Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Chronological order of the bible


  • Please log in to reply
166 replies to this topic

#1    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 11:29 AM

I was reading an article recently ,that suggested that  the chronological order of the bible (ie Mathew , Mark, Luke  and John) is not in a chronological order but a theological  and that  scholars now think that Mark's was the first  by several  decades.The main problem for them  is the shortness of Mark's version and the ending ,also there is .no mention of  the birth of Jesus nor of Joseph ,Mary's husband ,also no mention of  the appearance of Jesus after the women go to the tomb he differs in the account of the visit to the tomb he  says a young man ( not an angel) says to them
“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

and that is the end, now according to  Dr James Tabor (quote)
Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee,not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus.

Dr. James Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he is professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism
The original article was by the above author


                            fullywired


Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#2    Jessem

Jessem

    Future Husband

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Starry Sky

  • No matter what anyone say's, you can make a difference... you probably already have.

Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:11 PM

View Postfullywired, on 03 July 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I was reading an article recently ,that suggested that  the chronological order of the bible (ie Mathew , Mark, Luke  and John) is not in a chronological order but a theological  and that  scholars now think that Mark's was the first  by several  decades.The main problem for them  is the shortness of Mark's version and the ending ,also there is .no mention of  the birth of Jesus nor of Joseph ,Mary's husband ,also no mention of  the appearance of Jesus after the women go to the tomb he differs in the account of the visit to the tomb he  says a young man ( not an angel) says to them
"Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6-8)

and that is the end, now according to  Dr James Tabor (quote)
Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or "sightings" of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee,not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus.

Dr. James Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he is professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism
The original article was by the above author


fullywired

Can you link the Article please...

The secret of life is'nt trying to figure out the secret, its about living it.

#3    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,408 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 03 July 2013 - 12:41 PM

The skeptical podcast Reasonable Doubts did an episode on this a while ago. One book was definitely the originator of all the other apostle retellings, and the stories change noticeably as time goes on, with more stuff added.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#4    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostJessem, on 03 July 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:



Can you link the Article please...
http://jamestabor.co...-james-d-tabor/

Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#5    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,604 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:18 PM

It's been well-known for years (as long as I've been studying, at least) that Matthew was not the first gospel.  Mark is largely considered to be the earliest of the gospel accounts.  And yes, the earliest written accounts of Mark do not include the resurrection story, this is also well-known.  Later versions did include it and I'd probably say that some over-zealous scribe added it in to make it conform with the other gospels.  But that is in no way an indictment against early Christian belief.  Consider for a moment the text of 1 Corinthians 15 (with focus on verses 3-5).  Most scholars (regardless of religious persuasion)  believe that the message that Paul received and passed on to others represents possibly the earliest codified belief statement about Christianity, composed sometime before 35 AD (ie, less than 5 years after Jesus' alleged existence).  Since this includes the resurrection, the fact that Mark's gospel does not include such an account does not invalidate the earliest Christian belief on the death and resurrection.

With respect, I've been studying the Bible for 13 years (ever since I became a Christian while studying at university).  What you have read is quite true.  But it has been unreasonably sensationalised to make it appear as if early Christians were ho-hum about the resurrection, possibly unsure, uncertain, maybe not even a core part of their doctrine.  The history of Christianity does not paint this picture at all.  I understand the views of the scholar you presented, and I do agree with him.  But I doubt this scholar used it s an attempt to obfuscate the early beliefs of Christians.  If he did, I'll apologise, but more likely other non-scholarly sources took his conclusions and sensationalised them.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#6    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:34 PM

Some of the writings attributed to Paul represent the earliest extant Christian writings, and they present a picture of a Jesus betrayed and killed and resurrected and soon to return in glory.  They tell nothing of the biography of an earthly Jesus nor any details of the resurrection other than its having happened.

So we have it generally backwards.  The earliest Christians had a Jesus in heaven having been sacrificed for our sins; the later Christians have one with an earthly birth and life and death.  First came the resurrection, then came the stories of his life.  That the earliest versions of the story of his life don't contain the resurrection is an indication that the two threads developed separately.

I wouldn't make too much of the dating of the Pauline writings as near the time of Jesus, since the Jesus stories evolved later and were even later put into those dates (not very precisely and with conflict).  Christianity without the early Jesus was somewhat older.


#7    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 02:29 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 03 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

It's been well-known for years (as long as I've been studying, at least) that Matthew was not the first gospel.  Mark is largely considered to be the earliest of the gospel accounts.  And yes, the earliest written accounts of Mark do not include the resurrection story, this is also well-known.  Later versions did include it and I'd probably say that some over-zealous scribe added it in to make it conform with the other gospels.  But that is in no way an indictment against early Christian belief.  Consider for a moment the text of 1 Corinthians 15 (with focus on verses 3-5).  Most scholars (regardless of religious persuasion)  believe that the message that Paul received and passed on to others represents possibly the earliest codified belief statement about Christianity, composed sometime before 35 AD (ie, less than 5 years after Jesus' alleged existence).  Since this includes the resurrection, the fact that Mark's gospel does not include such an account does not invalidate the earliest Christian belief on the death and resurrection.

With respect, I've been studying the Bible for 13 years (ever since I became a Christian while studying at university).  What you have read is quite true.  But it has been unreasonably sensationalised to make it appear as if early Christians were ho-hum about the resurrection, possibly unsure, uncertain, maybe not even a core part of their doctrine.  The history of Christianity does not paint this picture at all.  I understand the views of the scholar you presented, and I do agree with him.  But I doubt this scholar used it s an attempt to obfuscate the early beliefs of Christians.  If he did, I'll apologise, but more likely other non-scholarly sources took his conclusions and sensationalised them.
I don't know if other people sensationalised this man's work or not but to me his credentials seem authentic and this and other readings I have come across in the past leave me with no doubt in my mind that the early writers padded the stories out bit to make them fit

                    fullywired


Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#8    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,604 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 03 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

View Postfullywired, on 03 July 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I don't know if other people sensationalised this man's work or not but to me his credentials seem authentic and this and other readings I have come across in the past leave me with no doubt in my mind that the early writers padded the stories out bit to make them fit

fullywired
With respect, you didn't provide any links, and as such I could only give what I read.  And what I read was that the Resurrection in Mark's account is a late insertion.  And on this note, two points are worth noting:  1- Absolutely correct, we can trace the textual history of Mark's gospel and agree that the original did not include the resurrection...., and 2- Despite this, 1 Corinthians 15 was written before 50 AD and according to most secular historians ("secular" meaning more than just the Christian apologists) and most historians (regardless of religious beliefs) regard this section of the Bible to be a fixed narrative-summary of THE event composed sometime before 35 AD (that is, less than 5 years after the event).

I'm not trying to argue minority views here, I'm presenting what the majority of scholars have agreed upon, regardless of whether they are believers or non-believers.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#9    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:01 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 03 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

With respect, you didn't provide any links, and as such I could only give what I read.  And what I read was that the Resurrection in Mark's account is a late insertion.  And on this note, two points are worth noting:  1- Absolutely correct, we can trace the textual history of Mark's gospel and agree that the original did not include the resurrection...., and 2- Despite this, 1 Corinthians 15 was written before 50 AD and according to most secular historians ("secular" meaning more than just the Christian apologists) and most historians (regardless of religious beliefs) regard this section of the Bible to be a fixed narrative-summary of THE event composed sometime before 35 AD (that is, less than 5 years after the event).

I'm not trying to argue minority views here, I'm presenting what the majority of scholars have agreed upon, regardless of whether they are believers or non-believers.

I linked to the article by putting this into google The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
by James Tabor

I glad you put me straight on the meaning of secular ,I could have spent the rest of my life thinking it
meant something else LOL

A further extract from the same article

I trust that the self-evident spuriousness of these additions is obvious to even the most pious readers. One might in fact hope that Christians who are zealous for the “inspired Word of God” would insist that all three of these bogus endings be recognized for what they are–forgeries

                    fullywired

Edited by fullywired, 03 July 2013 - 03:03 PM.

Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)

#10    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:28 AM

View Postfullywired, on 03 July 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

Interesting ideas.  My own work suggests that Matthew/Mark were written very close together.  Also, there are several non-canonical gospels that appear to predate the ones we use now.  How do these fit into the picture?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#11    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:59 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 03 July 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

It's been well-known for years (as long as I've been studying, at least) that Matthew was not the first gospel.  Mark is largely considered to be the earliest of the gospel accounts.
PA, can you explain the reasoning by which the belief that Mark was first was established?  Who's thinking is this and where can I read it?  Does the Mark-first idea depend on Papias?

Quote

Consider for a moment the text of 1 Corinthians 15 (with focus on verses 3-5).  Most scholars (regardless of religious persuasion)  believe that the message that Paul received and passed on to others represents possibly the earliest codified belief statement about Christianity, composed sometime before 35 AD (ie, less than 5 years after Jesus' alleged existence).
As far as I know, the earliest historical reference to 1st Corinthians is that of Clement of Rome in c. 96 AD.  Do you know of an early one?  How did you reach the conclusion that it was written before 35 AD?

Quote

With respect, I've been studying the Bible for 13 years (ever since I became a Christian while studying at university).  What you have read is quite true.  But it has been unreasonably sensationalised to make it appear as if early Christians were ho-hum about the resurrection, possibly unsure, uncertain, maybe not even a core part of their doctrine.  The history of Christianity does not paint this picture at all.  I understand the views of the scholar you presented, and I do agree with him.  But I doubt this scholar used it s an attempt to obfuscate the early beliefs of Christians.  If he did, I'll apologise, but more likely other non-scholarly sources took his conclusions and sensationalised them.
We have long disagreed on the dating of the gospels and books of the NT.  I am ready to change my views any time somebody can produce some evidence.  I am asking that if you have anything that indicates earlier dates for the gospels than my second-century ones, could you please post them?  You keep saying that scholars believe in the earlier dates, but you don't produce the names of those scholars or reproduce their thinking.  I don't accept anything on faith.  I want to see for myself what genuine evidence there is and what it says.

I want to draw only the clonclusions that are supported by evidence - no hunches allowed (nothing on "faith").  I am asking you for some help in this endeavor.  I need as many hard dates as possible, along with the evidence and reasoning that supports them.

Example:  the "great darkness" that came over the earth when Jesus died.  There is at least one non-biblical reference to it, so it's not just a Christian invention.  There was a partial solar eclipse visible in Jerusalem on March 22, 33 AD.  This, in my opinion, is the best estimate of the date of Jesus' execution.  But it was not Passover - that was two weeks later on April 3rd.  So if the "great darkness" was the eclipse, the biblical account is garbled.

That's an example of the type of thinking I am looking for.  Can you help?
Doug

P.S.:  Though the Bible garbles a lot of history, it generally gets the sequence of events right.  That's especially obvious in the story of the Exodus and, I think, to a lesser extent in the NT as well.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 04 July 2013 - 01:11 AM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#12    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:09 AM

Luke contains basically the same stuff as Mark with a few extras; Matthew has added a lot of stuff and in a few cases completely changed the story.  John comes from a different tradition that seems substantially later and is of a more neo-Platonic sort while the Synoptics are more just simple narrative.  The presumption is that Luke either had Mark at hand or something that preceded Mark ("E") that both Mark and Luke drew from.  Matthew drew from all three, and was a good inventor of stuff, as there is stuff in Matthew neither found elsewhere nor even alluded to elsewhere.


#13    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,604 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:38 AM

View Postfullywired, on 03 July 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

I linked to the article by putting this into google The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
by James Tabor

I glad you put me straight on the meaning of secular ,I could have spent the rest of my life thinking it
meant something else LOL

A further extract from the same article

I trust that the self-evident spuriousness of these additions is obvious to even the most pious readers. One might in fact hope that Christians who are zealous for the “inspired Word of God” would insist that all three of these bogus endings be recognized for what they are–forgeries

fullywired
Thanks, I just noticed you replied to someone with a link.  I read the article, and I fully agree that the resurrection account in Mark is not in the original.  Indeed, every Bible I have ever known puts the resurrection account in indents, with a note to the effect of "The earliest and most accurate Greek texts do not include these verses".  I am happy to accept it as a forgery.  However, that does not take away from the fact that the earliest believers did believe in a resurrection, as evidenced by Paul's writings, two decades before Mark was ever composed.

That's all I'm pointing out.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#14    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 24,604 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:53 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 04 July 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

PA, can you explain the reasoning by which the belief that Mark was first was established?  Who's thinking is this and where can I read it?  Does the Mark-first idea depend on Papias?
I can't say on the reasoning it was first established.  But the general idea these days is the support for the two-source and four-source hypothesis.  By this reasoning, Matthew and Luke had possession of Mark's text in order to compose their narrative.


View PostDoug1o29, on 04 July 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

As far as I know, the earliest historical reference to 1st Corinthians is that of Clement of Rome in c. 96 AD.  Do you know of an early one?  How did you reach the conclusion that it was written before 35 AD?
Sorry, I overlooked a sentence I should have written in.  1 Corinthians was written in 50 AD, or thereabouts, possibly a few years earlier or later.  My reference to 35 AD was the particular quote from 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, which reads:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

What Paul delivered as of first importance is that Christ died/buried/raised to life/appeared to Cephas and the 12 is viewed by most historians to be a fixed narrative-summary of Jesus that was composed and circulated sometime before 35 AD (my source for this comment is John Dickson, who made this assertion in his book, The Christ Files).  Does that clarify my point?


View PostDoug1o29, on 04 July 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

We have long disagreed on the dating of the gospels and books of the NT.  I am ready to change my views any time somebody can produce some evidence.  I am asking that if you have anything that indicates earlier dates for the gospels than my second-century ones, could you please post them?  You keep saying that scholars believe in the earlier dates, but you don't produce the names of those scholars or reproduce their thinking.  I don't accept anything on faith.  I want to see for myself what genuine evidence there is and what it says.

I want to draw only the clonclusions that are supported by evidence - no hunches allowed (nothing on "faith").  I am asking you for some help in this endeavor.  I need as many hard dates as possible, along with the evidence and reasoning that supports them.

Example:  the "great darkness" that came over the earth when Jesus died.  There is at least one non-biblical reference to it, so it's not just a Christian invention.  There was a partial solar eclipse visible in Jerusalem on March 22, 33 AD.  This, in my opinion, is the best estimate of the date of Jesus' execution.  But it was not Passover - that was two weeks later on April 3rd.  So if the "great darkness" was the eclipse, the biblical account is garbled.

That's an example of the type of thinking I am looking for.  Can you help?
Doug

P.S.:  Though the Bible garbles a lot of history, it generally gets the sequence of events right.  That's especially obvious in the story of the Exodus and, I think, to a lesser extent in the NT as well.
Doug
I am not an historian.  I cannot provide my own research on this.  I rely on the scholars who report the dating.  For example, James Tabor whom FW has just linked, includes in that article on the "strange" ending of Mark, the dating of Mark to be around the 70 AD date, or to quote Tabor, "perhaps in the decade before" - Source.  In similar fashion, This website gives an almost identical date.  These are all from scholarly sources, and do not represent the extreme of Christian apologetics (This site, for example, attempts to date the entire New Testament, including the gospels, to well before 70 AD - obviously a non-scholarly apologetics approach).

I don't know what evidence these scholars use to date the gospels.  I'm not a scholar.  On the balance of things, I prefer to accept the consensus of the majority of historians, rather than the conjecture of the minority (and indeed a minority of scholars do seem to take a later dating).  It just so happens that the majority of sources I read tend to take the view that I have presented.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 July 2013 - 04:55 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#15    fullywired

fullywired

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,026 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 04 July 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:


.
We have long disagreed on the dating of the gospels and books of the NT.  I am ready to change my views any time somebody can produce some evidence.  I am asking that if you have anything that indicates earlier dates for the gospels than my second-century ones, could you please post them?  You keep saying that scholars believe in the earlier dates, but you don't produce the names of those scholars or reproduce their thinking.  I don't accept anything on faith.  I want to see for myself what genuine evidence there is and what it says.

.
Doug

I am not an historian or a bible studier but I too have noticed how apologists try to nibble away at the alleged dates of the gospels writings in an attempt to take them back, to nearer the crucifixion (alleged date)with the generalised phrase (the majority of scholars now think)but most of these scholars seem to be believers which seems to me to kind of lessen their credibility.This is only a personal view and could be wrong

                      fullywired



Posted Image  



"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-------Buddha (563 - 483 BC)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users