Jesus Is God! This Is Crystal Clear!

Wgw · Nov 14, 2015

GDunn said:
If this were true, then LORD means ADONAI, which is NOT what I think Irenaeus meant. "Adonai" was a NAME of God, and referring to the SAME REFERENT AS YHWH, sir. ADON had to be meant, and your quote from Irenaeus is now COMPLETELY ABRAHMIC. EXCUSE MY CAPS, sir. I am a man of many HATS sir, not to be proud aboudit.

ADON was the meaning, and referred to men superlative. GEDDIT?

No, actually.

OldShepherd · Nov 14, 2015

Wgw · Nov 14, 2015

OldShepherd said:
.

OldShepherd, are you aware your posts are blank, devoid of content?

GDunn · Nov 14, 2015

Wgw said:
No, actually.

YES, actually same as canon has consistently 71 times in the NT with God and the Lord Jesus in the same verse.

NEVER in these is Jesus God or else SOME of these times LISTED as "theos." You don't geddit since you can't see the constant pattern. God Almighty is GOD and Jesus isn't ADONAI but ADON. "Adonai" is a REPLACEMENT NAME for "YHWH" and as such MEANS THEOS. ADON on the other hand is EXACTLY what the disciples and peers of Jesus meant when they said "Lord."

1) Martha when she said "Had you been here Lord, my brother hath not died." Quite an impossible thing to say to an OMNIPRESENT God, hey?
2) The Samaritan woman to Jesus before she even knew his intentions, as lecher or teacher or friend or foe. Translated SIR in the KJV.
3) As Paul said who didn't know WHO this "Lord" was, possibly an angel who blinded him: "Who are you Lord?"
4) As the disciples called him at the same time in three synoptics ALSO saying: "What sort of MAN is this who calms the wind and the seas?"
5) As Psalm 110 says, when David spoke of Messiah. "The LORD said to my Lord," Massoretic text: YHWH said to my ADONI.

GDunn · Nov 14, 2015

Wgw said:
OldShepherd, are you aware your posts are blank, devoid of content?

It is Der Alter accidentally logging in as his old nemesis, himself, sir.

Wgw · Nov 14, 2015

GDunn said:
YES, actually same as canon has consistently 71 times in the NT with God and the Lord Jesus in the same verse.

NEVER in these is Jesus God or else SOME of these times LISTED as "theos." You don't geddit since you can't see the constant pattern. God Almighty is GOD and Jesus isn't ADONAI but ADON. "Adonai" is a REPLACEMENT NAME for "YHWH" and as such MEANS THEOS. ADON on the other hand is EXACTLY what the disciples and peers of Jesus meant when they said "Lord."

1) Martha when she said "Had you been here Lord, my brother hath not died." Quite an impossible thing to say to an OMNIPRESENT God, hey?
2) The Samaritan woman to Jesus before she even knew his intentions, as lecher or teacher or friend or foe. Translated SIR in the KJV.
3) As Paul said who didn't know WHO this "Lord" was, possibly an angel who blinded him: "Who are you Lord?"
4) As the disciples called him at the same time in three synoptics ALSO saying: "What sort of MAN is this who calms the wind and the seas?"
5) As Psalm 110 says, when David spoke of Messiah. "The LORD said to my Lord," Massoretic text: YHWH said to my ADONI.

Ah, I see your argument. Alas, it does not hold water, in that the apostles spoke Aramaic, and you are arguing from the Hebrew; it holds even less water in that St. Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and can be found to be empty by the fact that the bishop of Lyons referred to the Word with the Father as "God and Lord."

GDunn · Nov 14, 2015

Wgw said:
Ah, I see your argument. Alas, it does not hold water, in that the apostles spoke Aramaic, and you are arguing from the Hebrew; it holds even less water in that St. Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and can be found to be emoty by the fact that the bishop of Lyons referred to the Word with the Father as "God and Lord."

Oh...you linked "God" with "Lord" as the same referent. Granville-Sharp must be clapping his hands in his grave.

Think alternately, be a heepy. Takes a whole new take on things in order to make love not war.

Or...in your case "emoty" whatever that is, not truth.

"Lord" in the Koine is still informed by the common lingo which was Aramaic, which Bible terms were informed by the...mother...tongue...of...the...Torah, Hebrew.

What alternate view is there? Informed by Greek literature? Informed by Greek religion? Informed by Greeks who spoke the common patois but who did not normally speak Torah?

Der Alte · Nov 14, 2015

GDunn said:
Ain't studied it yet. My studies so far include Polycarp and Clement of Rome. Their CONSIDERED writings are one Epistle per person. All ADDITIONAL writings with their name on it are PSEUDOGRAPHA. And their CONSIDERED single writings per person
are entirely by the way...ABRAHAMIC in view of God and not MULTI-PERSONAL in view of God.

All I know are the alternate renditions of Ireneus' Rule of Faith. And how SUSPICIOUS the later redactions seem to me.

If all you know is the supposed "alternate renditions of Irenaeus Rule of Faith" how do you know if you haven't even read the supposed original?

GDunn said:
...God Almighty is GOD and Jesus isn't ADONAI but ADON. "Adonai" [Heb.] is a REPLACEMENT NAME for "YHWH" [Heb.] and as such MEANS THEOS.[Grk.] ADON on the other hand is EXACTLY what the disciples and peers of Jesus meant when they said "Lord." [You know this how? DA]

1) Martha when she said "Had you been here Lord, my brother hath not died." Quite an impossible thing to say to an OMNIPRESENT God, hey?
2) The Samaritan woman to Jesus before she even knew his intentions, as lecher or teacher or friend or foe. Translated SIR in the KJV.
3) As Paul said who didn't know WHO this "Lord" was, possibly an angel who blinded him: "Who are you Lord?"
4) As the disciples called him at the same time in three synoptics ALSO saying: "What sort of MAN is this who calms the wind and the seas?"
5) As Psalm 110 says, when David spoke of Messiah. "The LORD said to my Lord," Massoretic text: YHWH said to my ADONI.

In Hebrew, which had no vowels, Adon was written אדון and Adonai was written אדון. Exactly the same!

Wgw · Nov 14, 2015

It would be misleading to attempt to read Hebrew between the Greek lines of the New Testament.

Der Alte · Nov 14, 2015

GDunn said:
..."Lord" in the Koine is still informed by the common lingo which was Aramaic, which Bible terms were informed by the...mother...tongue...of...the...Torah, Hebrew.

How would the native Greek speaking gentile Christians in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonika, etc. who had no prior knowledge of Torah know any of this?

What alternate view is there? Informed by Greek literature? Informed by Greek religion? Informed by Greeks who spoke the common patois but who did not normally speak Torah?

See previous answer.

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Der Alter said:
If all you know is the supposed "alternate renditions of Irenaeus Rule of Faith" how do you know if you haven't even read the supposed original?

There are liturgical renditions...obviously later redactions.

There are the original Greek manuscripts. If not original, closer in time to the originals.

In Hebrew, which had no vowels, Adon was written אדון and Adonai was written אדון. Exactly the same!

Um, that is why we have to figure from the context, sir. The vowel points however change meaning drastically. This is why Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken, even down to the jot and tittle."

You've pointed out however WHY there is a vast confusion over the word "L(l)ord." The Hebrew informs the Aramaic and Greek. And the Hebrew was not written down originally with the vowel points supplied.

Masoretic Text shows how LATER scholars considered the original Hebrew.
But this is probably closer in meaning than later later trinitarian scholars who bring oddball shenanigans to the table of theology.

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Der Alter said:
How would the native Greek speaking gentile Christians in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonika, etc. who had no prior knowledge of Torah know any of this?

They had to deal with the language of the new prophets and disciples of Jesus, sir. These men who authored NT were not using words from the GENTILE milieu. They were using the best correlation to the HEBREW mother tongue terms. "Theos" was not what a Greek Gentile knew but YHWH Elohim, the One True God. "Lord" and "Adonai" and "son of God" and "son of man (Adam)" and "Lamb of God" and even "prophets" and "rabbis or didaskale" or any FOUNDATIONS of religion itself in religious language and communication were all INFORMED by the OT language of the People Blessed. The Israelite Nation. Blessed by the very INSPIRATION of the One True God and blessed by the MOTHER TONGUE of Truth and Revelation.

They the common MAN did not initially have to know the correlations to Source Terminology. But it was their responsibility to LEARN these if they wanted to be trained as em, rabbis and teachers and preachers and evangelists.

As it is for you, sir.

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Wgw said:
It would be misleading to attempt to read Hebrew between the Greek lines of the New Testament.

Misleading to where? Source concept? Source inspiration? "Salvation is from the Jews," sir. Who said that?

But yay, you will understand one of the main REASONS why Christianity has gone astray. We considered the Koine FROM the foundations of Greek thought and tradition. We became ourselves STUDENTS of Greek Philosophy because it was the enamoration of the day in the early centuries after Jesus died and rose again.

And the term "God" or "theos" ITSELF became a gross misdefinition.
Now "God" means essentially OUSIA, in order to CRAM IN two more WHO's into the Being of God.

The Jew EVER defined "theos" as YHWH Elohim, and this will EVER be true.

Wgw · Nov 15, 2015

GDunn said:
Misleading to where? Source concept? Source inspiration? "Salvation is from the Jews," sir. Who said that?

But yay, you will understand one of the main REASONS why Christianity has gone astray. We considered the Koine FROM the foundations of Greek thought and tradition. We became ourselves STUDENTS of Greek Philosophy because it was the enamoration of the day in the early centuries after Jesus died and rose again.

And the term "God" or "theos" ITSELF became a gross misdefinition.
Now "God" means essentially OUSIA, in order to CRAM IN two more WHO's into the Being of God.

The Jew EVER defined "theos" as YHWH Elohim, and this will EVER be true.

There are a number of problems with this, however, I am going to criticize it on the basis of Judeocentrism. Judaism in the first century was not what it should have been, according to our Lord, with His criticisms of scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and indeed his crucifixiom by the Sadducean high priest. Now a signifigant number of Jews did embrace Christianity, so this is not an anti-Semitic perspective but rather a perspective critical of first century Judaism as a proper continuation of more ancient forms of Judaism and the divine faith of Noah, Abraham and Moses.

However, the fact is that Greeks and Hellenic Jews were among the most enthusiastic converts to early Christianity, for example, the admirable cult of the unknown god, which had rejected the Pagan religion and awaited illumination, which was provided by St. Paul.

There is a reason why Koine Greek became the dominant language of the early Church, and I think what we might call a Hellenic, what they might have called an Ecumenical (in a sense relating to the Imperial domains of Alexander and later of Rome), centricity in the early church should be regarded as divine providence. This is in accord with Matthew 16:18.

Your perspectice essentially requires us to reject that verse by claiming that the early church fell into apostasy due to a preponderance of Graecian influence. I disagree. I believe we can properly regard the influence of Greek philosophy on the early Church as divinely ordained and providential. and this is clearly reflected in the text of St. John's gospel. St. John would not have stepped out onto a limb by using the word Logos in a manner that could cause conflation with a philosophical concept incompatible with Christianity. We must rather regard the use of this phrase as an intentional citation of the idea of the Logos, which obviously more closely approximates the meaning of the phrase "Word of God," than concepts available in a strictly Pharisaical Judaic context.

Der Alte · Nov 15, 2015

GDunn said:
There are liturgical renditions...obviously later redactions.

There are the original Greek manuscripts. If not original, closer in time to the originals.

How do you know what are "obviously later redactions?" How do you know which are the "original Greek manuscripts?

Um, that is why we have to figure from the context, sir. The vowel points however change meaning drastically. This is why Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken, even down to the jot and tittle."

You've pointed out however WHY there is a vast confusion over the word "L(l)ord." The Hebrew informs the Aramaic and Greek. And the Hebrew was not written down originally with the vowel points supplied.

Masoretic Text shows how LATER scholars considered the original Hebrew.
But this is probably closer in meaning than later later trinitarian scholars who bring oddball shenanigans to the table of theology.

When Jesus said "jot and tittle" it does not refer to vowel point which were added about 700 years later. The "jot' is the letter "yod," י, the "tittle" is the little "horn" which distinguishes similar looking letters, e.g. Tau ת and heth ח, zayin ז and waw ו , kaph כ and beth ב, resh ר and daleth ד.
You are correct "The Hebrew informs the Aramaic and Greek." Please explain how that works when the manuscripts of the NT came to the native Greek speaking gentile Christians in Rome. Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae,Thessalonika, etc. who had no prior knowledge of the OT. Even if they had the LXX that would not inform them of the Hebrew behind the LXX. And there is no record of all the gentiles being taught Hebrew or having the Hebrew scriptures.

Der Alte · Nov 15, 2015

GDunn said:
They had to deal with the language of the new prophets and disciples of Jesus, sir. These men who authored NT were not using words from the GENTILE milieu. They were using the best correlation to the HEBREW mother tongue terms. "Theos" was not what a Greek Gentile knew but YHWH Elohim, the One True God. "Lord" and "Adonai" and "son of God" and "son of man (Adam)" and "Lamb of God" and even "prophets" and "rabbis or didaskale" or any FOUNDATIONS of religion itself in religious language and communication were all INFORMED by the OT language of the People Blessed. The Israelite Nation. Blessed by the very INSPIRATION of the One True God and blessed by the MOTHER TONGUE of Truth and Revelation.

They the common MAN did not initially have to know the correlations to Source Terminology. But it was their responsibility to LEARN these if they wanted to be trained as em, rabbis and teachers and preachers and evangelists.

As it is for you, sir.

Where is the record of all or a majority of the native Greek speaking gentiles in Rome. Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae,Thessalonika, etc. who had no prior contact with the O.T., being taught all of these things which you have listed?

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Wgw said:
There are a number of problems with this, however, I am going to criticize it on the basis of Judeocentrism. Judaism in the first century was not what it should have been, according to our Lord, with His criticisms of scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and indeed his crucifixiom by the Sadducean high priest. Now a signifigant number of Jews did embrace Christianity, so this is not an anti-Semitic perspective but rather a perspective critical of first century Judaism as a proper continuation of more ancient forms of Judaism and the divine faith of Noah, Abraham and Moses.

However, the fact is that Greeks and Hellenic Jews were among the most enthusiastic converts to early Christianity, for example, the admirable cult of the unknown god, which had rejected the Pagan religion and awaited illumination, which was provided by St. Paul.

Paul did have a linking polemic, linking the Unknown God to YHWH...and giving the known identity of HIS God to this unnamed God of the Greeks.

Consider this account starts thus in Athens. Acts 17

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

...and we see that Paul disputed with the Jews first in the synagogue.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

...and so the SETTING of Paul's sermon is not in a synagogue, but on Mars' Hill (Areopagus).
And he is not speaking to Jews rather IDOLATERS. Stoics and Epicureans included as.

And now we come to Checkmate and Game Over for you, sir. Paul explains first the GOD of the Hebrew nation and THEN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS as what? GOD? No, sir. Like I said, checkmate and game over for you, sir. Next time be CAREFUL the moves you make against YOUR OWN MASTER in theology and truth:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

...and who is HE sir? Singular HE for God. YHWH Elohim, who else?

Continuing:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

I will address the second half of your refute later. As for now your theology is completely shown as bogus and bereft.

Wgw · Nov 15, 2015

GDunn said:
Paul did have a linking polemic, linking the Unknown God to YHWH...and giving the known identity of HIS God to this unnamed God of the Greeks.

Consider this account starts thus in Athens. Acts 17

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

...and we see that Paul disputed with the Jews first in the synagogue.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

...and so the SETTING of Paul's sermon is not in a synagogue, but on Mars' Hill (Areopagus).
And he is not speaking to Jews rather IDOLATERS. Stoics and Epicureans included as.

And now we come to Checkmate and Game Over for you, sir. Paul explains first the GOD of the Hebrew nation and THEN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS as what? GOD? No, sir. Like I said, checkmate and game over for you, sir. Next time be CAREFUL the moves you make against YOUR OWN MASTER in theology and truth:

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

...and who is HE sir? Singular HE for God. YHWH Elohim, who else?

Continuing:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

I will address the second half of your refute later. As for now your theology is completely shown as bogus and bereft.

What is bogus is the idea that referring to God as He, which all Trinitarian Christians do, somehow refutes Trinitarianism. This eisegesis of yours from the singular "He" smacks of desperation. Particularly given your rejection of Matthew 28:19, et cetera.

The reality is that Unitarianism is demonstrably unscriptural (see John 1:1-14 and other texts), whereas proof texts cited by Unitarians merely refute tritheism, which we also reject. It's essentially an eisegetical strawman.

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Der Alter said:
How do you know what are "obviously later redactions?" How do you know which are the "original Greek manuscripts?

When Jesus said "jot and tittle" it does not refer to vowel point which were added about 700 years later. The "jot' is the letter "yod," י, the "tittle" is the little "horn" which distinguishes similar looking letters, e.g. Tau ת and heth ח, zayin ז and waw ו , kaph כ and beth ב, resh ר and daleth ד.
You are correct "The Hebrew informs the Aramaic and Greek." Please explain how that works when the manuscripts of the NT came to the native Greek speaking gentile Christians in Rome. Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae,Thessalonika, etc. who had no prior knowledge of the OT. Even if they had the LXX that would not inform them of the Hebrew behind the LXX. And there is no record of all the gentiles being taught Hebrew or having the Hebrew scriptures.

There is record in Acts during the Jerusalem Council over circumcision:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And the further the cities were from the Jerusalem Temple...the more that infiltrations of oddball heresy were able to proliferate.
Jesus himself TARRIES there for what reason? He LIKED the priests and rabbis there? He HOPED to become one himself? Was it not to learn Hebrew as was spoken in the Temple of Jerusalem? Was it not to hear and know the Word of God from the mother tongue?
Was he the Blessed One in any way learning ANYTHING from your POV since he is God? How would he then GROW in stature and wisdom, sir? Luke 2:52.

ALEXANDRIA was the hotbed of nuevo HERESY. And they did in fact manage to compromise our own faith.

GDunn · Nov 15, 2015

Wgw said:
What is bogus is the idea that referring to God as He, which all Trinitarian Christians do, somehow refutes Trinitarianism. This eisegesis of yours from the singular "He" smacks of desperation. Particularly given your rejection of Matthew 28:19, et cetera.

Desparation is the gaffing OFF of the almost 11,000 SINGULAR pronouns and verbs attributed to God, whether Hebrew or Koine. OF COURSE the number of PERSONS are deliniated by this SINGULAR MEANING.

YOUR GOD is a We, Us, Them, Theirs, Ours, and themselves. INDEED, Genesis 1:26 is a so-called PROOF TEXT for you showing that God is such. BURIED by the 11,000 with only SIX possible PLURAL pronouns in four verses extant in OT.

There is in fact NO REASON why God is expressed as or would express HIMself as HE, when the ACCURATE rendition is in fact for you WE. OR rather alternately God WOULD express THEMselves as a WE instead of a HE if HIS persons are plural.

GOMER argument and to the max, daddy. You PRETEND you are an adult and you are the EMPEROR without any skivvies on.

The reality is that Unitarianism is demonstrably unscriptural (see John 1:1-14 and other texts), whereas proof texts cited by Unitarians merely refute tritheism, which we also reject. It's essentially an eisegetical strawman.

Haw. You are only drawing the line in the sand, sir. Closet tritheist is WHAT YOU ARE, sir. Come out come out wherever you may be. I am OUTING you and yours sir.

Jesus Is God! This Is Crystal Clear!

Pray For Brussels!

Zaqunraah

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Pray For Brussels!

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads