Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Right, just like Christians today in the Middle East, China, and other countries are not being persecuted, they are merely "perceived by the provincial authorities as troublemakers and heretics".

    Why am I not surprised to see a German defend religious persecution?
    Those modern incidents are not quite the same thing as what Paul was engaged upon.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      Those modern incidents are not quite the same thing as what Paul was engaged upon.
      Of course you can't say anything else without having to admit that you're talking out of your rear facing bodily orifice.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

        Of course you can't say anything else without having to admit that you're talking out of your rear facing bodily orifice.
        The situations in present day China or some Middle Eastern countries are entirely different from the situation in the eastern Roman empire in the mid first century CE

        Anyone but a fool would recognise that.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          The situations in present day China or some Middle Eastern countries are entirely different from the situation in the eastern Roman empire in the mid first century CE

          Anyone but a fool would recognise that.
          Sorry, you don't get this one for free. You'll need to explain precisely how the persecution suffered by Christians today is meaningfully different from the persecution suffered by Christians in the first century.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            Sorry, you don't get this one for free. You'll need to explain precisely how the persecution suffered by Christians today is meaningfully different from the persecution suffered by Christians in the first century.
            My emphasis. I am tempted to inquire who made you the Gauleiter of this board?

            However, to the matter in hand. Our exchange has been specifically about Paul and your contentions that he was "persecuted".

            Paul lived some two thousand years ago and in a polytheistic society. His imprisonment and physical chastisements arose, not from his beliefs, but from his insistence on intentionally promoting those beliefs among the communities of a recognised religion [Judaism].

            That behaviour on his part understandably led to members of those communities exhibiting antagonism and hostility towards him and this appears to have sometimes led to violent clashes between individuals from those Jewish communities and others who supported his beliefs. Such disturbances would have been dealt with by the Roman authorities. Paul would therefore have been viewed by the leaders of those Jewish communities and the civic authorities as an agitator who was deliberately provoking trouble and dissent among and between communities. As such he would have been considered as a nuisance with regard to the peace and public order of the particular city.

            That has no bearing whatsoever on people being intentionally singled out and imprisoned, threatened, harassed or oppressed by regimes and governments solely for their beliefs
            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 04-12-2023, 05:08 AM.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Did I not say that there would be enough time to engage in a bit of sight-seeing? Where did I say that they engaged in sight-seeing? I also stated that in all probability they would have taken a ship rather than an overland route. Correction - taking into consideration your inability to logically assess a statement - they would (in all probability) have taken an overland trip to a convenient port, and then taken a ship.

              What "fold"? Why did Israel and the Jews need to be reconciled to their deity? What you are suggesting is that the Jews accept the Pauline gospel.
              Quite a bit of information is available from the findings among the Dead Sea scrolls to indicate that many people recognised the temple hierarchy's (i.e. the Jews, according to the then current in-house definition of "Jew") breach of covenant.

              He never actually calls himself ιουδαιος. He may have been Jewish but he never uses that particular Greek word in reference to himself, it is possible he came from a family of converts [as did Herod the Great].
              Saul was a Benjamite, of a Hebrew tribe (Benjamin), associated with Judah (a tribesman of Judah was a Jew) from the two kingdoms era, Judah and Benjamin comprising the southern kingdom. None of that gives him much cause to call himself a Jew. Saul’s home-town was Tarsus, a city in Türkiye. A Benjamite whose hometown was Tarsus indicates that his forebears were expatriate Jews. There is nothing to indicate that he was of Gentile stock. The Hebrew minimum standard for acceptance into a tribe required that the person must be born of a mother of the relevant tribe.

              However, he was evidently dissatisfied with the Jewish faith considering it inadequate with reference to sin and individual salvation, and he perceived the crucifixion of Jesus as an event that had completely altered the world and its destiny. In that regard he would have been considered as a heretic by many Jews.
              The purported disconnect between Paul and Hebrew tradition is a myth.

              Robert H. Eisenman 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, 133-134; note 37: 169-170 note35pp195-196
              Paul is indistinguishable from Pharisaic teachers like Hillel and Shammai, R' Yohanan b. Zacchai, and Simeon b. Shetach of an earlier era -- all recommending a policy of accommodation with Romans and other foreigners; cf. Paul in Romans 13:1ff.


              Similar attitudes are reflected on at least one occasion by an Old Testament prophet.

              That scene is found only in Acts and is apologetical to reinforce the ideas of Paul that dietary rules as laid down in the Mosaic Law no longer apply.
              Strangely, those same dietary rules are called into question by Jesus, but the allegory recorded in Acts had nothing to do with food except for illustrative purposes.

              Both Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea refer to the people recognising James’ righteousness or holiness. And Jerome refers to the tradition of his great holiness. This would appear to indicate that James was a scrupulously observant Jew including his observance of kashrut.
              What the people believed had no influence on the Sanhedrin's verdict and sentence to death for heresy against James. That the trial and verdict were "irregular" is recorded in tractates Sanhedrin and Avodah. Zarah: Robert H. Eisenman (1996) The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians), 256-257

              The men who had known the man you and I call Jesus of Nazareth were not promoting Christianity. These were members of a Jewish messianic sect and [like their leader] they kept the Law and were observant Jews.
              A case MIGHT be advanced that they were Torah observant - no case can be substantiated that they were observant of the Jewish interpretation of the law and the prophets, nor of the Essene interpretation.

              At this period Jewish legal teaching was still fluid and in the Sabbath debates in the gospels most of them revolve around healing the sick. The Hebrew injunction “You shall keep my statutes...by which a man shall live” was interpreted to mean that observance of the Torah should not lead to death.
              None of which has anything to do with Jesus permitting his disciples to act in technical breach of the Sabbath laws.

              And what evidence do you use that is not from Christian sources?
              What evidence exists that is not from Christian sources? Not a whole lot. What little does exist is found mostly in the Talmud.

              Given we have no extraneous independent sources about the early decades of your religion, “to determine the facts” is a remarkable feat.
              The facts refer what is actually written and what can reasonably be inferred from what is actually written, rather than what hostile or sympathetic readings can make them seem to say. If an interpretation is to be accepted, it must first be based in impartial assessment of the texts themselves to determine PRECISELY what they themselves say.

              Really? How do you go about identifying an unrecognised preconception?
              As stated - procedures can be adopted that cut through (or expose) unrecognised preconceptions. It should not have needed pointing out that once a (hitherto) unrecognised preconception has been cut through, it ceases to be unrecognised. That information is implicit in what I stated. If you had difficulty deriving that understanding, you have no hope of understanding the Bible texts: stick to Ehrman and Co.

              The purpose of these texts is Christian apologetics composed in the form of a dramatic narrative with some feasibly accurate descriptions of Roman provincial government, and the inclusion of some probable actual events. I would add that any historical novel can do likewise.
              The target audience of an apologetic work is primarily hostile; the Biblical works target audiences who are largely sympathetic.

              Acts chapter seventeen:

              But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there, too, to stir up and incite the crowds. 14 Then the brothers and sisters immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind.

              I Thessalonians chapter three:

              Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we decided to be left alone in Athens 2 and sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker


              It is also odd that Paul omits to mention the incident in Beroea in his epistle.

              Was the author of Acts a historian as we understand that term? Where are his inquiries?
              [/quote]

              No-one of the time, seemingly, meets the definition of "historian" by current standards. Whether Luke was an historian in his own time, according to the standards understood his immediate audience, is a matter of whether taking the conventions and standards of his own time can be considered relevant.

              Paul was self evidently very arrogant and would countenance no contradictions. His was the true gospel and everyone else was wrong.

              However, again this is the attitude one finds in cult leaders.


              A few sentences in a few letters can be considered so. They reflect very closely the attitudes displayed in half the content of your own posts.

              [quote]The author never claims he is a companion. The employment of the term “we” occurs in parts of the text but it is equally possible that this is deliberately used used to heighten the dramatic effect.

              The work contains some events that cannot be considered factual and the author does not investigate these incidents or make any inquiry
              You have documents from the time that declare Luke never investigated?



              No it was not. [FONT=Helvetica]These narratives are very carefully structured for dramatic effect . We have there and back again travel accounts and sections that concentrate on persecutions [as in chapters 3-7]. The narrative ends in Rome suggesting by implication that Jerusalem is no longer of great significance and the new religion has moved on. Paul is imprisoned but there is no evidence of any dramatic tension in that final chapter and he continues to preach.
              For the first (more than) half of Acts, this purported "dramatic effect" is never employed. This particular objection was dreamt up to support the contention that Acts was a late composition. The fact that there is no evidence to underpin the claim is considered irrelevant.
              The narrative ends in Rome, with Paul having been under arrest for two years (and a bit). Jerusalem is about 2000 km away as the crow flies. If Luke had picked up with Peter, the narrative would still have ended in Rome. If he had picked up with John, the narrative would most likely have ended in Patmos. If you find significance in a mere accident of history, so be it.
              I find it significant that Acts ends with Paul being only part way into his term under house arrest - which is enough to suggest a date of composition. There are, of course, plenty of commentators who point to the "mystery" of why Luke chose to end his account at that point. Other commentators consider that Rome being the terminus of Paul's journey and the establishment [(?)] of Christianity in the centre of the civilised world, the story was complete. All well and good, and an acceptable excuse, but it doesn't explain why Luke, if he were writing any later, chose to say 2 years instead of the actual number.

              I do not recall you producing an iota of attested evidence that provides any indication that these texts were composed in the 50s/early 60s CE. The contention that because certain events are not mentioned in these texts it follows that the texts were composed prior to those events taking place cannot be considered overly persuasive; given that the purpose for writing these texts was for a particular apologetical purpose. This was to give their audience a dramatic narrative for Paul’s exploits [and he quickly becomes the central figure in these texts] and how his gospel/beliefs became dominant. The author includes the harmonisation and glossing of previous rifts and tensions between Paul and James et al, to suggest that everything was resolved between them all. Throughout it is “the Jews” [i.e. those Jews who do not accept Paul’s ideas] that are the malevolent forces, despite the Jewish origins of this new cult/religion.
              Taking the attitudes and conventions of the time and of the authors into account, none of them should be expected to let the event pass without comment. You find it significant that Josephus did not mention the stoning of Stephen, you find it significant that Paul didn't mention Berea
              but don't find it significant that the authors of the gospels, particularly Matthew, failed to mention the fall of the temple? So much for dispassionate assessment on your part. Paul makes mention of retribution falling on the Jews in comment about an unspecified event that cannot have been anywhere near as momentous as the fall of the temple.

              You regularly dismiss academic sources that do not agree with your preconceived ideas.
              Indeed. After I have assessed their arguments, if the arguments are found wanting, I dismiss the arguments. There might be the odd occasion when I dismiss the author into the bargain. I have little cause for confidence in the opinions of authors who fail to demonstrate the capacity to pass a reading comprehension test designed for ten year olds, but still check their arguments just in case they have found a truffle.

              And I have to ask again, if these texts were considered of such sacred importance to those early communities, why were the originals not preserved? A text from the hand of one who had known the Lord or known those who had known the Lord would surely have been considered worth preserving?
              Nope. The writing was just ink on papyrus, or incised in clay, or ... . The message conveyed by the writing was considered sacred. "Holy Scripture" refers to the message in writing; a written recipe for pickled gherkin would be an example of scripture. Of course, in English "scripture" means the content of Bible, but in German "Schriften" just means writing, "Heilige" must be added before it can be considered a clear reference to Biblical content. No significance is attached to the physical scripture in itself, so no incentive to preserve worn out copies or originals.

              For Greek speaking audiences for whom the term Christos could easily have been construed as some new deity. Gentiles in Galatia or Thessalonica were hardly likely to be overly conversant with Jewish messianic beliefs.
              The Greek speaking audience would have "mistaken" the term as referring to a man who had been anointed, which, in Koine Greek, is what the term means when it is applied to a man. It would not have occured to them that a different meaning might apply. The theological meanings developed in the third century and later for various words and terms don't apply to material written before those meanings were developed.
              Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2023, 06:22 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                My emphasis. I am tempted to inquire who made you the Gauleiter of this board?

                However, to the matter in hand. Our exchange has been specifically about Paul and your contentions that he was "persecuted".

                Paul lived some two thousand years ago and in a polytheistic society. His imprisonment and physical chastisements arose, not from his beliefs, but from his insistence on intentionally promoting those beliefs among the communities of a recognised religion [Judaism].

                That behaviour on his part understandably led to members of those communities exhibiting antagonism and hostility towards him and this appears to have sometimes led to violent clashes between individuals from those Jewish communities and others who supported his beliefs. Such disturbances would have been dealt with by the Roman authorities. Paul would therefore have been viewed by the leaders of those Jewish communities and the civic authorities as an agitator who was deliberately provoking trouble and dissent among and between communities. As such he would have been considered as a nuisance with regard to the peace and public order of the particular city.

                That has no bearing whatsoever on people being intentionally singled out and imprisoned, threatened, harassed or oppressed by regimes and governments solely for their beliefs
                In other words, there is no meaningful difference between the persecution suffered by early Christians, and what is being suffered by Christians today.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  You acknowledged you were incorrect.
                  I acknowledged that the author had made a sound case that συ λεγεις does not mean "it is as you say." I was wrong - and surprise surprise - so too is majority consensus. I'm sure that you will now shoot the author of the discussion paper an e-mail to berate him for his arrogance in being so presumptuous as to speak against majority consensus. Also, you might like to berate him for comparing the different versions of the event portrayed by the different authors.

                  As to his claim that συ λεγεις means the opposite, a denial that Jesus is the king of the Jews: no, that claim has not been substantiated.

                  Such claims about miracles are delusional. And all these alleged miracles have perfectly rational explanations when they are properly assessed.
                  You're responding to someone who was there when these things happened, and, with regard to those particular events, I am the only one who could possibly know beyond any possible doubt that there was no chicanery or delusion involved.

                  Such claims about miracles are delusional.
                  I did not mention the fact that I have personally performed a miracle and handed down prophecies with any expectation that you would believe the claim.

                  If you mean "discredit " to refer to later beliefs that these texts are sacred or holy writ, that is a different matter. Insofar as the texts themselves are concerned they have to be critically assessed within the known historical context of their composition and the religious reasons for their composition
                  You might be best advised to leave that task to people who know how to do it - or at least to people who can pass a reading comprehension test designed for ten year olds.

                  Is that how you consider textual criticism is undertaken?
                  It is one of the ways, there are others equally flawed.


                  The one thing unlikely to be encountered is a dispassionate assessment.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2023, 07:03 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    In other words, there is no meaningful difference between the persecution suffered by early Christians, and what is being suffered by Christians today.
                    Are you telling us that present day Christians in Islamic countries go into mosques and argue with the Imams and congregations? Or that Christians in [theoretically non-religious] totalitarian regimes go out and about proselytising other people?
                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      I postulated such a scenario premised on the comments Paul makes about the Jews in his letter to his Thessalonian proselytes. Hence my observation that had he made similar remarks [as it were in person] to those Jewish communities it would hardly have endeared him to them. [note the qualification]

                      However, you made an emphatic [and unqualified] assertion.

                      Then it's a good thing he didn't.


                      And you are no more privy to every single utterance made by Paul than is anyone else.


                      IOW, you made up something dreamed up by your fevered imagination and sought to slough it off as something he actually did.

                      Got it.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                        Insofar as later events in Roman history are concerned Christians had the option and with regard to the Decian period it seems many did recant [or bribe officials to get their libellum] or lie low.
                        I understand that in Nazi-occupied Europe that some Jews were able to survive by bribing officials, pretending that they weren't Jewish and various other ploys.

                        I guess this means that, by your criteria, the Jews weren't being persecuted.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          IOW, you made up something dreamed up by your fevered imagination and sought to slough it off as something he actually did.

                          Got it.
                          All the while failing to notice that the church congregations of Judea were made up of people who were themselves Jews, suffering at the hands of their own country-men in the same way that the Thessalonians were suffering at the hands of the Thessalonian's own country-men. But she assures us that her interpretation is dispassionate and valid, so we have to take her word for it, I suppose




                          not.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            He was not persecuted. If he was saying similar things to some of the comments he wrote he would have been considered [a] a heretic; and [b] an dissident trouble-maker by many within those Jewish communities of the eastern Mediterranean.

                            And being considered by the authorities and/or the leaders of communities to be causing dissent and unrest within and between communities could result in imprisonment or receiving some form of corporal punishment. Both of which he experienced.
                            The Nazis also offered up all sorts of justifications for persecuting the Jews.

                            They claimed they were doing a service to mankind by ridding the world of dissident trouble-makers. IOW, they were considered by the authorities and/or the leaders to be a source of dissent and unrest.

                            So, again using your own criteria, this means that the Nazis weren't persecuting those "dissident trouble-maker" Jews

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by eider View Post

                              Oh....I'm not going to get a straight answer from you which proposes an age when children should have lessons in sex and sexuality...... that is for sure.

                              I'm not waiting for an answer........... I don't think I ever expected one from you.
                              You have a nasty habit of repeatedly pretending to be still waiting for an answer and acting like you didn't get one -- even when you've responded to the reply you claim to still be waiting for.

                              To say you are acting like a sleazeball would be an insult to sleazeballs.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post



                                No-one of the time, seemingly, meets the definition of "historian" by current standards. Whether Luke was an historian in his own time, according to the standards understood his immediate audience, is a matter of whether taking the conventions and standards of his own time can be considered relevant.
                                Virtually nobody was overly concerned with chronological exactitude or "history for history's sake" which is largely a modern phenomena. Still, while attending a lecture by Michael Licona he mentioned an exception that unfortunately I can't remember the name of at this time. This particular historian behaved in a remarkably modern manner but that style just didn't catch on.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                87 responses
                                398 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Working...
                                X