Universalism...why not?

ClementofA · Jul 11, 2017

Der Alter said:
Irrelevant argument. Jesus is not here, neither are the disciples, therefore it is irrelevant what or who anyone followed at that time.

Who did the 12 follow, Jesus or those (Pharisees, Sadducees & scribes) with "qualifications"?

"Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” which was their false teaching (Matt. 16:6,12)."

The Pharisees taught everlasting torments.

"Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14). Jesus said re the Pharisees: "...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.15:8-9)

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13)

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'" (Matthew 23:16)

"Woe to you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52)

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. 9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

Student: What is a theological cemetery?
MASTER: An institution of higher learning, approved of men.
Student: What's buried there?
Master: The truth of God.

1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, 2 in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;"
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things command and teach.

1 Corinthians 1:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Jn.14:6)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (Jn.16:13a)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

Dartman · Jul 11, 2017

BUMP FOR ClementofA.

Dartman said:
The only way to convince me is with Scripture.

So far, you haven't provided even one passage that explains your theory. Not ONE text that list a 3rd result of resurrection. We know one = Life, and the other = condemnation/burned up/death/destroyed/ashes ..... where is YOUR theoretical resurrection to "second chance"????

Could you please either admit there isn't one, or provide one?

benelchi · Jul 11, 2017

ClementofA said:
Early Church Fathers who believed in universalism knew Greek as well. Likewise with modern day scholar universalists.

Secondly, you want me to blindly believe your sources? Why? What argument have they presented for their position? None at all. Where have they refuted anything i posted? Nowhere.

Thirdly, scholars don't even agree with one another on many things.

"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."

"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.

I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory

1 Corinthians 1:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Jn.14:6)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (Jn.16:13a)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

I see that you present the views of the early church just as accurately as you did the references from the Greek Lexicons.

ClementofA · Jul 11, 2017

Dartman said:
BUMP FOR ClementofA.

There's no need to keep continually bumping your posts. I've seen them. If i find they are worth my time i will answer them along with the others who've responded to my posts.

Dartman · Jul 11, 2017

ClementofA said:
Dartman said:

BUMP FOR ClementofA! The only way to convince me is with Scripture.

So far, you haven't provided even one passage that explains your theory. Not ONE text that list a 3rd result of resurrection. We know one = Life, and the other = condemnation/burned up/death/destroyed/ashes ..... where is YOUR theoretical resurrection to "second chance"????

Click to expand...

There's no need to keep continually bumping your posts. I've seen them. If i find they are worth my time i will answer them along with the others who've responded to my posts.

I don't mind the effort, even if you refuse to answer. I don't perceive any element of "seeking" in your replies, and therefore I view our exchanges more as an opportunity to show the weakness of the universalist's position to any objective reader. In "BUMPING" posts you cannot answer, it underscores those weaknesses, which furthers the truth.
Specifically in THIS case, my "BUMP" reminded those readers that no universalist has EVER ... presented a text that explains the theory.

ClementofA · Jul 11, 2017

Dartman said:
The only way to convince me is with Scripture.

For those who cannot understand logic & call the logical illogical, appealing to Scripture may be pointless.

ClementofA · Jul 11, 2017

Dartman said:
No.
It is the same kind of tree, as identified by it's previous use. There is no more need on God's perfected earth, since there is no more curse (Rev 22:3).

What previous use?

Regardless, the tree of life comes with New Jerusalem (Rev.21 & 22), so the leaves are for healing of the people who will live there. Therefore, as i posted:

Rev.21:5a And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”

Is "all" already made completely new (21:5), immortal & incorruptible when nations still need healing from the leaves of trees (22:2; Ezek.47:12)? Has death and reigning been abolished (1 Cor.15:24-26) while reigning continues (22:3-5 & 21:23,24)?

Dartman said:
There is nothing in EITHER passage about the end of "reigning"!

Then cometh the end [order], WHEN He shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; WHEN He shall have abolished ALL rule and ALL authority and power. For He must reign TILL He hath put all His enemies under His feet. THE LAST ENEMY THAT SHALL BE ABOLISHED IS DEATH. (1 Cor. 15:22-26, R.V.).

AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive (1 Cor.15:22)

1 Cor 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
For those who cannot understand logic & call the logical illogical, appealing to Scripture may be pointless.

You wouldn't know, since you haven't even attempted to provide ONE Scripture that explains your theory..... in spite of my repeated "BUMPS" requesting such Scripture.

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
What previous use?

The use in the Millennium explained in
Ezek 47:8-14 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.
13 Thus saith the Lord God; This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions.
14 And ye shall inherit it, one as well as another: concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it unto your fathers: and this land shall fall unto you for inheritance.

The borders described, and the restoration of the 12 tribes that inherit those portions, PROVE that this prophecy is a future event. NOTHING like this has happened yet. This is during Christ's 1,000 year reign.

ClementofA said:
Regardless, the tree of life comes with New Jerusalem (Rev.21 & 22), so the leaves are for healing of the people who will live there.

The trees of life are here before the holy city New Jerusalem. And, they are in the holy city. You have NO evidence they "come with" the city... other than your assumption.

Der Alte · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
My response was in the next post, 1042. ...

Wrong! Saying essentially "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" is not a reasoned response.

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Der Alter said:
Wrong! Saying essentially "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" is not a reasoned response.

That opinion does not ring as being truly objective. Just a hunch ;

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Dartman said:
You wouldn't know, since you haven't even attempted to provide ONE Scripture that explains your theory..... in spite of my repeated "BUMPS" requesting such Scripture.

I've posted many scripture passages that prove what i believe is biblical.

Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated out of existence, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine who abandons forever the beings He created in His image & likeness so easily.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
Dartman said:

You wouldn't know, since you haven't even attempted to provide ONE Scripture that explains your theory..... in spite of my repeated "BUMPS" requesting such Scripture.

Click to expand...

I've posted many scripture passages that prove what i believe is biblical.

Did you really think no one would notice you reworded my request?
I specifically requested; ONE Scripture that explains your theory. You have never provided even one .... and we both know why. None exist.

No one is surprised that it is your opinion that the Scriptures you posted "prove" what you believe is biblical.

ClementofA said:
Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated out of existence, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine who abandons forever the beings He created in His image & likeness so easily.

Your argument here doesn't make sense on multiple levels!
1) You are making a case for a WORSE punishment than stoning. What do you think that "worse" punishment is?? And, how does a WORSE punishment fulfill your "Love Omnipotent" theory??
2) Your assumption that God causing the wicked to cease to exist is "monstrous" has zero Scriptural support.... and the fact that you see it as "monstrous" would VERY handily fulfill "much sorer punishment".... which makes your points contradictory!
On the one hand you are demanding "MUCH worse"... on the other hand you are complaining it is TOO "MUCH worse"!

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Dartman said:
Did you really think no one would notice you reworded my request?
I specifically requested; ONE Scripture that explains your theory. You have never provided even one .... and we both know why. None exist.

You complain because i gave you more than one scripture supporting what you call "my theory", whatever that is supposed to refer to, since you didn't state what it is. How would anyone know, especially if they haven't been following the conversation.

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Dartman said:
Your argument here doesn't make sense on multiple levels!
1) You are making a case for a WORSE punishment than stoning. What do you think that "worse" punishment is?? And, how does a WORSE punishment fulfill your "Love Omnipotent" theory??
2) Your assumption that God causing the wicked to cease to exist is "monstrous" has zero Scriptural support.... and the fact that you see it as "monstrous" would VERY handily fulfill "much sorer punishment".... which makes your points contradictory!
On the one hand you are demanding "MUCH worse"... on the other hand you are complaining it is TOO "MUCH worse"!

1. My argument doesn't require that i state what the punishment is. But only what i've told you already. Hence your point number 1 is irrelevant & does not support your claim about it not making sense. What didn't you understand? No one else has had a problem comprehending it.

2. There is no contradiction. The passage speaks of a sore punishment (death by stoning) & implies a sorer punishment for Christ rejectors. Like i said:

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated out of existence, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine who abandons forever the beings He created in His image & likeness so easily.

P.S. are you going to respond to the subject of reigning in post 1511?

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
Dartman said:

Did you really think no one would notice you reworded my request?
I specifically requested; ONE Scripture that explains your theory. You have never provided even one .... and we both know why. None exist.

Click to expand...

You complain because i gave you more than one scripture supporting what you call "my theory", whatever that is supposed to refer to, since you never stated what it is. How would anyone know, especially if they haven't been following the conversation.

1) It's YOUR theory, I have no obligation to state your theory for you.
2) Again, you reword my request. I specifically requested "Scripture that explains your theory."
3) Your reply is merely stalling. You KNOW there is no "Scripture that explains your theory", and by contrast there are MANY that explain the judgment, and subsequent destruction, "burned up", death, "ashes", the entire separation of the the righteous and wicked, and subsequent throwing them in the lake of fire. Your theory amounts to a groundless contradiction of a major theme of the Scriptures;
Eccl 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
Then cometh the end [order], WHEN He shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; WHEN He shall have abolished ALL rule and ALL authority and power. For He must reign TILL He hath put all His enemies under His feet. THE LAST ENEMY THAT SHALL BE ABOLISHED IS DEATH. (1 Cor. 15:22-26, R.V.).

AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive (1 Cor.15:22)

1 Cor 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

There is nothing in this text that supports your theory that "reigning" ends. In stead, Jesus "reigns" until his God places all enemies under Christ's feet, which takes more than 1,000 years, and then Jesus turns the "reigning" over to his God.

Dartman · Jul 12, 2017

ClementofA said:
Dartman said:

Your argument here doesn't make sense on multiple levels!
1) You are making a case for a WORSE punishment than stoning. What do you think that "worse" punishment is?? And, how does a WORSE punishment fulfill your "Love Omnipotent" theory??
2) Your assumption that God causing the wicked to cease to exist is "monstrous" has zero Scriptural support.... and the fact that you see it as "monstrous" would VERY handily fulfill "much sorer punishment".... which makes your points contradictory!
On the one hand you are demanding "MUCH worse"... on the other hand you are complaining it is TOO "MUCH worse"!

Click to expand...

1. My argument doesn't require that i state what the punishment is. But only what i've told you already. Hence your point number 1 is irrelevant & does not support your claim about it not making sense. What didn't you understand? No one else has had a problem comprehending it.

Why are you refusing to state this "WORSE" punishment? And, why won't you answer the question: "how does a WORSE punishment fulfill your "Love Omnipotent" theory??" THESE questions illustrate what "doesn't make sense on multiple levels".

ClementofA said:
2. There is no contradiction. The passage speaks of a sore punishment (death by stoning) & implies a sorer punishment for Christ rejectors.

Your acknowledgment that Hebrews proves there are worse punishments than mere stoning, but this contradicts your "Love Omnipotent" theory. You are going to have to do better than just deny the obvious, you are going to have to actually answer the questions.

ClementofA said:
Like i said:

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated out of existence, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death.

This statement is pure speculation, and is therefore an attempt to reason away the actual statement of the passage.
Heb 10:30-31 For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Dartman said:
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Paul's argument logiclally leads to; those without Christ Jesus will receive endless annihilation!

Actually, "no hope" means "no hope". The passage does not say even one being "will recieve endless annihilation". In fact, it doesn't even mention the subject at all. That's what you've added to it.

If someone has "no hope" they will live until tomorrow, that doesn't mean they won't. If God has predetermined that they will live, then they will live. Whatever they hope or don't hope won't stop God from doing what He is going to do.

Dartman said:
Mal 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.

We know this CANNOT be something fulfilled in the past, since it is discussing the destruction of "all the proud, and all that work wickedness"... and it describes the righteous as being healed, and rejoicing, treading down the ashes of the wicked on "the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts".

What "day" is Mal.4:1 referring to?

Does "all the proud" refer to every proud person that ever lived? Or only some of them?

Does "burn them up" mean endless annihilation? No.

ClementofA · Jul 12, 2017

Dartman said:
1) It's YOUR theory, I have no obligation to state your theory for you.
2) Again, you reword my request. I specifically requested "Scripture that explains your theory."
3) Your reply is merely stalling. You KNOW there is no "Scripture that explains your theory", and by contrast there are MANY that explain the judgment, and subsequent destruction, "burned up", death, "ashes", the entire separation of the the righteous and wicked, and subsequent throwing them in the lake of fire. Your theory amounts to a groundless contradiction of a major theme of the Scriptures;

1. What theory?

2. See 1

3. You don't know what i am thinking, will be thinking or have thought. All you have to go on are a few words on a screen. Neither do you know what i know, will know or have known. You are not a mind reader. Neither can you read the hearts of men. You are not omniscient. And you are wrong.

You haven't provided a single scripture that supports endless annihilation. I've responded to every relevant verse you've posted in context with a scripture reference, unlike your above out of context quotes without references.

Universalism...why not?

Which is it?

God doesn't want all men to be saved.

God can't do what he wants to do.

Neither, God will continue to work on unrepentant souls because his love & patience are unending.

Don't know...never thought about this before.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

INACTIVE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency