 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
edcaina
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/13/2002 4:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | I read this article from http://student631.tripod.com/biblestudentspage/id1.html
"God is omniscient while Jesus Christ is not. The Bible teaches that God knows all things (I John 3:20). There is one thing that Jesus himself acknowledged that he does not know: his coming. Heres what he said, "No one knows about that day and hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). By his admittance that he does not know his coming, Jesus is at the same time teaching that he is not the true God. If others will reason out and say that Jesus is speaking as a man here on earth, the question is: is he telling the truth or not? If the answer is: he is telling the truth, then we have to admit the truth that Christ is not omniscient, therefore, he is not God.
Granting that Christ emptied himself of his divine attribute, that is, of being an omniscient when he declared that "even the Son does not know the day and hour of his coming," is Christ trying to obscure the issue of his coming? Does he know or not know his coming? Would it be logical to accept the obvious contradiction of this position that beyond his negation in this verse, that as God, he knows fully the time of his coming. On the other hand, does it not appear that Christ is a hypothetical liar by acknowledging publicly something that he does not know when inwardly he knows it? On the second thought, why would he teach something that is stupendously a big lie if he knows his coming in the first place? These are hard questions that the proponents of Christ-is-God doctrine will never be able to answer!"
How should a proponent of Christ-is-God Doctrine reconcile this problem? I've searched for commentaries but they never give satisfying answer.
Any thoughts?
Edited by - edcaina on 11/13/2002 09:30:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 11/13/2002 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Edcaina,
This, of course, is not a new question. So I will give the equally old answer:
If God is God, the God can in fact do things that we don't really understand. Among those things is the fact that God can, if God so chooses, empty or limit God's own divine attributes. Most would have to acknowledge this as well unless one is a pantheist. Let me explain. Prior to creation, God was all there was, right? So then, in creating something other than God for the first time, God has also limited God's own being previously defined as "All that existed". So apparently, God can limit Godself. Creation demonstrates this. Do we really understand how that works exactly or why God would do this? Not really.
With Christ we have a very similar thing. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, emptied himself of what it means to be God in order to take on human form. Only God can do something like this. But God CAN indeed do something like this if God chooses. After all, God made the universe out of nothing right?
From another angle it really makes very good sense that God do this. God wants us to understand that the nature of God is to love, and the nature of love is to regard others more highly than oneself, that is, to be a servant. In this way, God coming as the servant of all fits the bill. The prophecies of the suffering servant give us wonderful anticipations that God will do something like this.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 11/13/2002 4:07:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/13/2002 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Im inclined to say that my opinion is the same as Modes: about the emptying.
Notably, the Son continued to be a full and fully active member of the Trinity. But He could still (because He is God) both be born in need of learning (including some clutsy moves with his dad's hammer, I'm sure) and having real ignorance (needint to learn language...).
But the emptying is also real. I scanned Modes; but trust him.
ALSO, another posibility is that since in at least one other place Jesus obviously is understating what is experiencable to Him, he in that is obviously making a point by speaking "as one of us." Since the other case is not like this, and is simply of the "one of us" case, to show us, it is not hard for me to imagine that the message is still the same. "No man" (whether or not Jesus knew) "knows." The catagory is explained.
Two-cents. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/13/2002 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"No one knows about that day and hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36).
Historical Christianity teaches not only that Jesus is God, but that he is both fully God and fully man--that is, the second person of the trinity now possesses two complete natures, a divine nature and a human nature. One person, two natures. That's the doctrine of the Incarnation. With respect to Matt. 24:36, we need to raise the question of perspective: Is Jesus, the God-Man, speaking here as God or is he speaking as man? From the divine side, Jesus is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. From the human side, Jesus is limited in knowledge and power, just as we are. The verse poses no problem for trinitarian theology if we suppose that Jesus is speaking from the perspective of his human side and not from the perspective of his divine nature. Jesus the man only knows as much as the Father reveals to him. Look also at Phil. 2:5ff, which describes how, when God the Son became took on human nature, he set aside his divine prerogatives for a time. We shouldn't expect, therefore, that the incarnate Jesus will continually manifest his divine nature. Sometimes, as when Jesus calms the storm or forgives sins, we catch a glimpse of his divine power and authority. Now are there any indications in the text that Jesus is speaking from the perspective of his limited, human side? I think there are. Consistently through Matt. 24 (and the gospel of Matthew in general), Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man", thereby emphasizing his humanity, while not negating his deity.
Hope that helps. God bless.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/13/2002 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
edcaina
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 12
| Posted 11/13/2002 11:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | Guys, if Im getting you correctly, you are saying that during the incarnation state, the Deity in Christ was passive. But can God be actually passive? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 2:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
edcaina
--------------------------------
Guys, if Im getting you correctly, you are saying that during the incarnation state, the Deity in Christ was passive. But can God be actually passive?
Here's an answer from someone who is not part of the "you guys" (I'm not part of the Open View crowd.)
God is Trinity because the Father is the personal source of both the Son and the Spirit. The diety is not "before" (anterior to) the deity of God. God is free to will and do what God wants. God can cross the lines.
God is OPEN in the respect that he loves us. And it was still more Open of God to identify with and live as one of us, and to retain our humanity, deified and attached (enhypostasized) in an assymetrical union.
What neither Alan, nor I, and I'm guessing Modes too, am saying is any suggestion that the deity of Christ was not part of the participation of the Word/Son. He did not leave that behind in heaven. But what is being said is this: That as man he rarely participated as man in the divine. When he did it was obvious. (Like the Transfiguration.) Other times he acted in true participation with us: The Spirit worked through him...just as it does now through his Body/The Church...as in the healing of the woman with the flow.
Anyone care to add?
Here is something written:
quote:
The Inconceivable is conceived in the womb of a Virgin
the Unmeasurable becomes three cubits high,
the Unqualifiable acquires a quality;
the Undefinable stands up, sits down, and lies down;
He who is everywhere is put into a crib;
He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve;
He who is formless appears with the shape of a man,
and the Incorporeal enters into a body. . . .
Therefore, He is describable and indescribable.
(Theodore the Studite)
God can do these things.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/14/2002 07:30:22 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, one more thing...
Central to Christianity (and emphasized big time by the Eastern Orthodox) is that Christ VOLUNTARILY layed down his life. Icons of the Chrucifixion emphasize this. His out-stretched arms show his "giving" of his life. No man took it from him. He could have stopped the crucifixion at any point -- but did not "will" to do so. Of the two wills that were united in Christ (human and divine) the divine will was in concord with the Father. And wonderfuly important for our salvation, Christ's human will said "not my will (his natural need to live) but Thine." And, Christ could truly say "Into They hands I commit my spirit."
I think that it is very important that any thinking on the "passivity" of Christ work backwards from this.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/14/2002 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | edcaina, you wondered if God can be actively passive. I'm not sure what this means, but I'll take a stab. I think God was active AS A MAN. To God be active AS A MAN means God setting aside being active in all the ways that are ruled out by BEING A MAN. God could not be active in omniscience AS A MAN, becaue humans are omniscient. So with omnipotence and omnipresence. But it doesn't rule out God being active as LOVE. God is perfect love. In Christ God is perfect love AS A MAN. This reveals who the true God is and who true humanity is.
The real question I think this raises is not really how Jesus can be omniscient and non-omniscient, etc... It is rather, do you believe God can be omniscient in one way of existing, and non-omniscient in another way of existing. I believe God was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in his ways of existing as Father and Spirit. But he set aside the exercise of these attributes in his way of existing AS A MAN.
My scriptural reasons for believing Jesus is fully God, though fully human, are basically Jn 1:1, 20:28; Rom 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:3-10; Phil. 2:6-11; Jn 14:7-10; Jn 5:23; and all the passages that depict Jesus as the object of prayer (e.g. 2 cor 12:7-9) and worship (e.g. 1 Corinth. 1:3; Mt 28:9, 17).
Good questions,
Peace
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2002 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | edcaina and Doc,
I may not put words in another's mouth; but I'm going to stop just short of it here.
I've seen Doc remark, following the Church Fathers, that what God does he does by: "the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" (Eph 2: 18-22). I think I have a clear memory of that. And since I'm assuming that he has not changed his mind, for that reason--when he says what he did above--I assume that the two do not contradict.
Here he says:
quote:
...I believe God was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in his ways of existing as Father and Spirit. But he set aside the exercise of these attributes in his way of existing AS A MAN.
I'm assuming that since what I quote" from him above is true too, that he might also have said here "I believe God was omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in his ways of existing as Father and Son and Spirit." Right.
Otherwise you would have a gap when the Trinity was not by "the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit."
That would mean that Doc is saying essentially what Alan is: That "as a man (in his capacity of man) the Son "when God the Son became took on human nature, ... set aside his divine prerogatives for a time" and "From the human side, Jesus is limited in knowledge and power, just as we are. The verse poses no problem for trinitarian theology if we suppose that Jesus is speaking from the perspective of his human side and not from the perspective of his divine nature." (Alan as above)
Am I mistaken?
Al | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/17/2002 3:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Al, Am I mistaken?
Doc: Yes. The view that salvation comes "from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" does not contradict the belief that God was omniscient and omnipresent as Father and Spirit, but not as Son. It suppose it could perhaps be construed as contradicting a belief that omniscience and omnipresence comes "from the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit," but not the view of how salvation comes.
I confess have never been able to make much sense of Jesus being omniscient AND non-omniscient, omnipotent AND non-omnipotent, omnipresent AND non-omnipresent. It sounds like "A and not A." Adding, well the A is from the "A" side, and B is from the "B" side, doesn't clarify much. Nor do I see such a mystery required in Scripture or in logic.
What is wrong in supposing that a) to be a human is to be limited in knowledge, power and locality, b) God became a human, thus set aside his unlimited knowledge, power and locality in his way of existing as Son. c) what God did not and could not set aside, without ceasing to be God, was his divine character: love.
In any case, as I read the Gospels, I do not see grounds for seeing Jesus existing and/or relating to people from "two sides." I just see a man, who is God.
blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/18/2002 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The view that salvation comes "from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" does not contradict the belief that God was omniscient and omnipresent as Father and Spirit, but not as Son. It suppose it could perhaps be construed as contradicting a belief that omniscience and omnipresence comes "from the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit," but not the view of how salvation comes.
. . . .
What is wrong in supposing that a) to be a human is to be limited in knowledge, power and locality, b) God became a human, thus set aside his unlimited knowledge, power and locality in his way of existing as Son. c) what God did not and could not set aside, without ceasing to be God, was his divine character: love.
In any case, as I read the Gospels, I do not see grounds for seeing Jesus existing and/or relating to people from "two sides." I just see a man, who is God.
Thanks for answering openly and honestly, Greg. I don't disagree with all of it. Parts of it I think you said very well. But, I obviously disagree with part of what you wrote.
I'll cut to the 'action' part of the chase. It looks to me that you are saying that The Son ONLY existed confined in the Body of the one man Jesus Christ, and that He no longer was consubstantial or shared in the perichoresis (coinherence) of the Trinity. It looks like you are saying that for those thirty-three years the Trinity was different. If so, then I firmly disagree with THAT part of what you say.
I won't accept anything that says that the Word by whom the Father created was anything less than omnipresent always.
It was by the Word that the world was made, and sustained...
By the Word of the Lord
the heavens were made,
and all their host by the
breath [or Spirit] of His mouth.
He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle;
He put the deeps in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the Lord,
let all the inhabitants of the world
stand in awe of Him!
For He spoke, and it came to be
He commanded, and it was made!
(Ps 33:6-9)
It may 'defy logic' (but not scripture) that God the Word was BOTH locally-present and omni-present during those 33 years. Oh well.
(Also, since the enhypostasis of our humanity in Christ is, as John Meyendorff says "asymmetrical," it is not -- as some say -- untrue that the Word is omnipresent now and STILL Incarnate also.)
You asked: "What is wrong in supposing that..."
I suppose what is wrong with it is "not reading the literature" first. All of it. The West and the East.
Specifically whay I say that -- and I don't mean to be brash, and hope that I'm not -- is that the position you took, Greg, messes with that other point in theology as to Creation and Providence -- which I mentioned in bold above.
Something good you said was this: "I read the Gospels, I do not see grounds for seeing Jesus existing and/or relating to people from "two sides." I just see a man, who is God."
I don't see "from 'two sides'" either. That would not be the incarnation.
What helped me a lot (especially since I'm slow) was reading Meyendorff"s "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought". What helped was seeing issues rise in historical context, and be worked on both in the setting of what was available and what on the periphery had to ba avoided. Also part of the mix is the inadvertant problems that lots of solutions end up causing. History happens slowly enough that I can about keep up with it.
(P.S. Jaroslav Pelikan said on the jacket of Meyendorff's book: "Perhaps the only satisfactory study in a Western language of the crucial developments (of Christology after Calcedon)..."")
Thanks for your answer, Doc.
Al
P.S., Here's from the Council of Chalcedon
quote:
Following the holy fathers we teach with one voice that the Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], and He is perfect in Divinity and perfect in Humanity, true God and true Man, of a rational soul and [human] body consisting, of one essence with the Father as touching His Divinity and of one essence with us as touching His Humanity; made in all things like unto us, with the exception of sin only; begotten of His Father before all ages according to His Divinity: but in these last days, for us men and for our salvation, born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, according to His Humanity. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, without mixture and without change, without separation and without division [i.e., without fusing together Divinity and Humanity so that the proper characteristics of each are changed or lost; and also without separating them in such a way that there might be considered to be two Sons and not One Son only] and that without the distinction of natures being removed by such union, but rather that the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and Hypostasis, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old have spoken concerning Him [e.g., the Immanuel of Isa 7:14], and as Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered to us.
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Incarnation.html
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/18/2002 07:02:32 AM
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/18/2002 5:56:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/18/2002 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I confess have never been able to make much sense of Jesus being omniscient AND non-omniscient, omnipotent AND non-omnipotent, omnipresent AND non-omnipresent. It sounds like "A and not A." Adding, well the A is from the "A" side, and B is from the "B" side, doesn't clarify much. Nor do I see such a mystery required in Scripture or in logic.
What is wrong in supposing that a) to be a human is to be limited in knowledge, power and locality, b) God became a human, thus set aside his unlimited knowledge, power and locality in his way of existing as Son. c) what God did not and could not set aside, without ceasing to be God, was his divine character: love.
In any case, as I read the Gospels, I do not see grounds for seeing Jesus existing and/or relating to people from "two sides." I just see a man, who is God.
Greg,
It seems to me that your view, rather than the "two-sides" view, runs the danger of falling into incoherence. You say that in the Incarnation "God became a human" and set aside his divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Now if those attributes are essential to deity, then if God were to "set aside" those attributes He would, in so doing, cease to be God. And Jesus would not be the God-man, Immanuel, but rather a man who used to be God. If, however, we grant that those attributes are essential to deity, then we shouldn't say that Jesus set aside the attributes but that He set aside the exercise of those attributes (except insofar as the Father explicitly directed Him, as when Jesus performed miracles, etc.). But if you accept that modification, then we are back to the "two-sides" view: As God Jesus remains essentially omniscient, etc., as human Jesus is not omniscient because God accommodates Himself to human limitations by refraining from exercizing His divine omniscience. You suggest, however, that such omni-attributes may not be essential to deity. What really counts is "love"--as long as Jesus has that he can be can remain fully God while becoming fully human. I grant that perfect love is the most important of divine attributes, but it is not sufficient by itself to qualify a being as deity. Perfect love requires perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect justice, etc. Love without power is impotent. Love without knowledge is misguided. Simply put, God is love, but God is not, and cannot be, understood as perfect love abstracted from the other omni-attributes.
Given that divine nature and human nature imply contrary attributes--God is unlimited in power and knowledge, humans are neither; God is incorporeal, humans are corporeal; God is eternal and uncreated, humans are created; etc.--the only way to consistently and simultaneously affirm that Christ was fully God and fully man is to adopt the "two sides" view, as you call it. The alternatives lead to either confusion and contradiction (saying things like "Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.") or to heresy (denying either the full humanity or the full divinity of Jesus).
Appreciate hearing your feedback. God bless.
PS to Al: Thanks for the nice quote from the Council of Chalcedon.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 11/19/2002 3:28:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/18/2002 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan and Doc,
When Alan wrote "contrary attributes" I had to read on to find that I didn't disagree. But the word "contrary" made me pause to remember what I'd read today by an old professor from Alan's alma mater, Fordham Univ. Besides teaching and being Dean at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Sem., John Meyendorff also taught there. And his Byzantine Theology is published by Fordham. (May I recommend it to both or your libaries?)
In my mind, as opposite to how I took "contrary" is this in Meyendorff's text: "reinstates," and "reaffirms," and "true," and "are one," and "accessible," and "realizing and manifesting," and "purest and most authentic."
quote:
...reinstates man in his original divine glory among creatures and in his original responsibility for the world. It reaffirms that man is truly man when he participates in the life of God; that he is not autonomous, either in relation to God, or in relation to the world; that true human life can never be "secular." In Jesus Christ, God and man are one; in Him, therefore, God becomes accessible not by superseding or eliminating the hu-nanum, but by realizing and manifesting humanity in its purest and most authentic form.
Meyndorff's point is that:
To affirm that God became man, and that His humanity possesses all the characteristics proper to human nature, implies that the Incarnation is a cosmic event. ... the fact of the Incarnation implies that the bond between God and man, which has been expressed in the Biblical concept of "image and likeness," is unbreakable. The restoration of creation is a "new creation," but it does not establish a new pattern, so far as man is concerned; it reinstates man... (continues as above)
I like this:
...the hymnology of Good Friday stresses the involvement of creation as a whole in die death of Christ: "The sun beholding Thee upon the Cross covered itself with gloom; the earth trembled for fear. . . ." Thus, poetic images reflect the parallelism between Genesis 1:2 and John 1. The coming of Christ is the Incarnation of the Logos "through whom" all things were made: it is a new creation, but the creator is the same.
and:
The Christ-event is a cosmic event both because Christ is the Logos— and, therefore, in God the agent of creation—and because He is man, since man is a "microcosm." Man's sin plunges creation into death and decay, but man's restoration in Christ is a restoration of the cosmos to its original beauty. Here again, Byzantine hymnology is the best witness:
quote:
David foreseeing in spirit the sojourn with men of the Only-begotten Son in the flesh, called the creation to rejoice with him, and prophetically lifted up his voice to cry; "Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in Thy name" [Ps 88:13]. For having gone up, 0 Christ, with Thy disciples into Mount Tabor, Thou wast transfigured, and hast made the nature that had grown dark in Adam to shine again as lightning. . . .*
I guess there is more that can be pulled from Byzantine Theology, but let me just leave this next paragraph:
The cosmic dimension of the Incarnation is implied in the Chalcedonian definition of 451, to which Byzantine theology remains faithful: Christ is "of one substance with us in His humanity, 'like unto us in all things save sin.'" He is God and man for "the distinction of natures is in no way abolished because of the union; rather, the characteristic properties of each nature arc preserved." The last sentence of the definition obviously covers the creative, inventive, controlling functions of man in the cosmos. The idea is developed in the theology of Maximus the Confessor, when he argues, against the Monothelitcs, for the existence in Christ of a human "will," or "energy," stressing that without it authentic humanity is inconceivable. If Christ's manhood is identical with ours in all things except sin (and unless one classifies as "sin" every human "motion," "creativity," or "dynamism"), one must admit that Christ, who is man in His body, in His soul, and in His mind, was indeed acting with all these functions of true humanity. As Maximus fully understood, Christ's human energy or will was not superseded by His divine will, but accepted conformity with it. "The two natural wills [of Christ] are not contrary to each other, . . . but the human will follows [the divine]." This conformity of the humanum with the divlnum in Christ is, therefore, not a diminution of humanity, but its restoration: "Christ restores nature to conformity with itself. . . . Becoming man, He keeps His free will in impassibility and peace with nature." "Participation" in God—as we have shown—is the very nature of man, not its abolition. This is the key to Eastern Christian understanding of the God-man relationship.
There is lots that can be drawn from the above. But I'll let the reader do that themselves.
Al
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 11/18/2002 11:37:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/27/2002 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/23/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | Scanning GOOGLE for "emptied himself" tonight, THIS page came up. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:20 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|