Exactly. They had to deal with the uncomfortable reality that their Messiah was nothing like the one foretold.
That's why all the OT verses they use to justify Jesus are so crap; they don't do anything of the sort when you bother to take a look. But the audience didn't know that, they didn't have copies of the bible at home on the shelf to check these things. That didn't happen until the Enlightenment.
Once the 18th Century Intellectuals got their heads around these facts, the Church rapidly lost power.
That's my History in a nut-shell for now. I need coffee...
No, he's saying that the part about Jesus sacrificing himself as atonement for the sins of the faithful was made up after the execution of Jesus by the Romans. It wasn't a central tenet of their belief. It wasn't even a peripheral tenet of their beliefs.
All those that entered into the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus' but subsequently relapsed and played false and turned away from the well of living waters shall not be reckoned as of the communion of the people nor inscribed in the roster of it throughout the period from the time the teacher of the community is gathered to his rest until that in which the lay and the priestly messiah [anointed] assume their office.88
...
About forty years will elapse from the death of the teacher of the community until all the men who take up arms and relapse in the company of the Man of Falsehood are brought to an end.41 At that time, the wrath of God will be kindled against Israel, and that will ensue which is described by the prophet when he says: 'No king shall there be nor priest nor judge nor any that reproves aright' [cf. Hos. 3.4].
But they of Jacob that have repented, that have kept the Covenant of God, shall then speak each to his neighbor to bring him to righteousness, to direct his steps upon the way. And God will pay heed to their words and hearken, and He will draw up a record of those that fear Him and esteem His name,42 to the end that salvation shall be revealed for all God-fearing men. Then ye shall again distinguish the righteous from the wicked, him that serves God from him that serves Him not. And God will 'show mercy unto thousands, unto them that love Him and keep His commandments'-yea, even unto a thousand generations...
No, but my point is that you are seeming to claim that Paul's gospel is everything to do with Jesus. That's what I am responding to. Here is what you claimed:
He very clearly DOES say, and repeatedly stresses, that he consulted no human man about Jesus, and that instead all of his knowledge comes from scripture
The only thing I can find like that is in Galatians. Unless you have other passages in mind, AFAICT your comment above is wrong.
In Galatians 1:
[11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
[20] Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
[21] Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
[22] And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
[23] But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
In Galatians 2:
[1] Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
[2] And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
[3] But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...;
I've highlighted the relevant points above. It is the gospel that Paul got from revelation, and that is "the gospel of the uncircumcision", as Paul clearly points out.
As I've said before, the comment "he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed" is relevant here. If Paul's revelations -- which he got "from no man" -- made him believe exactly what those he persecuted in the past believed, then that comment is nonsensical. But it all makes sense if Paul was only talking about his own gospel message, directed to the Gentiles.
Let me give my take on the above passages, then you can give me your reading:
* Paul states that he was learned and devoted to Jewish traditions.
* He persecutes a group of Messianic Jews preaching that the End Times were coming, and Jesus' death was the harbinger for this
* He has his revelations that this was in fact true, and receives his gospel message that he was to take this to the Gentiles
* After some years, he takes his gospel message to James and co, to see what they make of it.
Now, if you believe that you have passages that show "everything Paul knew about Jesus" came from revelation, then please present it. I'm genuinely interested in this claim. If all you have is the Galatians passage, then I'm happy to agree to disagree, and we can leave it there. I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from and what you are using for evidence.
Well, I'm interested in other questions as well. What did Paul believe? What did early Christians believe? etc. I'd be interested even if it was proved there was no historical Jesus. If you are making claims around this, even if it doesn't directly touch on the question of historicity, I'd still like to see answers to those questions as well.
...
[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...;[/indent]
Otherwise it looks like Paul was making a joke at the expense of someone who thought they were more acceptable to God than other people...
Like a Super-Apostle who preaches equality, but enjoys an exulted status. Is that actually what Paul is doing here; is it a reference to James preaching that "God doesn't respect persons" (or whatever the quote from the epistle of James is)?
The usual references are to Galatians, aren't they?
"I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ". Gal. 1: 12
The 'it' refers to the particular gospel preached by Paul; interestingly, almost in the next line, he refers to his own persecution of the church. So, presumably he had heard about Jesus then, pre-conversion; unless, of course, it is all forged!
Yes, I'm wondering if Ian S will play the forgery card here. Or perhaps "Paul persecuted them but didn't know why".
I think one issue is that some mythicists are looking at Christ through modern apologetic eyes. That is, Christ performed miracles and therefore convinced everyone that he was the Messiah. But in fact, it appears that the most convincing elements were 'finding' Christ in the OT. We can see this in "Acts of the Apostles", a clearly 'historicist' text: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/acts-kjv.html
Acts.17
[1] Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
[2] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
[3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
[4] And some of them believed...
...
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
So it shouldn't surprise that Paul did the same, referring often to the OT for his evidence. Because that was the only way to convince people that Jesus was the predicted Christ.
Like a Super-Apostle who preaches equality, but enjoys an exulted status. Is that actually what Paul is doing here; is it a reference to James preaching that "God doesn't respect persons" (or whatever the quote from the epistle of James is)?
I thought of presenting the dispute between Paul and James as a "Facebook Flamewar" kind of thing, paraphrasing quotes from Paul, James and Jude, with lots of "OMG", "LOL" and pictures of kittens etc. But I got distracted...
From my perspective the problem with any affirmative MJ position or with any affirmative HJ position is there is a large location, time, language and cultural gap between the people who wrote about the HJ and the hypothetical life of the HJ.
It is just not knowable what went on during the earliest years of Christianity. This is not surprising, it would have been a small sect and keeping records, let alone accurate records would not have been a priority. The closest to information that has come down to us from this period about the origin of Christianity are the writings in the NT. But even the most fundamental questions about these writings like when they were written, where they were written and who wrote them are unknown (although that hasn't kept thousands of scholars over hundreds of years from speculating about what the answers might be).
We do know that there are historic and geographical errors in the NT. We know that the Gospels are not always consistent with each other and what is most important is that the synoptic Gospels are all derived from Mark, which means that there are not independent sources contained in the Gospels to the hypothetical oral traditions that the author of Mark may have derived the facts about an HJ from.
Both sides in this debate look into this information void and speculate. The people who believe that an HJ existed speculate that the thousands of scholars that have studied this and that claim to have knowledge of the facts that bridge the information gap are right and that an HJ obviously existed. On the other hand the people that suggest that there wasn't an HJ look into the information gap and decide that the lack of reliable evidence about an HJ is evidence that an HJ didn't exist.
I think the answer is simpler than either side wants to admit in this debate. There is just no way to know.
Paul's letters are consistent with the idea that an HJ existed in my opinion. I don't think the idea that some of Paul's writings that have come down to us might contain true information can be disproved. But there is also zero external evidence to corroborate Paul's letters and we know that some of them were forged. How is it knowable that they all weren't forged?
I will do that and let you know; today I kick off my holiday cookie-making, so if I'm a little slow in responding, you know why.
ETA: Are you referencing the links you have given me to read? If that is the case, I've already read three I think. If not, I browse JREF with 50 posts per page so my page numbers wouldn't match up. May I ask for a post number instead?
I can give you the post nos., but they are posts in another thread, which could make it confusing. Fortunately, the single post I'm referencing here, with those different links in it, is right at the bottom of p. 32 of this thread, so it's not hard to find. You'll find all the relevant links laid out there neatly enough, considering.
Here are the actual post nos. for the posts linked to, but again, they are post nos. in another thread, not this one --
441, 443, 444, 450, 452.
These are all in the "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus" thread.
I can give you the post nos., but they are posts in another thread, which could make it confusing. Fortunately, the single post I'm referencing here, with those different links in it, is right at the bottom of p. 32 of this thread, so it's not hard to find. You'll find all the relevant links laid out there neatly enough, considering.
Here are the actual post nos. for the posts linked to, but again, they are post nos. in another thread, not this one --
441, 443, 444, 450, 452.
These are all in the "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus" thread.
Well, one of the critical frustrations with Q that I have is the claim that Luke doesn't know of Matthew.
It's normally drafted that Mark and Q share independently with Luke and Matthew, but that Matthew never shares with Luke.
This claim is just outright incorrect.
The only way that such is being claimed is by taking the parts of Matthew which show up in Luke and claiming those sections came from Q, not Matthew.
But that is just sliding the cups around to confuse everyone about where the ball went.
Here's a fantastic example of this:
Mark 1:7-8
Matthew 3:11-12
Luke 3:16-17
From this we can clearly see that we do not need a third source from somewhere to get Luke's version, as Luke's version clearly pulls from both Mark and Matthew, while Matthew is clearly pulling from Mark and adding upon it.
There is no single part of the text which is left asking for a 3rd source for Luke to get the text's entry for this section.
The only way that we get to that conclusion is my asserting that Matthew and Luke copied from some other source which has never been identified, nor witnessed.
And I believe these considerations can more rationally be explained by keeping in mind the methods of dispersion during the era, as well as keeping in mind the geography and possible candidates for adherents who would have found value in each respective text's contents; which cultures can be identified as possible locations for containing these texts.
When this is done, such entries as the above don't seem odd at all; they seem rather natural and flow simply from textual arrival at differing times to different locations.
Mark arrives in Matthew and Luke, and Matthew arrives in Luke.
Luke is very high quality and Athenian in style.
Mark, we know, influenced Gnostic texts and ideals, and we know Gnostic groups emerged in the Eastern Mediterranean regions, along North of Judea, and East of Asia Minor's coastline.
Matthew, we infer, went south as groups identified in the South along the Egyptian and Judean beltline (such as "ebionites") are mentioned as using exclusively either Matthew, or a text like Matthew.
We also understand that John greatly sympathizes with mythological values of the Asia Minor coastline and Danielic prophetic fanaticism, as well as came late by comparison to the other three.
This would mean that Mark moved North through Antioch territory, Matthew moved South through Alexandria territory, and Luke grew out of Athenian territory, while John emerges its stronghold in the Asia Minor coastline territory.
In this view, the only way for Matthew to reach Athenian territory would be through traffic from the Egyptian coast over the sea to the Athenian region.
The only way for Mark would be North through Antioch region and then from some place like Tyre, Tarsus or Asia Minor coastline to Athenian territory.
John, being last, would be picking up from Luke just across the shore and Mark right next to their East and South; such as Tarsus.
As such, Matthew would not have Luke in its volume, but would have Mark.
Mark would have none of the others, and Luke would have both Mark and Matthew in it, while John would have Luke and Mark, and by consequence of having Luke, it would have Luke's versions of Matthew, but not Matthew's versions outside of Luke.
To clarify how it can be determined that John copied Luke without Matthew directly, compare the following:
You'll notice that unique attributes to Matthew that Luke did not include also do not exist in John.
An example is Matthew 28:2's account of a great earthquake and a messenger descending from the heavens.
This is not found in Mark, so it is created by Matthew.
Luke doesn't copy this.
As a result, John is equally absent since neither Mark nor Luke commented on an earthquake tangent.
Considering the manner and tone of John, I feel safe in inferring that their passionate and Danielic fanaticism would have preserved the earthquake and messenger from the heavens scene had they read it.
Not only is John quiet about this, but in John, the plural for messengers is used just as the plural is used in Luke, meanwhile in Matthew and Mark, only the singular is articulated, and is clearly done in the singular.
Mark hasn't any such mention of heavenly messengers at all, but instead has a single regular man in a white robe.
Luke morphs the man into an apparition and drops the mention of being dressed in white (possibly thinking of the "white" mention in Mark as equal to "apparition"; taking Mark metaphorically for the "dressed in white").
John mixes Mark and Luke and has plural messengers dressed in white, sitting (as in Mark).
The inference here is that Luke received the messenger account from Mark, and John from Luke, while the tangent in Matthew was produced from Mark and was morphed into a divine messenger symbolism.
Respectively, the versus in question for comparison specifically are:
John 20:11
Luke 24:23
Matthew 28:5
Mark 16:5
Yet, again, at no point do we need to introduce a 5th text (Q) to accomplish this rendering, and the mixes continue to sympathize with geographic minded dispersion patterns which would have been available.
Steady on, Stone.
While I quite enjoy playing with different coloured hiliting, somehow seeing posts in all-caps really set my teeth on edge. Perhaps it's because several of the forum's pet creationalists employ all-caps, perhaps because using all-caps is a habit of internet scammers?
It's hard to tell why it irritates me so thoroughly.
I'd like to see how calm you'd be if post after detailed post were routinely ignored by myther after myther, as if it was practically a point of honor that they mussen sie ignore it to retain their standing in the "club". It's beyond aggravating.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but while stratification is a convincing method of analysing the NT, it's not, as far as I can tell, a unanimously accepted way of peeling off the ghost stories associated with the NT. Can we even say there's a consensus about using stratification?
There has emphatically been such a consensus up to quite recently, but -- possibly -- Mark Goodacre's very recent work has now cut into it. Goodacre has argued there is in fact no "Q" source behind the parallel sayings in the two Synoptic Gospels, GMatt./GLuke. The thing is, suggesting that there's no such source doesn't necessarily argue against stratification, although it could. You see, the linguistic style and the Aramaicisms are still there in -- many of -- those parallel sayings. Those characteristics are not going away -- and also, it is an undeniable external fact that these highly characteristic sayings are paralleled in GMatt./GLuke to a striking degree and nowhere else. So they still exist separately as a clear textual stratum by themselves. That hasn't changed. Trouble is, it's in dispute just now just what the nature of that stratum really is and how we define it.
Another complication is the more recent work of a certain Dave Gentile. He doesn't have quite the professional standing of Goodacre, but he's tackled head-on the question of how come GMatt. and GLuke share these extremely colloquial sayings. The key question, given Goodacre's doubts, is just where/how has GLuke (the later of these two Synoptics) gotten these identical sayings. If we can figure out by more intense analysis that GLuke has gotten these sayings from a common source that's also behind GMatt., then those parallel sayings do emerge, after all, as a corpus of textual material that is separate and apart and earlier than these two Synoptics (Gmatt. and GLuke). But if deeper textual analysis can tease out that GLuke got these sayings from GMatt., that obviates the need to suppose a separate earlier source for these sayings.
Unfortunately, no rigorous peer-vetting has yet taken place -- that I'm aware of -- of Gentile's work, so I don't know if it's going to be debunked or if it will stand up to scrutiny. If it does eventually stand up to scrutiny, that could be important, because Gentile appears to think that computer analysis of the texts of these sayings in both GMatt./GLuke has uncovered evidence that GLuke got these sayings from GMatt., not from an earlier source common to both GMatt. and GLuke. That would seem to indicate that there's no need to suppose a separate lost "Q" text at all. Is Gentile full of it, or is he on to something? Right now, it's too early to tell.
I'm learning here and what I've just written probably shows up my ignorance.
Not for the first time.
And yes, I do wonder about this in particular.
Once we peel away the ghost stories, hagiography and just plain spiel, is what is left evidence of an HJ, or is it evidence of of stories told back in the day?
Frankly, I'm uneasy with the occasional bandying around of words like "evidence". "Evidence" is what is involved in modern textual studies or in a courtroom. Ancient historiography simply doesn't work that way, frankly. What there is here is really data, not evidence. This data can be used as possible evidence for a given scholar's measured conclusions. In that way, data can become evidence to argue this or that, but no data is intrinsically evidence in a vacuum. In fact, professional specialists have to analyze the data closely in order to determine relative likelihoods for various scenarios first, before one can view any of this data as evidence. Data becomes evidence only in the way that it's applied by lifelong professionals.
The data we have -- as I state in the posts linked to at p.32 -- is comprised of a mixture of both biblical and extra-biblical material. The extra-biblical material has no "ghost stories", etc. The closest we have to that is one pretty stand-off-ish reference to others having reported certain weird things, but the author himself is not at all affirming the validity of the report. This is in the starkest possible contrast to what we find in the biblical material, where these weird things are clearly taken at face value all the time by the various scriptural authors.
Since the data in all the extra-biblicals, scant as it certainly is, includes no personal affirmation for "ghost stories" or the like, that actually strengthens the case for there being an HJ, rather than weakening it. But that doesn't mean that an HJ is a certainty.
As I said in a recent reply to CraigB -if you think there is something true about Jesus in the bible, then fine, but in that case you need some external corroboration
-- totally ignoring, of course, the fact that there is both biblical and extra-biblical data on Jesus the rabbi. I'm not going to let this go:
IanS, go to the bottom of page 32 of this thread and read the links I provide there to get a clearer picture of the data we have. You are obviously in ignorance of both the data we have and also of umpteen different postings in this thread and others. Until you remedy that ignorance, you will continue with infuriating remarks like this one that are simply idiotic at best and malicious disinformation at worst.
David - you are simply wrong on this. Look at Paul's letters. He very clearly DOES say, and repeatedly stresses, that he consulted no human man about Jesus, and that instead all of his knowledge comes from scripture.
That's what his letters actually say, in black and white, repeatedly.
Now if what he says is wrong, and that in fact he did get information about Jesus from any living man, then (a) that is contrary to what he says in his letters, and (b) you then need to quote where Paul himself gives information about a living Jesus that he says he obtained from being told that by any named human person?
In those two trips to Jerusalem, although Paul says he met with John, James, Cephas, or whoever, he does not at any stage iirc say that any of them ever told him anything about Jesus, and he never asked any of them anything about Jesus.
Paul contradicts himself several times. This wouldn't be the first time.
If you mean that Paul never says directly that X tells him that Jesus was crucified and appeared after his death, you are right. Paul never said directly this with these words. But what he says in 1 Corintians 15, 3-11 is the same thing: “Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." This is to say, that the apostles and he preach the same: that Jesus died and resurrected. In 1 Corinthians and Galatians there are about eight or nine quotations speaking on a living Jesus. You will find one in the first and second paragraphs of the passage I have quoted above (3 an 4): "how 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". This is the common preaching. And we find in Galatians 1 and 2 the most obvious explanation of this community of beliefs: the two encounters between Paul and the "pillars of Christianity": Cefas, James and John. Another explanation would be most unlikely. Did they talk about his beliefs and didn’t speak about how was Jesus' death? Ay, caramba, what are you saying me?
And even after all that - the fact about Paul is that we do not actually know what he really wrote about any of this anyway. Because all we have is Christian "copying" dating from 150 years and more after Paul was thought to have died.
I don't commit myself in asserting that neither Paul was saying the truth -he very likely wasn’t- nor Paul was really Paul -your argument would eliminate Democritus of the realm of the living men. It is a pity for I love Democritus between all the ancient Greeks-.
These are other different points of the main line of this thread. I try to stay in it. It is enough entangled as it is already.
(…) The claims about Jesus are not true. And those are claims that characterise almost every relevant mention of Jesus in the biblical accounts (which are the only accounts of Jesus).
So that is a huge difference, and that is “knowable” about the Jesus story. Ie, it is now known, “proven”, to be untrue in all of it’s relevant descriptions of what Jesus was ever supposed to have said and done. There is really nothing of any substance left once you are forced to remove all the impossible and un-believable elements of the biblical descriptions.
Miracles and supernatural events are a minor part in the Gospels. And I don’t know what you mean with “relevant”. Jesus’ sayings were equally relevant for Jesus’ followers. That's why there is a Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas that almost accounts only sayings. And for many historians it is as old as the Synoptic Gospels. If you remove miracles, many natural deeds and sayings stay and we have the figure of a preacher, shaman or prophet. Nothing amazing. But I consider the stories of the Gospels rather than suspicious yet. Hence my proposal to work that I repeat below.
What is now also known, is that Paul and the gospel authors were taking their stories and beliefs about Jesus from what they believed to have been written and foretold in the OT.
This proof nothing. The evangelists could use the Old Testament to invent events that never happened or to justify real events that were strangers to their beliefs. It is very difficult to distinguish between them. In any case, this is a task to do one by one, not a general criterion to delete everything all of sudden.
If it is even proposed (let alone asserted) that any such HJ could possibly be invented (or if you prefer - “revealed” … though such adjectives attempt to imply & assume that he truly IS hidden in that original story) by any method of ditching almost every relevant sentence of the actual (original) Jesus stories, then anyone doing that must justify that process of erasure by explaining clearly and specifically how and why it is valid to erase all the parts that they no longer wish to believe.
I proposed a different method: we put all the Gospels in parenthesis and let us see if some passage can pass the test of difficulty. I don’t know yet why you don’t accept this criterion.
This proof nothing. The evangelists could use the Old Testament to invent events that never happened or to justify real events that were strangers to their beliefs. It is very difficult to distinguish between them.
... This proof nothing. The evangelists could use the Old Testament to invent events that never happened or to justify real events that were strangers to their beliefs. It is very difficult to distinguish between them. In any case, this is a task to do one by one, not a general criterion to delete everything all of sudden.
Absolutely. We must also use other criteria to decide which is which. Example: the crucifixion is reinterpreted by Paul in terms of a sacrifice for sin, and he uses a passage in Deuteronomy to portray Jesus as taking a curse upon himself to relieve humanity of the effect of sin. Paul's interpretation of the curse of crucifixion is probably a misinterpretation of Deuteronomy, as I have argued; therefore the Jews did not apply that passage to any messianic theory they might have had. Conclusion, the crucifixion happened, and Paul merely strove to interpret it through his own exegesis of Deuteronomy.
On the other hand, the virgin birth stories are certainly not authentic. They are impossible (crucifixion is very probable!); they are found in contradictory versions in our two sources; and they are difficult to reconcile with Jesus' reported residence in Galilee. So these were indeed probably concocted from Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2 and other scriptural sources.
There is nothing remarkable in reasoning of this kind, but of course some of the MJ people refuse even to look at it, and the rest pay no attention when they do reluctantly peruse it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
"
