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

Derail: Two Natures of Christ

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

  • #76
    [QUOTE=Sparko;n1409353]
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    And yet you keep ignoring the verses that show he was God incarnate while on Earth.
    I don't and won't ignore any scripture that directly and explicitly addresses any particular issue. Verses that don't directly and explicitly address an issue, but can be adduced to have relevant meaning or application, are assessed in the light of the direct and explicit verses.

    Did I ignore the claims based on the text where the pharisees accused Jesus of being a claiming to be God? The issue of the verse itself was considered along with the context in which it is set, and without any reference to other verses.

    Who addressed the point where Peter claimed that Jesus had been a man attested by God? other than to throw a different verse up as a point of contradiction?
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2022, 09:30 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


    • #77
      [QUOTE=tabibito;n1409354]
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      I don't and won't ignore any scripture that directly and explicitly addresses any particular issue. Verses that don't directly and explicitly address an issue, but can be adduced to have relevant meaning or application, are assessed in the light of the direct and explicit verses.

      Did I ignore the claims based on the text where the pharisees accused Jesus of being a claiming to be God? The issue of the verse itself was considered along with the context in which it is set, and without any reference to other verses.

      Who addressed the point where Peter claimed that Jesus had been a man attested by God? other than to throw a different verse up as a point of contradiction?
      Jesus was a man, and fully God the Son.

      You never addressed the point I made that your view entails the nature of God would have to change if the Son became just a man and no longer the second divine person in the Trinity.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Weird misunderstandings can come from many sources. I once heard someone say that the Trinity consisted of Abraham, Moses and David (he was an elderly Hindu with what could be described as having a very poor understanding of Christianity). I seriously doubt he got that idea from a Christian unless it was one with a particular sense of humor.
        I think "Dad, Mom, and the Kid" is a more natural triple than "Dad, the Kid, and a Ghost." Certainly more easily understandable. Enough so, along with the historical attempts to further elevate Mary, that I wouldn't be surprised to find a heretical sect with reasonable numbers in the vicinity of Muhammad's sixth century Meccan Arabia.

        Comment


        • #79
          [QUOTE=Sparko;n1409359]
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Jesus was a man, and fully God the Son.

          You never addressed the point I made that your view entails the nature of God would have to change if the Son became just a man and no longer the second divine person in the Trinity.
          As to that - God said he does not change. Is Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob," a declaration that 1/ in no way does God change? or 2/ God does not change in the way he deals with people (in particular aspects)? The context of the verse shows that the sons of Jacob have changed in the way they respond to God.

          Even by traditional concepts of becoming a man, God changed when he became a man. Whether it is interpreted as a transformation or as a development, "becoming" states that there is a change.
          Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2022, 09:52 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


          • #80
            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
            Paul, writing earlier, described an ethereal Jesus, a Jesus of the shadows darting in and out of common reality, communicating from the spirit realm. Amusingly enough, when Paul's own disciples assumed the same license, an exasperated Paul found it necessary to declare in unwitting self-abnegation that Paul's vision-messengers from above could not be used to contradict Paul himself. Higher than the angels, indeed.
            Er, no. An ethereal Jesus could not have been crucified (Gal. 3:1, 1 Cor.1-2).

            I'd still like to discover how Muhammad came to believe the Christian trinity was composed of the Father, Mary, and Jesus. I can't believe that thought originated with him.
            It seems fairly evident from the Koran that Muhammed got his ideas about Judaism and Christianity from some fringe sects; he was, after all, rather closer to Nag Hammadi than Constantinople.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Er, no. An ethereal Jesus could not have been crucified (Gal. 3:1, 1 Cor.1-2).
              I don't require Paul to be in agreement with Paul. But in any case, a living, breathing crucified Jesus is the very essence of an ethereal non-humanity.

              It seems fairly evident from the Koran that Muhammed got his ideas about Judaism and Christianity from some fringe sects; he was, after all, rather closer to Nag Hammadi than Constantinople.
              A Mary-inclusive trinity is nowhere to be found in any sect I've run across.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                Paul, writing earlier, described an ethereal Jesus, a Jesus of the shadows darting in and out of common reality, communicating from the spirit realm. Amusingly enough, when Paul's own disciples assumed the same license, an exasperated Paul found it necessary to declare in unwitting self-abnegation that Paul's vision-messengers from above could not be used to contradict Paul himself. Higher than the angels, indeed.
                Beyond his reports of his own communications with (the ascended) Christ, I can't think of anything supporting the idea that Paul described Jesus as ethereal, and even those reports don't point to a necessarily ethereal Christ.
                While Paul did have argument with people proposing alternative doctrines, I can't see any reason to believe they had been his disciples. (James' yes, as a splinter group.)
                Much is made of Paul's comments about men or angels bringing a gospel different from the one that he had delivered from the first. The point that Paul included himself in those comments and equally subject to the same treatment tends to be glossed over.
                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Beyond his reports of his own communications with (the ascended) Christ, I can't think of anything supporting the idea that Paul described Jesus as ethereal, and even those reports don't point to a necessarily ethereal Christ.
                  An entity composed of light that you can hear, and the people around you can't, is surely ethereal.

                  While Paul did have argument with people proposing alternative doctrines, I can't see any reason to believe they had been his disciples. (James' yes, as a splinter group.)
                  Much is made of Paul's comments about men or angels bringing a gospel different from the one that he had delivered from the first. The point that Paul included himself in those comments and equally subject to the same treatment tends to be glossed over.
                  Who was he writing to if not his own disciples in Galatia? I don't recognize that last reference about him including himself.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                    An entity composed of light that you can hear, and the people around you can't, is surely ethereal.
                    Nothing in the text says that the entity was himself composed of light.



                    Who was he writing to if not his own disciples in Galatia? I don't recognize that last reference about him including himself.
                    He was indeed writing to his own disciples, but "if anyone else, including Paul, man or angel, should preach to you a different gospel from that which you received, let him be accursed," shows that he is not complaining about their own teachings. (Though it must be admitted, it doesn't necessarily preclude some of their number either.) Galatians 1:8-9

                    Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2022, 11:55 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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Nothing in the text says that the entity was himself composed of light.
                      That's all he reported seeing before being blinded, which is more than anyone else saw. In any case, it's not a physical entity. Of course, I assume he made up the whole story. Nothing about it makes sense. The coercive nature of his conversion in particular.

                      He was indeed writing to his own disciples, but "if anyone else, including Paul, man or angel, should preach to you a different gospel from that which you received, let him be accursed," shows that he is not complaining about their own teachings. (Though it must be admitted, it doesn't necessarily preclude some of their number either.) Galatians 1:8-9
                      I can't find any version of Galatians that explicitly mentions "Paul" or "man" in v. 8-9. Everyone else says "we." But it's in quotes, so where do you find it?

                      My larger point was that Paul relied entirely on messages from the spirit world for his teaching.

                      His references to an angel contradicting him implies someone was citing angels contradicting him, else why include them, that is, someone was using his own angeletics against him. Paul explicitly denied receiving his teachings from actual human witnesses. That opened the door, and what came through should have been utterly predictable.

                      His response was to set himself up as an independent authority.

                      That can't be legit.


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                        That's all he reported seeing before being blinded, which is more than anyone else saw. In any case, it's not a physical entity. Of course, I assume he made up the whole story. Nothing about it makes sense. The coercive nature of his conversion in particular.
                        All you see of me is words in a post - which doesn't make me a non physical entity. More to the point, it is not uncommon for people to hear voices of actual physical entities while no-one is visible to them, it only needs for angles to be unfavourable.
                        Only the most basic account of the encounter on the road to Damascus is provided by Luke. There was a light, Paul was blinded, a brief exchange (no way to know if the exchange was reported in full) between Paul and a voice, Paul's travelling companions heard a voice but none of them saw the speaker. If Paul's report of the way he himself received the gospel occurred during that event (highly probable, but not absolutely certain) Luke has provided a radically abridged account.


                        I can't find any version of Galatians that explicitly mentions "Paul" or "man" in v. 8-9. Everyone else says "we." But it's in quotes, so where do you find it?
                        carelessness on my part.

                        My larger point was that Paul relied entirely on messages from the spirit world for his teaching.
                        Paul reports that he received the gospel in singular circumstances, but it that is a long way from "relying entirely on messages" whatever world they might originate in.

                        His references to an angel contradicting him implies someone was citing angels contradicting him, else why include them, that is, someone was using his own angeletics against him. Paul explicitly denied receiving his teachings from actual human witnesses. That opened the door, and what came through should have been utterly predictable.
                        Verses 6-7 There are people preaching a different gospel among the churches of Galatia, and (at least some members of some of) the congregations are heeding the alternative gospel.
                        Verse 8 The authors of the letter, Paul and companions, are making it clear that the Galatians should not pay attention to people who preach a different gospel, even if the preachers are Paul, his companions, or an angel.
                        Verse 9 repeats and emphasises the content of verses 6-8

                        Even if - contrafactual hypothetical (which context places in the future) circumstances that cannot reasonably be expected to eventuate.
                        We - those sending the letter, including Paul - (the Galatians can reasonably expect them to be reliable sources)
                        or an angel - generally considered an extremely reliable source

                        His response was to set himself up as an independent authority.
                        He was stating that no-one gets to change the gospel.

                        Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2022, 02:35 PM.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          All you see of me is words in a post - which doesn't make me a non physical entity. More to the point, it is not uncommon for people to hear voices of actual physical entities while no-one is visible to them, it only needs for angles to be unfavourable.
                          Only the most basic account of the encounter on the road to Damascus is provided by Luke. There was a light, Paul was blinded, a brief exchange (no way to know if the exchange was reported in full) between Paul and a voice, Paul's travelling companions heard a voice but none of them saw the speaker. If Paul's report of the way he himself received the gospel occurred during that event (highly probable, but not absolutely certain) Luke has provided a radically abridged account.
                          I'm providing the non-believers perspective, not trying to challenge your faith.

                          I'm sure there's some geometric organization on the road, with unusual object placement that could have made a light capable of blinding Paul invisible to his companions, but that's not reasonable unless one begins with an assumption that the text relates a true incident and tries to force facts into the narrative to shore up the tale. That's not necessary. Leave the story just as it is, and accept that there's nothing at all unusual about people making up stories to make them seem special.

                          In Acts 26, the author of Luke says Agrippa told Paul that he was raving. That's the natural reaction. Because Paul's account is anything but highly probable.

                          On the contrary, there's a much simpler explanation for the birth of Paul's ministry, one taken advantage of by uncountable pious frauds throughout history. Like Robert Tilton or L. Ron Hubbard, he saw these new believers as easy marks, and he jumped. He already had a thriving business taking down individual believers, but it was a lot of trouble transporting them back to Jerusalem one or a few at a time to get paid. How much better to set up shop and have them pay him, ostensibly providing funds for the believers back in Jerusalem. Minus expenses, of course.

                          Paul reports that he received the gospel in singular circumstances, but it that is a long way from "relying entirely on messages" whatever world they might originate in.
                          In actual fact, he probably picked up the basics from the believers he'd taken prisoner. By his own story he took pains to avoid placing himself subordinate to Jesus' own companions, the people most likely to call him out on his novel teachings. In itself, that's highly suspicious behavior for a new believer. That didn't leave much in the way of alternatives. He had to claim he received his revelations from heavenly messengers.

                          Verses 6-7 There are people preaching a different gospel among the churches of Galatia, and (at least some members of some of) the congregations are heeding the alternative gospel.
                          Verse 8 The authors of the letter, Paul and companions, are making it clear that the Galatians should not pay attention to people who preach a different gospel, even if the preachers are Paul, his companions, or an angel.
                          Verse 9 repeats and emphasises the content of verses 6-8

                          Even if - contrafactual hypothetical (which context places in the future) circumstances that cannot reasonably be expected to eventuate.
                          We - those sending the letter, including Paul - (the Galatians can reasonably expect them to be reliable sources)
                          or an angel - generally considered an extremely reliable source
                          Muhammad's supposed authority came from the whisperings of Gabriel in his ear, often enough while in the physical presence of his companions. The Qur'an is what you get when angels are considered reliable.

                          There's the story related in Paul's writings, and there are the facts. The fact is that none of the gospel writers or the authors of the other epistles felt it necessary to rely on the testimony of angels, with the minor exception of the Revelation of John, itself a case study on why such sources shouldn't be considered reliable.

                          He was stating that no-one gets to change the gospel.
                          After he'd already done so.

                          Paul's "new gospel" consistently took the burden off of believers, allowing him to grow the market for his collections racket.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                            I'm providing the non-believers perspective, not trying to challenge your faith.

                            I'm sure there's some geometric organization on the road, with unusual object placement that could have made a light capable of blinding Paul invisible to his companions, but that's not reasonable unless one begins with an assumption that the text relates a true incident and tries to force facts into the narrative to shore up the tale. That's not necessary. Leave the story just as it is, and accept that there's nothing at all unusual about people making up stories to make them seem special.
                            I wasn't trying to attribute the light to an object, was just pointing out that there are often times when a person can hear a voice without being able to see the speaker. I can see that there are valid reasons for a non-believer to seriously question the account, so I'm not going to criticise a non-believer for not accepting it.

                            In actual fact, he probably picked up the basics from the believers he'd taken prisoner. By his own story he took pains to avoid placing himself subordinate to Jesus' own companions, the people most likely to call him out on his novel teachings. In itself, that's highly suspicious behavior for a new believer. That didn't leave much in the way of alternatives. He had to claim he received his revelations from heavenly messengers.
                            It would have been hard for him to avoid hearing some of the gospel, certainly.



                            Muhammad's supposed authority came from the whisperings of Gabriel in his ear, often enough while in the physical presence of his companions. The Qur'an is what you get when angels are considered reliable.
                            If you were to make up a story, you would want to call on the most reliable witnesses that your audience would accept. Argument from authority works on the same principle. If Muhammed's or Joseph Smith's audience didn't believe that angels existed and were the most reliable possible witnesses, they would have needed to find some other source to blame things on.

                            There's the story related in Paul's writings, and there are the facts. The fact is that none of the gospel writers or the authors of the other epistles felt it necessary to rely on the testimony of angels, with the minor exception of the Revelation of John, itself a case study on why such sources shouldn't be considered reliable.
                            Paul seems to have stuck to the gospel in all ordinary circumstances. 13 times (+2 in the pastorals) angels are mentioned by Paul. He doesn't claim to have any relationship with angels in any of them.
                            In one, he says
                            "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind," (Colossians 2:18)
                            For the rest it's pretty much angels bearing witness, playing a role in delivering the (OT) law and so forth, in the next life - humans passing judgement on angels.

                            When it came to pointing out the witness for his own authority - he doesn't refer to angels. His bona fides, he usually says, lie in the fact that his words are backed by the exercise of power, as his audience has seen for itself.

                            {{ Paul stating that no-one gets to change the gospel}}
                            After he'd already done so.


                            No evidence that he changed the gospel exists. The claim that he did change the gospel, though, does make a nice bed-time story for people wanting excuses to discredit him, so I'm told.

                            Paul's "new gospel" consistently took the burden off of believers, allowing him to grow the market for his collections racket.
                            "come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning," or "you are not under obligation to live according to the flesh but to live according to the Spirit," or "sinners (in some detail) won't get to inherit anything of heaven," or "if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live," Which part of that lot gives people the idea that Paul preached easy-believeism?
                            There are literary convention in Koine Greek for first making a contrary argument, then following it up immediately with rebuttal. For a native English speaker, it is almost impossible to detect, and when it is noticed, will look like self contradiction. Cue Romans 7 into Romans 8. The argument in chapter 7 is refuted in chapter 8. Naturally enough, while Koine Greek remained a trade tongue, no-one tried to use Paul's writings as a basis for easy-believeism.
                            Last edited by tabibito; 08-30-2022, 08:07 PM.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Every statement answers a question

                              Was Jesus** a man? Directly, according to Acts 2:22, yes.

                              Was Jesus God? No text directly addresses the issue ... rephrase the question.

                              Was Jesus equal to or greater than God? No text (etc)

                              Was Jesus equal to the Father? According to John 14:28, no.

                              Is anyone equal to the Father? No text (etc)

                              Is the Father greater than all? John 10:29 (that no-one is equal to the Father is implicit)[indent]Is "all," as it commonly is, a sweeping generalisation in this verse? Provisionally "yes" subject to later findings.

                              Are angels inferior to God? No text directly addresses the issue. The Father is greater than all provides, implicitly, yes.

                              Is Jesus lesser than the angels? According to Hebrews, yes.

                              And the questions can continue for quite a time, but the number of questions directly addressed by the text is not particularly large.


                              ** Jesus, throughout, strictly refers to Jesus during the time between conception and burial.




                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Every statement answers a question

                                Was Jesus** a man? Directly, according to Acts 2:22, yes.

                                Was Jesus God? No text directly addresses the issue ... rephrase the question.

                                Was Jesus equal to or greater than God? No text (etc)

                                Was Jesus equal to the Father? According to John 14:28, no.

                                Is anyone equal to the Father? No text (etc)

                                Is the Father greater than all? John 10:29 (that no-one is equal to the Father is implicit)[indent]Is "all," as it commonly is, a sweeping generalisation in this verse? Provisionally "yes" subject to later findings.

                                Are angels inferior to God? No text directly addresses the issue. The Father is greater than all provides, implicitly, yes.

                                Is Jesus lesser than the angels? According to Hebrews, yes.

                                And the questions can continue for quite a time, but the number of questions directly addressed by the text is not particularly large.


                                ** Jesus, throughout, strictly refers to Jesus during the time between conception and burial.



                                During the Transfiguration Jesus showed he was God the Son even while alive, before the resurrection. It was a revealing of who he really was.


                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                213 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X