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 -

Did the Romans invent Jesus?


zep73

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Brandy333 said:

I don't believe in purgatory, but do believe we're in some kind of hell also.   I'm sorry you no longer believe in Jesus, but whether to believe in Him or not is only a choice you can make.   As far as the Bible not being trustworthy, I don't agree.   But what concerns me about it is how many times over the years it has been edited and re-edited, and now there are versions where some of the original manuscript has been so reworded that the intended meaning is gone.   Basically I believe it is God's word though.

How could you say one and the same? Can God's word change through the interpretation of man, and still remain 'pure'?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for clarifying that @eight bits. But does your sources take the discrepancies between the Roman-Christian controlled Vatican sources and the much later discovered Dead Sea Scrolls into consideration? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a game changer, that offers a direct unedited window into the first century. The claims of my OP are based on that.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

After some serious searching, I cannot decide whether there was a "historical Jesus" or not.  While nobody in the Bible ever says, "I had breakfast with Jesus," or anything else that would indicate an actual encounter, there are some details, like Jesus' brothers, that make one think there had to be somebody on whom the legends are based.  Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" mentions several people named Jesus who could serve as a source for one or more characteristics of the biblical Jesus.

Been considering digging deep with this curious character... 

Quote

A Jewish bishop

In January 1842, a German-born Jew named Michael Solomon Alexander entered the old city of Jerusalem and began his work as the first Anglican Bishop in the Holy Land. As a young man he had taught Hebrew in England, and there he was later ordained a rabbi. Soon after, Alexander became a follower of Jesus in 1825 after meeting several Anglican clergymen who introduced him to the Gospel.

 

Not surprisingly, he was ostracized by the Jewish community although he remained proud of his heritage after coming to faith. Alexander was a lecturer of Hebrew and Rabbinic literature at Kings College London when he was chosen to be the first Anglican bishop in the Middle East.

...

https://www.cmj-israel.org/christchurch/ourhistory

~

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

Yes I agree to a certain point. The problem arises when a sensation is so "loud" that you perceive it is as an axiom, and it becomes a truth in your ontology. You cannot claim that.
Has a sensation ever been deemed an axiom?

Such axioms would be contextual, love and Faith for instance. Pain is an obvious one--"no pain, no gain". "Truth is a slippery word." As the Greek question queries; "What is Truth?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

How could you say one and the same? Can God's word change through the interpretation of man, and still remain 'pure'?

Yes, man's interpretation of God's word can change it, and then no it cannot remain pure.  I haven't read any of the New Age Bibles, but from what I've heard some of them have changed the context of the original scripts, and probably the meaning.   If I can find some examples of this I'll post them.   It warns at the end of Revelation of the King James Version (KJV), which is what I have, that no one is to add to or delete anything written in the Bible, and that's what some of these newer Bibles have done.

By the way, I like many years ago what someone said the word Bible stood for:  Basic Instructions  Before Leaving Earth.

From what I've read the 1611 KJV Bible is one of the best as to following the original translation, but you would probably have to obtain one online.

Edited by Brandy333
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Compare that with a theory that requires an investment of time, resources and attention at the highest levels of the Roman Empire, which aims to convert Jews but so far as we can tell only catches on with Gentiles, and not too many of them in the early decades.

The plebeians, ex slaves, the downtrodden, the ne're do wells and designated sinners of society initially. It wasn't until the elite aristocracy and nobility that caught the Jesus fever was there blood letting as "treasonous traitors" to Rome did the Christian hunting games began if I remember correctly. 

Technically speaking, that's Mohammed's Islamic recruitment plan too. 

~

Edited by third_eye
Something stoopid
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zep73 said:

But does your sources take the discrepancies between the Roman-Christian controlled Vatican sources and the much later discovered Dead Sea Scrolls into consideration? The Dead Sea Scrolls are a game changer, that offers a direct unedited window into the first century. The claims of my OP are based on that.

Well. first, credit where credit is due. Robert Eisenman, who was featured in the dicumentary, was instrumental in making the Dead Sea Scrolls available to all scholars. He's a real hero for that, and as you say, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a game changer.

The $64 question is which games were changed. Eisenman thinks the non-canonical materials date from the Herodian era, and so were written at the right time for Christians to appear. He also proposes a reading of those materials in which Paul and James struggle under codenames like Man of Lies and Teacher of Righteousness, and then James is killed by the Wicked Priest (supposedly Ananus the younger, whom Josephus describes as having illegally condemned somebody named James to death by stoning).

The scrolls themselves, however, offer only the codenames. And the scrolls are indisputably Jewish documents writing about Jewish figures and struggles, not anything cooked up by the Romans or Flavians especially not, who don't even appear on the stage until near the very end of the Herodian era.

The only foundation for plugging Paul, James and Ananus into the Dead Sea Scrolls is to accept the historical reliability of Galatians and that Josephus really described the condemned James as the brother of Jesus called Christ. OK, swell, Galatians and that brief mention of James by Josephus are the two strongest pieces of evidence for Jesus having been a real man who actually lived.

The good news is that's how weak the case for a real historical Jesus is. But that weakness doesn't much help a highly specific alternative Roman conspiracy origin for Christianity..

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 7:15 PM, Brandy333 said:

I have respect for what you say, and on a friendly note I'll give some ideas too.   Yes, there are times when the gathering of two or three don't work, but then again I've seen it work.   About the friend with cancer, only God can say why they didn't live.   But there have been miraculous healings.  God tells us that our ways are not His ways, and our thoughts are not His thoughts.   

But you know what?   I love Him and trust him as my God.   I'm disabled, can't use my right leg very well, and live alone.   However, I'm in an apt. with close neighbors.   Well tonight I was finishing up supper and lost my balance and fell, hit my head.  There I was on the floor, ice box door open so I couldn't get out of the kitchen to get to the phone.   Finally did get the ice box door shut.  So I started hollering for help over and over.   I prayed to God to send someone.   Evidently God made it possible for me to be heard.  Truthfully, I don't know who called 911.  God was there.

 

 

I am sorry for this terrible event.  I think it likely that it was your neighbors who heard you crying for help and called 911 rather than God helping you.  I don’t mean to be insulting to your faith and I wish you all the best.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 10:37 PM, Guyver said:

I have ridden motorcycles all my life.  I’m just telling this for the….what’s it worth. Ni was never the best, someone else was always better than me, including my little brother. But I did and do ride.  Anyway, one time when I was on fire for Jesus I was getting on the freeway on my Yamaha Seca 650, which was a wonderful machine, and I got stuck on this tight freeway on-ramp behind this effed up truck with pallets like twelve high and wobbling, and before I could catch an opening to pass because of all the traffic, right in front of me those pallets came loose.  I called Jesus and then everything went into slow motion, and it was like a bubble came around me and all that material just exploded around me, and I came through without a scratch. It’s a fact, I just can’t explain it except for pure luck.

I had a similar experience.  I was following a truckload of insulation panels down I-135.  A rope broke and the slipstream threw the entire truckload into the air.  I didn't have time to have a thought, invoke God, or anything, I was too busy dodging panels.  Not even one panel out of that whole truckload hit my vehicle.  When we both got stopped, I saw that the route I had driven was the only place where no panels landed.

I didn't call upon God - didn't have time to think of it.  Maybe God was protecting me and maybe it was just luck.  But then, the same could be said about you.  So it all looks like a matter of each of us interpreting events according to our preconceived notions.

Doug

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I had a similar experience.  I was following a truckload of insulation panels down I-135.  A rope broke and the slipstream threw the entire truckload into the air.  I didn't have time to have a thought, invoke God, or anything, I was too busy dodging panels.  Not even one panel out of that whole truckload hit my vehicle.  When we both got stopped, I saw that the route I had driven was the only place where no panels landed.

I didn't call upon God - didn't have time to think of it.  Maybe God was protecting me and maybe it was just luck.  But then, the same could be said about you.  So it all looks like a matter of each of us interpreting events according to our preconceived notions.

Doug

Agreed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 11:13 AM, eight bits said:

Galatians and that brief mention of James by Josephus are the two strongest pieces of evidence for Jesus having been a real man who actually lived.

Josephus Flavius, the very man who is claimed to have concocted the gospels, according to the presentation!

I don't know about you, but in my eyes, that so-called evidence has crumbled. Or it has at least become even more questionable than it already was.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Josephus Flavius, the very man who is claimed to have concocted the gospels, according to the presentation!

I don't know about you, but in my eyes, that so-called evidence has crumbled. Or it has at least become even more questionable than it already was.

The issue with the Josephus piece is whether or not he really wrote "the brother of Jesus called Christ.:"  Garble just two little words, and we have a different Jesus.

There are two other Jesuses in the very same trial passage. Plus, there's a third Jesus who (elsewhere in Josephus's writings) first appears in public in the same city and shortly after the trial of James, and whose surname, coincidentally, is the same as yet another character who appears in the trial passage*. "Scribal error" would be ridiculously easy here, and about nine hundred years of hand copying separate the earliest manuscript we have to work with from any original that Josephus cranked out.

In order to crumble, you first need a cookie, and I don't think there're any cookies here.

-

* @Piney would chastise me me if I neglected to mention that this Jesus, Jesus ben Ananus, went around prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, was taken by the Temple authorities for trial before the Roman procurator, was scourged by the Romans, but was finally released because the procurator thought Jesus was crazy.

Whether Josephus wrote the gospel Passion narrative, I don't know, but bigger than hell, Josephus wrote something a lot like the gospel Passion narrative.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clearly, there's an overwhelming curiosity with a lot of people about Jesus. People want to know. Did Jesus exist or not? Is he real or not? Is he who it's said he is or not? Those are the FAQ.

This thread, and most if not all of its posters, are taking the side that it's all fiction. And why shouldn't they? It isn't easy to see what's real, so it seems. Can't see it, then it doesn't exist. But there's one thing about all of this that's being overlooked.

Whether or not the life of Jesus of Nazareth may have actually been the reason for the establishment of Christianity may be disputed. But what can't be disputed are the existence of the teachings that are attributed to him.

They are what they are, albeit a good dose of 'reading between the lines' wouldn't be a bad idea since, in the past, hand copying documents surely lended itself to a certain degree of mischief. Eventhough with that in mind it does seem that enough survived the scribes handy work for one to be able to grasp the intended purposes of his teachings and in my opinion, one of them stands out as being the most important.

If one is to enter upon the specifics of wholehearted and worthwhile living, then one will need to pull a particular trigger. That being the initiation of faith. And obviously it's there, at least to me, where the difference lies between those who see the reality of Jesus and those who don't. It's just a matter of turning on a light. Because without light, everything is in the dark. You wouldn't get up before daybreak to go to work at your desk without first turning on the light would you? Of course not! 

No one in a dark room sits down at their desk to go to work without first clicking the light switch on.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 12:44 PM, eight bits said:

Whether Josephus wrote the gospel Passion narrative, I don't know, but bigger than hell, Josephus wrote something a lot like the gospel Passion narrative.

There's a passage by Philo of Alexandria that sounds a whole lot like Jesus' scourging:  The mob caught a mentally deficient man named Carrabas, beat him, placed a crown of thorns on his head. a purple robe around his shoulders and a sign that said "King of the Jews" around his neck.  That was in 41 AD while Herod was visiting Alexandria on his way back to Jerusalem from Rome.

By that time, Jesus of Nazareth had been dead for eight years, according to the Gospels.

That's the only mention I know of, excluding the Gospels, that refers to a specific event concerning the life of Jesus until the time of St. Ignatius (107 AD).  The gospels, themselves, are not mentioned until 180 AD when St. Iraenius mentioned writings by a man named Matthew in Book I of Against Heresies.  I think he was referring to the Gospel of Matthew that we know because in Book III he mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - a pretty solid reference to the modern gospels.

So what do we have?  Based on surviving manuscripts, it was eight years after Jesus' death before any part of his story was written down.  There were 66 more years before any other gospel-related event is mentioned and another 73 years before we can show that Matthew existed.  It takes another two years before we have solid evidence that the gospels existed.  That's not a very good record.

I'm beginning to see things Dougherty's way.

Doug

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Carrabas,

Yes, John Dominic Crossan is often credited with putting that example in play in current discussions.

However, the behavior (or a story that features the behavior) isn't rare or peculiar to any one time or place. Another interesting example of the motif, written roughly contemporary with the usual estimate of the Gospel compositon era, is found in Dio Chrysotom's (40-120 CE) Discourses 4.66-67. The anecdote is told of Alexander the Great, gathering intelligence about his Persian foes:

Quote

...Have you never heard about the Sacian feast held by the Persians, against whom you are now preparing to take the field?"

And Alexander at once asked him what it was like, he wished to know all about the Persians. "Well, they take one of their prisoners," he explained, "who has been condemned to death, set him upon the king's throne, give him the royal apparel, and permit him to give orders, to drink and carouse, and to dally with the royal concubines during those days, and no one prevents his doing anything he pleases. But after that they strip and scourge him and then hang him.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/dio_chrysostom/discourses/4*.html

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

a purple robe

That detail is not actually in Philo (Against Flaccus 6.36-40), Carrabas is draped with some sort of doormat, color unspecified. For his part, Mark doesn't say it is a "robe," just a porphyry something (unspecified what, except that it must be some kind of textile).

My best guess is that it is blood stained rag or light mat. It is a curious coincidence that human blood dries to a similar color as "royal purple." (Pliny notes that strange factoid somewhere in his Natural History, but he couldn't have been the only one to have noticed the resemblance).

It's an interesting detail. Mark's readers must have scratched their heads upon first hearing the story of the mockery, "Where would common soldiers get hold of anything purple? Purple dye is way too expensive for them to have  ...," but then it would have sunk in, that blood stained fabrics must have been readily available near the scourging pillar.

Mark knew how to write. His Gospel is wasted on the God Squad.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding on the theme raised previously, one in a million stories... This is just part 1... The most recent compilation I know of is over a half hour clip... 

Quote

 

[00.05:53]

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 3:46 AM, eight bits said:

So, is thiis theory "simpler" than other serious theories? Not really. One cruelly murdered guy haunts the dreams of his surviving buddies, then one of their enemies has a vision, and joins them. Actually, the newbie has a lot of visions, and at the outset promises converts literal physical immortality. Say what you will about that theory, but it's simple.

Sure is simple.

But you know what's simpler? That newbie, in the employ of the Romans, weaving a story designed to remove the need for a physical Jewish temple in Israel -- the sole part of the Jewish religion which couldn't be replicated in Rome.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Herod, after making fun of him for a time, arrayed him in an old purple royal robe and sent him back to Pilate."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Yes, John Dominic Crossan is often credited with putting that example in play in current discussions.

However, the behavior (or a story that features the behavior) isn't rare or peculiar to any one time or place. Another interesting example of the motif, written roughly contemporary with the usual estimate of the Gospel compositon era, is found in Dio Chrysotom's (40-120 CE) Discourses 4.66-67. The anecdote is told of Alexander the Great, gathering intelligence about his Persian foes:

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/dio_chrysostom/discourses/4*.html

That detail is not actually in Philo (Against Flaccus 6.36-40), Carrabas is draped with some sort of doormat, color unspecified. For his part, Mark doesn't say it is a "robe," just a porphyry something (unspecified what, except that it must be some kind of textile).

My best guess is that it is blood stained rag or light mat. It is a curious coincidence that human blood dries to a similar color as "royal purple." (Pliny notes that strange factoid somewhere in his Natural History, but he couldn't have been the only one to have noticed the resemblance).

It's an interesting detail. Mark's readers must have scratched their heads upon first hearing the story of the mockery, "Where would common soldiers get hold of anything purple? Purple dye is way too expensive for them to have  ...," but then it would have sunk in, that blood stained fabrics must have been readily available near the scourging pillar.

Mark knew how to write. His Gospel is wasted on the God Squad.

Thanks.  It has been awhile.  My memory is a little foggy.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 7/28/2021 at 5:40 PM, zep73 said:

Christ was a common word back then, and is not exclusive to Jesus. It is Greek and means anointed, and is referring to a king - any king.

And the newagers changed the meaning to mean something different, "the energy of the good god", as near as I can ascertain based on context.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I've read through Josephus's jewish war.  The scourging event is in there.  Don't know of 1 in Philo, but I did get his works as well to read what he says about the logos.

It's clear the gospels are works of fiction.

Josephus writes of an event where a madman named Jesus is taken before jews and Roman authorities and is beaten and scourged until his bones showed.  Just like the gospel this Jesus never answered any of their questions and remained silent like a lamb.  Eventually they said he was just crazy and let him go.  That Jesus also made the same prophecy as the gospel one, that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed.  And of course it was when Rome finally put down the rebellion.  Whoever wrote the gospels used that story along with many other stories from the jewish war by Josephus.  If Josephus didn't write the gospels himself someone very knowledgeable with his writings did. But Josephus is the likely suspect, his father was a priest so he had the jewish knowledge to write the fiction and tie it to all the old testament stories.  He also had a motive since after he became a Roman supporter he was used to ask the jews to surrender and stop rebelling because they couldn't win...   it would make sense that he would want the jews to stop trying to actively revolt and wait for God to do something.  

There's no real proof a real historical gospel Jesus existed.  But the fictional one was based on a few different people.   One was probably Jesus of Gamala...  he was a Jesus that married a rich jewish woman named Mary Magdallene.  He then had Mary pay to have Jesus of Gamala made a Priest in the temple.  So that Jesus became Annointed by paying for it.  It made it into the gospel and new testament that Jesus is the high priest and was also close friends with a Mary Magdalene.  

It's also possible that Paul himself was actually just Josephus but I don't remember all the connections...  they went to the same places possibly had a ship wreck at the same place and would have been educated practically exactly the same.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard, @TheLoneNut .

There's some serious recent scholarship that Luke (presumed author of both the gospel of that name and of Acts) read, but misremembered (or intentionally scrambled) materials from Josephus. Steve Mason, widely regarded as the top living Josephus expert, has been advocating the idea for several years, and has a new book coming out.

To the extent that the dependency is on War (which Josephus published in the mid 70's CE, soon after the fall of Jerusalem), the generally accepted time frame for the composition of the New Testament would fit well enough. Luke, however, seems to use material that comes from Antiquities (e.g. the Census under Quirinius, references to figures like "the Egyptian" false prophet, the name sicarii for the zealot assassin group ...). Antiquities is firmly dated to 93 CE.

If the apparent literary dependence is real, then that would date Luke and especially Acts as probably having been written sometime in the 2nd Century. It would not be the only reason to think so, either. That is late for a canonical gospel.

On the other hand, it's not just that Mason is an expert (which he is). He's got evidence and he knows how to use it.

Anyway, you're in good company spotting the resemblances.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2021 at 5:08 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Pretty much, since my point was made regarding how real reality is subjectively. Then you come along with the "pain is chemicals" argument which takes nothing away from my point made. Hell, gun powder is just chemicals, but it will sure the hell put a bullet right through you. So, whatever the mechanics of pain, particularly, sudden, unexpected or deliberately self-inflicted, it hurts like hell. So, yes, so far you've come across looking pretty damned ignorant.

    Ouch!       :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 9:45 AM, zep73 said:

Could Christianity have been invented by the Romans?  Could Jesus be a masked version of Titus Caesar Vespasianius?  The parallels between Titus and Jesus are astonishing, as this documentary will show.  Titus, and his father Vespasian, had the Jewish historian Josephus at their service, to create the gospels, so they would synchronize with Jewish scriptures, aka the old testament. Jesus and Titus were 40 years apart, but it was a common trick, at that time, to invent stories taking place decades earlier, so you could claim prophecy fulfillment.

In short, this is very unlikely.  Titus Caesar Vespasianus spent a good portion of his adult life murdering the Jews during his Father's campaign to pacify Judea, which was done successfully.  I have even read people who hypothesized that Josephus was actually Jesus.  They are clutching at straws.

We know that if there was an historical Jesus that he was executed during the reign of Tiberius (oh, but he rose again, well actually, sometimes the Romans only used crucifixion as a torture, and allowed a person to be cut down before death, but the idiot masses would be in their idiotic rights to assume that crucifixion was a death sentence).  Josephus makes no overt reference to Jesus, which seems strange, given that Josephus was an Essene and many people say Jesus too was an Essene. On the other hand, Jospehus does reference a certain Prince Joseph Ben David (therefore of the ancient Royal line), a very elderly holy man who committed suicide at Masada with the rest.   This might well have been a Josephus reference to the real historical Jesus.

The Romans had an appetite for bizarre cults that was almost unquenchable.  The more outre the beliefs, the better.  The Jews with their lack of idols (which in Roman eyes was atheism), their odd personal appearance and dietary laws, their isolationism, their horrible circumcision ritual, and their penchant for terrorism were considered about as wild as wild can be.  Their rebellion was seemingly ongoing too, and their beliefs were seen as being incompatible with the Pantheistic religions of the Roman Empire, and thus not something that the Imperial policy of religious tolerance could integrate.  Roman agents like Saul/Paul had been hired to infiltrate Judaism and make it more amenable to the Empire, and Christianity was seen as a promising attempt, but one that went off the rails due to the monstrous and antisocial practices of the early Christians such as suicidal behavior (martyrdom), group sex and cannibalism (according to Roman sources), which is why the cult of Christianity (mainly followed by slaves) was outlawed and deemed depraved (a bit like early Mormonism perhaps?). 

The idea of integrating Judaism into the Imperial religious system remained as a goal.  In many ways Emperor Elagabalus, who converted the Empire to the worship of El Gabal (the Semitic Sun deity of Syria) was the first monotheist conversion of the Roman Empire.  All other gods were outlawed.  Interesingly, El Gabal was the surviving form of the original worship of El Elyon,  who is the father of the Semitic Gods (including Yahweh) who are collectively known as the Elohim (which is a Jewish term for their god, despite being plural).  Ultimately the notably perverted party boy Elagabalus was fished out of the latrine where he was hiding by the Praetorians and murdered, and religion went back to normal, save that the Imperial family now venerated Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), but really Sol Invictus was El Elyon, who is the REAL senior deity of the Semitic Pantheon, i.e. the Father of Yahweh.

In many ways we should view the rise of the small and obscure cult of Christianity as being akin to an outfit like Heaven's Gate or ISIS coming to dominate the civilized world.  What the Romans wanted was an integrated religious ideology for their empire, and eventually they traded their freedom of thought to get it.  But then, we must remember that the Romans were the first fascists...

Edited by Alchopwn
Link to comment
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.