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.
Hmmmm, so you don't believe in actually following Christ's commandments, even though he said to go out and be fishers of men? Instead, you just want to tell other people how they're wrong and arrogantly and very presumptuously tell people off. I promise you, you've done absolutely nothing to present your case on this thread in any sort of way that people would want to believe what you believe. It doesn't matter though, right? You know, since you're not here to win people to Christ anyway. He must be very proud of you.
I also find it very ironic how you say in your other post that I'm the one who's angry and need counseling. May I buy you a mirror?
Listen to yourself .
Go back and read your own post and your interaction with what others believe it's awful .
And WHO started all this ?
You are the one whose saying and telling, "other people how they're wrong and arrogantly and very presumptuously "
READ YOUR OWN POST ! And whose calling who what !
You continue to say such awful things and like a typical non-believer turn and attack by falsely accusing others of the very thing you're doing.
No, I won't stand for you trying to project your attitude, behavior, anger, hostility, etc., upon others and there lies the problem ! I won't put up with it so you're going to say all kinds of nasty things !
So here you go,
This is my last response too you get some help with that anger !
Listen to yourself .
Go back and read your own post and your interaction with what others believe it's awful .
And WHO started all this ?
You are the one whose saying and telling, "other people how they're wrong and arrogantly and very presumptuously "
READ YOUR OWN POST ! And whose calling who what !
You continue to say such awful things and like a typical non-believer turn and attack by falsely accusing others of the very thing you're doing.
No, I won't stand for you trying to project your attitude, behavior, anger, hostility, etc., upon others and there lies the problem ! I won't put up with it so you're going to say all kinds of nasty things !
So here you go,
This is my last response too you get some help with that anger !
Nobody said anything nasty to you. You chose to interpret it that way. You made very presumptuous and ignorant assumptions about me and my character, simply because I stated my beliefs. By doing so, you didn't exactly make Christians look good. People come to these forums to have open dialogue with others who may not share the same beliefs as them. You don't seem to be able to do that.
By the way, my parents are devout Christians. I also still have plenty of friends from my private school upbringing who are still very active in their churches. FYI, they don't act like you and we all get along perfectly fine.
If you want to make any other ridiculous and ignorant statements toward me, you're not really doing Christianity a favor.
The easy way out is to simply allege dishonesty on everyone's part, on the part of John, on the part of apologists. It saves you the trouble of making an attempt to actually understand the issues involved. Yes, there have been explanations advanced which don't really hold up, but that doesn't invalidate them all.
It doesn't save me any trouble at all. The 'Easy way out' is to take it all on Faith and shrug off the problems. My efforts have been to explain and account for pretty much every problem and discrepancy in the gospels, and the result is that there was no solid body resurrection. If this conclusion is sound and valid (and I accept that I have to make a case for that - in fact I believe I did already, Mike, under the monicker Arequipa) then any explanation is going to fail, and the disciples cannot have believed it.
Quote:
John doesn't need saving from you or from anyone else. Thematic or topical grouping of events for theological purposes as opposed to strict chronological listing of events is a valid style of writing. While the Gospels do contain history, the writers also had theological reasons for writing the Gospels.
It's arrogant to presume that John had dishonest intentions, and to presume that efforts on the part of apologists to explain hard parts of the Gospels are automatically dishonest.
Honest or dishonest intentions is not the issue. Nor whether fiddling text about is (or was) a valid way of writing. What matters is that one can argue in an almost irrefutable way that the temple cleansing in John has been clearly shifted and done so deliberately as he writes a link (4.45) to the earlier placing and stuffs some "Greeks" wanting to see Jesus and s little sermon in place of the censored temple cleansing.
It would actually be dishonest NOT to ask why this was shifted. And we have to ask why Mark divided the event into two days, contradicting Matthew, or why Luke changes the angel's message. This is evidence of fiddling the text for purposes we can expplin and indeed prove. It looks dishonest, but it is what it s, nomatter what the motives.
Quote:
I am not addressing the supposed contradictions in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. I am addressing your opinion that what the apostles were referring to as Jesus' resurrection was His soul going to heaven after He died. With that in mind, I provided proof that in Jewish thought, before, during, and after the time of Jesus, resurrection was not thought of as the soul going to heaven when a person died, which is the notion that you advanced, but that after a person has died, at some point in the future he will be bodily, physically resurrected. And this is what the apostles understood resurrection to be as well, as is shown in the New Testament.
One need not even appeal to the Gospels regarding the resurrection of Jesus since first mention is made by Paul who in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 delivers to the Corinthians what he himself had earlier received, most likely from Peter and James, the brother of Jesus when he met with them in Jerusalem some three years after his Damascus road encounter with the risen Jesus. Scholars widely recognize that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-Pauline tradition or creed from very early in the church which tells of Jesus' post resurrection appearances.
And as has been shown, Paul also recognized that Jesus' resurrection was a physical bodily resurrection.
I'll have a look again, But I have never seen a shred of evidence in Paul for a solid body resurrection, and you can omit to discuss whatever you like, but that of course will result in a false conclusion because you ignore particular evidence.In my view the gospels are the key to understanding what the disciples had to hav believed, and therefore, Paul too. How to get from a concocted and false solid body resurrection to a spiritual one that actually fits the Gospels, Paul and even Acts and only seems no to suit early Church fathers who of course weren't there and if they claim to have talked to someone who talked to someone who was a disciple of Jesus, I can only point to John and indicate clear evidence of fiddling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
And this is the point I have raised numerous times and cannot get a satisfactory answer:
If Jesus could do ALL these miraculous jaw-dropping miracles that defy all the natural laws,
THEN WHY DID GOD FIND IT SO HARD TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE RELYING ON FAITH TO BELIEVE THE GOSPELS??????????
Seriously, why couldn't God have caused a few hundred secular historians to mention Jesus during or shortly after his lifetime. Hell, I'd settle for Philo of Alexandria alone, someone who was right in Jerusalem for much of Jesus' ministry and certainly would have either seen some of this or gotten it straight from Herod who he was related to by marriage.
But Philo doesn't mention a single, solitary word about Jesus---the best historian in the world at the time doesn't mention a single thing about Jesus!!!!
At the very least why couldn't God have caused all the original gospels supposedly written by the apostles to be preserved somewhere in the Qumran dig??
Why couldn't God have caused the tomb where Jesus supposedly was laid to have been turned into a holy shrine???
In a nutshell why couldn't God have caused the evidence for Jesus' life, ministry, death and resurrection to be so ironclad and so irrefutable that we wouldn't even be sitting here having this discussion?????
God could do some things for Jesus but He couldn't do the most important of all:
MAKE JESUS' CLAIMS LEGITIMATE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Then there wouldn't be a need for Islam, or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other religion. We'd all be Christian following Jesus because we wouldn't have the slightest doubt in our mind he was the divine son of God. Isn't that what God wants of us? Why does He make it so damn difficult to do, forcing church leaders to invent this idiotic doctrine of faith (Without faith it is impossible to please him stuff)?
If all the people who are hemorrhaging out of Christianity today by the millions could only see something done by God today that would prove to them Christianity is the real faith they'd stop leaving the religion. Isn't that what God wants or does He just not care enough to intervene to stop them?????
I have been off (London) for a couple of days, collecting my resurrected laptop. I am looking over the posts since Mike555 and I clashed over the resurrection. ln a way it is like the Flavian Testament, in that it exists and the Resurrection claim exist.
It fails under scrutiny as the resurrection stories fail.
It can be excused by picking the bits that look good and dismissing the rest.
So where i am on my own is saying that neither FT nor resurrection can be true because the Gospels are untrue, and the FT and resurrection support the Gospels.
This is a radical claim, but a sound one, I think. In any case, arguing from Gospels will not convince me, and others must make up their own minds.
The topic is what made people believe, but such a topic must attract arguments to show that such reasons were not sound. That the disciples believed the resurrection is not. Whatever resurrection they believed, the Gospel version were not it.
Mike (I'll check back in a minute) referred to the tomb -opening last Pharisee belief as a solid -body one. No doubt the pharisees and Paul too, expected that, but that was not the kind of resurrection that Jesus had, or so I argue.
Jesus was much more of a holy spirit type of being, There is evidence that this is what the disciples believed and Paul Or so I argue.
So telling about a solid body resurrection either in the gospels or as the End -game belief of the Pharisees is not relevant, and no more are the early Christian writers with their heads full of the gospel resurrection. And you propose some rather rhetorical doubt -makers. Some believers may be content with 'God has his own good reasons".
First though, I'll let the dust settle and see whether any serious evidence -claims have been made over the last dozen pages.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-21-2016 at 11:09 AM..
It doesn't save me any trouble at all. The 'Easy way out' is to take it all on Faith and shrug off the problems. My efforts have been to explain and account for pretty much every problem and discrepancy in the gospels, and the result is that there was no solid body resurrection. If this conclusion is sound and valid (and I accept that I have to make a case for that - in fact I believe I did already, Mike, under the monicker Arequipa) then any explanation is going to fail, and the disciples cannot have believed it.
Honest or dishonest intentions is not the issue. Nor whether fiddling text about is (or was) a valid way of writing. What matters is that one can argue in an almost irrefutable way that the temple cleansing in John has been clearly shifted and done so deliberately as he writes a link (4.45) to the earlier placing and stuffs some "Greeks" wanting to see Jesus and s little sermon in place of the censored temple cleansing.
It would actually be dishonest NOT to ask why this was shifted. And we have to ask why Mark divided the event into two days, contradicting Matthew, or why Luke changes the angel's message. This is evidence of fiddling the text for purposes we can expplin and indeed prove. It looks dishonest, but it is what it s, nomatter what the motives.
I've already mentioned that the Gospel writers regularly used thematic rather than chronological grouping of events. That is another way of saying that certain events have been deliberately relocated or shifted in the Gospel accounts. And it's not dishonest. You can't hold the writings of 1st century Jews to modern day literary standards. While it is possible that Jesus cleared the temple twice, and it seems that this was the view held by most commentators until the 1900's, only a few scholars today hold to this view. The other view is that John relocated the temple clearing event according to a thematic or topical outline although I'm not sure what his reason for doing so might have been.
On thinking about it however, a case can be made that Jesus did clear the temple twice. Once at the beginning of His ministry, and again at the end. The reason being that the synoptic Gospels give an abbreviated account of Jesus' ministry while John covers events throughout Jesus' three year ministry. John records three different Passover observances while the synoptics skip over much of Jesus' ministry. So that leaves open the idea that Jesus may indeed have cleansed the temple twice.
I'm not sure which angelic message you are referring to unless it is the fact that Luke records the angel Gabriel's message to Mary (Luke 1:26-36), whereas Matthew records an angel of the Lord, probably Gabriel's message to Joseph (Matthew 1:20-21). If so, there is no contradiction. Two different messages to two different people.
On the other hand, you might be referring to what the angels said at the tomb when Mary and the others arrived early on the first day of the week to bring spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-6, and John 20:12. The differences are explained by the fact that none of the Gospel writers provide a complete report of what was said. They provide only partial accounts of all that was said.
There is also another possibility which would explain some of the alleged contradictions in the Gospel accounts. And that is that in the oral rendition of the events and sayings of Jesus which were passed down within the life times of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, there was a certain freedom and flexibility within allowed limits in how the story was told, so that while the basic facts were handed down, some variation in the details was allowed. And when the Gospel writers penned the events they maintained that freedom and flexibility.
Also, it is obvious that the Gospel writers often paraphrased some of the things which Jesus said. And that is perfectly legitimate.
Quote:
I'll have a look again, But I have never seen a shred of evidence in Paul for a solid body resurrection, and you can omit to discuss whatever you like, but that of course will result in a false conclusion because you ignore particular evidence.In my view the gospels are the key to understanding what the disciples had to hav believed, and therefore, Paul too. How to get from a concocted and false solid body resurrection to a spiritual one that actually fits the Gospels, Paul and even Acts and only seems no to suit early Church fathers who of course weren't there and if they claim to have talked to someone who talked to someone who was a disciple of Jesus, I can only point to John and indicate clear evidence of fiddling.
I have been off (London) for a couple of days, collecting my resurrected laptop. I am looking over the posts since Mike555 and I clashed over the resurrection. ln a way it is like the Flavian Testament, in that it exists and the Resurrection claim exist.
It fails under scrutiny as the resurrection stories fail.
It can be excused by picking the bits that look good and dismissing the rest.
So where i am on my own is saying that neither FT nor resurrection can be true because the Gospels are untrue, and the FT and resurrection support the Gospels.
This is a radical claim, but a sound one, I think. In any case, arguing from Gospels will not convince me, and others must make up their own minds.
The topic is what made people believe, but such a topic must attract arguments to show that such reasons were not sound. That the disciples believed the resurrection is not. Whatever resurrection they believed, the Gospel version were not it.
Mike (I'll check back in a minute) referred to the tomb -opening last Pharisee belief as a solid -body one. No doubt the pharisees and Paul too, expected that, but that was not the kind of resurrection that Jesus had, or so I argue.
Jesus was much more of a holy spirit type of being, There is evidence that this is what the disciples believed and Paul Or so I argue.
So telling about a solid body resurrection either in the gospels or as the End -game belief of the Pharisees is not relevant, and no more are the early Christian writers with their heads full of the gospel resurrection. And you propose some rather rhetorical doubt -makers. Some believers may be content with 'God has his own good reasons".
First though, I'll let the dust settle and see whether any serious evidence -claims have been made over the last dozen pages.
Your argument is that the apostles couldn't have believed in a solid bodily resurrection because of discrepancies in the Gospels. Your opinion, as stated in post #15 is that what they referred to as resurrection was Jesus' spirit rising from His body and going to heaven.
Post #15
''they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.''
Aside from the fact (which is completely relevant) that you've been shown that in Jewish thought, resurrection before, during, and after the time of Jesus always referred to a physical, bodily resurrection (Posts #17 and 54), the Gospel writers plainly show that Jesus' resurrection was not His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven, but that His body was raised from the dead.
Three words are pertinent.
1.) ἀνάστασις - anastasis, translated as resurrection, as in Matt. 22:23; Acts 1:22, 2:31-32; 4:33; Rom. 6:5; Phil. 3:10,
2.) ἐγείρω - egeiro, which means 'I raise up', 'I wake', and which is translated as 'raised' and 'arise' in many NT passages, such as Matt. 17:9, 20:19; Luke 8:54, 20:37; John 2:19-22, John 5:21, Acts 2:31-32, 26:8, 13:30; Rom. 4:24, 8:11; 2 Cor. 1:9, Gal. 1:1,
3.) ἀνίστημι - anistemi which means' to raise up,' 'to cause to stand.' As in Acts 2:32.
Now, the Old Testament equivalent of ἐγείρω - egeiro is קוּם - qum which means 'arose.' It is used in Isa. 26:29 for the raising of dead corpses or bodies to life.
Isa. 26:29 Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.
In Luke 7:14, 7:22; and 8:54 the word ἐγείρω - egeiro is used regarding dead persons who have been brought back to life.
Luke 7:14 And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise!"
Luke 7:22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.
Luke 8:53 And they began laughing at Him, knowing that she had died. 54] He, however, took her by the hand and called, saying, "Child, arise!"55] And her spirit returned, and she got up immediately; and He gave orders for something to be given her to eat.
In Acts 2:31-32 both the words ἀνάστασις - anastasis - 'resurrection', and ἀνίστημι - anistemi - 'to raise up', are used of Jesus. And it is said in connection with Him being raised or resurrected, that His flesh would not see decay or corruption.
Acts 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32] This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Now according to you, the apostles used the word resurrection with regard to Jesus' spirit rising from His body and going to heaven. But in Acts 2:31-32 it is stated that Jesus' flesh did not decay. What happens to the body a short while after death? It begins to decay. But Jesus' body did not see decay because it was raised on the third day. This speaks of a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus' body. All four Gospels speak of the empty tomb. They do not speak of a body still being in the tomb and beginning to decay. The tomb was empty because Jesus' body had been resurrected.
And what did Jesus say in anticipation of His crucifixion. He said with reference to His body, ''destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20] The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21] But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22] So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
Jesus didn't say, destroy this temple (this body) and in three days My spirit will go to heaven, He said destroy this temple, this body, and in three days I will raise it up in three days. And notice that verse 22 states the when Jesus was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and what Jesus had said.
I already showed you at the bottom of post #54 that Paul referred to a physical, bodily resurrection.
I'll repost it.
Paul as well understood that resurrection referred to a bodily resurrection as is made clear in Romans.
Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10] If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11]But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Skipping ahead to Romans 8:23 Paul speaks of the resurrection in terms of the 'redemption of our body.'
Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
While in Romans 8:9-10 Paul speaks of the believer's spiritual life which he now possesses, the subject changes in verse 11 to the promise of a future resurrection of the body which in verse 23 Paul refers to as the redemption of our body. While there is a sense in which the believer already has received the adoption as sons [v. 15], there is a future sense in which the believer will receive the adoption in its completeness with reference to the redemption of the body in resurrection.
But that's not all that Paul had to say about it. In Philippians 3:21 Paul wrote about the future transformation of our bodies in conformity with the glory of Jesus' body. He didn't write that our bodies will be abandoned, but that they will be transformed. And again, this is in contrast to your opinion that the apostles thought of resurrection in terms of the spirit rising from the body and going to heaven.
Your opinion that the disciples thought of Jesus' resurrection as His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven simply is not valid as shown by what has been stated above.
I've already mentioned that the Gospel writers regularly used thematic rather than chronological grouping of events. That is another way of saying that certain events have been deliberately relocated or shifted in the Gospel accounts. And it's not dishonest. You can't hold the writings of 1st century Jews to modern day literary standards.
<Snip>
Your opinion that the disciples thought of Jesus' resurrection as His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven simply is not valid as shown by what has been stated above.
Mike, so much of what you write is sound but you have serious misunderstandings as well. You ignore the undeniable fact that our ancestors in that era were terrified of Spirits. There is no way they would have accepted or credited His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven. The need for the extensive illusion of a physical body, despite passing through closed doors or walls, in the Thomas encounter and eating food, etc. highlights the need to assuage their fears. It is why they were not ready for solid food and had to be given carnal milk. You cannot read 1 Cor 15:35-58 and deny that it is to be a spiritual rebirth, NOT a physical body being reclaimed from its rot.
Mike, so much of what you write is sound but you have serious misunderstandings as well. You ignore the undeniable fact that our ancestors in that era were terrified of Spirits. There is no way they would have accepted or credited His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven. The need for the extensive illusion of a physical body, despite passing through closed doors or walls, in the Thomas encounter and eating food, etc. highlights the need to assuage their fears. It is why they were not ready for solid food and had to be given carnal milk. You cannot read 1 Cor 15:35-58 and deny that it is to be a spiritual rebirth, NOT a physical body being reclaimed from its rot.
Your opinion assumes that Jesus was willing, and able, to lie and mislead the apostles in order to accommodate their fear of spirits and ghosts. But Jesus is God and God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; John 14:6). Jesus always told the truth. And He made it clear in Luke 24:39 that He, after His resurrection was not a spirit, but was flesh and bone.
Luke 24:38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39] See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40] And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41] While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" 42] They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43] and He took it and ate it before them.
Nothing about 1 Cor. 15:35-38 requires a resurrection as an immaterial spirit body. The body will be changed from a body of mortality and perishability to one of immortality and imperishability. In that sense, it will be a spiritual glorified body. But it will still be physical. It will simply be capable of things which our current mortal bodies are not capable of doing.
Also, the apostles, including Paul did understand that the soul and spirit goes to heaven after the point of physical death. But that is not what the word 'resurrection' refers to. I've gone into great detail showing that resurrection in Jewish thought was always understood as a physical, bodily resurrection after having been physically dead for a period of time. It never referred to the spirit rising from the body and going into heaven.
And if anyone reading this is interested, N.T. Wright goes into deep detail on this point in his book, The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's a massive tomb of a book of over 700 pages, and well worthwhile reading.
One other point is that Revelation 20:4-6 speaks of those who are physically dead and in heaven and waiting for their resurrection. Their resurrection is spoken of as coming to life and reigning with Christ for a thousand years.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-21-2016 at 05:56 PM..
Mike, so much of what you write is sound but you have serious misunderstandings as well. You ignore the undeniable fact that our ancestors in that era were terrified of Spirits. There is no way they would have accepted or credited His spirit rising from His body and going to heaven. The need for the extensive illusion of a physical body, despite passing through closed doors or walls, in the Thomas encounter and eating food, etc. highlights the need to assuage their fears. It is why they were not ready for solid food and had to be given carnal milk. You cannot read 1 Cor 15:35-58 and deny that it is to be a spiritual rebirth, NOT a physical body being reclaimed from its rot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your opinion assumes that Jesus was willing, and able, to lie and mislead the apostles in order to accommodate their fear of spirits and ghosts.
No, Mike. It is NOT about lying. It is about speaking to them in ways that they NEED to be spoken to in order to reach them. "Those who have ears to hear . . ."
Quote:
Nothing about 1 Cor. 15:35-38 requires a resurrection as an immaterial spirit body. The body will be changed from a body of mortality and perishability to one of immortality and imperishability. In that sense, it will be a spiritual glorified body. But it will still be physical. It will simply be capable of things which our current mortal bodies are not capable of doing.
Have you seen a rotted corpse, Mike. Why do you insist on magical thinking just because God is involved? For all intents and purposes, our spiritual body will seem normal to us because that is how we perceive ourselves. But we will be "born again" as Spirit. That which is born as Spirit is Spirit, NOT flesh and anything else.
Quote:
Also, the apostles, including Paul did understand that the soul and spirit goes to heaven after the point of physical death. But that is not what the word 'resurrection' refers to. I've gone into great detail showing that resurrection in Jewish thought was always understood as a physical, bodily resurrection after having been physically dead for a period of time. It never referred to the spirit rising from the body and going into heaven.
Since the Jews were wrong about Jesus, why do you use Jewish thoughts about resurrection to understand what Jesus meant???
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.
