Jump to content

The Authentic Paul


minsocal
 Share

Recommended Posts

A growing body of research now indicates that not all of the letters of Paul are authentic. The style and content are simply too different to have been written by the same person. It seems to be the case that some of the so-called "letters" of Paul were written to discredit his authentic message of radical egalitarianism, the same message Jesus taught.

 

The theme of radical egalitarianism is linked to the theme of unconditional love. You simply cannot have unconditional love and exclude others based on 'sin', the terms just do not work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deutero-Pauline letters:

<h1 class="parseasinTitle">Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus </h1>This is why studying culture is so important when studying the bible. At this time it was perfectly acceptable to sign someone else's name to a document to "honor" them, or something along those lines... This is what was likely done with the 6 letters listed above. Content, writing style, historical events, theological changes, and language all point toward at least one author who is most definitely not the same author as the rest of the letters signed by Paul. I guess that was not "revealed" to those who canonized the New Testament *ahem* :blink: If there is a judgment day, Conservatives and Fundamentalists are going to be in BIG trouble. They better hope that when they die, that is the end... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A growing body of research now indicates that not all of the letters of Paul are authentic. The style and content are simply too different to have been written by the same person. It seems to be the case that some of the so-called "letters" of Paul were written to discredit his authentic message of radical egalitarianism, the same message Jesus taught.

 

The theme of radical egalitarianism is linked to the theme of unconditional love. You simply cannot have unconditional love and exclude others based on 'sin', the terms just do not work together.

It's disturbing to think that you could be arguing that sin is inconsequential. That renders sin as a social construct, a 51% vote, statistical, situational, and essentially non-existent and a meaningless theory. Being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong. You wouldn't even be able to define either one. Morality would not exist. Moral (e)motions would be no more than pipe dreams.

Go and sin no more.

 

 

Deutero-Pauline letters:

<h1 class="parseasinTitle">Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus </h1>This is why studying culture is so important when studying the bible. At this time it was perfectly acceptable to sign someone else's name to a document to "honor" them, or something along those lines... This is what was likely done with the 6 letters listed above. Content, writing style, historical events, theological changes, and language all point toward at least one author who is most definitely not the same author as the rest of the letters signed by Paul. I guess that was not "revealed" to those who canonized the New Testament *ahem* :blink: If there is a judgment day, Conservatives and Fundamentalists are going to be in BIG trouble. They better hope that when they die, that is the end... :P

It is more likely that Paul was the writer of these epistles than not. To some, it is unthinkable that this personal God could or would communicate to man on the basis of propositions. But in the Christian structure it is not surprising. Indeed, it is what one would expect. God made us communicators on the basis of verbalization, and given the possiblility of propositional, factual communication with each other, why should we think He would not communicate to us on the basis of verbalization and propositions? In the light of total Christian structure, it is totally reasonable. Propositional revelation is not even surprising, let alone unthinkable, within the Christian framework.

The personal God made us to be language communicators, to speak to each other in language- that is obviously what we are- so why is it surprising that God would speak to Paul on the Damascus Road? Do you think God doesn't know Hebrew? Equally, if the personal God is a good God, why should it be surprising, in communicating to man in a verbalized, propositional, factual way, that He should tell us the truth in all areas concerning what He communicates? It would surprise you only if you have been infiltrated by the presuppositions of uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, not being open to any propositional revelation from God. Then, of course, it would be impossible.

Which of the two sets of propositions really and empirically meets the facts as we look about us in this world? The answer rests on language. Christianity has no problem resting upon language in revelation. Two of the great names in modern epistemology, Hiedegger and Wittgenstein, both understand that the answer, in the area of modern epistemology, would be in the area of language; but they ultimately have no one there to speak.

Every human problem arises from man's trying to make something autonomous from God (ie; higher criticism). The inward areas of knowledge, and meaning, and values, and morals, are wrapped up and bound up by God as much as the outward world. As the Christian grows spiritually, he should be a person who consciously, more and more, brings his thought world as well as his outward world under the norms of the Bible, the propositional revelation from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deutero-Pauline letters:

<h1 class="parseasinTitle">Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus </h1>This is why studying culture is so important when studying the bible. At this time it was perfectly acceptable to sign someone else's name to a document to "honor" them, or something along those lines... This is what was likely done with the 6 letters listed above. Content, writing style, historical events, theological changes, and language all point toward at least one author who is most definitely not the same author as the rest of the letters signed by Paul. I guess that was not "revealed" to those who canonized the New Testament *ahem* :blink: If there is a judgment day, Conservatives and Fundamentalists are going to be in BIG trouble. They better hope that when they die, that is the end... :P

 

Thank you for the list, you saved me some time. My interest in the subject shows up in a number of threads and it is difficult to pull all of the concepts together in one place. As far as I can tell, the "authentic" Paul, as noted in post # 1, was a radical egalitarian. This sets the stage for discussion concerning those concepts seemingly in conlfict with this position and yet attibuted to Paul. Along with a radical egalitartianism, it was Paul who emphasized love and faith over Greek rationalism.

 

On the other hand, it was also Paul who introduced the trinity (small "t") of mind, body, and soul into Christianity from Greek origins. Those familiar with the parallels with psychology will quickly see the relationship to Freud and his tripartite theory: Id = body, Ego = Mind, and then the debate over the word "soul".

 

This is where Jung entered the picture with the theory of introversion and extraversion. IMO, "soul" is a value concept. Introverts and extraverts find their values in different sources. Introverts derive them from internal sources and extraverts, as term implies, from external sources. Although Jung made this the centerpiece of his theory, he made it clear that Christianity has been pushed and pulled by the tension between the two worldviews since the time of Paul, hinting that the tension has existed since creation, and not something that happened later.

 

My opinion is that the vairious letters attributed to Paul represent this very tension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
A growing body of research now indicates that not all of the letters of Paul are authentic.

 

I've even heard it rumored that different books of the Bible are not by the same Author! Ha ha! Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've even heard it rumored that different books of the Bible are not by the same Author! Ha ha! Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

With what consequences? There you have it. Name them? The real consequences upon real people here today and now.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
With what consequences? There you have it. Name them?

 

Hmmm. Two different creation accounts (one with man created before the animals and one with man created after the animals).

Some books say that God wants his people to kill his enemies. Other books say that God wants his people to love his enemies.

Some books say that God dwells in the tabernacle and in the temple. Other books say that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Some books say that what God really wants us to do is to love each other. Other books say that God wants us to kill each other.

Some books say that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Other books say that Jesus is God's Holy Jihad Warrior.

Some books say that there is no difference between men and women in Christ. Other books say that women should sit down and shut up.

Some books say that there are about 613 laws that need to be kept in order to be faithful to God. Other books say that those laws are obsolete.

Some books say that people are saved by the good works they do. Other books say that good works count for nothing before God.

Some books say that most people will go to hell. Other books say that God will redeem everyone.

Some books say that the earth is the Lord's. Other books say that Satan is the god of this world.

Some books say that we need to choose to follow God. Other books say that we have no choice, that God chooses us.

 

I think that's enough for now. For those who insist that the Bible has one Author, there sure are alot of differences and contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the "authentic" Paul, as noted in post # 1, was a radical egalitarian. This sets the stage for discussion concerning those concepts seemingly in conlfict with this position and yet attibuted to Paul. Along with a radical egalitartianism, it was Paul who emphasized love and faith over Greek rationalism.

 

On the other hand, it was also Paul who introduced the trinity (small "t") of mind, body, and soul into Christianity from Greek origins.

 

This is where Jung entered the picture with the theory of introversion and extraversion. IMO, "soul" is a value concept. Introverts and extraverts find their values in different sources. Introverts derive them from internal sources and extraverts, as term implies, from external sources. Although Jung made this the centerpiece of his theory, he made it clear that Christianity has been pushed and pulled by the tension between the two worldviews since the time of Paul, hinting that the tension has existed since creation, and not something that happened later.

 

My opinion is that the vairious letters attributed to Paul represent this very tension.

Minsocal,

I agree that Paul emphasized faith over rationalism. But that doesn not mean he thought faith was not rational.

 

Paul undoubtedly would have been familiar with Greek philosophy, which was trying to explain the way the universe actually was. The concept of the human trinity (effect) would only have meaning when the Creator (cause) was one first. It is the reasonable explanation. Paul did observe and say that all of creation gives evidence for the personal, infinite God. Man alone is a part of that creation made closest to God, in His image.

 

According to Carl Jung, introversion and extraversion refer to the direction of psychic energy. If a person’s psychic energy usually flows from the self outwards then he or she is an extravert, while if the energy usually flows inwards, the person is an introvert. However, most modern psychologists consider theories of psychic energy to be obsolete.

 

If you would, so I may better understand what it is you are trying to saying here, what do you mean by radical egalitarian(ism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Two different creation accounts (one with man created before the animals and one with man created after the animals).

Some books say that God wants his people to kill his enemies. Other books say that God wants his people to love his enemies.

Some books say that God dwells in the tabernacle and in the temple. Other books say that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Some books say that what God really wants us to do is to love each other. Other books say that God wants us to kill each other.

Some books say that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Other books say that Jesus is God's Holy Jihad Warrior.

Some books say that there is no difference between men and women in Christ. Other books say that women should sit down and shut up.

Some books say that there are about 613 laws that need to be kept in order to be faithful to God. Other books say that those laws are obsolete.

Some books say that people are saved by the good works they do. Other books say that good works count for nothing before God.

Some books say that most people will go to hell. Other books say that God will redeem everyone.

Some books say that the earth is the Lord's. Other books say that Satan is the god of this world.

Some books say that we need to choose to follow God. Other books say that we have no choice, that God chooses us.

 

I think that's enough for now. For those who insist that the Bible has one Author, there sure are alot of differences and contradictions.

 

Books? Even with a single book you see those contradictions. We are currently reading Isaiah in my Adult Sunday School Class and it is amazing just in the first section (we are on Chapter 34, 39 is the end of 1st Isaiah) what different pictures of God you get! We started in Genesis back in September of '06. It is an incredible collection of ancient literature. To see it as anything less is a pure shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
With what consequences? There you have it. Name them? The real consequences upon real people here today and now.

 

Hi Minsocal. I don't want to stray too far from the topic of this thread, so I'll just offer my thoughts in a very brief way:

>Some books say that God wants his people to kill his enemies. Other books say that God wants his people to love his enemies.

Our nations policy for preemptive war is based, at least under Bush, as going and killing our enemies in the name of God.

 

>Some books say that God dwells in the tabernacle and in the temple. Other books say that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Many churches are more focused on building huge, beautiful edifaces (because God lives there, it is God's house) rather than using their money to help "the least of these."

 

>Some books say that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Other books say that Jesus is God's Holy Jihad Warrior.

Probably more Christians have read the entire "Left Behind" series than have read the entire Bible. They expect Jesus to return and slay most of humanity. And we tend to become, in not in actions then in attitude, like the kind of God we worship.

 

>Some books say that there is no difference between men and women in Christ. Other books say that women should sit down and shut up.

Women are forbidden to the same roles in the church as men have available to them.

 

>Some books say that people are saved by the good works they do. Other books say that good works count for nothing before God.

There is a whole generation of Christians that believe that because they are saved by faith apart from any good works, that the only difference between them and "sinners" is that they are forgiven. And change of character, according to the "faith alone" paradigm, is inconsequential.

 

>Some books say that the earth is the Lord's. Other books say that Satan is the god of this world.

If the earth is the Lord's and we have a responsibility to care for it, then we should be "earth aware" and do what we can to be good stewards. But if it belongs to Satan, who cares about it? It's considered to be an evil thing that should be escaped from ("I'll Fly Away") rather than redeemed.

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
A growing body of research now indicates that not all of the letters of Paul are authentic.

 

Minsocal, is it just the writing style that makes scholars think that Paul's epistles come from different authors or are there doctrinal differences between Paul's letters that play a part in this?

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minsocal, is it just the writing style that makes scholars think that Paul's epistles come from different authors or are there doctrinal differences between Paul's letters that play a part in this?

 

bill

 

I have just begun reading this book after a review in my Adult Sunday School.

 

"The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon"

by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

 

 

"In this revolutionary follow-up to The Last Week and The First Christmas, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan once again use the best of biblical and historical scholarship to expose the church’s conspiracy to silence Jesus’s most faithful disciple, the apostle Paul. They reveal to a general audience what scholars have known for decades—that some of Paul’s letters in the New Testament were not written by him, but were written by later writers who sought to blunt the radical edge of Paul’s teachings, such as his confrontation with the Roman Empire and his commitment to radical equality and the full participation of women.

 

Paul’s later letters have been used to endorse slavery, subordinate women, and condemn homosexual behavior, but these passages were actually imposed by the early church to dilute Paul’s true radical egalitarian message and transform him into something more “acceptable.” The First Paul restores the life-changing message of the radical and authentic Paul—a voice that the church hierarchy did not want its followers to hear."

 

I ordered this book after watching a video with Crossan explaining the implications. Paul has never been very poplar with the progressives I know. It was interesting to note the changed opinions in my Adult Sunday School after watching the video.

 

A general theme that has been circulating trough some progressive communities is echoed in the title, that of reclaiming the symbols and icons of Christainity.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the idea of progressives reclaiming the symbols and icons of Christianity has been circulating for some time. I like the concept but many have asked "well, how do we do that"? Sorting out the intentions of those who wrote what we find in the Bible is a difficult task and the results are often controversial.

 

My main concern, however, is in the area of counteracting the negative psychological and social effects that result from the misinterpretation and misapplication of the Bible. The impact is far from irrelevant when the larger socio-historical perspective is considered. Currently, I am working my way through "The Foucault Reader" which is an assortment of commentaries by Michael Foucault including many observations concerning the impact of evolved Christian doctrines in diverse domains such as insane asylums and and sexuality.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
"In this revolutionary follow-up to The Last Week and The First Christmas, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan once again use the best of biblical and historical scholarship to expose the church’s conspiracy to silence Jesus’s most faithful disciple, the apostle Paul. They reveal to a general audience what scholars have known for decades—that some of Paul’s letters in the New Testament were not written by him, but were written by later writers who sought to blunt the radical edge of Paul’s teachings, such as his confrontation with the Roman Empire and his commitment to radical equality and the full participation of women.

 

Paul’s later letters have been used to endorse slavery, subordinate women, and condemn homosexual behavior, but these passages were actually imposed by the early church to dilute Paul’s true radical egalitarian message and transform him into something more “acceptable.” The First Paul restores the life-changing message of the radical and authentic Paul—a voice that the church hierarchy did not want its followers to hear."

 

I ordered this book after watching a video with Crossan explaining the implications. Paul has never been very poplar with the progressives I know. It was interesting to note the changed opinions in my Adult Sunday School after watching the video.

 

Wow, Minsocal, sounds like those could be some "hot potatoe" ideas for the Christian community. I'll have to look for the book. Was the video something from online or part of a series that you had to order?

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Minsocal, sounds like those could be some "hot potatoe" ideas for the Christian community. I'll have to look for the book. Was the video something from online or part of a series that you had to order?

 

bill

 

I will get you the source of the video.

 

Here is an interview with Crossan on the subject of Paul and the Roman Empire.

 

http://philosophyandscripture.org/JD_Crossan.pdf

 

"JPS: If we’re talking about a dialectic between scripture and philosophy or faith and history, are you aligning history with philosophy and faith with scripture?

 

JDC: Well, I presume so, but that is up to philosophy to define for itself. Within scripture there is no talk of philosophy. Scripture talks only about wisdom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"JDC: Well, I presume so, but that is up to philosophy to define for itself. Within scripture there is no talk of philosophy. Scripture talks only about wisdom."

 

This is yet another defining phrase in the quest of progressives to free themselves from the confines of the past. Yes "wisdom" ... now go to the thread where Jen has been unfairly debated ... you will find this same issue. Antonio Damasio, a world acclaimed neuroscientist, has said that he finds the sum of wisdom in the structure and function of the brain. As I understand it, Jen has not made a claim beyond this. So, OK people, are we going to connect the dots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
"JDC: Well, I presume so, but that is up to philosophy to define for itself. Within scripture there is no talk of philosophy. Scripture talks only about wisdom."

 

This is yet another defining phrase in the quest of progressives to free themselves from the confines of the past. Yes "wisdom" ... now go to the thread where Jen has been unfairly debated ... you will find this same issue. Antonio Damasio, a world acclaimed neuroscientist, has said that he finds the sum of wisdom in the structure and function of the brain. As I understand it, Jen has not made a claim beyond this. So, OK people, are we going to connect the dots?

 

I assume, Minsocal, that you are speaking somewhat to me as I seem to be the catalyst that started the whole affair. For the sake of my own furthered education, I really would like to know how I "unfairly debated" Jen. I stated that, IMO, the Jesus she is channelling is not the same Jesus we find in the gospels. Is that a fair or unfair opinion to have?

 

As I understand it, I think, in some sense, Jen does make a claim beyond "the sum of wisdom in the structure and function of her brain." After all, she does not post her channellings as ultimately coming from "within", from within the "self" that is Jen. She claims that her channelling posts ultimately come from "without", from Jesus (not the same person as Jen) who is an angel. So, again IMO, she claims an authority external to herself. Right or wrong, most Christians claim Jesus to be authoritative. So if Jen's claim to channel the "real" Jesus is false, she is usurping the "real" Jesus' authority for...whatever or whomever...she is channelling. If she is indeed channelling the "real" Jesus, then one would think that he could answer some questions that have perplexed us for 2000 years and perhaps give us further guidance to make another 2000. I, for one, would like to see some proof for the pudding. But that is just me...and I don't speak for anyone else.

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume, Minsocal, that you are speaking somewhat to me as I seem to be the catalyst that started the whole affair. For the sake of my own furthered education, I really would like to know how I "unfairly debated" Jen. I stated that, IMO, the Jesus she is channelling is not the same Jesus we find in the gospels. Is that a fair or unfair opinion to have?

 

As I understand it, I think, in some sense, Jen does make a claim beyond "the sum of wisdom in the structure and function of her brain." After all, she does not post her channellings as ultimately coming from "within", from within the "self" that is Jen. She claims that her channelling posts ultimately come from "without", from Jesus (not the same person as Jen) who is an angel. So, again IMO, she claims an authority external to herself. Right or wrong, most Christians claim Jesus to be authoritative. So if Jen's claim to channel the "real" Jesus is false, she is usurping the "real" Jesus' authority for...whatever or whomever...she is channelling. If she is indeed channelling the "real" Jesus, then one would think that he could answer some questions that have perplexed us for 2000 years and perhaps give us further guidance to make another 2000. I, for one, would like to see some proof for the pudding. But that is just me...and I don't speak for anyone else.

 

bill

 

No, I am not speaking just somewhat to you, bill. That was not my intention. I understand Jen as Jen, as a person and as a person within an educated background that often does not translate very well to these message boards. It takes a lot of time and a lot of interchange to work out the rough spots, and this does not always happen on message boards.

 

In the end, there is a lot yet contained in the dialogue that could come foreward or be stillfled as the board member choose.

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
I understand Jen as Jen, as a person and as a person within an educated background that often does not translate very well to these message boards. It takes a lot of time and a lot of interchange to work out the rough spots, and this does not always happen on message boards.

 

You have an advantage, and I'm sure a blessing, that I do not. I really don't know her. Honestly, I would like to know her better. As you have so rightly said, this is difficult, if not almost impossible, to do on message boards. We are working with words which are probably only about 10% of how we really communicate when face-to-face. But I would like to know Jen as Jen. Maybe she isn't willing to do that, I don't know. Maybe she is content to simply channel Jesus here. Again, I don't know. Maybe the fault is on my part because I am such a skeptic. I am, myself, looking for a Jesus that is believable, a Jesus worth following. But I am also looking for friendship, friendship based on honesty and transparency. I want to be real with folks and have them be real with me. But it is so easy on forums to hide behind a name or a label. This keeps us protected, and maybe that is a good thing. Maybe that is why forums, even Christian ones, are known more for their hot debates than they are for their lasting friendships. That has certainly been my experience.

 

The 8 Points of TCPC try, I think, to urge us to get past these hindrances to relationships, to encourage us to form friendships and bonds, even with those whom we disagree. This is a good think. But I still think that honesty is the best policy. I do believe that Jen believes she is channelling Jesus. I just wish she would understand my skepticism and work with me to help us both find a way to communicate.

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have an advantage, and I'm sure a blessing, that I do not. I really don't know her. Honestly, I would like to know her better. As you have so rightly said, this is difficult, if not almost impossible, to do on message boards. We are working with words which are probably only about 10% of how we really communicate when face-to-face. But I would like to know Jen as Jen. Maybe she isn't willing to do that, I don't know. Maybe she is content to simply channel Jesus here. Again, I don't know. Maybe the fault is on my part because I am such a skeptic. I am, myself, looking for a Jesus that is believable, a Jesus worth following. But I am also looking for friendship, friendship based on honesty and transparency. I want to be real with folks and have them be real with me. But it is so easy on forums to hide behind a name or a label. This keeps us protected, and maybe that is a good thing. Maybe that is why forums, even Christian ones, are known more for their hot debates than they are for their lasting friendships. That has certainly been my experience.

 

The 8 Points of TCPC try, I think, to urge us to get past these hindrances to relationships, to encourage us to form friendships and bonds, even with those whom we disagree. This is a good think. But I still think that honesty is the best policy. I do believe that Jen believes she is channelling Jesus. I just wish she would understand my skepticism and work with me to help us both find a way to communicate.

 

bill

 

You seem close to where you want to be. My father had a best friend. They debated each other in the local newspapers for 40 years. Bitter debate ... and then, they would go fishing together every weekend. I'm not sure if this is a change in cultural values, but we seem to be coming from a similar center?

Edited by minsocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ordered a second book:

 

"God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now"

by John Dominic Crossan

 

In recent years, Crossan has impressed me with both his scholarship and his directness in speaking to issues that often concern progressives. That said, I should explain my views concerning the relationship between church and state.

 

I believe in the separation of church and state. What makes some of my friends nervous is my belief that religious communities certainly can cooperate with the state in the distribution of humanitarian aid but resist the state when it becomes involved in oppressive actions and unjust wars.

 

This last part, having to do with substantive justice, has been a large part of my experience as a Progressive Christian. This is why I created the thread. Crossan takes on these issues with unique clarity and force. It was a large part of the Civil Rights movement. I have used this example before, but will repeat it here. Some time ago I came across a group of articles in a peer reviewed academic journal that were under the heading of "progressive research." One of these articles was written by a Phd candidate who began his work with the hypothesis that the Civil Rights movement was mainly a political experience. In the middle of his research, after doing numerous oral histories, he discovered that his hypothesis was wrong. Those who marched, the rank and file, mostly described it as a religious expeience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service