Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

The New Testament

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Spiral Out » May 11th, 2014, 5:07 pm

Ruskin wrote:That's just Freudian deconstructionism/psycho-analysis but what I gave you there was some authentic ancient wisdom from countless tens thousands of years ago there's no contest there.
According to your bible, Humans didn't exist "tens thousands of years ago". So you're right, no contest there.
Ruskin wrote:That's a fine explanation if you're dismissing the trinity for reasons of personal belief, you're in the same camp as the Muslims on this specific issue btw.
I'm not dismissing the trinity as I have no reason to, given that I have no agenda and nothing to defend ideologically. What I'm actually doing is offering an alternate explanation for the concept of the trinity that has just as much, if not more reason and logic to back it up than yours.
Ruskin wrote:The Holy Spirit is meant to be female though not many people know anything about that.
Makes no difference. The trinity was derived from Human sexual anatomy. Humans understood this long before the advent of religious concepts, and being that Human anatomy is real and religious concepts are just concepts that must derive from the real, it follows that my explanation is justified.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

edelker
Posts: 1184
Joined: June 10th, 2009, 2:27 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by edelker » May 12th, 2014, 5:10 pm

Eugene wrote,

“Absolutely. Anything that persists unchanged over generations must be sustained by a force that transcends generations, time, if you will. We know this is true because things that are not sustained, die.

Your opposition is sustained by the same power that sustained opposition to Jesus from the moment that power became cognisant of the details of his arrival. This is all explained in the Book, edelker.”


Ah, yes! The devil (and/or sin) made me do it! LOL!


Or, it could be the case that the Devil invented your religion and Islam is true or Judaism is true, or, dare I suggest it, that those who think that culture invents and preserves such religious notions are correct. After all, cultural forces do transcend generations and can fully explain why theological phenomena last for centuries and millennia.


So, NO, again, your Book doesn’t give an account for how one can know that Christianity is true over and against other religious claims without invoking one’s already held beliefs about such things being true regardless--nor does your book even consider sociology at all (because that discipline came long after that book had finally been edited), let alone does it discuss and show how we may rightly dismiss the notion that cultural institutions can last thousands of years without the aid of some grand invisible supernatural magical being.



Eric D.

Ruskin
Posts: 1573
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 2:18 pm

Re: The New Testament

Post by Ruskin » May 12th, 2014, 5:47 pm

Spiral Out wrote:
According to your bible, Humans didn't exist "tens thousands of years ago". So you're right, no contest there.

We don't really take all that literally these days, well some people do but they're reacting against people like yourself people who claim that there is no God and that the Bible has a basis in nothing but folktale and myth. Of course you're perfectly entitled to think this but you are wrong and you will be proved to be wrong whether you like it or not. If God is real then he is real and what people like yourself will say will change nothing of the eternal reality.


I have no agenda and nothing to defend ideologically.

You may have been socially conditioned to believe you don't but that's not the same thing as not having an agenda or ideology you just have one you aren't fully about. I'm fully aware of my agenda and ideology so that's something I have over you there.


What I'm actually doing is offering an alternate explanation for the concept of the trinity that has just as much, if not more reason and logic to back it up than yours.

More reason within your atheist worldview where God doesn't exist and the universe just comes out of nothing and exists for no reason or purpose at all. Thing is I don't share your worldview so why would I buy into your Freudian deconstructionism? It's not like I'm unaware of this kind of thinking regarding faith in God as I have had equally as much exposure to it as yourself, I'm just not going to buy into it as a fact, it's merely a belief and not one that can't be attacked on grounds of reason.


Makes no difference. The trinity was derived from Human sexual anatomy.
It doesn't mean that's what it simply is the thing about these beliefs is representational symbolism is often used there are deeper meanings and layers behind it. What you're looking at is a polarity.


"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

So we can say God is both male and female and from this there is a third element of the Creation itself this forms a Trinity.


Humans understood this long before the advent of religious concepts, and being that Human anatomy is real and religious concepts are just concepts that must derive from the real, it follows that my explanation is justified.

They're just concepts to you and only basis in reality must be natural, physical and psychological things. But this is your opinion which in my opinion is shortsighted. This is a valid disagreement we can have but one of us is going to be entirely 100% foolishly wrong who that will be no-one can know for sure, but it's you.

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 12th, 2014, 11:39 pm

So we can say...this forms a Trinity.
By 'we', I take it you mean only you!

As I get it from 'Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?', your are interpretation is proved wrong by your own book.
This is a valid disagreement we can have but one of us is going to be entirely 100% foolishly wrong who that will be no-one can know for sure, but it's you.
Why this constant need to insult and downgrade the one not agreeing with you? Is it that hard to be civilised and courteous?

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 13th, 2014, 1:46 am

Daviddunn wrote:enegue said:
No one is disputing the authenticity of those verses. So, 1 John 5:7-8 is likely to be authentic too because the verses logically follow what John is talking about.

As I have read the whole article, I can witness, New testament scholars and theology professors disputing the authenticity of the bible. 'Is likely to be authentic', are you not sure??
How sure is anyone of anything that has come to us from the past? If scholars are casting doubt upon certain parts of the text, then they have their reasons that persuade them, but for me, from a literary standpoint (because I have no other expertise), it is likely that the text is just as authentic as the verse before (6) and the two verses after (9,10), which are not in dispute. Together verses 6 through 10 present John's understanding of the three aspects of the Divine Being known as the Trinity, which he refers to as WITNESSES.
Daviddunn wrote:Whatever you understand by 'logic' is something that bewilders me! If someone puts forward his case that the bible remained unchanged, he should check his facts first, and not try to force lies down the throat of those who think rationalIy. I rest my case.
Your case is weak David because you have NO ANCIENT TEXT that represents the original "untampered with" text. So, you just say "stuff" without evidence because you dislike the term "Trinity". Whatever your motivation, the OPINIONS of experts weighs MUCH MORE LIGHTLY than possession of THE TEXT.

What is not logical, is reacting to being told things you don't like, by suggesting the people who are telling you, are liars and frauds.

Cheers,
enegue

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 13th, 2014, 10:48 am

How sure is anyone of anything that has come to us from the past?
So you are not sure of your book? But yet you say that it remained unchanged for generations!
If scholars are casting doubt upon certain parts of the text, then they have their reasons that persuade them
The scholars are not casting doubt, they are categoric, the bible was tampered with, and they provided the ground for their categoric assertion. May be I should repost the whole thing, and bolding the important statements:
Some Bible translators of past centuries were so zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity in the Scriptures that they literally added it. A case in point is 1 John:5:7-8.

It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some other versions read essentially the same.

Most Bible commentaries that mention this addition tell us that it is a spurious comment added to the biblical text. Consider the words of The New Bible Commentary: Revised: "Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins" (1970, p. 1269).

In the New Revised Standard Version, 1 John:5:7-8 correctly and more concisely reads, "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." John personifies the three elements here as providing testimony, just as Solomon personified wisdom in the book of Proverbs.

Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament. 

"The textual evidence is against 1 John:5:7," explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate" ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

The Expositor's Bible Commentary also dismisses the King James and New King James Versions' additions in 1 John:5:7-8 as "obviously a late gloss with no merit" (Glenn Barker, Vol. 12, 1981, p. 353).

Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] .  .  . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]" (p. 1038).

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it" (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).

Still, even the added wording does not by itself proclaim the Trinity doctrine. The addition, illegitimate though it is, merely presents Father, Word and Holy Spirit as witnesses. This says nothing about the personhood of all three since verse 7 shows inanimate water and blood serving as such.Again, the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until after the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, several centuries after the last books of the New Testament were complete. It is not a biblical concept.
Your case is weak David because you have NO ANCIENT TEXT that represents the original "untampered with" text.
If there is no 'ancient text', from what have you been quoting so often? An approximation, an assumption?? In the article I quoted, 'ancient texts' are mentioned by the scholars. Let me re quote, so that there is no ambiguity in your mind:
"The textual evidence is against 1 John:5:7," explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate" ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).
Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] .  .  . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]" (p. 1038).
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it" (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).
This is very clear for me, and 'ancient texts' are explicitly mentioned.
the OPINIONS of experts weighs MUCH MORE LIGHTLY than possession of THE TEXT.
If opinions of experts weighs 'much more lightly' as you suggests, what does you opinions weighs? You quote the bible very often! But as showed by the experts, there are 'ancient texts' where this 'trinity verse' is not present.
What is not logical, is reacting to being told things you don't like, by suggesting the people who are telling you, are liars and frauds.
What is a fraud, is giving opinions when one has not made research and study beforehand!

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 13th, 2014, 12:17 pm

Daviddunn wrote:If there is no 'ancient text', from what have you been quoting so often? An approximation, an assumption??
David. YOU have no ancient text that says verses 7 and 8 should not be there. You may have ancient texts where they are missing, but your preference for those texts over the ones that include them is not driven by logic, but by desire.

What is motivating your desire to argue that they shouldn't be included? How is it profitable to you? When you have answered those, then ask yourself what is the motivation that causes you to enter into a discussion in order to persuade people that they should reject the authenticity of the verses?

Cheers,
enegue

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 13th, 2014, 12:41 pm

David. YOU have no ancient text that says verses 7 and 8 should not be there. You may have ancient texts where they are missing, but your preference for those texts over the ones that include them is not driven by logic, but by desire.
What are you talking about?? Pick and choose, and forget the rest?? No, this is not my method. My previous post showed, contrary to your non-expert opinions, that the bible was tampered with, according to new testament expert statements backed by proof and references. This is the issue. I re quote again, bacause you seem to have miss this part:
Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).
Can one who uses logic and considers facts say that the bible remain unchanged since the first century AD? I do not think so. Otherwise, I call him/her a liar and a fraud.

-- Updated May 13th, 2014, 12:16 pm to add the following --
What is motivating your desire to argue that they shouldn't be included? How is it profitable to you? When you have answered those, then ask yourself what is the motivation that causes you to enter into a discussion in order to persuade people that they should reject the authenticity of the verses?
This attempt to divert attention from the facts and expert statements, to the one presenting the argument is a logical fallacy called ad hominem.
wikipedia wrote:An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]
On a philosophical site as the present one, such eluding tactics is very transparent. It says much about the position of the one resorting to such schemes!

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 14th, 2014, 6:47 am

Daviddunn wrote:Can one who uses logic and considers facts say that the bible remain unchanged since the first century AD? I do not think so. Otherwise, I call him/her a liar and a fraud.
Of course they have changed. But, you're only thinking in one direction, David - corruption. It is clear to me that scholars have distilled from all the data available, the closest and best renderings of the original documents, to date.

Follow this link to the BlueLetter Bible search of Strong's G3140 - martyreō. If you cast you eyes to the right of the page you will see that St John uses the word 31 times in his Gospel AND 7 times in his first letter. Of the 7 occurrences in 1 John, 5 of them occur in the 5 verses of 1 John 5:6-10. You'd honestly have to be blind Freddy not to see that there is nothing inconsistent about verses 7 and 8 being left as they are.

If you open the links in St John's Gospel and locate John 5:31-37 and John 8:13-20, you will find Jesus talking to the religious leaders about the Father bearing witness to the Son in the same way John does in his letter, and also this:
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify (G3140) of me:"
-- John 15:26

David, it is abundantly clear that 1 John 5:7,8 is not at all alien to St John's thought processes in the passage 1 John 5:6-10, and the verses only confirm what Jesus had already said about the Father, the Spirit and himself.

BTW, are you a Christian?

Cheers,
enegue

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 14th, 2014, 10:54 pm

Of course they have changed.
The bible as the know it today was changed by man. We agree here.
But, you're only thinking in one direction, David - corruption
If in its original form, The Bible was from God, then whatever change man brings to it can be no other than corruption. Otherwise, one will have to think that man can perfect the words of God, and it is utter nonsense to think that man can perfect the creation of God. As verified by the trinity concept, the bible was corrupted.
Scholars wrote:Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).
You'd honestly have to be blind Freddy not to see that there is nothing inconsistent about verses 7 and 8 being left as they are.
I am not a scholar, and neither are you as you admitted before, so it will not be wise of us to judge about these important matters. Moreover, it will be very unwise for laymen like us, to go against the unanimous judgements of the scholars. If the scholars say the trinity is nowhere to be found in the bible, and it was an added concept by some enterprising person or persons, then it is better to listen.

If I want an opinion about my health state, I go to a medical practioner. If I need a legal advise, I go to a legal practitioner. If I want an opinion concerning a particular branch of study, I seek scholars and expert advise. I do not consult 'Freddy'!

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 15th, 2014, 2:53 am

Daviddunn wrote:enegue said:
Of course they have changed.


The bible as the know it today was changed by man. We agree here.
No, I don't think we do agree. You are clearly suggesting that people deliberately tampered with the text of the Bible to deceive people. I am suggesting that DIFFERENCES appeared because people are by nature, imperfect. However, there has clearly been external oversight of the publication and distribution of God's word because MOST OF THE DIFFERENCES ARE MINOR.
Daviddunn wrote:enegue said:
But, you're only thinking in one direction, David - corruption


If in its original form, The Bible was from God, then whatever change man brings to it can be no other than corruption.
David, if you truly believe the Bible is from God, then you also must believe that He would not allow it to see corruption. YOUR belief that what we have today is in any way a significant departure from the original text is an idea that places Man above God.
Daviddunn wrote:enegue said:
You'd honestly have to be blind Freddy not to see that there is nothing inconsistent about verses 7 and 8 being left as they are.


I am not a scholar, and neither are you as you admitted before, so it will not be wise of us to judge about these important matters. Moreover, it will be very unwise for laymen like us, to go against the unanimous judgements of the scholars.
You are happy to align yourself with PARTICULAR scholarship because it supports what you prefer to believe. Did you try looking for reviews of the Hanson brothers' book? I thought I would, just for fun, and I came across this, in which D. A. Carson, himself a scholar and theologian, says, "And their Logos doctrine (Logos is GOD-in·revelation) paves the way to a painfully sub-Biblical Christology and an unconvincing treatment of the Trinity."

I'm sure you could find an academic and scholar who will support pretty-well any position you want to take on an issue, but the bottom line is, they are men just like us and as prone to error as are we. It doesn't hurt to do you own study of these things as well, you know. You seem to me to be overly dependent on what scholars have to say and a little short on personal discovery.

I can see you are passionate about the Trinity doctrine, and maybe if you look as some of the ideas about the Trinity I have shared on the forum, you might see it in a different light.
Daviddunn wrote:If the scholars say the trinity is nowhere to be found in the bible, and it was an added concept by some enterprising person or persons, then it is better to listen.
By scholars your mean the ones who are saying what you prefer to hear. There are others who have different opinions. I have shared with you the reasons I FIND 1 John 5:7,8 likely to be authentic (not a deceitful insertion), and your appeal to scholars is not going to have much impact on what I have discovered, MYSELF, to be sensible.

You seem to have missed this question. Are you a Christian?

Cheers,
enegue

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 15th, 2014, 12:56 pm

You are happy to align yourself with PARTICULAR...
Without an express statement from me of my psychological state (happiness or otherwise), it would be an assumption of yours to claim that I am happy. More so, as I am communicating with you virtually!
By scholars your mean the ones who are saying what you prefer to hear.
Again, same thing. I have not told you about my preferences!

These ad hominem schemes are better avoided here in a serious exchange, otherwise we both lose in terms of time, and interest in sharing some thoughtful converstion between individuals who use intellect and consider facts.

If you agree for some serious philosophical exchange, let us forget these ad hominems, and others, and focus on the substance of your previous post. When we are finish with this, then if you are still willing we can get to know each other's preferences and personal beliefs.
You are clearly suggesting that people deliberately tampered with the text of the Bible to deceive people. 
David, if you truly believe the Bible is from God, then you also must believe that He would not allow it to see corruption.
New testament scholars opinions were provided, who based their claims on facts, and comparison of 'ancient texts' and their claims are well referenced in the article previously provided. These claims are not from isolated individuals, but a consensus among the scholars as one can see by the wide range of scholars involved and mentioned.
You seem to me to be overly dependent on what scholars have to say and a little short on personal discovery.
Don't you?
From where does the biblical references that you often make, comes from? Does it come from a bible? And you quote in english. Was the early bible already in english, or were they translated into english from another language? Who translated the early bible into english?? Scholars! At a foundational level you need scholars, do not shoot at them! If you want to be a scholar, you will need other scholars! Not easy to do without them!
and your appeal to scholars is not going to have much impact on what I have discovered, MYSELF, to be sensible.
As you said, we are prone to errors. May be you can get the scholars to examine your discovery, and put their expertise to the benefit of knowledge. But until then, it is better to keep to established facts.

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 15th, 2014, 10:24 pm

David,

Are you a Christian?

Cheers,
enegue

Daviddunn
Posts: 482
Joined: January 26th, 2013, 3:11 am

Re: The New Testament

Post by Daviddunn » May 15th, 2014, 11:02 pm

Hello enegue.

I am not christian. You can check my thread to know more about my beliefs. onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... b42f24ce18

enegue
Posts: 1950
Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: God
Location: Australia

Re: The New Testament

Post by enegue » May 16th, 2014, 1:02 am

Daviddunn wrote:Hello enegue.

I am not christian. You can check my thread to know more about my beliefs. onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... b42f24ce18
Right. You are a Muslim, then.

Cheers,
enegue

Post Reply