Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Jesus, unrecorded in history, yet He arguably

412 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Raptor Witness

This mysterious fact baffles me, irrespective of my faith.

I can't think of another individual in recorded history that made this sort of contribution to history's future path, who went essentially unrecorded, except in religious texts. It would almost imply a power beyond the grave.

I could argue that people living at the time had no reason to believe that this message would go on to steer civilization in such a profound way. The Kingdom of God seemed like nonsense to people living under the rule of the human god Caesar. Even though this "kingdom" has yet to openly appear; it became a goal of sorts, which explains state religion, and the future separation of church and state.

So how did He do it and more importantly ... why? Was it to prove that we couldn't get it right, and set up a future pathway for His return, where He fixes the mess we've created? That seems rather cynical, but given the danger we're now in I have little choice but to adopt this explanation.

This brings me back to how, and this is where I'm really baffled. Was it accidental that such an unimportant person in the historical record goes on to steer the most powerful nations ever to exist? It is as if He became a king in absentia, but with no obvious power to alter free will, relying instead on seeds planted in the minds of men that became the hopes and dreams of a better world.

I say no "obvious" power, but is this really true? The Roman emperor Constantine claims to have seen a cross in the sky before a key battle, where he became victorious, and this led to the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Herein lies a clue to "how," because in effect He replaces the very entity that killed him. That's an amazing fact alone.

History is full of twists and turns, but this is perhaps one of the greatest, and it wasn't caused by mere men, if you believe the account.

So if spiritual power exists, and history is being somehow guided by this power, I still have to ask why and to what end? Was it obvious that free will, coupled with advanced human technology would lead to a train wreck? The Catholic Church was successful in suppressing science for quite awhile, and this no doubt delayed the dangerous place we now find ourselves. Once this god/human institution was removed, only then do we see the advancement of new weaponry on a scale barely imagined.

To believe that this weaponry won't be used again is perhaps the why, the how, and the Who.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
willowdreams

This mysterious fact baffles me, irrespective of my faith.

I can't think of another individual in recorded history that made this sort of contribution to history's future path, who went essentially unrecorded.

It would almost imply a power beyond the grave, that cannot be explained.

I could argue that people living a the time had no reason to believe that this message would go on to steer civilization. The Kingdom of God seemed like nonsense to people living under the rule of the human god Caesar, and even though this kingdom has yet to openly appear, it became a goal of sorts, which explains state religion, and the future separation of church and state.

So how did He do it, and more importantly ... why? Was it to prove that we couldn't, and set up a future pathway for His return, where He fixes the mess we've created? That seems rather cynical, but I have little choice but to adopt this explanation.

This brings me back to how, and this is where I'm baffled. Was it accidental that such an unimportant person in the historical record, goes on to steer the most powerful nations ever to exist?

I understand what you are saying, just do not agree with it.

Right now, it does seem as what you say is true, for US and our recorded history, et et. However... i think Confucianism ranks right up there.

No do not ask for links/sources, people here are capable of surfing/googling whatever they need to.

Also, ancient Egypt lasted far longer that Christianity has so far lasted, but it did die out, however, their faith/beliefs in their gods/afterlife made monuments that have stood the test of time.

also, if you want a list of top 100 ppl who have heavily influenced us here is a link (though personally i would say this is a flawed list, but that is a personal opinion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100

It seems though, most religions go out and influences more when the government backs it up to a point of punishment if you do not believe in it. In the early times, that is indeed how Christianity WAS.

*shrugs*

my opinions here only.

Edited by willowdreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

also, if you want a list of top 100 ppl who have heavily influenced us here is a link (though personally i would say this is a flawed list, but that is a personal opinion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100

It seems though, most religions go out and influences more when the government backs it up to a point of punishment if you do not believe in it. In the early times, that is indeed how Christianity WAS.

*shrugs*

my opinions here only.

Interesting that 8 of the ten are religious figures or have a known close association with their faith. Of these, the only Western figure not closely aligned with any known faith, apart from humanism, is Einstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

Religous people will always influence mankind because a great number of people need/require something to believe in, a belief that we are here for a reason. We're here bacause nature caused us to be here. Not because some god decided it might be a good idea. As you have said, Jesus went unrecorded during his lifetime. Strange really, for a person who had so much influence much later. So why did people not start writing his alleged biography until around 60 years later? And probably a distorted biography at that. If he was that remarkable during his lifetime, then why did people not write about him then? Probably because he was no different to you or I. He was just able to hold an audience with what he was saying. The same as a lot of religous leaders can today. Also, after that length of time there was nobody around to dispute anything that was written about him. As for the Christian church, specially the Catholic church, they disposed of, or hid anything that was written that might go against what they were preaching. They basically preached fear. Do it our way or you will suffer eternally in hell. Those who did not believe or would not convert were put to death, usually a lingering and very painful death.

As for today, well, every day you read something in the World News about people being killed because of their faith..

You say we find ourselves in a dangerous place now. Yes we do. All thanks to religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

It seems though, most religions go out and influences more when the government backs it up to a point of punishment if you do not believe in it. In the early times, that is indeed how Christianity WAS.

*shrugs*

The earliest times, this was not the case. Christianity had grown independently for more than two centuries before it was adopted as the official religion of Rome. But yes, I agree that once this did happen it set into motion the ability of the State to enforce this belief on its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

So why did people not start writing his alleged biography until around 60 years later?

Because as hard as it is for us in 21st Century society to understand, the vast majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate. And for a grass roots movement such as Christianity the best way to reach Average Joe was to verbally pass it on.

To try and use an analogy, why didn't the New York Times put their newspaper online before 1996? The answer is simple - before this time the internet was only available to a small section of the community, mostly for military use. But the mid-90's saw the internet move into the public sector for personal use, and when it became available to many people, the New York Times published online.

A similar thing can be seen in the case of Jesus. 40 years may seem like a long time to us (the first gospel was 40 years, not 60), but in those days, 40 years isn't actually that long, as long as there are other sources closer to the event (and we have other texts about Jesus much earlier, some are less than fifteen years after Jesus).

And probably a distorted biography at that.

Possibly. Most historians would agree with you. I take it on faith that what the authors wrote was a truthful account of the life of Jesus, but I understand that this is a faith-based position I hold.

If he was that remarkable during his lifetime, then why did people not write about him then?

Several reasons present themselves. First, he was actually only active in ministry for approximately three years, so there was only a three year window when people would have been writing about him "during his lifetime". Second, as noted above Christianity was a grass roots movement. The vast majority of people who interacted with Jesus were illiterate. They couldn't write anything down and even if they could it would do no good - it's hard to understand, but people in 1st Century Palestine actually trusted the spoken word more than written text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

Because as hard as it is for us in 21st Century society to understand, the vast majority of people in the ancient world were illiterate. And for a grass roots movement such as Christianity the best way to reach Average Joe was to verbally pass it on.

To try and use an analogy, why didn't the New York Times put their newspaper online before 1996? The answer is simple - before this time the internet was only available to a small section of the community, mostly for military use. But the mid-90's saw the internet move into the public sector for personal use, and when it became available to many people, the New York Times published online.

A similar thing can be seen in the case of Jesus. 40 years may seem like a long time to us (the first gospel was 40 years, not 60), but in those days, 40 years isn't actually that long, as long as there are other sources closer to the event (and we have other texts about Jesus much earlier, some are less than fifteen years after Jesus).

Possibly. Most historians would agree with you. I take it on faith that what the authors wrote was a truthful account of the life of Jesus, but I understand that this is a faith-based position I hold.

Several reasons present themselves. First, he was actually only active in ministry for approximately three years, so there was only a three year window when people would have been writing about him "during his lifetime". Second, as noted above Christianity was a grass roots movement. The vast majority of people who interacted with Jesus were illiterate. They couldn't write anything down and even if they could it would do no good - it's hard to understand, but people in 1st Century Palestine actually trusted the spoken word more than written text.

Yes, I agree that most people in those days could not read or write, but are you trying to telll me that there was not one single person who listened to Jesus who could write, and that felt compelled to make notes of what was said for future generations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Yes, I agree that most people in those days could not read or write, but are you trying to telll me that there was not one single person who listened to Jesus who could write, and that felt compelled to make notes of what was said for future generations?

Why would anybody have written the message down? The message was, ahem, "The end of the world is at hand."

For whose benefit, then, would this hypothetical record have been made?

Christian literature begins with Paul. He is not writing to transmit across time (since he, too, believes that the end is near), but across space, in his geographically dispersed network of congregations.

There may also have been early "sayings" collections. That was a common genre from the time. Jesus' sayings collection (if there was one) doesn't survive as a separate work, but may survive by its incorporation into the fully biographical Gospels, especially the synoptics.

I don't propose a "conspiracy theory" here for the loss of the sayings Gospels. If the older sayings Gospels were incorporated into newer, more advanced biographies, then the point of copying the older versions would be lost. In any case, like the business-like writings of Paul, these may have been written to get the message across space, rather than across time.

Finally, John purports to be based upon a written record by the apparently literate "Beloved Disciple." I have yet to encounter a remotely persuasive argument to dismiss that claim (although "not dismiss" does not equal "accept at face value," and I see no textual basis for the most optimistic reading of the claim, that the Beloved Disciple is the actual author of the Fourth Gospel, in the form we have it now.)

All in all, then, the state of the record is just about what I would expect.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Yes, I agree that most people in those days could not read or write, but are you trying to telll me that there was not one single person who listened to Jesus who could write, and that felt compelled to make notes of what was said for future generations?

There were plenty of historians working at that time ,we are not talking about illiterate peasants.

there is a whole list of them if anyone is interested

http://kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Historians.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

There were plenty of historians working at that time ,we are not talking about illiterate peasants.

there is a whole list of them if anyone is interested

http://kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Historians.html

Umm! Isn't that website designed to do exactly the opposite to your intended purpose? Its intention is to illustrate why all those, "purported historians" were unlikely to have written about christ.

That is not to invalidate your pov. It just seems a strange source to use.

Ps even in my day, local news is never reported in our national news paper, and rarely in our state paper. Especially if it along the lines of "local sees aliens abducting cows" or local raises boy from the dead" Or even; wink, wink, "Local has close encounter with an angel" Would reputable writers of the time have been any more ready to report on the works of jesus as we understand them today? eg "Local boy rises from the dead" "7 fishes feeds thousands" Or 'young man subject to complaints from wine merchants for unauthorised provision of free wine at local wedding"

Actualy the most likely report i can see is, "Husbands complain at the absence of wives and daughters, as hundreds of women abandon their domestic duties and flock to hear the teachings of handsome and charismatic local preacher"

About 80 % of jesus disciples were women, and the first local cults/shrines, after his death, were established by women.

Given that women were significantly less literate than men and, at the same time, traditionally holders of much oral history, this might have contributed to the lack of documentation during jesus life. There is no doubt that, both oral traditions and some texts, appeared in the first decade or two after jesus death. These are referred to in later histories/documents. But it was about 40 years before the present versions of the gospels were first published and none of those original versions remain. Again, they are refered to in later documents.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

Umm! Isn't that website designed to do exactly the opposite to your intended purpose? Its intention is to illustrate why all those, "purported historians" were unlikely to have written about christ.

That is not to invalidate your pov. It just seems a strange source to use.

Ps even in my day, local news is never reported in our national news paper, and rarely in our state paper. Especially if it along the lines of "local sees aliens abducting cows" or local raises boy from the dead" Or even; wink, wink, "Local has close encounter with an angel" Would reputable writers of the time have been any more ready to report on the works of jesus as we understand them today? eg "Local boy rises from the dead" "7 fishes feeds thousands" Or 'young man subject to complaints from wine merchants for unauthorised provision of free wine at local wedding"

Actualy the most likely report i can see is, "Husbands complain at the absence of wives and daughters, as hundreds of women abandon their domestic duties and flock to hear the teachings of handsome and charismatic local preacher"

About 80 % of jesus disciples were women, and the first local cults/shrines, after his death, were established by women.

Given that women were significantly less literate than men and, at the same time, traditionally holders of much oral history, this might have contributed to the lack of documentation during jesus life. There is no doubt that, both oral traditions and some texts, appeared in the first decade or two after jesus death. These are referred to in later histories/documents. But it was about 40 years before the present versions of the gospels were first published and none of those original versions remain. Again, they are refered to in later documents.

In that case would it not have been better to call the Gospels.................Gossips? :w00t: (sorry lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

In that case would it not have been better to call the Gospels.................Gossips? :w00t: (sorry lol)

Hey, are you suggesting that women have a greater tendency to social intercourse and discourse than men? :innocent: Brave you. Im not gettng into that one, especially after the discussions about the social equality of men and women on another thread. :devil:

But yes it is most likely that women kept the story of jesus alive in oral form, through wha twe would call gossip, because that is what they did. They talked at the wells, shops and communal gatherings. (They apparently even talked in church until they got told off for it :devil: ) It was men who wrote it down because, predominantly, only men could read and write, and then only a small percentage of men. Most men also had to memorise large volumes of religious writings without being able to read or write..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

Hey, are you suggesting that women have a greater tendency to social intercourse and discourse than men? :innocent: Brave you. Im not gettng into that one, especially after the discussions about the social equality of men and women on another thread. :devil:

Not brave, just stupid lol

Anyway, its getting late here in Bangkok. Am signing off. Enjoy the rest of your hoildays :)

Edited by Englishgent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Umm! Isn't that website designed to do exactly the opposite to your intended purpose? Its intention is to illustrate why all those, "purported historians" were unlikely to have written about christ.

That is not to invalidate your pov. It just seems a strange source to use.

Ps even in my day, local news is never reported in our national news paper, and rarely in our state paper. Especially if it along the lines of "local sees aliens abducting cows" or local raises boy from the dead" Or even; wink, wink, "Local has close encounter with an angel" Would reputable writers of the time have been any more ready to report on the works of jesus as we understand them today? eg "Local boy rises from the dead" "7 fishes feeds thousands" Or 'young man subject to complaints from wine merchants for unauthorised provision of free wine at local wedding"

Actualy the most likely report i can see is, "Husbands complain at the absence of wives and daughters, as hundreds of women abandon their domestic duties and flock to hear the teachings of handsome and charismatic local preacher"

About 80 % of jesus disciples were women, and the first local cults/shrines, after his death, were established by women.

Given that women were significantly less literate than men and, at the same time, traditionally holders of much oral history, this might have contributed to the lack of documentation during jesus life. There is no doubt that, both oral traditions and some texts, appeared in the first decade or two after jesus death. These are referred to in later histories/documents. But it was about 40 years before the present versions of the gospels were first published and none of those original versions remain. Again, they are refered to in later documents.

I post "warts and all" Where are these texts "that appeared in the first decade"?

You are trying to play down Jesus ,remember he was a miracle worker ,raising the dead curing the blind and the lame ,hardly local news

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Yes, I agree that most people in those days could not read or write, but are you trying to telll me that there was not one single person who listened to Jesus who could write, and that felt compelled to make notes of what was said for future generations?

As 8bits points out, the earliest followers of Jesus believed that the end was nigh. They didn't need to write for generations to come because they didn't think it was needed. The earliest writings we have are letters written to the different churches about matters of doctrine, to clarify issues specific within each church - they were not written as historical texts in order to be passed down for generations to come. And as 8bits also points out there could have been a "sayings" text, and many historians actually believe that to be the case (designated as document Q), and that three of the four canonical gospels used this source text while writing their respective gospels. This "sayings source" has been lost to time, so it is not 100% proven, but if it did exist it is also one of the earliest written documents about Jesus, dating probably around 20 years after Jesus' death.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

It was men who wrote it down because, predominantly, only men could read and write, and then only a small percentage of men. Most men also had to memorise large volumes of religious writings without being able to read or write..

Just to expound on this, the Mishnah in Jewish tradition is a series of teachings by Rabbi's over several centuries, but they were not written down until approximately 200 AD. In between, schools were set up by the Jews to memorise by rote what was said by these Rabbi's. Several historians posit that since most early Christians were actually Jews that a similar style was adopted and that there was a "school" for some to memorise the accounts of the Rabbi Jesus. It is not impossible to believe, since the story of Jesus only included one individual they didn't need dozens of scholars to memorise dozens of Rabbi's. They only needed a couple to memorise one person.

Just thinking aloud :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

There were plenty of historians working at that time ,we are not talking about illiterate peasants.

there is a whole list of them if anyone is interested

http://kingdavid8.com/FAQs/Historians.html

Josephus mentions him, but it's not clear if the original text has been altered. My guess is, part of the text mentions him, but not enough is said in this account to tell us anything about a man whose philosophy would later steer the most powerful nations on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I post "warts and all" Where are these texts "that appeared in the first decade"?

You are trying to play down Jesus ,remember he was a miracle worker ,raising the dead curing the blind and the lame ,hardly local news

fullywired

Ill put it this way. I live in a little country town in south australalia. If i rang up a reputable reporter in canberra with a story that someone had raised a dead person, do you suppose the reporter would bother flying and driving several thousand miles to find out if i was telling the truth or just crazy? And that is in an age of mass transport and telecommuications. How would such local incidents come tothe scribes of contemporary history. Those scribes did begin to take note as the jewish/christian cult spread across the mediterranean within a decade or two.

There are many later acounts which tell of the time after christ and speak of manuscripts written and existing at the time. Those manuscripts seem no longer to exist (which is not suprising given any lack of central or secure storage for them, except in roman hands For the first couple of decades AD, the romans were at best indifferent to the jews internal affairs except where it impacted on imperial security.) but the later references to them did survive and still exist. A conspiracy theorist could argue that these were faked insertions to support the total myth of christ, but that's really quite incredible given the contextual history of the time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

As 8bits points out, the earliest followers of Jesus believed that the end was nigh. They didn't need to write for generations to come because they didn't think it was needed. The earliest writings we have are letters written to the different churches about matters of doctrine, to clarify issues specific within each church - they were not written as historical texts in order to be passed down for generations to come. And as 8bits also points out there could have been a "sayings" text, and many historians actually believe that to be the case (designated as document Q), and that three of the four canonical gospels used this source text while writing their respective gospels. This "sayings source" has been lost to time, so it is not 100% proven, but if it did exist it is also one of the earliest written documents about Jesus, dating probably around 20 years after Jesus' death.

~ PA

A bit difficult to prove something existed if it no longer exists :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

A bit difficult to prove something existed if it no longer exists :)

Not really. It can be proved the way all now non existent things can be proved by historical references to its existence. Of course that depends on the standards of proof required but, if we apply the same rigour to all historical evidences, then most of our history would be unprovable. I can trace my mother's patrilneal line, including every member, back over a thousand years, and my father's line back 500 years, (where our current name evolved into existence) but only through documentation, including historical documentation written, "After the fact" eg records of the norman invasion of england in 1066, where one of my ancestors was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

A bit difficult to prove something existed if it no longer exists :)

Not necessarily. The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written independently of each other and yet bear several sections of text that are almost identical. The best explanation is that the authors relied on another document to get their material. Mark was written first, with the aid of the Q document. Matthew and Luke are theorised to have been written with the aid of Q, plus the book of Mark. Luke is further theorised to have used yet a third source, designated as document L.

Historians come to this theory by the similarities and differences within the texts themselves. Do some searching into the Q hypothesis, it's an interesting read :)

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Englishgent

Thank you \Mr Walker and Paranoid Android. I see what you are saying and I cannot find another argument against it.....damn lol If I come up with one I will let you know :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randym23

the success of an ideology in its aims isn't testimony to its accuracy just its willingness to commit atrocity to get its way.

what the question really is : might or right?

you can't be Machiavellian and ethical at the same time, they are mutually exclusive (in regards to intent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

the success of an ideology in its aims isn't testimony to its accuracy just its willingness to commit atrocity to get its way.

what the question really is : might or right?

you can't be Machiavellian and ethical at the same time, they are mutually exclusive (in regards to intent)

Now heres one of the most interesting comments questions ive read for a while.

As usual i will take the counterpoint of view. I am not so sure of this.

Why couldn't a person be machiavellian, AND ethical? Machiavellian, primarily means things like; using machinations, intelligence, an understanding of consequence, and an ability to plan many moves ahead, while predicting others responses. It does have connotations of evil, but not like, say, the borgias do. My wife says I am an ethical machiavellian. I just love the intelligence and cleverness of machiavelli and his use of his intelligence to achieve his aims. If those aims are ethically and morally based, then one can be an ethical machiavellian.

There is a serious literary and historical argument tha t machiavelli himself was an ethical person and tha t his work "the prince" was a very cleverly disguised satire/parody. Especially among early readers this was accepted. Modern usage has made machiavelli more sinister, but personally the historical evidence persuades me that he was a most moral, but very clever, man.

Now, apart from the response of Machiavelli's first readers, there is some contextual evidence to suggest that the meaning of The Prince might not be as straightforward as it first appears. Machiavelli seems to have been a life-long republican in his politics, he was punished (and tortured) for that by the Medici family to whom The Prince is dedicated, and the Medici family, or at least certain members of it, were not universally well regarded in Florence. Moreover, Cesare Borgia, whom Machiavelli holds up as a role model, was viewed by many contemporaries as something of a brutal fool or, at least, a colossal failure. In addition, the literal meaning of The Prince is starkly at odds with Machiavelli's other political writings in which he reveals his staunch faith in republican virtues. And we might recall that Machiavelli was an accomplished writer of satiric drama. These contextual facts could remind us that a satiric construction on this text might find some basis in Machiavelli's life and times.

http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Ill put it this way. I live in a little country town in south australalia. If i rang up a reputable reporter in canberra with a story that someone had raised a dead person, do you suppose the reporter would bother flying and driving several thousand miles to find out if i was telling the truth or just crazy? And that is in an age of mass transport and telecommuications. How would such local incidents come tothe scribes of contemporary history. Those scribes did begin to take note as the jewish/christian cult spread across the mediterranean within a decade or two.

There are many later acounts which tell of the time after christ and speak of manuscripts written and existing at the time. Those manuscripts seem no longer to exist (which is not suprising given any lack of central or secure storage for them, except in roman hands For the first couple of decades AD, the romans were at best indifferent to the jews internal affairs except where it impacted on imperial security.) but the later references to them did survive and still exist. A conspiracy theorist could argue that these were faked insertions to support the total myth of christ, but that's really quite incredible given the contextual history of the time..

No he wouldn't because he would know that it is impossible to resurrect from the dead,but in biblical days the illiterates would swallow it .if the scribes began to take notice why doesn't it appear in their historical writings ,which brings us back to there being no mention of Jesus out side of the bible .Where are these "later accounts " you mention, where did you find them?I would love a link to these elusive accounts or are you talking about oral accounts ,we all know how reliable they are ..Are you familiar with the expression "the story was better for the telling"

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.