Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, the people who wrote the Gospels were highly educated.
Second of all, they didn't discuss anything with each other, didn't even know who each other were. All they had were one or more of each other's anonymously written Gospels. The original Gospel may have been Mark or may have been "Q".
Third of all, they didn't think of their changing of the stories as errors, per se. They knew the stories were made-up to begin with. They were simply inventing their own versions of the stories.
Think of this as analogous to the Star Wars and Star Wars: Special Edition movies. They are 2 versions of the same made-up story, the latter was based on the first and represents a more George Lucas-ified version.
What an interesting conclusion that they "knew" the stories they related were "made-up." Since they were writing a minimum of two or three decades after Jesus how would they "know" the stories were made up? Just last year I watched a documentary on how the Canadians made a search in 2014 (the last of many searches) for the Franklin Expedition which occurred in 1845 in an attempt to find a northwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There were physical clues left (a letter found under a cairn of stones) to help them search--- none of those proved fruitful. It wasn't until a sociologist began speaking with an Eskimo tribe that they were able to get a solid lead. That lead was based on oral tradition. When finally convinced to look where Eskimo tradition stated--the wreck of one of the two ships was found a few hundred yards off shore from an Eskimo village.
The location of the ice-sunk ship was over 500 miles from the letter left in the rock cairn that said both ships were being abandoned and the crew was making an attempted overland escape. But apparently not all the crew did. Some must have waited until spring and sailed one of the ships southward along the coast. Eskimo oral tradition was more accurate than following "clues." So while details were sketchy, the overall "story" of the Eskimos had been accurate enough to help the search expedition find one of the wrecks.
Illiterate people were, and still are, quite remarkable story tellers regarding "facts." Now while there is a legitimate argument about the divinity of Jesus, it is equally as incredulous to assume that at least four writers over a span of fifty years managed to invent a life, make remarkably similar stories in general with remarkably different details, and mold those various stories into a religion.
And there is much variation in the educational levels of NT authors. Paulwas highly educated and likely spoke and wrote in Greek, Latin and Arabic. But the two letters of Peter vary in both writing style and language use. Off the top of my head, 2nd Peter is written in a more sophisticated Greek language with different word selection.
Further, Bart Ehrman, in one of his books, points to some literature by an early church father who complained that one of the copyists being used was literally that--a copyist who could not read the words he copied--but he was still being relied upon to produce missives. You might try reading Ehrman's LOST CHRISTIANITIES which details beliefs that varied from what we consider orthodox but which were relegated to obscurity when orthodoxy began destroying the "subversive" letters and alternate gospels. Many are very similar to canonized writings, but perhaps have emphasis on areas considered heretical by the blossoming Orthodox Church.
The idea that the gospels are completely contrived is no less ridiculous than the idea of many Christians that their holy writings are pure, unadulterated historical facts. They are indeed embellished stories that grew around a remarkable charismatic spiritual and philosophical leader.
An example of "historical" figures for which we have no contemporary evidence is that of Pythagorus--remember his theorems from geometry class?
"We all learned about the Pythagorean Theorem in math class, but a similarly elegant proof is not available for the existence of its namesake. According to some accounts, the Greek thinker Pythagoras lived during the 5th and 6th century B.C. He is remembered as a philosopher and mathematician, but in ancient times he was better known as the spiritual father of a cult obsessed by numerology, the transmigration of the human soul and—quite bizarrely—the evils of eating beans.
While Pythagoras’ hatred of legumes is well documented, there are no significant contemporary accounts of his life. All references to the great thinker—and perhaps also his famed ideas and formulas—came from his followers, who called themselves Pythagoreans. What stories we do have of Pythagoras are deeply intertwined with myth and the supernatural. One tale describes him as possessing a golden thigh; another declares he was the son of the god Apollo. For some, these lies and contradictions hint that Pythagoras was simply an exaggerated or even fictional leader concocted by the members of a religious sect. Even if Pythagoras did exist, he probably wasn’t the first to discover his famous theorem—evidence shows the Egyptians may have divined the formula much earlier."
(From the History Channel, History Lists, Six Historical Characters Who May Not Have Existed)
That list includes Homer, the Greek author, for which there is no contemporary evidence either. Yet many of us have read the Illiad attributed to his pen.
But the fact that there are those who like to suspend thoughtful reflection regarding "history" is found even today among those who believe the Holocaust never occurred despite overwhelming contemporary evidence.
The problem you may have with Jesus is more likely the "spiritual" view than the historical. It is more credible for many of us to understand those who believe Jesus to be but another philosopher, than to accept "there was no Jesus---a story invented and embellished by geniuses who got together to create a religion." The vast majority of scholars, including agnostics, accept the historicity of Jesus. Your views are but a fringe element not supported well by the "other" supposedly invented characters like Homer and Pythagorus.
What an interesting conclusion that they "knew" the stories they related were "made-up." Since they were writing a minimum of two or three decades after Jesus how would they "know" the stories were made up? Just last year I watched a documentary on how the Canadians made a search in 2014 (the last of many searches) for the Franklin Expedition which occurred in 1845 in an attempt to find a northwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There were physical clues left (a letter found under a cairn of stones) to help them search--- none of those proved fruitful. It wasn't until a sociologist began speaking with an Eskimo tribe that they were able to get a solid lead. That lead was based on oral tradition. When finally convinced to look where Eskimo tradition stated--the wreck of one of the two ships was found a few hundred yards off shore from an Eskimo village.
The location of the ice-sunk ship was over 500 miles from the letter left in the rock cairn that said both ships were being abandoned and the crew was making an attempted overland escape. But apparently not all the crew did. Some must have waited until spring and sailed one of the ships southward along the coast. Eskimo oral tradition was more accurate than following "clues." So while details were sketchy, the overall "story" of the Eskimos had been accurate enough to help the search expedition find one of the wrecks.
Illiterate people were, and still are, quite remarkable story tellers regarding "facts." Now while there is a legitimate argument about the divinity of Jesus, it is equally as incredulous to assume that at least four writers over a span of fifty years managed to invent a life, make remarkably similar stories in general with remarkably different details, and mold those various stories into a religion.
And there is much variation in the educational levels of NT authors. Paulwas highly educated and likely spoke and wrote in Greek, Latin and Arabic. But the two letters of Peter vary in both writing style and language use. Off the top of my head, 2nd Peter is written in a more sophisticated Greek language with different word selection.
Further, Bart Ehrman, in one of his books, points to some literature by an early church father who complained that one of the copyists being used was literally that--a copyist who could not read the words he copied--but he was still being relied upon to produce missives. You might try reading Ehrman's LOST CHRISTIANITIES which details beliefs that varied from what we consider orthodox but which were relegated to obscurity when orthodoxy began destroying the "subversive" letters and alternate gospels. Many are very similar to canonized writings, but perhaps have emphasis on areas considered heretical by the blossoming Orthodox Church.
The idea that the gospels are completely contrived is no less ridiculous than the idea of many Christians that their holy writings are pure, unadulterated historical facts. They are indeed embellished stories that grew around a remarkable charismatic spiritual and philosophical leader.
An example of "historical" figures for which we have no contemporary evidence is that of Pythagorus--remember his theorems from geometry class?
"We all learned about the Pythagorean Theorem in math class, but a similarly elegant proof is not available for the existence of its namesake. According to some accounts, the Greek thinker Pythagoras lived during the 5th and 6th century B.C. He is remembered as a philosopher and mathematician, but in ancient times he was better known as the spiritual father of a cult obsessed by numerology, the transmigration of the human soul and—quite bizarrely—the evils of eating beans.
While Pythagoras’ hatred of legumes is well documented, there are no significant contemporary accounts of his life. All references to the great thinker—and perhaps also his famed ideas and formulas—came from his followers, who called themselves Pythagoreans. What stories we do have of Pythagoras are deeply intertwined with myth and the supernatural. One tale describes him as possessing a golden thigh; another declares he was the son of the god Apollo. For some, these lies and contradictions hint that Pythagoras was simply an exaggerated or even fictional leader concocted by the members of a religious sect. Even if Pythagoras did exist, he probably wasn’t the first to discover his famous theorem—evidence shows the Egyptians may have divined the formula much earlier."
(From the History Channel, History Lists, Six Historical Characters Who May Not Have Existed)
That list includes Homer, the Greek author, for which there is no contemporary evidence either. Yet many of us have read the Illiad attributed to his pen.
But the fact that there are those who like to suspend thoughtful reflection regarding "history" is found even today among those who believe the Holocaust never occurred despite overwhelming contemporary evidence.
The problem you may have with Jesus is more likely the "spiritual" view than the historical. It is more credible for many of us to understand those who believe Jesus to be but another philosopher, than to accept "there was no Jesus---a story invented and embellished by geniuses who got together to create a religion." The vast majority of scholars, including agnostics, accept the historicity of Jesus. Your views are but a fringe element not supported well by the "other" supposedly invented characters like Homer and Pythagorus.
There is a significant leap from the historicity of Jesus (an insignificant issue) to the Jesus who performed supposed miracles sourced from the supernatural. This leap is what is at issue.
There is a significant leap from the historicity of Jesus (an insignificant issue) to the Jesus who performed supposed miracles sourced from the supernatural. This leap is what is at issue.
I agree. We theists call it a "leap of faith," which can only occur when one reaches the end of their intellectual assessment. Too many jump without going to the end of that intellectual assessment--or worse, quit trying to learn and discover more--"testing" their own faith as it were.
Quote:
--because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Allow perseverance to finish its work, so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
James 1:3-5
While I'm not sure every miracle told is not an embellishment of another tamer tale, I believe Jesus had the Spirit of God upon Him. It wasn't until His followers took over that things appear to have slipped back down the hill He climbed. I do know that without studying Scripture constantly in light of new discoveries and interpretations, one is stuck spiritually with one foot in heaven and one on earth---it's called hell.
But there is a great deal of difference between "faith" and the historicity of Jesus. He WAS significant for the relatively strange teachings like "love your neighbor." And He taught something quite different from many, if not most, modern day christians--that one can see an unbeliever like the Good Samaritan---and judge him by what he does, not by what he believes (Samaritans used an OT that had been rewritten to reflect some of their own traditions).
If only so-called christians today could see the same, then they wouldn't be looking for sinners to demonize and unbelievers to cast into hell.
IOW, Amazonjohn, you are in every moralistic value, as good as any who claims to be a christian, at least in the eyes of God. I ain't gonna condemn you to hell, because I'm so busy trying to make sure my own plate is clean that whatever problems you may have are minor compared to my own.
There is a significant leap from the historicity of Jesus (an insignificant issue) to the Jesus who performed supposed miracles sourced from the supernatural. This leap is what is at issue.
This is exactly right. Historical Jesus (if there was such a person) was a nobody. He is irrelevant to the issue.
I agree. We theists call it a "leap of faith," which can only occur when one reaches the end of their intellectual assessment. Too many jump without going to the end of that intellectual assessment--or worse, quit trying to learn and discover more--"testing" their own faith as it were.
James 1:3-5
While I'm not sure every miracle told is not an embellishment of another tamer tale, I believe Jesus had the Spirit of God upon Him. It wasn't until His followers took over that things appear to have slipped back down the hill He climbed. I do know that without studying Scripture constantly in light of new discoveries and interpretations, one is stuck spiritually with one foot in heaven and one on earth---it's called hell.
But there is a great deal of difference between "faith" and the historicity of Jesus. He WAS significant for the relatively strange teachings like "love your neighbor." And He taught something quite different from many, if not most, modern day christians--that one can see an unbeliever like the Good Samaritan---and judge him by what he does, not by what he believes (Samaritans used an OT that had been rewritten to reflect some of their own traditions).
If only so-called christians today could see the same, then they wouldn't be looking for sinners to demonize and unbelievers to cast into hell.
IOW, Amazonjohn, you are in every moralistic value, as good as any who claims to be a christian, at least in the eyes of God. I ain't gonna condemn you to hell, because I'm so busy trying to make sure my own plate is clean that whatever problems you may have are minor compared to my own.
Excellent posting on the Leap of Faith here. It illustrates the point I make about the drawback of Faith, never mind the invalidity of it. " which can only occur when one reaches the end of their intellectual assessment."
That sounds like what we goddless bastards often claim - that, when you can't find the answer, you just believe what you want. And I mean, what you want - what you would like to believe becomes the truth.
And what we say is that one then stops looking for the correct answer, because you already have one. Now some say that they don't stop looking. Perhaps, but the thing about Faith is that you are then limited to looking within the Box of that Faith. We already konw where that leads - "This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to support it?" It is worse than that of course - Faith requires that the evidence be fiddled to fit the Faith.
Just one example was the Talk on the Mount of Olives, "This generation" and the destruction of the Temple. Because the way it looks seems to be a failure of prophecy, Faith requires that the text be (somewhat selectively) reinterpreted to mean something that fits belief. That generation becomes all humanity, and tasting death becomes some kind of sin metaphor, and the less said about the sacking of the temple, the better.
This faithleaping is seen in trying to wangle the natiivities together, making the resurrection accounts fit ("if it mentions two angels, there was also One...and another one")., weaving the deaths of Judas together, postulating a pre Judas Theudas (Acts) , a pre -temple cleansing Temple cleansing (John) and explaining away a zombie convention and a tomb guard nobody else sees fit to mention. By Random factors, there is even a transfiguration that John has never heard of.
The ingenuity of these explanations is sometimes remarkable, but where they fail totally, (1) we never get any acceptance of what the facts inescapably seem to say. There is instead, well, it is too, too, tiresome to rehearse the apologetic acrobatics engaged in ...or grabbing your hat and stalking off in sulky silence..but that is the problem of relying on Faith for an answer instead of the undoubtedly more flexible but ultimately far, far more useful, certainly more rational and in every way better method of continuing to look for the answers and following the evidence where it leads, not leading the evidence where Faith requires it to go.
(1) as the lack of a transfiguration in John does fail to have a good explanation - the 'wrote from a different point of view/witnesses don't always agree" stock excuses are just laughable there and it shows up the essential inadequacy - to put it mildly - of this Explanation.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-30-2016 at 04:04 AM..
Excellent posting on the Leap of Faith here. It illustrates the point I make about the drawback of Faith, never mind the invalidity of it. " which can only occur when one reaches the end of their intellectual assessment."
That sounds like what we goddless bastards often claim - that, when you can't find the answer, you just believe what you want. And I mean, what you want - what you would like to believe becomes the truth.
And what we say is that one then stops looking for the correct answer, because you already have one. Now some say that they don't stop looking. Perhaps, but the thing about Faith is that you are then limited to looking within the Box of that Faith. We already konw where that leads - "This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to support it?" It is worse than that of course - Faith requires that the evidence be fiddled to fit the Faith.
Just one example was the Talk on the Mount of Olives, "This generation" and the destruction of the Temple. Because the way it looks seems to be a failure of prophecy, Faith requires that the text be (somewhat selectively) reinterpreted to mean something that fits belief. That generation becomes all humanity, and tasting death becomes some kind of sin metaphor, and the less said about the sacking of the temple, the better.
This faithleaping is seen in trying to wangle the natiivities together, making the resurrection accounts fit ("if it mentions two angels, there was also One...and another one")., weaving the deaths of Judas together, postulating a pre Judas Theudas (Acts) , a pre -temple cleansing Temple cleansing (John) and explaining away a zombie convention and a tomb guard nobody else sees fit to mention. By Random factors, there is even a transfiguration that John has never heard of.
The ingenuity of these explanations is sometimes remarkable, but where they fail totally, (1) we never get any acceptance of what the facts inescapably seem to say. There is instead, well, it is too, too, tiresome to rehearse the apologetic acrobatics engaged in ...or grabbing your hat and stalking off in sulky silence..but that is the problem of relying on Faith for an answer instead of the undoubtedly more flexible but ultimately far, far more useful, certainly more rational and in every way better method of continuing to look for the answers and following the evidence where it leads, not leading the evidence where Faith requires it to go.
(1) as the lack of a transfiguration in John does fail to have a good explanation - the 'wrote from a different point of view/witnesses don't always agree" stock excuses are just laughable there and it shows up the essential inadequacy - to put it mildly - of this Explanation.
There are many Christ followers who do not conflate the gospel messages but read them as separate accounts by separate individuals with separate agendas. There is quite a bit of "spiritualization" regarding prophecies that did not come true. It is even visible in the gospel writings--the newer texts began to have more spiritualization. And the later the gospel, the more spiritualization takes place.
Each of the gospel authors was telling a story about a tremendously charismatic man--and where they were at the time their gospel was written reflects the embellishments as well as the hopes of those writers. Such to some is reason to discount the gospels in their entirety, while others see it as reason to understand the tremendous impact of the man Jesus. While some may discount it as "unimportant," one only needs to look around to see it isn't unimportant if it is impacting so many lives in so very many ways--not all of them good. To dismiss such as unimportant is like dismissing climate change--when it is visible to all who have lived any length of time.
I take Scripture for what it is--a testimony of men about what they believed. The Bible is a lot like what orthodoxy teaches about Jesus as the Christ--a melding of the divine and human. One hundred percent of both--at the same time--according to orthodoxy. Scripture has much the same rap---often divine and frequently to human in promoting some ideas which are morally repugnant today. Those reading without a contextual view fall into the mud pit of dogma more often than those who read it with understanding that it was not written to 21st century America--the errant viewpoint of fundamentalists.
Excellent posting on the Leap of Faith here. It illustrates the point I make about the drawback of Faith, never mind the invalidity of it. " which can only occur when one reaches the end of their intellectual assessment."
That sounds like what we goddless bastards often claim - that, when you can't find the answer, you just believe what you want. And I mean, what you want - what you would like to believe becomes the truth.
And what we say is that one then stops looking for the correct answer, because you already have one. Now some say that they don't stop looking. Perhaps, but the thing about Faith is that you are then limited to looking within the Box of that Faith. We already konw where that leads - "This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to support it?" It is worse than that of course - Faith requires that the evidence be fiddled to fit the Faith.
Just one example was the Talk on the Mount of Olives, "This generation" and the destruction of the Temple. Because the way it looks seems to be a failure of prophecy, Faith requires that the text be (somewhat selectively) reinterpreted to mean something that fits belief. That generation becomes all humanity, and tasting death becomes some kind of sin metaphor, and the less said about the sacking of the temple, the better.
This faithleaping is seen in trying to wangle the natiivities together, making the resurrection accounts fit ("if it mentions two angels, there was also One...and another one")., weaving the deaths of Judas together, postulating a pre Judas Theudas (Acts) , a pre -temple cleansing Temple cleansing (John) and explaining away a zombie convention and a tomb guard nobody else sees fit to mention. By Random factors, there is even a transfiguration that John has never heard of.
The ingenuity of these explanations is sometimes remarkable, but where they fail totally, (1) we never get any acceptance of what the facts inescapably seem to say. There is instead, well, it is too, too, tiresome to rehearse the apologetic acrobatics engaged in ...or grabbing your hat and stalking off in sulky silence..but that is the problem of relying on Faith for an answer instead of the undoubtedly more flexible but ultimately far, far more useful, certainly more rational and in every way better method of continuing to look for the answers and following the evidence where it leads, not leading the evidence where Faith requires it to go.
(1) as the lack of a transfiguration in John does fail to have a good explanation - the 'wrote from a different point of view/witnesses don't always agree" stock excuses are just laughable there and it shows up the essential inadequacy - to put it mildly - of this Explanation.
''This Generation,'' is Matthew 24 showing a person who has completed his spring walk in that he has died daily and now he comes up to Rosh Hashanah, the day no man knows and when he gets there, it will be in that generation that he begins to see that he is overcoming.
It is a parable and everything Jesus says was a parable, Matthew 24 begins with the knowledge that what you are hearing is about a Temple but not a temple made with hands, each person is a temple.
There are many Christ followers who do not conflate the gospel messages but read them as separate accounts by separate individuals with separate agendas. There is quite a bit of "spiritualization" regarding prophecies that did not come true. It is even visible in the gospel writings--the newer texts began to have more spiritualization. And the later the gospel, the more spiritualization takes place.
Each of the gospel authors was telling a story about a tremendously charismatic man--and where they were at the time their gospel was written reflects the embellishments as well as the hopes of those writers. Such to some is reason to discount the gospels in their entirety, while others see it as reason to understand the tremendous impact of the man Jesus. While some may discount it as "unimportant," one only needs to look around to see it isn't unimportant if it is impacting so many lives in so very many ways--not all of them good. To dismiss such as unimportant is like dismissing climate change--when it is visible to all who have lived any length of time.
I take Scripture for what it is--a testimony of men about what they believed. The Bible is a lot like what orthodoxy teaches about Jesus as the Christ--a melding of the divine and human. One hundred percent of both--at the same time--according to orthodoxy. Scripture has much the same rap---often divine and frequently to human in promoting some ideas which are morally repugnant today. Those reading without a contextual view fall into the mud pit of dogma more often than those who read it with understanding that it was not written to 21st century America--the errant viewpoint of fundamentalists.
Good post again. I'd say that if you are going to approach the Gospels as something to have Faith in...I mean what you believe in, not taking what the gospels actually say as fact...then any analytical approach is simply going to serve the belief.
However, if you let the gospels speak for themselves, they speak pretty clearly. Comparison shows clearly that the synoptics are based on a common text. There was a synoptic Original - now lost. None of them were copied from any of the others, but each added their own bits. Luke and Matthew added in "Q" and used it differently. The temptations and John's question (not in Mark) is in a context and so was the sermon or list of sayings and doings (I think it had o be a document, not an oral tradition) and so they put those in the same position, and that makes it look "all of a piece" as a Christian pal of mine said. But it isn't: the sermon in Luke is cut short and the 'sayings' (all in Matthew's sermon together) are distributed throughout the trip to Peraea.
Matthew and Mark share a similar added -in text (indeed I suspect it was a copy of the synoptic gospels with both accounts of the loaves and fishes added in), that Mark and Matthew used. Not Luke: he just has the one feeding of 5,000. That is why I say he sometimes reflects the 'original'.
This is the real value of the contradictions and discrepancies - not to prove the Bible cannot be the literal word of God - that point has been made and replaced by 'Inspired' word of God, (any errors being the transcribers' fault). No, it enables us to understand what these Gospels really are.
Neither the nativity, resurrection or death of Judas is "Q' because they contradict. Though they do have the mention of a Field of blood which is about all the two deaths of Judas do have in common. Those individual bits are what they invented themselves. The included the majority of Luke's better known parables..the prodigal son..the good Samaritan. None of those were recited by Jesus. Indeed I don't believe he spoke a single word in the gospels. Even if they are in aramaic. It's absurd that he would recite psalms on the cross.
So just a quick positive - John of course differs from the synoptics as much as Matthew and Luke differ fro each other. But differences aside and restoring fiddles like putting the Temple cleansing back where it belongs and scrapping the transfiguration (which John knows nothing of) and the raising of Lazarus (which neither Matthew, Mark or Luke or for that matter Paul know of), it is surprising that all the the dialogue parables, teachings and sermons have to go, but an astonishing amount of what Jesus did remains, and in all four gospels, too.
That is one reason why I think there is a true story and why there really was a historical Jesus. And I rather think that Tacitus confirms it, even though I don't believe that Josephus does.
And now I'm going to have supper.
P.s,while the babies are roasting, I'll just mention that generally I don't need to translation -shop. so long as the meaning is clear (and the Greek can be checked) then I can use KJV, ESV, or NRSV. And pretty much if I am on track here, then the motives become pretty plain, and we don't need to get too spiritually deep. This was practical religious polemics.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-30-2016 at 02:10 PM..
''This Generation,'' is Matthew 24 showing a person who has completed his spring walk in that he has died daily and now he comes up to Rosh Hashanah, the day no man knows and when he gets there, it will be in that generation that he begins to see that he is overcoming.
It is a parable and everything Jesus says was a parable, Matthew 24 begins with the knowledge that what you are hearing is about a Temple but not a temple made with hands, each person is a temple.
I can only say that, if the prophecies on the mount of Olives was just a parable, then it was damn' shabby trick to pull on the disciples, who took it as read (they certainly don't seem to have passed on any understanding of the hidden meaning afterwards). And it's rather interesting that Mara Bar Serapeion (often paraded as evidence of an historical Jesus) recites what appears to be the Christian view of the destruction of the temple - they had it coming because they executed their king. That the Jews did it (it was actually the Romans) betrays this as the Christian view - exactly that appearing in the synoptics. Though of course the Things never came to pass. And since the only thing that came to pass was that generation of bods, they never will.
Damnn... I can smell burning....... The babies!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I broadly agree with you, too, but I'll see what Konald has to say to that.
I can smell burning.......
The babies!!!
