useful this book is for reconstructing the past. We also have the added possiblity that the Gospel of Matthew that we have is not the one that was named by Papias in 169 CE. Papias said that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the gospel we have is written in Greek and shows no sign of having been translated, so we might not even have a copy of the original Matthew!
That is sort of difficult because Papias was just plain old wrong about a lot of things. It IS almost certain that gospels were circulated that we no longer have a copy of though so it is quite possible that there were many presumed to be of Matthew. I mean, we can know that no such disciple of that name wrote the book that we have. I just wouldn't take the word of Papias very seriously.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:11 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 3:18 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 427 (540279)
12-23-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brian
12-23-2009 6:58 AM


Brian writes:
And what is the legal basis for this Buzz?
What is legal in our nation is not relevant to this topic. What is Biblical is what matters, since we're debating the reliablilty of the record from God's perspective who is alleged to have inspired the writing of it.
Brian writes:
So you agree with me that Jesus was never crowned King of Israel or anywhere else?
Of course I do, so far as his prophesied messianic kingdom on earth. If Jesus had been crowned king of Israel at his first advent, the prophecies would have failed which declared that messiah/king would first suffer and die for the sins of the world, that he would first ride into Jerusalem on the lowly foal of an ass, that he would be rejected by the Jews, that the Jews would first be scattered globally and Israel would become a desolate wilderness until the end times when they would be restored again as a nation for evermore afterwards.
Brian writes:
I have studied it Buzz. I think perhaps you need to take your Jesus glasses off and study it diligently and objectively, you will be amazed how obvious it is that Jesus was no messiah.
For what it's worth, I'm Buz, as in Buzsaw. My studies factor it all in, including the first advent events as depicted in both OT and NT. My studies apply all in total context.
The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
The more you say, the less Biblically astute you reveal yourself to be. The following are applicable exerpts of messianic prophecies relative to the suffer messiah:
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou answerest not;3 But thou art holy,4 Our fathers trusted in thee:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered:6 But I am a worm, and no man;7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn:8 Commit thyself unto Jehovah;9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb;10 I was cast upon thee from the womb;11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near;12 Many bulls have compassed me;13 They gape upon me with their mouth,14 I am poured out like water,15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd;16 For dogs have compassed me:17 I may count all my bones;18 THEY PART MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM,19 But be not thou far off, O Jehovah:20 Deliver my soul from the sword,21 Save me from the lion’s mouth; .........
For the kingdom is Jehovah’s;29 All the fat ones of the earth shall eat and worship:30 A seed shall serve him;31 They shall come and shall declare his righteousness
Isaiah 52, 53:
52:9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for Jehovah hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.
52:10 Jehovah hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
52:14 Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men),
52:15 so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they understand.
53:1 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due ?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his'seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and'shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Brian writes:
And your proof that Jesus rode in to Jerusalem is what exactly Buzz?
I'm not here to argue proof for anything. They don't do that in the science fora either. I'm citing the evidence. Take it or leave it for or against your own eternal soul, if indeed the record is true. That's for each to determine for themselves after consideration of the evidence presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:58 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 10:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 34 of 427 (540288)
12-23-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brian
12-23-2009 6:58 AM


The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that most if not all the prophcies had nothing to do with a literal kingdom, in a WORLDLY since, hence jesus said, "my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, IF IT WERE MY SERVANTS WOULD FIGHT". Paul said "we preach jesus to the Jews a stumbling block and to the greeks follishness". the Jews were looking for a literal kingdom to over throw thier oppressors
When questioned as to whether he was king of the Jews, he said, "IT IS AS YOU HAVE SAID"
When charges were brought against him, one was that he claimed to be a king and they presented this as evidence as insurrection against the ruler of Rome.
Ofcourse, they did not understand his meaning or those of the prophets. Quit being simplistic brian and looking for some fact of history suggesting Christ might have had some physical kingdom
John 17, "i pray not that you take them (his people) out of the world but that you keep them from the world. In another place it is stated, "THE KINGDOM IS WITHIN YOU"
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
Col 1:13 "he has (present tense) translated us out of darkness INTO THE KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON.
The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
Only someone not paying any attention at all reading the scriptures New or Old would make such a nonsensical statement. Are you like the Greeks of old that paul approched and considered his preaching foolisness or perversedness. What is you rational from a Biblical perspective for considering the death burial and ressurection as perverse
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 6:58 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Briterican, posted 12-23-2009 1:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 3:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 4:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 35 of 427 (540289)
12-23-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
12-23-2009 9:29 AM


Buz.
Psalm 22 is about King David, it is David who is beseeching God in the entire psalm.
Isaiah 52 and 53 are not messianic and are not about one man. Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the suffering servant Israel, the nation of Israel and nothing to do with a Messiah who was to suffer.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2009 9:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:50 AM Brian has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 36 of 427 (540292)
12-23-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brian
12-23-2009 10:38 AM


Psalm 22 is about King David, it is David who is beseeching God in the entire psalm.
Isaiah 52 and 53 are not messianic and are not about one man. Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the suffering servant Israel, the nation of Israel and nothing to do with a Messiah who was to suffer.
Try again.
In the same way you misunderstand the Kingship of Jesus, you misunderstand the nature of prophecy. Of course prophecies can have dual menaings, at times they may refer to the individual at that present time with a refernce to the future Messiah. You GOAL would be to prove that they DO NOT refer to Jesus or that he did not fulfill it from a Biblical or SPIRITUAL perspective.
"He was silent before his accusers", etc.
Brian are you so ignorant, having studied the scriptures thay you cannot see that the EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE SCRIPTURES IS FOR AND ABOUT GOD. Christ (God)was the suffering servant. that is the theme of the scriptures my simple friend. Even if it did have some refernce to literal Israel, ITS PRIMARY MEANING IS ABOUT GOD. Every spiritual principle in the scriptures is ABOUT GOD OR COMES BACK TO GOD.
From the very first book of the bible brian, prophecy was present and intended with spiritual meaning. "I will put eminity between thy seed and her seed, you will bruise his heel and he will crush you head"
Then we have these inquisitive fellows trying to define exacally what is menat in the word SEED, looking past and missing the whole point of the prophecy. you suggested that we take off our Jesus Glasses, i suggest you put on your God glasses. the one that is omniscient and and omnipresent and you will then see clearly.
Brian, Prophecy was never intended to be the ABSOLUTE proof that Christ was the Son of God, they do much to reinforce, his life and DEEDS. Prophecy was mostly for the Jewish believer after having first hand experienced his life and deeds, then the light bulb would come on.
He said, "If you do not believe me for the words that I speak, then believe for the WORKS THAT I DO, because they TESTIFY of me"
Prophecy was never intended to be ABSOLUTE PROOF but a tool to assist belief. prohecy was intended to be understood from a SPIRITUAL standpoint intially. if a specific prophecy HAPPENED TO, be able to be substantiated by some historical or phisical reality, WONDERFUL and i am sure God intended that way in some cases. That was not its primary PURPOSE OR fuction however.
If someone considers this a cop-out, I would point out that you are responding to a history OF and AN apologetic that has come about, as a misuse of prophecy, BUT WAS NEVER INTENDED OF PROPHECY IN THE FIRST PLACE. your responding to an invalid premise in the first place
If I am wrong then point to the passage in the NT that states this is the absolute nature and purpose of prophecy
In the same way Genesis chapters one two and three were not meant to be a theological football tossed back and forth between creationism and evolution, prophecy was not to be understood as absolute proof for his messiaship. They were meant at times as beautiful expressions of Gods love for Israel and man in general. Wake up brian
Daniel 2:44. "In the days of these kings he will establish a kingdom that will not perish from the face of the earth" The Chruch/Kingdom is not going anywhere, especially out of existence.
He is the king of SPIRITUAL ISRAEL, not a literal worldy kingdom. that part of Israel that will be saved will be saved through Christ and the Church, not some future kingdom, the Kingdom is alrady here.
if however, he wishes that i hang around here a thousand years or so, Im cool with that as well. But the scriptures clearly teach the kingdom is already here
When he stated, "destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days", the follwers misunderstood him. Quit being like them brian and open you eyes
Jesus is a failure FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE BRIAN, because you misunderstand the nature, results and purposes of prophecy. it is unfortunate that you have been mislead of the meanings and nature of prophecy
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 10:38 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-24-2009 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 48 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 37 of 427 (540303)
12-23-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:36 AM


Nonsense begets nonsense
EMA writes:
Only someone not paying any attention at all reading the scriptures New or Old would make such a nonsensical statement.
The scriptures themselves are nonsensical. This becomes self-evident when enlightened individuals try to understand them rationally. Any "conclusions" you might come to about them are an enormous waste of energy and do nothing for the species as a whole.
EMA writes:
What is you rational (sic) from a Biblical perspective for considering the death burial and ressurection as perverse
What exactly is a "Biblical perspective"? Does it somehow entail that I first accept the Bible as literal truth? If so, I don't have a Biblical perspective.
As for a rationale (which is what I think you meant) for considering the death, burial and alleged resurrection as perverse - I myself can't get over the fact that it is all supposed to have been part of some divine plan. If it was a divine plan, then shouldn't all participants, including the crucifiers, be praised for taking part in the torture and ill-treatment? After all, without them none of it could have happened and we'd all be carrying around our sins still, instead of Jesus somehow having magically absorbed them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 3:26 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 427 (540309)
12-23-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:36 AM


Blind leading the blind
Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that most if not all the prophcies had nothing to do with a literal kingdom, in a WORLDLY since, hence jesus said, "my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, IF IT WERE MY SERVANTS WOULD FIGHT". Paul said "we preach jesus to the Jews a stumbling block and to the greeks follishness". the Jews were looking for a literal kingdom to over throw thier oppressors
They expected a literal kingdom because thats what they were promised in the OT by Yahweh. This spiritual kingdom nonsense is just a sill apologetic to try and explain Jesus' failure. There is no scriptural evidence in the Tanakh that even hints at a spiritual kingdom or of the messiah's 'second coming', it is utterly alien to Jewish thought.
When questioned as to whether he was king of the Jews, he said, "IT IS AS YOU HAVE SAID"
Jesus also said that He was a king. But we know He wasn't.
When charges were brought against him, one was that he claimed to be a king and they presented this as evidence as insurrection against the ruler of Rome.
Well, personally, I am not convinced at all by Jesus' arrest and trial narratives. Historically speaking they are a shambles and really could not hav happened in the way described. It is best to put the arrest and trial down to fictional propaganda.
Ofcourse, they did not understand his meaning or those of the prophets. Quit being simplistic brian and looking for some fact of history suggesting Christ might have had some physical kingdom
Quit being blind and gullible and waken up to the fact that the spiritual kingdom is a fantasy. Jesus did not fulfil a single messianic prophecy.
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
You should like it since both of you have a very childlike and naive understanding of the Bible. It is quite cute in a way, like the Sunday School kid who never looked at the Bible for himself, just accepted whatever they were told. In another way, of course, it is very sad that grown adults can take the Bible as a serious historical document. It is also very sad that people who claim to love the Bible never actually do it any justice by never studying it to any depth at all.
You'll also find that Buz is mistaken 99% of the time so don't be too concerned.
Only someone not paying any attention at all reading the scriptures New or Old would make such a nonsensical statement.
Well, show me the OT texts that say the Messiah will be killed and resurrected. Shouldn't be too difficult if it is such an obvious teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 1:39 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 39 of 427 (540310)
12-23-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
12-23-2009 9:19 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
I mentioned the wrong gospel re the women. Too much whisky at staff party I think!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 12-23-2009 9:19 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 40 of 427 (540311)
12-23-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Briterican
12-23-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Nonsense begets nonsense
The scriptures themselves are nonsensical. This becomes self-evident when enlightened individuals try to understand them rationally. Any "conclusions" you might come to about them are an enormous waste of energy and do nothing for the species as a whole.
The Bible is a wonderful book if you take it for what it is, a cumulative anthology of human experience with idolatry. Read in this straightforward way, it shows the evolution of our religious thought, from simple polytheistic patronage
Exodus 15:11 writes:
Who [is] like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who [is] like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful [in] praises, doing wonders?
and monolatry
Deuteronomy 5:7 writes:
Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
through true monotheism
Psalm 96:5 writes:
For all the gods of the nations [are] idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
and the abandonment of material worship altogether
Isaiah 1:11 writes:
To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
to an understanding of the real source of divinity
John 10:30 writes:
I and [my] Father are one.
and true responsibility for our creation and salvation.
John 10:34 writes:
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
The point where the nonsense starts is when you try to use it as an authority on history, biology, physics, government, and every other thing in the word except what it is. This mistake is due to an inability to understand and distinguish between various kinds of literature in conjunction with a profound resentment for reality and a defective relationship with real authority.
The person you are trying to respond to is arguing that this plain understanding of the written word is inaccurate, false, an illusion. He is specifically taking the position, regarding prophecy, that it does not say what it appears to say, that it has a secret meaning, which only he and those who are "in the know" can understand, and that it is this hidden understanding that is the real truth about what the seers foretold.
Unfortunately for him
Second Peter 1:20 writes:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
He is seriously going to argue that this verse actually supports his point. This is because, as he has demonstrated repeatedly in his statements about the Law, he is not forbidden to lie. He is not even forbidden to lie about being forbidden to lie. His interpretation is more important to him, than what is being interpreted.
This is why you will find a good solid half of his time at this site is spent arguing with other believers and telling church elders that they don't know much about theology. He's a millstone roped around the neck of any sort of real faith.
I dreamed I called Jesus Christ on the phone and asked him, say, Man, did you really forgive them for they knew not what they did?
"Verily, verily, I say unto you," he replied, "I made my position on authority-and-submission as clear as I could: 'You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you.' Matt. 20:25. 'Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.' Matt. 12:25. 'If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' Matt.15:14. 'For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them upon men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.' Matt. 23:4. They be blind leaders of the blind, baby, and mechanical laws of punishment-and-conditioning lead them in little grooves of robot-life."
But, but I protested is there anything outside conditioned behavior? Is there a real freedom, Man? Is there?
"Find the place where Sade and I agree," he said, "and there you will find the beginning of a definition of liberty."
And the line went dead with a sudden click like the sound of a bedroom door closing as a little boy is pushed outside.
-- Robert Anton Wilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Briterican, posted 12-23-2009 1:03 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
Message 41 of 427 (540314)
12-23-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:36 AM


propaganda
I thought I better support my claim that the arrest and trial of Jesus appears to be historically implausible. The following is in regard to the claim that the crowd had a choice between two prisoners who had been sentenced to death, Jesus and Barabbas, and the chosen prisoner would be set free. This episode looks completely fictional and should encourage researchers to check the veracity of the related events.
One of the most tragic pieces of propaganda that can be found in the New Testament is the Priveligium Paschale . The Priveligium Paschale is the claim that there was a custom that at Passover the Roman administration would release any prisoner at the request of the population of Jerusalem. The reason that this is so tragic is that this piece of propaganda didn’t only place the blame for Jesus’ death onto the shoulders of the Jewish authorities, but by indicating that the Jewish population of Jerusalem could have saved Jesus and didn’t, then they are equally guilty of killing Jesus.
We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered because they ‘killed’ God, but I do not think for one minute that the evangelists realised what far reaching consequences their propaganda would have for the Jewish people.
I think it is safe to assume that our Bible believing friends would disagree with me in calling the Priveligium Paschale a piece of propaganda, and that they are content that this custom is an established fact. However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.
The first thing that should send alarm bells ringing is that there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t automatically mean that the Gospels are incorrect, but the evidence against such a practice is overwhelming. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.
Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).
Surely if there was such a custom, anywhere in the Roman Empire, or even in Jewish tradition, then there would be some record of it? This deafening silence is only one reason why many historians conclude that the Priveligium Paschale is pure fantasy.
The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).
‘There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate’ (Husband. p.111)
and
There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).
Also,
Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).
As should be expected, Christian apologists have been plying their trade over this custom in an attempt to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of ‘evidence’ is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.
There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population’s request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Priveligium Paschale .
The supposed custom of setting a prisoner free at the feast of the Passover is referred to in a different manner by the Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and by John on the other. Luke nowhere mentions such a custom, in fact Luke 23:17 is a very late interpolation made at a time when the belief had come to exist that a legal obligation compelled Pilate to comply with an established custom. The late interpolation of 23:17 into Luke is unanimously recognised as a gloss (Legasse p.143). The Barabbas episode exists in Luke only in abbreviated form and without the slightest preparation and in a context in which is nothing more than a recasting of Mark (Legasse. p.67-68). This is very significant, why did Luke avoid mentioning a custom of granting pardon to a prisoner at the Passover festival? I believe that this shows that, although Luke knew about the account in Mark and made use of it in his own Gospel, he was also in possession of other information which convinced him to question the trustworthiness of certain items Mark’s account.
If we actually read the two references to the ‘custom’ in Mark 15:6-8 and Matthew 27:15-17, (KJV) we find that there isn’t any mention of a Jewish custom, or a Roman concession, that would make it binding on the governor to set a prisoner free.
Mark 15:6-8: Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
Matthew 27:15-17 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
These references give no background of how, why, or when the practice of releasing a prisoner at Passover came into being. The claim that Pilate was in the habit of ingratiating himself with the provincial population is contrary to the image bloodthirsty tyrant that we get of Pilate from other sources.
The description in John’s Gospel is different. The telling of the Priveligium Paschale fable had become so embedded in the imagination of Christians that the author of John’s Gospel shows a development from a gratuitous gesture by Pilate in Mark and Matthew, to a fully fledged custom. For John, Pilate’s nature would have to take a back seat as he would have had to comply with all established customs. John informs us that it wasn’t in fact the ‘wont’ of the governor to release a prisoner it was a Jewish Custom :
John 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Apologists have picked up on this subtle difference and claim that there was an established Jewish custom that proves that the Priveligium Paschale is accurate. They believe that the mention of a Jewish custom in the Mishnah Pesahim 8:6, which says that Jews in Jerusalem who were discharged from prison on the eve of the Passover celebration were permitted to take part in the eating of the paschal lamb. But this regulation has not the slightest bearing on the case reported in the Gospels. It refers to an unspecified number of people who were let out of jail too late to be present at the slaughtering of the lamb, but in time to attend the evening meal.
So as far as the Priveligium Paschale being an established custom is concerned, this Jewish custom was so well known that the Jews, usually meticulous about recording the details of national observances, have failed to preserve any trace of, or reference to, this ‘custom’ (Winter. p.134).
The stipulation provides for the admission of such people to the festive table on the night of the fifteenth Nisan. The synoptic Gospels report that Barabbas as released after that night. Also, in all four canonical narratives it is a question of liberating just one prisoner. Mishnah Pesahim specifies no number, but it is clear that the ordinance refers to any quantity of persons who happened to be discharged from prison in time to participate in the meal (Winter. p. 132).
There is only one thing in the Gospel accounts that is agreed upon by all evangelists.
Mark 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
Matthew 27:15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
John 18:39-40 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
The one single thing that they all agree on is that it was entirely the free choice of the Jewish population who was to be set free. If this is true then it is surprising to find that Pilate should have limited the people's choice to two possibilities, the release of Jesus or Barabbas. We read in the Gospels that there were at least two other prisoners in Pilate's hands, awaiting crucifixion, namely the two men who were eventually crucified with Jesus. Why weren’t these two included if the people could choose any condemned prisoner at all?
Whilst the evangelists state explicitly that the crowd was free to demand from Pilate the pardon of any prisoner, yet at the same time they imply that the choice was limited to two individuals. The offer to choose between two persons only in fact denies the free exercise of the privilege of the people's will. On this point the Gospels are self-contradictory in their reports.
Imagine if the Priveligium Paschale was actually true, what would the practice of such a custom do to the efficient governing of a Roman province? Can you imagine the scenario? Hypothetically speaking, this custom allows the possibility that a man who is the leader of a massive group of revolutionaries, who may have murdered dozens of Roman soldiers, could simply be allowed to go free at the request of a sympathetic population! This is stretching the credibility of this claim well beyond the boundaries of reality.
If we transpose this scenario to the Jesus and Barabbas situation, it implies that Pilate is little more than a moron! Pilate, who is already convinced of Jesus’ innocence, has to resort to an otherwise unknown tradition in order to do what he knew was right! If Pilate really wanted Jesus released he could simply have released him, after all it was he that ruled over Judea and not the Sanhedrin. Remember that Mark has portrayed Jesus as a pro-Roman pacifist, Jesus justifies the paying of tribute money, and Pilate sees no danger from Jesus, yet Pilate asks the crowd who they want to free, this broken man Jesus or the patriotic leader Barabbas. We are asked to believe that Pilate was stupid to condemn to death a man he knew to be innocent and release a popular resistance fighter, how on earth would he justify this to his officers and more importantly, how could he justify this to Tiberius? How people can fail to see how historically impossible this story is, really is beyond my comprehension.
The conclusion is an easy one to make, the Priveligium Paschale is nothing but a figment of the imagination. No such custom existed, it was invented to show that the Jews ultimately had the chance to save Jesus and not only did their leaders conspire to have Jesus arrested and executed, but the Jewish population in general are equally guilty of murdering the Lord God Jesus.
This deceptive episode is just one of many imaginary narratives that have caused untold suffering to the Jewish people, but this episode portrays the Jews as being relentless in their objective of having Jesus removed. It claims that Pilate could find nothing criminal about Jesus, but the Jewish authorities kept pressing him to deal with Jesus, they wanted rid of Jesus and would do anything to achieve this. The evangelists claim that Pilate was so convinced of Jesus’ innocence that he reminded the Jews that they could have a prisoner released at Passover, of course this was simply another tale made up by the authors to heap even more blame onto the Jewish people, they had one final chance to save Jesus but what did they do, they chose a robber/murderer over the Son of God. I truly do not believe that the evangelists could have ever imagined the carnage that their propaganda has caused, they could not have blamed the Romans for the execution of their God as they were trying to spread their faith through the Roman Empire, so they had to shift the blame onto another group and the Priveligium Paschale proved to be an ideal mechanism.
Brandon S G F. Jesus and the Zealots Manchester Uni Press 1967.
Danby H. The Mishnah Oxford Uni Press, 1933.
Husband R W. The Pardoning of Prisoners by Pilate ,
American Journal of Theology , vol.21, 1917, pp.110-116.
Legasse S. The Trial of Jesus SCM Press LTD, London 1997.
Montefiore C G. The Synoptic Gospels London, 1909.
Winter P. The Trial of Jesus Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1974

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 6:17 PM Brian has replied
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 12:36 PM Brian has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 42 of 427 (540317)
12-23-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brian
12-23-2009 4:57 PM


Re: propaganda
Oh, are we back on fictionality now? Good, good. Here, have some Josephus:
a miraculous birth
Antiquities 17:2.4 writes:
For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.
the child prodigy
Life of Josephus 2 writes:
I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us.
Jesus and his disciples
Life of Josephus 12 writes:
So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.
sending forth the 70
Life of Josephus 14 writes:
And when I had sent for the most hardy among the robbers, I saw that it was not in my power to take their arms from them; but I persuaded the multitude to allow them money as pay, and told them it was better for them to give them a little willingly, rather than to [be forced to] overlook them when they plundered their goods from them. And when I had obliged them to take an oath not to come into that country, unless they were invited to come, or else when they had not their pay given them, I dismissed them, and charged them neither to make an expedition against the Romans, nor against those their neighbors that lay round about them; for my first care was to keep Galilee in peace. So I was willing to have the principal of the Galileans, in all seventy, as hostages for their fidelity, but still under the notion of friendship. Accordingly, I made them my friends and companions as I journeyed, and set them to judge causes; and with their approbation it was that I gave my sentences, while I endeavored not to mistake what justice required, and to keep my hands clear of all bribery in those determinations.
the little Apocalypse
Wars of the Jews 6:5.3 writes:
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.
Jesus betrayed and abandoned by his disciples
Life of Josephus 22 writes:
I took with me many Galileans that were armed, as also some of those of Tiberias; and, when I had given orders that all the roads should be carefully guarded, I charged the keepers of the gates to give admittance to none but Jesus, when he came, with the principal of his men, and to exclude the rest; and in case they aimed to force themselves in, to use stripes [in order to repel them]. Accordingly, those that had received such a charge did as they were bidden, and Jesus came in with a few others; and when I had ordered him to throw down his arms immediately, and told him, that if he refused so to do, he was a dead man, he seeing armed men standing all round about him, was terrified, and complied; and as for those of his followers that were excluded, when they were informed that he was seized, they ran away. I then called Jesus to me by himself, and told him, that "I was not a stranger to that treacherous design he had against me, nor was I ignorant by whom he was sent for; that, however, I would forgive him what he had done already, if he would repent of it, and be faithful to me hereafter." And thus, upon his promise to do all that I desired, I let him go, and gave him leave to get those whom he had formerly had with him together again.
crucifixion and resurrection
Life of Josephus 75 writes:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 4:57 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 4:43 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 43 of 427 (540348)
12-24-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Iblis
12-23-2009 6:17 PM


Re: propaganda
Oh, are we back on fictionality now?
It appears that we have never been off it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 6:17 PM Iblis has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 427 (540350)
12-24-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:50 AM


quote:
In the same way you misunderstand the Kingship of Jesus, you misunderstand the nature of prophecy. Of course prophecies can have dual menaings, at times they may refer to the individual at that present time with a refernce to the future Messiah. You GOAL would be to prove that they DO NOT refer to Jesus or that he did not fulfill it from a Biblical or SPIRITUAL perspective.
So what you are saying is that you can look at the Gospels, find some similarity with an OT text and then CLAIM that the older text is a prophecy - without any basis in the OT text at all. What's more you don't even acknowledge that this claim can be challenged.
Well that may work for you and others who need to shore up their belief that Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy. But from a rational perspective it simply doesn't work. It's not something that would be found by an honest and objective study of the Bible. The fact that you need to do it at all just emphasises Brian's point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 7:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 45 of 427 (540368)
12-24-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brian
12-23-2009 4:57 PM


Re: propaganda
I thought I better support my claim that the arrest and trial of Jesus appears to be historically implausible. The following is in regard to the claim that the crowd had a choice between two prisoners who had been sentenced to death, Jesus and Barabbas, and the chosen prisoner would be set free. This episode looks completely fictional and should encourage researchers to check the veracity of the related events.
Brian, Brian, brian, brian. But that is excally the point, you didnt support your point you only suggested that it may have not been a custom as suggested by the gospels. As a matter a fact you did point to a custom much like our president going out of office in a sense, that allows pardons.
it may have very well been the case that this was a sub custom not necessary or relevant to mentionas a part of larger cerimonies.
As is always the case with the scriptures, they are usually substantiated at some point, maybe someday on this very issue, with regaurd to this custom.
besides this you are making the worst assumption in indicating that the gospels are not a reliable source in relating this custom.
Quoting alot of liberal "Scholars" that are in the negative on this issue, does not demonstrate that the scriptures are unreliable
We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered because they ‘killed’ God, but I do not think for one minute that the evangelists realised what far reaching consequences their propaganda would have for the Jewish people.
saying that the jewish people killed Jesus, demonstrates alot about yourself brian. its almost as if you wish to create prejudice before you even get started. Is this sentiment a part of why Jesus was failure or do you offer it to create prejudice.
There were alot of jewish people that thought his death by crucifiction was a tragedy and a crime, namely his followers and that little lady called Mary, I believe she was jewish was she not? You really shouldnt let your emotions pepper your posts
However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.
Prove? I doubt it as I have indicated. What will be your attitude if one day a piece of evidence surfaces to support this as it is mentioned in the scriptures, will you then convert to belief in the scriptures as the word of God or accurate overall, I doubt it
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 12-23-2009 4:57 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by lyx2no, posted 12-24-2009 1:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 51 by Brian, posted 12-24-2009 2:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024