Jump to content
The World News Media

The Incredible Desert Find: the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats, Destined to Update the Bible Canon


TrueTomHarley

Recommended Posts

  • Member

YEAH!

I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!

I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SAVE THIS WHOLE PAGE FROM THE TOP, , TO KEEP IT IN CONTEXT, SO I MADE A .JPG, WHICH IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD.

JWI ESSAY ON JERUSALEM AND PAUL.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.2k
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double hon

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supr

Whenever a new version of Scripture appears that is colloquialized, paraphrased, or just plain dumbed down, the refrain is heard: “If it gets modern people to read God’s Word, it is worth it.” How far

Posted Images

  • Member
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."

(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . .

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:

"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you".

What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).

Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).

However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".

So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Anna said:

Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).

Just for clarity. This parenthesised description of Peter's restoration to favour is referring to his denial of Christ and events of 33-36CE several years PRIOR to his reproof by Paul isn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours ago, Anna said:

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:

I would guess that this particular understanding might have become popular because it moves the conflict away from the hands of Peter, James and John. But I think that Paul makes it very clear that he is referring to these same ones. Note:

Chapter 2 (1-5) says that Paul (after FOURTEEN YEARS away from Jerusalem), went up, not because they called him, but because he had a revelation from Jesus Christ, to pay "them" a visit. Who do we think that "them" refers to? So far, the only persons he has named from a previous visit to Jerusalem are Peter and James(1:18). And he had said back then that he hadn't yet gone to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before he was. So, I think you already agree that "them" refers to apostles and older men in Jerusalem. 

Paul met privately with these men who were "highly regarded." He didn't want any big blow-up. And he didn't want to give anyone a chance to completely undercut his ministry before he had a chance to defend it PRIVATELY to at least a few of these "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem. Paul had already made it clear that he himself didn't show any HIGH REGARD to any persons, no matter what their reputation. He was ready to curse any highly regarded person, even an ANGEL, if necessary, and went on to say that he wouldn't have gone there to please any men. (1:8-10) He did this to make sure he was not running in vain. Now Paul already said that he knew his ministry was directly from Christ Jesus, so he already knew that his teaching and his ministry was not in vain. He was not looking for approval. He was looking to see if this visit was an opportunity to clear up a problem that brothers from Jerusalem had started to spread to other congregations.

But notice that he is still at this private meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem. For surely he could only see this problem get cleared up if he met with those who were held in the highest regard. He could not go to some fringe element of brothers who were not so well known, and expect that this would somehow solve the problem of people undermining his ministry to the nations.

Therefore, it's with respect to meeting with apostles and older men at Jerusalem that he says NEVERTHELESS, NOT EVEN TITUS was compelled to be circumcised, EVEN THOUGH he was a Greek. The dynamic is that Paul is writing to people in Galatia who would have expected to hear that the APOSTLES would have surely forced Titus into submission. Sure, maybe Paul could stand up to them and argue theological theory, and they could do nothing to him because he was already circumcised anyway! But the real AUTHORITY to make people submit, they all "knew" (or thought they knew) could not be denied if it came from the apostles.

So these Galatians were assuming the necessity of submitting to the authority of the apostles. This would be the reason why Paul went to so much trouble to "diminish" the supposed authority of the Jerusalem apostles and elders.

Paul says "that matter came up because of false brothers brought in quietly." Well who brought them in? Who sent them? Is Paul referring to the experience back in Antioch, or something that just happened in the middle of his "private" session with the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem? Granted he calls some false brothers, and probably is referring directly to the ones who were "sent" or "brought in quietly." This is not a mistaken translation. It means persons who were smuggled in sneakily. We don't like to think that Paul could have referred to any of the elders or apostles themselves as "false brothers," but remember that he just potentially called such ones "ACCURSED" up in 1:8-9, so it is possible that he refers to a point in time when they were acting falsely. At the very least Paul does nothing to exonerate the apostles from the idea that they, the apostles, had secretly brought these "spies" to a private meeting, or involved them somehow.

If Paul is referring to false brothers brought in back in Antioch, then we already know that these men were sent from James. (2:12) No matter what, though, we know that the so-called pillars are Peter, James and John from 2:9. We also surmise that the matter was apparently cleared up for the moment, as is indicated in Acts 15 -- after no little disputing!

There is also a parallel in 2 Cor 11, which is also the only other place in the Bible where Paul uses a word that means "false brothers." It's clear that Paul was not always referring to Jerusalem whenever he mentioned apostles, false apostles, and false brothers (at Corinth). But note something that might be even more important in this parallel to Galatians 1:

(2 Corinthians 11:4, 5) 4 For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him. 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing.

We tend to understand it as if these Corinthians had their own "superfine" apostles. "Superfine" only in their own eyes. But, first, the Greek does not support the word "your" here. And, second, the term "superfine" is not the most likely meaning of the phrase, which is used only here in 2 Corinthians and nowhere else. That specific translation, not just in the NWT, might be preferred because it would then seem that there was no conflict between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem at this particular time in their ministry.

However, the Greek text might only be saying. "I have not proved inferior to THE (not "your") EMINENT APOSTLES." The words making up the phrase actually mean just that, literally. In no other context do we find it necessary to make such words mean "super" as if in some snide or sarcastic sense. Therefore some translations say the following, instead:

https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/11-5.htm


Berean Literal Bible
For I reckon in nothing to have been inferior to those "most eminent apostles."

New American Standard Bible
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James Bible
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

New Heart English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For I think that I have not come short in anything compared to those Apostles who greatly excel.

New American Standard 1977
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

King James 2000 Bible
For I suppose I was not the least behind the very chief apostles.

American King James Version
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very most chief apostles.

American Standard Version
For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.

Darby Bible Translation
For I reckon that in nothing I am behind those who are in surpassing degree apostles.

Webster's Bible Translation
For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very greatest apostles.

World English Bible
For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.

Young's Literal Translation
for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,

Those translations sound more like they refer to the prominent apostles in Jerusalem. (Even as it stands, it could be Paul's way of referring to the Jerusalem apostles, similar to "those who seemed to be something." Now, if Paul has just given a parallel to Galatians in this portion of 2 Cor 11, then it could easily explain why, in 2 Cor,  he might also be following it in this very next sentence with a statement about the apostles in Jerusalem. It could then be for the same reason he called them the "so-called pillars" which he named in Galatians 2:9 as Peter, James and John. These men were "chiefest" apostles in Paul's words because as he said in Galatians, these were the apostles who came before him. (1:17) He considered himself the "least" of the apostles because he had persecuted the congregation.

  • (1 Corinthians 15:5-9) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and I am not worthy of being called an apostle, because I persecuted the congregation of God.

  • (Galatians 1:13) . . .I kept intensely persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it;
  • (Ephesians 3:8) . . .To me, a man less than the least of all holy ones,. . .

  • (1 Corinthians 9:2) 2 Even if I am not an apostle to others, I most certainly am to you!. . .

It makes more sense that Paul thought of himself as "least" in comparison, not with local eminent apostles in Corinth, but compared with the "most prominent and eminent" apostles in Jerusalem, which in the same context he names as "James, then to all the apostles."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!

Hold on a wit. I think he’s all wet. Not on everything, but on some things. But it will take me a few days to get around to answering. Other matters call.

As I recall, ”certain men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved.”  But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barʹna·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.”

It doesn’t sound to me like the “certain men” WERE the “apostles and older men in Jerusalem,”

And: “Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.” And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.”

Again, a clear distinction. Did the apostles and older men in Jerusalem hail from the sect of the Pharisees?

At any rate, JWI didn’t say that Paul went to great lengths to avoid any interaction with the AKA GB, any more than I go to great lengths to avoid interaction with you. Instead, I say, ‘You know, the old pork chop is hundreds of miles away and the place is full of dog fur. It can wait.’ 

And I have a car.

[And no, I did NOT call the GB ‘old pork chops.’ That is just your wishful thinking.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

YEAH!

I had not realized to what extent Paul went to to completely avoid any interaction with the Jerusalem Apostles, AKA the "Governing Body.!

Well, JWI did weigh in on my take on what he had to say .... without objection. 

So I PROBABLY interpreted Galatians as JWI emphasized it correctly.

Since, if that is the case.... that was Paul's opinion, perhaps I saw it because I ALREADY believed it.

It was completely consistent with my own personal experiences, communicating with the Governing Body.

You know the old saying ....

"If I had not believed it, I would not have seen it."

Perhaps JWI will further comment to clarify, But the first chapter of Galatians is ALREADY quite clear.

I am not immune to agenda driven WDS, either.

The difference is, that it embarrasses me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
35 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Well, JWI did weigh in on my take on what he had to say .... without objection. 

So I PROBABLY interpreted Galatians as JWI emphasized it correctly.

I was mostly thanking you for the jpg idea. I might buy the software that does that myself. I've had applications that were supposed to do this automatically, but they often fail the scrolling. In this one you have I understand that you just scroll down yourself, manually. I'm interested in the speed at which you can scroll down and it still captures everything.

On the issue of whether the Jerusalem "GB" were avoided by Paul on purpose, I don't know. Perhaps it was at first his own need to meditate on a life-changing experience, and then, when ready, he was fired up to begin full-speed ahead to his missionary journeys. 

But Paul does make it clear that it was IMPORTANT to him and this particular audience in Galatia, that he had in fact avoided much contact with Jerusalem for the entire first three years after his conversion, then a two week visit, and then another 14 years without direct interaction with apostles and other so-called pillars in Jerusalem. I assumed that this distancing himself from the J-GB was what was surprising, and as this was your own take on it, I agree that it surprises a lot of people when it's pointed out.

It might not have been completely on purpose, but Paul definitely turns that apparent avoidance into a "positive" thing. That's a little different from Witnesses I know who just must make that trek to New York at least one more time before they die. And many of them think "out loud" about "maybe meeting someone from the Governing Body."

On the issue of trying to tie Galatians to a version of the same problem Paul points out in the Corinthian letters (and even Romans to an extent), this is a conjecture. I'm just talking it out here, hoping to get some good feedback.

On the issue of understanding the difficulties in the Jerusalem apostles' attitudes, at this particular time period, we know there was a resolution from Acts 15. But we don't know that all the apostles held fast to that solution, or if these major problems are from some hold-outs who never accepted the Acts 15 solution. But what we do know is that there was a direct relationship between the false brothers who were smuggled in to spy on Paul, and the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem. Paul indicts James for sending such men to Antioch, and he indicts Peter for not holding fast to the solutions that he had been a part of in welcoming Gentiles into the Jewish congregations.

There are ways of looking at this the way Anna has pointed out. And I've seen these offered as a specific solution against what seems obvious: that Paul is trying to warn them about these persons who say they represent the apostles themselves, or were actually sent by the apostles themselves, and for some period of time, may have actually included the apostles themselves.

If you had to judge by the word count which side might be right, then I have to admit that my "long version" tends to sound like I am "bullying" a version of events. Like I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. But that's just to raise attention for those who are interested enough to read pages and pages on the topic. (I'm actually surprised you had read what I wrote, and this was part of the reason for the "Thank You" I tagged to your post. I was honored that you read it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The Software "FastStone Capture", captures LOOOOOOnnnnggg pages like we have here, and Sunday vertical cartoons, completely automatically.  Just set the cursor to the TOP of where you want to begin, and it automatically scrolls and captures all the way to the complete bottom of the web page.

CTL S  saves it to a new window.

RTN saves it to the hard drive

ALT X  exits that capture, ready for another, and

CTL PrtScn  starts a new capture box for rectangular capture windows, and

CTL ALT Prtscn captures a LONG window all the way to the bottom, automatically scrolling.

You can ALSO capture videos that cannot be downloaded .... like those Nuns who had their homes stolen from them, that they paid for, that I posted earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Chapter 2 (1-5) says that Paul (after FOURTEEN YEARS away from Jerusalem), went up, not because they called him, but because he had a revelation from Jesus Christ, to pay "them" a visit. Who do we think that "them" refers to? So far, the only persons he has named from a previous visit to Jerusalem are Peter and James(1:18). And he had said back then that he hadn't yet gone to Jerusalem to meet with those who were apostles before he was. So, I think you already agree that "them" refers to apostles and older men in Jerusalem. 

No objection there.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

He was looking to see if this visit was an opportunity to clear up a problem that brothers from Jerusalem had started to spread to other congregations.

Does this necessarily include the  "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem namely Peter, James and John, among others? Didn't those same brothers say:  "Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,  we have come to a unanimous decision to choose men to send to you together with our beloved Barʹna·bas and Paul,  men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". That doesn't sound like those brothers were the trouble makers, on the contrary. So weren't those men who went out from among them "from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) the ones that caused the problem, and wasn't that the issue Paul and Barnabas went up to the elders in Jerusalem about? (vs.2).

"On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses" ( Acts 15:4,5). Again, to me it seems clear that those who had the problem, and caused problems, were "those who had been from the sect of the pharisees, and were the same same ones (not literally) that "went from among the elders in Jerusalem" and "came down from Judea". 

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Paul is referring to false brothers brought in back in Antioch, then we already know that these men were sent from James.

Possibly, since those who had been from the sect of the Pharisees were also present at the meeting in Jerusalem, but we also know that they did not receive any instructions from James, especially not with regard to "what they said" (unless you get circumcised you cannot get saved).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Alphonse

      Alphonse 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • September22

      September22 2

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.