Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

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

  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That seems to be a fairly standard reaction, including instances where it's the response without even troubling to look at what was written[1], and your concluding statement very likely sums up the reason.

    Some folks comfort themselves in the mistaken belief that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous contradictions, foolish over-the-top assertions and other things that "nobody" can make any sense of. And whenever anyone has the gall to dare to contradict any of their usual litany of PRATTs[2], it is viewed as some sort of personal assault. A figurative slap in the face. An attack on the basic pillars of their decision to reject Jesus / Christianity.

    Hence the Pavlovian response of summarily rejecting and ridiculing anything that questions it.





    1. case in point: when I mentioned that Christians didn't co-opt December 25th

    2. and this is not to say that there aren't genuine legitimate questions, but what gets offered up time and time again are almost always the same old tired misconceptions that sound like the person is getting their information out of Dawkins' God Delusion or something equally bottom of the barrel.
    Yes - it is only a matter of sitting back and waiting for the emu ostrich egg.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Way too precious. I've taken screen shots for posterity.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    The trend is to manufacture excuses to wrest or write off any inconvenient text - but that tendency isn't the sole province of either Christian or Atheist. ... If a word or phrase was inconvenient - redefine it and the problem goes away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post




    In Luke's text he is using the general military term to refer to a governor. It really is that simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Given that the word, ηγεμονευοντος, used by Luke when referring to Quirinius, is not restricted to the meaning of "governor," but can apply to anyone in a command position, there is no evidence that Luke might have been mistaken: even if there was no evidence of Quirinius' being a consul and active in Syria around the time of Christ's birth.
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    With respect to the old chestnut of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria twice that is now completely rejected, except within the realms of some Christian enthusiasts. It should also be noted that Mr Bryan Windle is neither a Classicist nor a historian. Furthermore the Greek ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] means exactly what it says and the word carries a strong military connotation.



    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    The verb ἡγεμονεύω is a general military term. Consult your complete Liddell Scott. There will you find more than half a page or more of examples from classical sources for this verb and its cognate forms. ...

    Quirinius was not a ”prefect”. He was ex Consular [a very senior position] not a Praefectus

    Last edited by tabibito; 07-10-2021, 01:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post



    Luke does not say that Quirinius was a prefect, he says that Quirinius was ηγεμονευοντος. When I pointed out that ηγεμονευοντος can apply to almost anyone in a command position, my claim was ridiculed.



    You can't afford to allow yourself to believe otherwise.
    That seems to be a fairly standard reaction, including instances where it's the response without even troubling to look at what was written[1], and your concluding statement very likely sums up the reason.

    Some folks comfort themselves in the mistaken belief that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous contradictions, foolish over-the-top assertions and other things that "nobody" can make any sense of. And whenever anyone has the gall to dare to contradict any of their usual litany of PRATTs[2], it is viewed as some sort of personal assault. A figurative slap in the face. An attack on the basic pillars of their decision to reject Jesus / Christianity.

    Hence the Pavlovian response of summarily rejecting and ridiculing anything that questions it.





    1. case in point: when I mentioned that Christians didn't co-opt December 25th

    2. and this is not to say that there aren't genuine legitimate questions, but what gets offered up time and time again are almost always the same old tired misconceptions that sound like the person is getting their information out of Dawkins' God Delusion or something equally bottom of the barrel.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    So let's move on to the claim that "according to Luke, Quirinius actually conducted the census in Judaea."

    Any takers?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    What is available is known historical fact and that has nothing to with being “pro or contra Luke”

    Ramsay’s book given in that link was written in 1898 and is self- evidently from an entrenched apologetical standpoint, the clue to which is in the title of that work.



    The verb ἡγεμονεύω is a general military term. Consult your complete Liddell Scott. There will you find more than half a page or more of examples from classical sources for this verb and its cognate forms.
    You actually admit NOW, that ηγεμονευοντος doesn't necessarily mean prefect or governor ... contrary to your (or maybe it was someone else's) earlier assertion, that it can only mean governor or prefect. Your entire argument against the veracity Luke 2:2 hinges on ηγεμονευοντος being applicable only to a governor or prefect.

    Source: Liddel, Scott, ed. Jones


    ἡγεμον-εύω , Dor. ἁγ- , lead the way , προτὶ Ἴλιον Il. 16.92 ; πρὸς δώματα, ἀγορήνδε, λέχοσδε, δεῦρο , Od. 3.386 , 8.4 , 23.293 , 17.372 ; πρόσθ' ἡγεμόνευεν 22.400 , 24.155 ; αὖλιν ἐφ' ἡμετέρην Theoc. 25.60 ; ἐπιθυμίας καὶ ἔρωτος ἡγεμονεύσαντος Pl. Smp. 197a : dat. pers., Od. 3.386 , 8.4 , Hes. Th. 387 , etc.; τῇ ἴμεν, κεν δὴ σὺ . . ἡγεμονεύῃς Il. 15.46 ; ὁδὸν . to lead the way, ἐγὼ δ' ὁδὸν ἡγεμονεύσω Od. 6.261 , cf. Parm. 1.5 : twice in Hom. , c. dat. et acc., τοῖσι γέρων ὁδὸν ἡγεμόνευε Od. 24.225 ; ὕδατι ῥόον . make a course for the water, Il. 21.258 .

    II lead in war, rule, command , once in Hom. , c. dat., Τρωσὶ μὲν ἡγεμόνευε . . Ἕκτωρ 2.816 : elsewh., c. gen., Λοκρῶν δ' . Αἴας ib. 527 , cf. 552 , Hdt. 7.99 , 160 , etc.; ἡγεμόνων . X. Ages. 1.3 , etc.; . τῆς σκέψεως to take the lead in it, Pl. Prt. 351e : abs., to have or take the command , Hdt. 8.2 ; . ἐν πόλει Pl. R. 474c : — Pass. , to be ruled , ὑπό τινος Th. 3.61 . — Signf. 11 never occurs in Od. , and signf. 1 rarely in Il.

    III to be governor , τῆς Συρίας Eu. Luc. 2.2 : abs., PTeb. 302.7 (i A.D.) , IGRom. 3.162 (Ancyra, ii A.D. ), etc.

    © Copyright Original Source




    Quirinius was not a ”prefect”. He was ex Consular [a very senior position] not a Praefectus
    The fact remains that there is no proof to show that he was not a Duumvir. In fact, every creditable source declares that he was.

    There is no attested historical evidence to support it. It is all hypothetical speculation. If you are going to allege that lack of evidence suggests anything is possible and the whole issue then becomes preposterous.


    Luke does not say that Quirinius was a prefect, he says that Quirinius was ηγεμονευοντος. When I pointed out that ηγεμονευοντος can apply to almost anyone in a command position, my claim was ridiculed.

    It is substantiated but you will not accept it because if conflicts with your dogmatic preconceptions.


    You can't afford to allow yourself to believe otherwise.

    Last edited by tabibito; 07-10-2021, 01:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    [Most of what is available is contaminated by an agenda either pro or contra Luke
    What is available is known historical fact and that has nothing to with being “pro or contra Luke”

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    but the foregoing seems reasonably even handed.
    Ramsay’s book given in that link was written in 1898 and is self- evidently from an entrenched apologetical standpoint, the clue to which is in the title of that work.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The full article provides evidence in support of the concept that two people in the same province could simultaneously be considered with ηγεμονευοντος
    Firstly, it is not an article; it is a chapter from Ramsay’s book. Secondly, there is no attested historical evidence from any period in Rome’s history that would lead one to such a conclusion. The very notion flies in the face of all that we know concerning Roman provincial administration under the early Principate.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    So the argument that all the lexicons are wrong about the definition of ηγεμονευοντος isn't relevant.
    The verb ἡγεμονεύω is a general military term. Consult your complete Liddell Scott. There will you find more than half a page or more of examples from classical sources for this verb and its cognate forms.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Declarations that a prefect served a term of only one year are disproven.
    Quirinius was not a ”prefect”. He was ex Consular [a very senior position] not a Praefectus

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Argument that no one person could be "governing" in two provinces simultaneously is likewise disproven.
    There is no attested historical evidence to support it. It is all hypothetical speculation. If you are going to allege that lack of evidence suggests anything is possible and the whole issue then becomes preposterous.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    In sum - the allegation that Luke was wrong is not substantiated,
    It is substantiated but you will not accept it because if conflicts with your dogmatic preconceptions.


    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    but there is enough doubt to keep the books open. Argument for one side is neither weaker nor stronger than argument for the other.
    You have no evidence on your “side “ apart from the late first century writings of a Christian apologist and Ramsay's unsupported assumptions for which there is not a shred of historical evidence.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Oh yes. It is beyond doubt that some will consider the article unreliable - on the basis that no Christian author could possibly be impartial.
    Many Christian scholars can show impartiality but Ramsay, in this instance, let his theological preconceptions influence his judgement.

    I would suggest that both your good self and Ramsay are demonstrating R G Collingwood's dictum that "Theocratic history...means not history proper...but a statement of known fact for the information of persons to whom they are not known, but who, as worshippers of the god in question, ought to know the deeds whereby he has made himself manifest”.


    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Ah - that's right, he was in Cilicia -

    https://biblehub.com/library/ramsay/...e_governor.htm


    Accordingly, the probability is that in BC.7, when Varus came to govern Syria, Augustus perceived that the internal affairs of the province would require all the energy of the regular governor, and sent at the same time a special officer with the usual title, Lieutenant of Augustus, to administer the military resources of the province, and specially to conduct the war against the Homonadenses and any other foreign relations that demanded military intervention. Moreover, Varus had no experience in war; and an experienced officer was needed. Thus, Quirinius conducted the war pretty certainly in BC.6, perhaps in 7 and 6, perhaps in 6 and 5.

    The first periodic enrollment of Syria was made under Saturninus in BC.8-7. The enrollment of Palestine was delayed by the causes described until the late summer or autumn of BC.6. At that time, Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was commanding its armies and directing its foreign policy.

    Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. With full consciousness and intention, he corrects Luke's statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (hegemon) in Syria.
    Most of what is available is contaminated by an agenda either pro or contra Luke, but the foregoing seems reasonably even handed. The full article provides evidence in support of the concept that two people in the same province could simultaneously be considered ηγεμονευοντος, with a division of responsibility. So the argument that all the lexicons are wrong about the definition of ηγεμονευοντος isn't relevant. Declarations that a prefect served a term of only one year are disproven. Argument that no one person could be "governing" in two provinces simultaneously is likewise disproven.

    In sum - the allegation that Luke was wrong is not substantiated, but there is enough doubt to keep the books open. Argument for one side is neither weaker nor stronger than argument for the other.

    Oh yes. It is beyond doubt that some will consider the article unreliable - on the basis that no Christian author could possibly be impartial. That bigoted attitude prevents any possibility of facts influencing such a person's opinions.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-09-2021, 10:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    [QUOTE=tabibito;n1280644]


    The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.
    Easy enough to prove me wrong - provide the name of the governor (by whatever title) between 12 and 9 BCE.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011ce...heancientworld Note the URL - Office of National Statistics, UK Gov.

    You are confusing the early Republican period with the Principate.

    Here is part of the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary [3rd edition, 2000]


    census, a national register prepared at Rome, on the basis of which were determined voting rights and liability for military service and taxation. The census was held first by the king, then by the consuls and from 443 BC by the censors. One was normally held every four (later five) years. Individuals were required to state their full name, age, name of their father or patronus, domicile, occupation, and the amount of their property (Livy 40. 51. 9; tabula Heracleensis 145). The names of women and children were not included in the census, but parents gave details about families (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4. 15). On the basis of the information received the censors registered citizens in tribes, tribus (by domicile, except in the case of freedmen who were, for most of the republic, registered in one of more of the four urban tribes), and centuries by property and age, as most of the centuries were divided amongst five classes, each with a property qualification and each containing centuries of iuniores and seniores). The centuries of cavalry) were registered separately, and those whose property did not qualify them for enrolment in one of the five classes were registered in a single century of capite censi ('counted by head'). The taking of a census was concluded with a religious ceremony of purification, the lustrum. In the tabula Heracleensis the chief magistrates of towns in Italy are ordered to take a census simultaneously with the holding of one in Rome; how long (if at all) before Caesar registration could be done locally, and not at Rome, is not known. At the end of the republic the census was taken very irregularly, at least in so far as it was taken by the censors: the tabula Heracleensis envisages the possibility of it being taken by other magistrates. It was held three times by Augustus. The last known census was held in Italy by Vespasian and Titus: taxation, conscription, and voting had ceased to be Italian concerns. In Sicily locally elected censors are attested under the republic; their responsibility was the valuation of property on the basis of which taxes were paid (Cic. 2 Verr. 2. 131). This may have been the case elsewhere, too, but it is not until the reign of Augustus that provincial censuses were organized by the central government. In the less urbanized provinces this involved the creation of new machinery which sometimes provoked popular resistance (as in Gaul, where there were censuses in 27 and 12 BC and AD 14 and 61, and Judaea in AD 6). Responsibility for the census lay normally with the governor, but many other men of senatorial, and later equestrian, rank were involved (ILS 3, index, p. 351). Evidence is primarily epigraphical and comes mostly from the 'imperial' provinces. The census-return (forma censualis) included full details of the character and extent of cultivated land and number of slaves owned (Dig. 51. 15. 4), and of other forms of property, information necessary to those responsible for levying the tributum soli and tributum capitis to have been no generally prescribed census-period, and it is presumed that governors were charged with keeping the register up to date. Roman Egypt was unique in having a regular census-period (fourteen years), and numerous census returns are preserved on papyri, addressed to a range of different officials and giving full details of the property and occupants of individual households.


    What must be remembered is that under the Principate Roman citizens in Italy were not subject to any form of tribute. These revenues were raised from the various provinces of the empire.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    .. Josephus, Census, 6CE. Antiquities 18: 1-4 Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. Although the Jews were at first shocked to hear of the registration of property, they gradually condescended,
    You have omitted the rest of that section of text. Here is the entire passage which conveys the full context of Josephus’ remarks

    NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Before the claim that Quirinius could not have been governing in Syria, it would be necessary to show that a/ he was someplace else.
    He was on the far side of the Taurus mountains in Cilicia engaging the Homanades

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    or b/ that someone else was governing in Syria.For the years between 12 BCE and 9BCE, insofar as information I have been able to find goes, those data are not available.
    I have previously dealt with all this.

    Ramsay suggests Qurinius’ first governorship of Syria lasted from 11-7 BC (JRS VII pp. 273-274) but in this period there seem to be already governors of Syria attested, M Titius and, probably as immediate successor to Marcus Titius, G. Sentius Saturnius. Saturnius’ term of office 9-6 or 8-6 BC

    I repeat the fact that Quirinius could not have been governor of two different provinces at the same time. Nor would a governor have conducted any kind of military operations on the Syrian side of the Taurus range. Think of the geographical logistics.

    For a detailed account of this topic I recommend Syme, R. (1934b): “Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: the Governorships of Piso, Quirinius and Silvanus”, Klio 27: 122–148.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Hypatia_Alexandria
    All you need to do is provide data that show the person governing in Syria between 12 and 9 BCE was not Quirinius, or to provide appropriate evidence that Quirinius did not have charge in Syria during those years. Otherwise, your claims are based on nothing more than speculation.

    Waiting.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    The historical facts are not disputed. I will end by once again quoting Moehring, citing Schürer
    • History, except for the passage in Luke, knows nothing of a general census throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus.
    • A Roman census could not have obliged Joseph to travel to Bethlehem and for Mary to accompany him.
    • A Roman census could not be carried out at all in Palestine during the time of Herod.
    • Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine at the time of Herod; on the contrary, he speaks of the census in AD 7 as something new and unheard of.
    • A census held under Quirinius could not fall into the time of Herod, since during Herod’s lifetime Quirinius was never governor of Syria.
    This is a formidable list of problems and no one has ever come close to solving all of them.

    [My emphasis]
    1..2. The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.
    Easy enough to prove me wrong - provide the name of the governor (by whatever title) between 12 and 9 BCE.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011ce...heancientworld Note the URL - Office of National Statistics, UK Gov.


    3... Rome would not have conducted a census (directly) before 6CE, true enough.

    4... Josephus, Census, 6CE. Antiquities 18: 1-4 Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. Although the Jews were at first shocked to hear of the registration of property, they gradually condescended,
    Were you thinking of a different section of Josephus' writings perhaps? This one doesn't say that a census was a new experience - in fact, it maybe indicates quite the opposite.

    5... Before the claim that Quirinius could not have been governing in Syria, it would be necessary to show that a/ he was someplace else or b/ that someone else was governing in Syria. For the years between 12 BCE and 9BCE, insofar as information I have been able to find goes, those data are not available.

    roman governors syria.jpg


    All you need to do is provide data that show who was governing in Syria between 12 and 9 BCE, or provide appropriate evidence that Quirinius did not have charge in Syria during those years. Otherwise, your claims are based on nothing more than speculation.

    Also note: the dates that I am looking at are not 4 - 1 BCE.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-08-2021, 11:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    So far, it's not a bad read.
    Lindsey Davis' novels are very entertaining.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    So far, it's not a bad read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    You say that as though I should find it unexpected.

    σεισμος εγενετο - True, the aorist can indicate a pluperfect, but the syntax isn't right for that. It is a simple past construct. εγενετο can interpreted in a variety of ways, often "it came to pass," "it came about that," "as it happened," etc. That said, Matthew's story line does indicate that the women arrived after the event. Assuming that Matthew's report was accurate, the women would have been close enough to hear the stone being rolled away and feel the resulting tremor, but not have the tomb in view at the time. Then they arrive at the tomb, find the stone gone from its mouth, and put two and two together. Other scenarios are possible, but that would be the simplest explanation for Matthews report on events - the women recounted their experience, and he recorded the basics.
    As for the angel - according to Matthew's report, he was sitting on the stone when they arrived, with the guards still shaking in fear. The last indicates that only a very short time had passed between the stone being rolled away and the women's arrival. "Shaking in fear" tends to be a short term experience.
    I say send for Marcus Didius Falco. He would solve the case!

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 11-27-2021, 06:29 AM
31 responses
199 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
68 responses
354 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Ronson, 10-31-2021, 10:01 AM
7 responses
61 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by eider, 10-24-2021, 01:23 AM
356 responses
1,874 views
0 likes
Last Post DesertBerean  
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
460 responses
2,846 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X