 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > why i am not a christian | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/23/2003 9:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
With no offense DLW i'm questioning your knowledge of second temple jewish literature and history. Have you read Josephus, or the qumran literature? any pseudepigraphical works?
I have read about Josephus and other second-hand accounts, but not the direct sources.
quote:
When Jesus claimed to be messiah he was automatically opposed my all jew's who were learned in the scriptures. His disciples would have known only what they could have picked up at the temple etc... however, almost all who would have read or studied the scriptures (pharisees, sadducees, and scribes) opposed Jesus. Why is that? And when the early church began it was a small minority of jews who were being persecuted by the vast majority of jews. It was a very interesting and idealistic movement which at first was only a movement of the lower class and uneducated. It was only after this process that it happend. I think you really really need to read Donald Juel's monograph "messianic exegesis" to understand how this process happened.
Thankyou, I'll see if I can get a copy of Juel's monograph the next time I'm in the states.
I presume the it that occurred after the process happen is the reinterpretation of the OT as messianic texts?
There were other reasons they may have opposed Jesus. And besides the politics of that day, there were eschatological expectations regarding the messiah that Jesus did not fulfill.
quote:
I do not doubt that there was an idea of messianic hope that existed pre-Jesus. However, this hope is a later interpretive tradition and not Old Testament. I don't see how there can be any validity in Christianity if Jesus was never predicted to come in the Old Testament.
Why should the later interpretive tradition have no validity? As I understand it Judaism, Christianity, Islam all reinterpret the OT in light of later teachings. Christianity's interpretation did have continuity with the interpretation prevalent among the Judaism of its day, although it differed in some important respects. But the point is that the past the Hebrews saw their problems as at root due to their fallen relationship with G-d and so their writing consisted oft regarding what was needed to repair that relationship and deliberations on their experiences in this regard:we need to get back to the promised land, oh but that isn't working, we need to rebuild the temple and the walls of Jerusalem, but that isn't working and so on... .
quote:
Are you seriously wanting to put forth that the author of the gospel we call John was the disciple John? Come on here. The christology in John reflects one that did not arise in the church until at earliest the 90's but most likely the early 2nd century. For the disciple to have written the gospel he would have had to have followed jesus when he was like 12. Even if John was only 12 when he started following Jesus(which is highly unlikely) he would still have had to have lived to be about 90 to 100 in a world where the average life expectancy was about 40 years. I can garuntee that non of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. They were written based on oral tradition and written sources between 70 and 100 A.D. which is at least 40 years after the fact. Please do some reading on the topic before you make an argument as absurd and improbable as that.
Dana
(i shold note that the general scholarly consensice is that John is a story about Jesus. It is not historical and should not be trusted for historical accuracy.)
I will leave it to others to debate you on that point.
My point is that for the Jews, truth is eschatological and later interpretive readings often take on more importance than the precise understanding of the original audience. As such, the fact that the Christian understandings of the passages was distinct from the prevalent Jewish understanding of its time doesn't in and of itself invalidate the understanding. It did have continuity with the existing tradition but was distinct due to its distinct eschatological views. But the notion of the need for sacrifice and atonement/suffering on behalf of others were themes deeply embedded in the OT and show the fundamental continuity between the two traditions.
dlw
thankyou for putting up with my hack-arguments, I'll return the favor over on the capitalism link...
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
philalethian
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 37
| Posted 10/26/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | sorry i'm trying to get this paper done, or started because i'm finding a larger task than i originally thought.
I'm a 23 year old Grad student. I am doing my Master of Arts in Biblical studies. The Bible is basically my life. However, i come at it from a different cangle. My B.A. is in classics so i've been studying greek for a long time, and i only have a year and half of hebrew but i'm a quick learner and once you get the vocab down the grammar is much simpler than greek. But i digress. My particular intrest is Mark's christological development of Jesus, particularly as it relates the temple, and also the historical Jesus' christological view of himself (which is obviously much harder to get at). I am obsessed with the person of Jesus. And thus i have had to make the move from greek literature to jewish literature from the second temple period to understand jesus better. Since i am making the switch from classics to Biblical studies i am new to some of it and i am admitedly lacking in not having read all of josephus, the whole qumran corpus, nor all of the pseudepigrapha. I do however realize there significance and i am working on getting them down.
I was raised baptist. I have gone in stages of becoming more liberal by first abandoning innerrancy, because it just isn't logical. Imean there are literally thousands of inconsistencies in the bible and i realized the doctrine is silly because giving it up didn't affect my faith at all. I mean if the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed on earth it doesn't affect the symbolism. However, this put me at odds with most christians and led to ostricization from most christians. being ostracized i realized that i had to study the bible more in order to justify my position to christians. In studying the scriptures my views changed. I realized the Genesis 1-11 is basically ripped off from other ancient near eastern creation myths with the added twist of henotheism (and sections of monotheism). I could no longer believed in creation as most christians do. at a young age i was not an inerancist and i believed in evolution from primortial ooz to modern man, but was still a strong christian who spoke at meetings, led bible studies and shared my faith. All the happened in my study of scriptures was that i moved farther from the church. As the ostracization wore on me I left the church, and found my passion in greek literature and social history. I took a greek course on later (koine) greek and translated the gospel of Mark and began to love that. However, the more i study the Bible the more i realize that the Bible is the biggest threat to christianity. Most christians i know, know very little about the Bible, save a few proof texts. I realized recently that i can no longer hold to this doctrine because it just doesn't work. Which brings me to where i am now. However, i have not been able to find christians who are (with no offense to those of you don't know greek and hebrew) able to eal with the text on the same level i do and who are able to argue for any level of consistency in the Bible. And i don't mean arguments because they set out to prove it and do i mean evaluating the evidence and seeing yes this adds up perfectly.
Thats where i am at.
p.s. sorry i'm really long winded i'm just used to writing 20 page papers.
Capitalism is organized Crime!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/27/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the bio.
I hope you can hang on the board for sometime. We do have peoples that are rather informed in greek/hebrew who may be in a better position to give you additional answers to your concerns.
Sounds like you have had some bad situations. I remember when I was in high-school, or was it jr. high, and my pastor told me and my youth group that he believed in evolution, but not to tell other members of the church that.
As I understand it, as Philip Mirowski has written, there has historically been a lot of exchanges between the sciences and our understandings of the social/theological world we live in. It seems that a good deal of the creation-evolution debate stems from how strongly Christianity had been influenced by Newtonian Physics for a long time, especially in England and the US. It also seems that among protestants, unlike Catholics, we were divided into so many denominations that we failed to put together the intellectual capital that was needed to understand evolution and how it could be reconciled with Christianity. This probably was more the case in the South where they had lagged in their economic development thanks to the aftermath of the Civil War.
Anyways, I think you are putting too much weight on consistency. Just as the jewish people were willing to consider interpretations above and beyond what the initial understanding of the passage was, but with continuity with that initial understanding, the same can be said for early Christianity.
And ultimately, that is probably all that is required for making an intellectually-respectable leap of faith in such reagards.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/27/2003 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Philalethian,
Great to have you here at C.V., & have fun.
Philalethian Asserts,
“I was raised baptist. I have gone in stages of becoming more liberal by first abandoning innerrancy, because it just isn't logical. I mean there are literally thousands of inconsistencies in the bible and i realized the doctrine is silly because giving it up didn't affect my faith at all. I mean if the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed on earth it doesn't affect the symbolism.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Hey philalethian, I don’t believe that inerrancy rules out your interpretation here, truly. One must think contextually, that is, obviously for Jesus to get the point across to his audience he needed to speak in terms that they would understand. To hold to inerrancy is not the same as to hold to strict literalism, hence, there is nothing illogical about this.
Philalethian Asserts,
“However, this put me at odds with most christians and led to ostricization from most christians. being ostracized i realized that i had to study the bible more in order to justify my position to christians.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Sheesh, those frigg’n Christian’s can be so  dogmatic, not to mention .
Philalethian Asserts,
“I realized the Genesis 1-11 is basically ripped off from other ancient near eastern creation myths with the added twist of henotheism (and sections of monotheism). I could no longer believed in creation as most christians do.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Ouch! On the real, Dana? I humbly would place your assertion under that which Paul was talking about in Rom. 1:21-23, that is, the ancient near eastern myths were merely a degrading from truth itself. You see, when one puts pagan religion in perspective, as Paul did, it becomes naturally a result of the Fall. Paul proclaims, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” I concur with Jeffery Niehouse when he asserts, “Paul’s genealogy of pagan religion accounts for many of the analogies one can find between the religious thought of the ancient Near East and Old Testament portrayals of God and his behavior.”
Philalethian Asserts,
“at a young age i was not an inerancist and i believed in evolution from primortial ooz to modern man, but was still a strong christian who spoke at meetings, led bible studies and shared my faith”
Tigger’s Reply,
Sweet deal! I really have no problems with evolution; furthermore, I hold to a literary interpretation of the Genesis Creation accounts…thus, I do NOT believe the Biblical text is even teaching a literal 6 day creation. Oh, and believing this does not qualify one to leave the doctrine of inerrancy  !
Philalethian Asserts,
“All the happened in my study of scriptures was that i moved farther from the church. As the ostracization wore on me I left the church…”
Tigger’s Reply,
Dag, the church can be so cruel at times, honestly.
Philalethian Asserts,
“the more i study the Bible the more i realize that the Bible is the biggest threat to christianity. Most christians i know, know very little about the Bible, save a few proof texts. I realized recently that i can no longer hold to this doctrine because it just doesn't work. Which brings me to where i am now. However, i have not been able to find christians who are (with no offense to those of you don't know greek and hebrew) able to eal with the text on the same level i do and who are able to argue for any level of consistency in the Bible. And i don't mean arguments because they set out to prove it and do i mean evaluating the evidence and seeing yes this adds up perfectly.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Hmmm…I’m not so sure the Biblical text is necessarily the biggest threat (e.g., the problem of evil, the existence of a God at all, etc.); nevertheless, I do believe there are some inconsistencies, but when one properly exegetes the particular pericope in question, many of the problems loose their strength. Now Philalethian, you can’t expect the average lay person (i.e., in our culture) to be able to have the time or tools to be able to have much more than a few proof texts (YES, I know this is a big ugly generalization…but it’s still generally true  ). The average lay person, doesn’t usually know or have the tools to analysis the original grammar, establish the text, do a strong word study, or historical-cultural background, etc.; nevertheless, I see how you could become aggravated with the church for first ostracizing you and then not giving valid reasons for your questions.
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Thanks for telling us a little about yourself. It is much nicer knowing there is a real live person who loves and longs for truth out there. Sometimes the pseudonyms make discussion boards so dry because of all its anonymity it provides. Well…for what it’s worh, thanks!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 10/27/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
tiger i suggest you read gilgemesh or or other sumerian and babylonian creation myths. What you will notic is that the flood story is almost identical to the biblical one. The Bibleical one was taken from their myth and given a henotheistic twist. The creations came from two distince traditions (hence two creation acounts). ONe has a monotheistic flavor but the other maintains the polytheistic flavor of its vorlage.
The similarities between the flood accounts that prevail go beyond just that.
The creation accounts have a lot in common, as well as some differences and the Biblical Creation accounts do differ rather significantly from the other prevailing creation accounts and so I doubt is set in stone the extent they are borrowed.
quote:
I am not telling you what to believe, but i am telling you if you seriously compare the bible to ancient near eastern mythology you will realize that most of genesis 1-11 was just taken from it.
Or they could have a common source, I mean this all took place prior to Abraham...
quote:
not the mention the fact that there is no evidence of a world wide flood, the solid evidence of evolution, and the fact that we are fairly sure how languages evolved and the babel myth has no evidence. There is no archeological evidence for an invasion of the land of israel as told in joshua. In fact the cite of Ai was unoccupied during the late bronze age and Iron I.
The biblical account is not dependent on their being a world-wide flood, just a local world's flood. Creation accounts were not meant to be a scientific account and so evolution does not invalidate it.
I'm sure the evidence for early languages changing would have to be tenuous and would revolve around what the flood-story signifies.
I thought we had a site were supposedly the tower of Babel was in Iraq, which Hussein had rebuilt and was presumably planning to rebuild prior to the regime change, as accounted in the video "Uncle Saddam".
The archeological evidence is mixed wrt the land of israel as told in Joshua, as I recall from watching the video "Digging for Truth" about the history and controversies associated with archaeology in Israel.
quote:
I think any serious exegete would realize immediately that the bible does not fit into our post enlightenment view of historiography. It does not describe events as they really hapened (echoing van Ranke's aphprism "wie es eigenlich gewesen). It was primarily a story with an ideological adgenda which is only based on historical events. We can not push our post enlightenment science and historiography on the text.
Dana
I think we've realized in more recent days that their are limits to the application of the scientific historical critical method. The process of theory formation depends a bit on the baggage that the researcher carries with them and the evidence is often subject to multiple interpretations.
Also, I've heard that the book has in fact held its own wrt much archaeological findings and that there are competing camps regarding its overall reliability in this regard.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/28/2003 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Dana Asserts,
“tiger i suggest you read gilgemesh or or other sumerian and babylonian creation myths. What you will notic is that the flood story is almost identical to the biblical one. The Bibleical one was taken from their myth and given a henotheistic twist. The creations came from two distince traditions (hence two creation acounts). ONe has a monotheistic flavor but the other maintains the polytheistic flavor of its vorlage.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Ok, let’s look at the Gilgamesh epic quickly. For sake of concentration let’s look at the 11th tablet with regards to the flood. You see, first, it’s true that the gods or god were basically pissed off and wanted to destroy humanity due to their wickedness (relative to the god or god’s in question), but it becomes clear that the Hebrew writer’s approach (i.e., Biblical writer) was monotheistic in her/his account, and the Gilgamesh’s account was very polytheistic. Second, the Biblical god’s power comes across quite a bit more powerful (e.g. god remembers Noa and recedes the water with wind, in contrast to “The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall… When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor). The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up” (Tablet 11). You see, Dana, while there are some parallels in the accounts the gods with which we are speaking of is quite different. Third, the Gilgamesh gives birth to a polytheistic view of god which, to me anyways, seems very opposed to the Biblical monotheistic account given by the Hebrew writer. Fourth, during the offerings Enlil shows up, and “he saw the boat and became furious, he was filled with rage at the Igigi gods: 'Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation” (Tablet 11). Ok, my point here is that this god seems to not only lack omnipotence, but also lacks the omniscience (i.e. knowledge from a presentism perspective). Fifth, the hero of the Gilgamesh epic regarding the flood is the survivor of the flood in contrast to the Biblical view, which the one who is a hero isn’t Noa (i.e., the floods survivor), but rather the Biblical god. I could go on; however, I think I’ve made some important contrasting points, not to mention, I don’t have much time today, sorry Dana.
Dana Asserts,
I am not telling you what to believe, but i am telling you if you seriously compare the bible to ancient near eastern mythology you will realize that most of genesis 1-11 was just taken from it.
Tigger's Reply,
On a brief note, I would have to be very skeptical on this proclamation and furthermore, I concur with DLW when she/he asserts, “The similarities between the flood accounts that prevail go beyond just that. The creation accounts have a lot in common, as well as some differences and the Biblical Creation accounts do differ rather significantly from the other prevailing creation accounts and so I doubt is set in stone the extent they are borrowed…Or they could have a common source, I mean this all took place prior to Abraham...”
Well this is all the time I’ve got right now, but I want you to know I appreciate you and your mind. May the grace of God be with you, Dana!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/28/2003 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Dana Asserts,
“I would not call the creation nor the flood acount monotheistic at all. I think that is reading later judaism onto the text. It most definately uses the language of henotheism.”
AND
DLW Asserts,
“I agree. Judaism did not deny the existence of multiple gods, but held that their own G-d was distinct and above other gods. 'course later they came to deny other gods at another stage in their development and then when they were in exile in Bablyon, they came to affirm the existence of other gods again, as shown in some of the writings of Daniel.”
Tigger’s Reply,
Sure, Ok, you got me ...I will concede that the Jews did worship one God while accepting the existence of other gods, no big deal, I believe that today  !
Furthermore, I would argue that Jesus and his disciples believed that too. It’s the whole reason that Jesus healed the sick, made the blind to see, cast demons out (i.e., gods out); however, it doesn’t follow that these gods were of equal or greater status, rather quite the contrary. In other words, YES, there was and is a war going on even today with other gods, but I don’t believe this to be of great significance in holding to monotheism.
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
brazen
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 11/3/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by philalethian
I would not call the creation nor the flood acount monotheistic at all. I think that is reading later judaism onto the text. It most definately uses the language of henotheism.
Dana
But the (I assume you are referring to the first) creation account was written after the exile, when Judaism was more monotheistic, most likely as a preface to the rest of the (yes, henotheistic) Pentateuch. It draws on the Babylonian creation myths in a way that all but scraps the battle of the gods motif (sorry Dr. Boyd). This is just one example of how the Hebrew myth indeed parallels other ANE creation myths, but in a way that (intentionally) refutes and offers a counter proposal that is not about the Hebrew god vs. other gods, but the true God vs. idols. This God creates the world not with an ingenious way of blowing a rival god into a bunch of gory bits and pieces, but rather with a word—which is the only power the exiles have going for them. Words. Their version of the origin of the cosmos is a powerful statement of faith that the word of the Lord is enough.
Thanks for posting your background. My own is very similar, though I seem to have emerged with less skepticism. I don't see what the big deal is about mythological parallels, historical inaccuracies, documentary hypotheses and other redaction theories, later dates for authorships, etc. God didn't write the Bible, people did. Sure they were inspired, but that doesn't make them inhuman. They witnessed to what they experienced and believed God was doing in their midst, within the limits of their ability and understanding. My question for you would be the same as for those who insist on strict inerrancy: What's the big deal?
The process of passing this witness on through generations, gradually gathering it in written form as the means became available, compiling and ultimately connoninizing these collections is indeed messy. But I don't think the God depicted in Gen. 1 would be intimidated by such such complexity no matter how deep, hovering over the entire process with a nurturing presence to ensure that something very good (note: not perfect) emerges out of it. I believe this is the case with the biblical witnesses, and I hope that it will be the case with my own.
brazen
p.s. I picked this name before I realized that MephEternal is affectionately known as the "brazen one."
p.p.s. Are you familiar with Paula Fredrickson's work? | | Back to Top | | |
|
brazen
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 5
| Posted 11/4/2003 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | p.p.p.s There is a new feschrift (sp?) coming out on the late Donald Juel called, The Truth of the Lord Endures Forever. I highly recommend it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 11/4/2003 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello Dana. I could relate to your Baptist upbringing. My disillusionment with irrational beliefs about the Bible eventually led me to drop my pursuit of biblical studies and pick up English literature instead. Now I am studying the Bible again, but in a more rational--but certainly no less faithful--context, where Donald Juel used to teach before he died. In fact, last semester I took his hallmark class (now taught by his colleague from the University of Chicago, Patrick Keifert), "Truth & Meaning" with an emphasis on the gospel of Mark. (I don't think pedigrees are that important, but they seem to matter to you, so here you go.) Around here Dr. Juel is greatly respected for his scholarship, but primarily remembered for his heart.
I don't mean to make light of the particular biblical questions you are wrestling with, but it sounds to me like you are going through a completely natural and healthy critical moment of transition from a naïve understanding of the Bible to a more realistic and honest view. Many Christians never make this critical move, and unfortunately, those who do tend to be ill-equipped by well-meaning pastors, teachers, and other Christians. In my own experience, a critical, informed understanding of biblical texts (here the historical-critical method is taught but considered somewhat passé; greater emphasis is placed on canonical approaches) has ultimately been in service of my faith in Jesus Christ. I realize that this is not the case for many people who share my background, but I don't think it needs to be that way.
Blessings on your journey,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 11/4/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Dana
Can I come back to you on an earlier post?
You mention about the creation story and flood thing being in other myths of the time. Ok, so maybe they were copied in the bible.
But I would argue that actaully the myths are a distortion of God's original revelation. They got passed on, but perhaps not always really accurately. Like Achilles heel...[look at the curse on the serpent in genesis - any similarities?]
I would say that the repetition of the stories more points to the fact they happened! Like multiple reporting in the tabloids/broadsheet/tv newroom.
Just a thought really.
You also meantion about the invasion of Israel and stuff. Well, I've seen some pretty amazing evidnce for the red sea crossing. By real scientist people. Archeology and things [including coralised egyptian wheels on the sea bed]. But hey.
love in Christ
timlings | | Back to Top | | |
| 47 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:28 PM (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 |
|
|