Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

True orthodoxy

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

  • True orthodoxy

    Here's St. Gregory's succinct definition of Christian Orthodoxy:

    "Orthodoxy may be defined as the clear perception and grasp of the two dogmas of the faith, namely, the Trinity and the Duality. It is to know and contemplate the three Persons of the Trinity as distinctively and indivisibly constituting the one God, and the divine and human natures of Christ as united in His single Person - that is to say, to know and profess that the single Son, both prior and subsequent to the Incarnation, is to be glorified in two natures, divine and human, and in two wills, divine and human, the one distinct from the other."


    Believing Jesus is one Person with two natures in the incarnation. I agree that the two natures can be described as being separate wills. Since I believe Jesus is one person as one person has one will in having the two natures. Other non-Orthodox Christians also come to that conclusion.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Here's St. Gregory's succinct definition of Christian Orthodoxy:

    "Orthodoxy may be defined as the clear perception and grasp of the two dogmas of the faith, namely, the Trinity and the Duality. It is to know and contemplate the three Persons of the Trinity as distinctively and indivisibly constituting the one God, and the divine and human natures of Christ as united in His single Person - that is to say, to know and profess that the single Son, both prior and subsequent to the Incarnation, is to be glorified in two natures, divine and human, and in two wills, divine and human, the one distinct from the other."


    Believing Jesus is one Person with two natures in the incarnation. I agree that the two natures can be described as being separate wills.
    Since I believe Jesus is one person as one person has one will in having the two natures.
    You lost me here. In any case I think Jesus had only one will, to obey his Father.
    Other non-Orthodox Christians also come to that conclusion.
    I do not see the point of your bolding the "O" here.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Here's St. Gregory's succinct definition of Christian Orthodoxy:

      "Orthodoxy may be defined as the clear perception and grasp of the two dogmas of the faith, namely, the Trinity and the Duality. It is to know and contemplate the three Persons of the Trinity as distinctively and indivisibly constituting the one God, and the divine and human natures of Christ as united in His single Person - that is to say, to know and profess that the single Son, both prior and subsequent to the Incarnation, is to be glorified in two natures, divine and human, and in two wills, divine and human, the one distinct from the other."


      Believing Jesus is one Person with two natures in the incarnation. I agree that the two natures can be described as being separate wills. Since I believe Jesus is one person as one person has one will in having the two natures. Other non-Orthodox Christians also come to that conclusion.
      There are several saints named Gregory. Which one of them are you quoting?

      Further, it is evident from the thread which led to this one that you do NOT have a "clear perception and grasp" of the Duality of Christ. And your second and third sentences here state contradictory positions.
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Believing Jesus is one Person with two natures in the incarnation. I agree that the two natures can be described as being separate wills. Since I believe Jesus is one person as one person has one will in having the two natures. Other non-Orthodox Christians also come to that conclusion.
        We certainly don't hold to the notion that Christ's Divine nature and His human nature, could ever be in conflict with each other. They're both in perfect harmony and with the same end. How exactly the incarnation works out is one of the greatest mysteries, however because of God's timeless nature, it is impossible that the divine will and the human will be the same thing described in two different ways. There is a Divine will, and a human will. Otherwise you start implying all sorts of heresies.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          . . . In any case I think Jesus had only one will, to obey his Father.
          I agree.

          I do not see the point of your bolding the "O" here.
          The Orthodox church and orthodoxy, making a distinction. One can be orthodox and not be of the Orthodox church.
          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            There are several saints named Gregory. Which one of them are you quoting?
            The one ascribed as Saint Gregory of Sinai.
            Further, it is evident from the thread which led to this one that you do NOT have a "clear perception and grasp" of the Duality of Christ. And your second and third sentences here state contradictory positions.
            So you think. There is a difference to attributing a will to Christ's divine nature and a will to Christ's human nature (His flesh) (compare usage John 1:13). And Christ being one person having His will. There is the will of the Father, being they are two persons (John 6:38). And the Holy Spirit also has a will too (1 Corinthians 12:11). Three wills three persons. One God one divine will.
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              You lost me here. In any case I think Jesus had only one will, to obey his Father.
              What you're describing here isn't the will, but the end of the will, its intention. Two different people can have wills with the same end. I and one of my friends both intend to go to the local Easter lunch celebration. Do we therefore have the same will? No, clearly not. But our wills want the same thing here. To attend that Easter lunch celebration.

              Likewise Christ's Divine will and His human will both have the same end, pleasing His Father in Heaven. However that would not make the Divine will the same thing as His human will.

              Christ was not partially human, He was not a flesh-puppet controlled by God, He was not a human body but with a divine soul, He was fully human and fully God.

              And all humans have a human soul, with a human will.

              This involved an addition of nature, since The Son did not possess a human soul prior to the incarnation. His divine nature underwent no change, He simple had another, and infinitely inferior nature, added to Him. This act is something that allows us to say that Christ is infinitely humble for the act He underwent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Prior to the Son of God's incarnation He only had His divine will. He being God the Creator (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-18). Yet after He became also fully human, He still only had one will, being one person. He now had the influence of His human flesh. Now that knowledge of good and evil which causes the sinful nature in human flesh was part of His divine nature as the Creator (Genesis 3:22). So it would not cause Him to sin (Hebrews 4:15; Mark 10:18), being that was always part of His divine nature (Genesis 3:22).
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  The one ascribed as Saint Gregory of Sinai.
                  Thanks. I'm not very familiar with that one. Is he considered one of the "Desert Fathers"?

                  So you think. There is a difference to attributing a will to Christ's divine nature and a will to Christ's human nature (His flesh) (compare usage John 1:13). And Christ being one person having His will. There is the will of the Father, being they are two persons (John 6:38). And the Holy Spirit also has a will too (1 Corinthians 12:11). Three wills three persons. One God one divine will.
                  Your last two sentences contradict each other. In the orthodox understanding, the three persons of the Trinity are united in will; they have one will. Christ has two natures, divine and human, and thus has two wills (in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed "not my will, but Thy will be done.").
                  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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

                    Your last two sentences contradict each other. In the orthodox understanding, the three persons of the Trinity are united in will; they have one will. Christ has two natures, divine and human, and thus has two wills (in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed "not my will, but Thy will be done.").
                    That understanding explains much. I see each Person in the Godhead as having each a personal will, being they are three Persons. But there is only one divine will which they all have, being they are the one God.

                    Christ in His incarnation took on human flesh, having a human nature. But being He is one Person, and as one Person has one will. Which because of His divine nature His will is to do the will of the Father.

                    While I have no problem ascribing a will to natures (compare John 1:13). It is nevertheless my belief Persons have wills, not natures. The Son of God has His single will while having two natures. He being one Person. God the Father being another Person. The Holy Spirit being another Person (1 Corinthians 12:11). Three Persons three wills. One divine will which they all are and have. Three Persons who are the one God. The Son of God always had and has His will in accord with the one divine will. It could not have been any other way.

                    Your agreement is not needed. While we may not agree. The view as you have accepted as true is nevertheless an understandable one.

                    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/monotheletism
                    Last edited by 37818; 04-06-2015, 11:02 PM.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gregory of Sinai wasn't a Desert Father, he came much later. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Sinai
                      Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        Thanks. I'm not very familiar with that one. Is he considered one of the "Desert Fathers"?

                        Your last two sentences contradict each other. In the orthodox understanding, the three persons of the Trinity are united in will; they have one will. Christ has two natures, divine and human, and thus has two wills (in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed "not my will, but Thy will be done.").
                        IMU, the Orthodox Trinitarian position (the teaching of the RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC etc etc etc and their immediate affiliates) all agree (at least since 325/381 CE) that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son & the Spirit. That is: only the Father is autotheos (God of himself), and so the Son is declared to be homoousius=consubstantial=of the same essence/nature, as opposed to co-substantial=of the same substance.

                        This appears to have been a consistent teaching prior to the Nicea and Constantinople councils. In the 3rd century (about 50 years before Nicea) the ultra-conservative Trinitarian, Novation, in his comprehensive "Treatise on the Trinity" concluded that the Son [prior to his incarnation] was made "God to us" by his Father.

                        Regarding the two "natures" of Jesus the Christ, the operative word used in the 5th century debates was "physis" (pl. physes). The English word "nature" does not correctly convey the meaning of "physis" which in my understanding requires observation (imu: physis and ousia were used interchaneably at the time (in 325CE hypostasis and ousia were used interchangably - St. Basil fixed that issue prior to 381. Imu, ousia was always consider philosophical speculation (ie: in the NT, "ousia" is used to refer to someone's presumed wealth/assets) whereas in common usage physis/es was provable (observable), having a body of proof.

                        We only have to read the Gospel of John to see it clearly stated that Jesus had two personas (natures) noteably, John 12 & 14. [i]If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him". The Greek word translated as "known" in the verse is the same as that used at John 17:3 "ginṓskō" it does not refer to intellectual knowledge but to an acquired intimate knowledge. The Greek word "horaō" translated as "seen" in the verse can have the meaning of "seen with the eyes" but its meaning goes further (especially given the context) = "to become acquainted with someone via personal experience. John 14:11 highlights and underlines Jesus' remarks to his disciples...
                        Last edited by apostoli; 07-01-2015, 07:25 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank you apostoli.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Thank you apostoli.
                            You are welcome. I was leading upto saying something about "two wills" but while I was looking for something I got timed out (thought about doing a back to back posting but Theologyweb seems to frown on such).

                            Did Jesus have two wills? One divine, the other human?

                            Aquinas canvasses a range of opinions and their refutation. Well worth a read of the relevant section in the Summa Theologica...
                            http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm

                            Of course, Aquinas is late in church history and benefited from the resolution of earlier debates. Imo, of more use to us is to get an understanding of what was being talked about in the Nicean circles upto the 5th/6th centuries when most controversies were at their height.

                            Pointedly, Jesus had more than two wills.

                            Every human is said to have two wills - that of the sensual identity (body) and that of the rational identity (soul). Imu, both wills are said to contain reason. For instance: in the early fathers Luke 22:42 is often discussed "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Imu, the fathers basic argument was that the Son was pleading exclusively from his humanity. That is: all reasonable persons would by experience or observation avoid injury (pain hurts but only effects the body (and maybe has a psychological impact on the mind). Hence, Jesus' appeal to his Father to relieve him of such sensual torment (as deduced by sensual reasoning). However, at Mt 10:28 Jesus taught "And fear not them who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [hell]." Thus Jesus in his rational identity (his consistent self=hypostasis) bows to his Father's will, for the sake of preserving his soul.

                            Contrary to many scripturally ignorant opinions often sprouted here on Theologyweb by Sabellianisers, Jesus did not raise himself from the dead (simply because if his sacrifice was to be valid he had to be inactive in his hypostasis whilst he resided in hades - inactive in both the perspectives of his humanity and divinity. Thus in respect of Jesus' resurrection the apostles attributed Jesus' resurrection exclusively to the activity of God his Father.

                            A.Peter declared "you [the Jews] put to death the Prince of life [Jesus], the one whom God [the Father] raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses." (Acts 3:15). A.Paul in his numerous letters also declared God [the Father] raised Jesus from the dead (eg: "And God [the Father] hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power" 1 Cor 6:14).

                            OK. I think the above gives a sufficient intro to the two wills of the Son in his humanity. Now what about his divinity? This is where the doctrine of the two natures comes in. Latin and English are too impoverished linguistically to get an understanding of what was discussed by the fathers, so I'll make an attempt to appeal to Jewish and philosophical thought and then to the Greek (the common language of the early church intellectuals and theologians).

                            In Jewish and philosophical/theological thought, all that can be said of God is that he is, he is the self existent being.

                            The inner self of God is universally considered unknowable, but we can get a glimpse through his activities. Thus in our human feebleness we (and the prophets, fathers etc) are prone to anthropomorphization.

                            A constant argument in the ancient Christian church (and amongst the Jews) was an appeal to Exodus 3:14. The illustrious medieval Jewish scholar, whose works have been largely preserved by the Roman Church, Maimonides (Rambam), in his Guide for the Perplexed notes: "IT is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, h, vau and h. This name is applied exclusively to God... It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar...This sacred name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the sanctuary by the appointed priests, when they gave the sacerdotal blessing, and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, undoubtedly denotes something which is peculiar to God, and is not found in any other being. It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence...
                            http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp071.htm

                            When God appeared to our Teacher Moses, and commanded him to address the people and to bring them the message, Moses replied that he might first be asked to prove the existence of God in the Universe, and that only after doing so he would be able to announce to them that God had sent him. For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence..."
                            http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

                            As we cannot deduce the inner "being" of God, nor can we deduce his personal will. However, from his activities throughout human history and his interactions with his prophets we are permitted to perceive his aspirations for us (call this his will, if you will). From a totally humanist perspective God is seen to have the same two wills as mankind; that of sensibility and the other of rationality. Given that God wills that mankind love him, and is wrathful when that doesn't happen, we have a pointer to sensibility. That God made provision for mankind to freely draw towards him points to rationality. Amongst the ancients, such observations were used to explain how "man" both males and female were created in the image and likeness of God. In respect of Jesus' divine will/s various ancients explained that as with the Father, the Son doesn't actually have sensual will, but like the Father he is 100% rational. And it is his rationality that draws him to do his Father's will (to do otherwise would in his divinity make the Son irrational and subject to passions (sensuality).

                            Three Greek words are of particular importance (actually four but for now I'll treat physis and ousia as synonymous). The first word to remember is prosopon (the actors mask = Latin: persona). Mary experienced her son grow from infant to child, to youth, to man, to prophet. These stages in eastern thought were his prosopon, his actors masks (think of prosopon as the variableness of a person - that which is subject to change). The next word to remember is hypostasis. This word is that used in the Greek of Heb 1:3 and in many English translations is rendered "person" (which is a bit of a misnomer). Think of "hypostasis" as describing that which is unchangeable of a person - the constant of a thing eg: To Mary whether Jesus was infant, youth, adult or prophet he was simply her son. The 3rd word to remember is "ousia". Basically, appealing to Aristotle's work on categories, ousia is a things worth, the sum of perceived attributes that one might use to deduce the definition of a thing. For instance: Aristotle argued that being bi-pedal is not an attribute of humanity, for a man without legs is still a man. Likewise, whilst women are intrinsically defective, in as much as they cannot produce sperm, they are still considered in contemplation of the species "man". But all that considered "man" is simply a species of "animal".

                            Ultimately, Aristotle proposed that what differentiated "man" from the "animal" was his rationality. From this viewpoint, mankind as a collection of human hypostases has at least two concrete realities (=ousia), that of "animal" and that of "rational animal=man". A quick mention regarding physis: physis/es points to (observably proves) ousia eg: mankinds barbarity, his lust, his need to eat, defecate and sleep demonstrates the "animal" in him/her. His ability to put others above himself, his inventiveness, his invention of laws for the benefit of all in a social structure, his recognition of God (the gods) etc etc displays he is above the animals being reasoning and rational.

                            Summing up:

                            Ultimately, we can ignore the sensual will (a constant theme in A.Paul's letters) and concentrate on the rational will. If Jesus had two rational wills, one human the other divine, then being rational they are indistinguishable in purpose = to do the will of the Father (albeit, in his humanity, the Son's objective would have been the preservation of his soul)...
                            Last edited by apostoli; 07-02-2015, 02:34 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                              . . . that the Father is the source and cause of both the Son & the Spirit. That is: only the Father is autotheos (God of himself), and so the Son is declared to be homoousius=consubstantial=of the same essence/nature, as opposed to co-substantial=of the same substance.

                              . . .
                              I disagree here, since is it Yahweh [= Self-Existent] who is autotheos. That the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit are Yahweh. The three Persons are co-eternal and one and the same essence/nature as God.
                              Last edited by 37818; 07-04-2015, 02:04 PM.
                              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by bluetriangle, 09-09-2020, 05:39 AM
                              5 responses
                              164 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by RGJesus, 11-10-2016, 04:40 AM
                              379 responses
                              72,055 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Working...
                              X