Posts by Rod P

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Gumby!

I have to apologize.

I didn't realize until now that you were talking to Little Toe about "Just hang on a bit....Just hang on a bit"

And I didn't see LT's post until after I submitted mine. I thought you were complaining to me that I was stalling, because I didn't have all the answers right there on the spot. That's why I accused you of not being fair.

So, I take that back, and I do apologize! (I'm kind of new at this game of acronyms, so I don't always recognize what's going on with these posts)

Regards!

Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Gumby!

I don't think you are being very fair here. I never pretended to have all of the answers to every one of your and Narkissos' questions right at my finger tips and sitting there in my brain just waiting to pop out whenever you ask a question? If I have to do a little digging, so what! That doesn't mean there isn't a good answer, and it doesn't imply that you are right and I and everyone else is wrong. So let's get a little bit real here.

Wait a little bit!.... Just hang on a bit!.... You betcha. What's wrong with that? I have not tried to ignore any one of your questions, nor Narkissos', and I have been dealing with them point-by-pont-by point, very methodically. Just because I haven't answered them all yet, just because some of this is a work-in-process, does not mean that I've got my "dinger in a wringer". I think you got some answering to do too, Gumby. Maybe I should start peppering you with a bunch of questions, like a sniper waiting in the bushes for the first opportunity, and then shoot the hell out of you whenever I get the chance. Then if you take a while to get back to me, I can start accusing you of having your "dinger in a wringer"!

Now, tell me about these "wild maybe's" in my posts. Show me. I have tried to show YOU from the gospels that the so-called contradictions you claim are in there are NOT really there, and this was done with geography, with chronology, with comparisons, and with reasoning as to context and cause and effect, and so on. You, on the other hand, seem bent on pushing your agenda that the Gospel accounts are bogus at any cost! Well that's easy for you to say, but you certainly have not yet (there's that word again) demonstrated to me or anyone else here that you found a "big ol' fat lie in there again". So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Gumby!

Yes, I most certainly HAVE considered the question as to whether the Gospel accounts are real or bogus. In spades! I had a gejillion questions and doubts along the way, and I still have a pile of unanswered questions, and probably will till I die. I'm sure we all do. Look at science- the more questions they answer, the more new ones crop up. It is a never ending pursuit. But just because we don't have all the answers does not negate everything. You don't see scientists abandoning their fields just because there are unanswered questions, and even experimental results that often contradict one another. That does not make them blind or stupid or gullible.

I have a "core belief" from the depth of my being, and that is that there is a God. I also believe that there is evidence all around us today, as well as in history, and yes, even in the Bible, that God is part of the overall equation of Reality and the Universe. And I am also in tune with a lot of the descriptors offered by the Gnostics, even though I don't agree with a lot of what they say. I also told you that I do have a lot of problems with the Bible. It's just that I think you have been erecting some "straw men" respecting the gospel accounts, and that is where I get off. There are a lot more serious questions to be concerned with than the ones you have brought up, and that is my point also.

With regard to the epistles. Most of these letters written to various Christian congregations were by the Apostle Paul. (And let me tell you, I have some real questions and problems about him which I won't get into right now.) But the accounts about the life of Jesus were already out there in circulation. How do you think there were converts to the Christian churches of Paul's day? Now why should the epistles have to necessarily be yet another account of the life of Jesus. They simply had another purpose, and a biography of Jesus was not one of them. Another thing, a number of Apostles in Paul's day were still alive. They headquartered in Jerusalem, but also travelled around the country preaching the gospel, and testified of Jesus. They were living testimonials of Jesus Christ, rather than historical monuments written up in a book, since they were with Jesus during his ministries and were therefore eyewitnesses. Paul was the only Apostle who was not there with Jesus during his ministries, but did encounter him on the road to Damascus. If you were Paul, and you were visiting different churches in different locations, would you be writing the life of Jesus every time you wrote them a letter? Of course not. But Paul did have a lot to say about Jesus as the Messiah, and his fulfillment of prophesy, and the meaning of his death and resurrection, and faith and works, and love, etc. etc. etc. He did not necessarily have to write another account of the life of Jesus. Also, there were a lot of sayings of Jesus that different people had remembered when Jesus spoke to them, and they were written down. There were so many letters and documents being circulated, that what started to happen is that one guy would start saying this teaching or that doctrine, while another one was saying a teaching that contradicted the other guy. And so what you had was a lot of confusion in circulation, which needed to be straightened out. Eventually, councils were convened, and bishops gave rulings as to what was authentic or accurate or doctrinally consistent with Jesus' teachings, and what was not. And then we get into that whole vast subject of what became included in the bible canon, and what did not. The point is, though, there was undoubtedly a lot of written material on the Life of Jesus Christ that was already available to the believers of those days. And so the fact that the epistles do not deliver another account of the Life of Jesus like the Gospels do does not bother me in the least, and most certainly does not provide evidence that the Gospel accounts are all bogus.

BTYL

Rod P.

Why don't you sit down and write us all a nice post that explains exactly how and why and when and by who this whole Gospel account thing is all bogus? That oughta be a good one. Oh, and don't mind if I take a few pot shots at the things you say. It might even be fun to sit and watch you squirm a bit, or even duck once in a while.

Yes, I know that in the final analysis, it all boils down to a matter of faith, and the choices we make.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

To FlyingHighNow:

No I haven't but I most certainly have not forgotten about you. I have had my hands full talking to Gumby and then Narkissos. Yours will have to be about a week or so from now, because there is a lot to examine in yours. I do have some thoughts on it now, but will wait till I can give it a more serious consideration.

Regards!

Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Gumby!

Well, John the Baptist was preaching that the Kingdom of God was at hand, that the Messiah everyone was looking for was about to be made known. But he didn't really know for sure that Jesus was the Messiah- UNTIL he had that experience with Heaven when he baptized Jesus. Curiously though, when Jesus approached John to get baptized, John said it was he that should be getting baptized by Jesus. Also, John was baptizing everyone for the forgiveness of sins, while Jesus was without sin. Jesus told him to do it anyway to "fulfull all righteousness".

Let's talk about what was going on with the Nation of Israel during this time. The throne of David was desolate and vacant for almost a hundred years now, being under the subjugation of Gentile Overlords. Yet Moses and the Prophets had taught them that they, who were God's Chosen People, would be rewarded with blessings and prosperity and power if they lived righteously. They were finding it hard to explain why they were still being ruled by those nasty Romans. About a hundred years earlier there arose some "apocalyptic prophets" who taught that their state of humiliation and suffering was because they were paying the penalty for the nation's sins. They were paying the price just like in the Babylonian and other captivities, where the nation had been sinful. But these apocalyptists said that they could hold their chins up, because their days of affliction are almost over, and God's patience with these Gentile tyrrants was coming to an end. They were relying on the predictions of Ezekiel and Daniel and the like, where the kingdoms of the world were going to become the Kingdom of God. To the Jewish mind of the day, this was what was meant by the Kingdom of God, and that was taught by both John and Jesus. They fully expected that the Messiah was going to come and rule the nations in power and righteousness, just like it is in Heaven. In John's day, a lot of people were feeling a kind of imminent fulfillment of the prophecies. John the Baptist had studied the Law and the Prophets, and he was preaching that the Kingdom of God was at hand, the Messiah was about to be revealed.

Many Jews believed that the coming kingdom was very close to happening, near at hand, even at the door. However, they had a lot of different opinions as to the Nature of this Kingdom. Many, relying on a literal reading of the Old Testament, were expecting a new king would be set up to deliver the Jewish nation from its enemies, and then this king, this Messiah, who would be a descendant of King David, would become the righteous ruler over the whole world. Other smaller groups believed and taught that this Kingdom of God was not "of this world". They believed that the world was to coming to an end, and that a "new heaven and a new earth" is going to usher in the Kingdom of God to be established.

Some Jews thought that God would establish the Kingdom by direct and divine intervention. Others believed that there would be an intermediary, a Messiah, who was more than just a prophet. Some believed that even Gentiles could be allowed to enter this "new world". And so on....

Against this back-drop, I can see John the Baptist "wrestling" with all these different theories and opinions. He may have been sure that Jesus was the Messiah, but probably had a lot of questions as to exactly what this Kingdom of God was going to be like, how it would manifest, spiritual or temporal, etc. etc. John could speak with conviction, believing Jesus was the promised Messiah, and yet still have questions whether Jesus the Messiah was going to overthrow the Roman Governers (and maybe even free John from prison....?). Maybe this whole Messiah thing is about a heavenly kingdom, a spiritual fulfillment. Which? (If I were sitting in that jail awaiting my own death, I would sure be asking a lot of those kinds of questions, and yet could still see myself believing he was the Messiah.) O.K. Jesus, you're the man! Now please tell me what you're going to do, given that you are the Messiah?

On the other hand, John was human like the rest of us. Maybe, after rotting in that prison for a few months, John started to have some doubts about his own mission, and his own experiences. How could he get in this mess? Why doesn't God help me? Why didn't Jesus free me, if he's the Messiah? Why didn't he even come and see me while I'm in here? Does he even care? Yeah, I did have that experience with him and heaven when I baptized him, but all God said was that He was pleased with him. Maybe God will use this Jesus for His purposes, but maybe it will be God Himself that's going to do everything, and Jesus will just be under Him, as His instrument on earth. And so, John sends his disciples back to Jesus and they flat-out ask him "Are you the Messiah, or shall we look for someone else?" And so Jesus right there began to perform miracles in front of these disciples, and then told them to go back to John and tell them what they had seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again." (Luke 7:20-23; Matt. 11:3-6). Now I know that I am only speculating with logic here, and I wasn't there when all this happened. But I can certainly understand how a person could have a significant spiritual experience, and then later begin to vacillate. Look at the Apostle Peter who denied the Christ, after all that he had seen. What about Doubting Thomas or Judas Iscariot? All had doubts. Yet they witnessed some pretty big miracles. So it is entirely possible that at one point in time John the Baptist had to wrestle with his own doubts, and needed more encouragement and convincing. You just don't leave a guy sit there languishing in jail for months, putting him on ignore, and then to expect his faith to necessarily carry him thru non-stop. How much could YOU take, if you were in that situation? Isn't this part of the "human condition"?

Now Narkissos has raised an interesting question about why the disciples of John didn't merge with the disciples of Jesus. I'm doing a little digging on that one as well. But, if John keeps telling his disciples that he (John) is NOT the Messiah, but that he is "the one sent on to prepare the way for him" (Jesus) etc. - it seems pretty clear to me that he is pointing his disciples to Jesus as the Messiah. In other words, John is telling his disciples to go over there and become followers of Jesus. I can see the members of the Church of John flocking over and becoming members of the Church of Christ, figuratively speaking, of course.

Still, I want to know more about these Mandeans that Narkissos referred to, saying that "they were disciples of John and considered Jesus as a false prophet." And, of course, I will have to deal with his scriptural reference in Acts 19.

Anyway Gumby, I definitely do not think for one minute that John the Baptist would have forgotten his experience when he was baptizing Jesus. I just think he had a lot of questions, and that he had his moments of spiritual and human weakness for the reasons stated above.

Regards!

Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

To: IP_SEC

Surely you jest! You want a Donation? Sight unseen?!!!

And are you talking about the W.T. Jehovah's Witnesses, or do you belong to another version that uses the same name?

To: Narkissos:

I am doing a little homework on your latest post, so it will be a day or two getting back to you. I''ve stumbled on an interesting site about Apollonius of Tyana, and a comparison with "Jesus Bar Abbas", and having some rather interesting commentary as to whether John ever "knew" Jesus before in the sense that you are arguing. There seems to be a lot of "External" evidences that can be brought to bear on the Gospel accounts, and, of course, this may well affect how things need to be interpreted in the final analysis. Will get back to you.

On the question of Jesus' being of the tribe of Judah, while John is of the tribe of Levi, thereby undermining the biblical statement that Jesus and John were cousins (Luke 1:26), let me share this:

Apparently, St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor II.iii - an apochryphal writing) recorded the following:

Mathan had 3 daughters - 1) Mary 2) Soba 3) Ann

1) Mary- married a man of Bethlehem, and was the mother of her daughter, "Salome"

2) Soba- married at Bethlehem also, but a "Son of Levi" by whom she had "Elizabeth" (the mother of John the Baptist)

3) Ann- married Joachim, a Galilean also, and bore "Mary" (the mother of Jesus)

So, Salome, Elizabeth and Mary were First Cousins. Elizabeth was "of the daughters of Aaron" on her father's side, and on her mother's side, the cousin of "Mary"

This shows that it is possible for John to be of the tribe of Levi, while Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, and yet while still be cousins, as stated in Luke.

Back to you later.

Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

To Pintail/Shane:

O.K. Tell me why you say that.

Rod P.

p.s. Ooops! Never mind, I get it now. You were referring to this whole thread re its topic.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Narkissos:

Yes, I have an explanation for "I myself did not know him" in John 1:31, and I do not have to "exceed what you can learn from either Luke or John" to do it.

The answer is: Read the whole verse. "After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me. I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel."

You seem to be suggesting that John the Baptist knew Jesus because ostensibly he never met him in person. But look again, more closely. Even if John had never met Jesus in person, he no doubt would have heard stories about Jesus, such as while he was growing up with his parents who certainly knew about Jesus, and John was certainly looking for the Messiah, and the signs that would enable him to recognize the Messiah. John was preaching that the Kingdom of God was at hand, or in other words, that the Messiah was here, which all the prophets before John were looking to find down thru the years. Now, when John baptized Jesus, and he came up out of the water, the heavens opened up and the Spirit of God descended upon him in the form of a dove, and a voice said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." If I were there and I saw that happen, I would be pretty convinced that this was the Messiah, that this was the one God had chosen to be the Christ, and I would be running around Judea telling everyone this is the Messiah. So the proper understanding of the above scripture is that "I myself did not know him/recognize him as the Messiah, but now that I do know who he really is, I have been baptizing with water in order that Jesus might be revealed to Israel (as the Messiah)." So Israel, take a look. This is the Messiah you have been looking for all these generations!

You state that, (because you have to exceed or go beyond either Luke or John) that "The result is: you don't read the Gospels as they were written." Well you know, we do it all the time. We study the life and times of Jesus Christ by looking at the Synoptic Gospels, comparing Matthew with Luke, and Mark with John, and back and forth in any given order depending what's relevant. Each of the authors present their own version of Jesus Christ, and they don't say everything the same way, and one provides details and events the other did not mention, or describe the same event in a slightly different way. (I know that Mark pretty well got most of his information from Peter, almost like he was the "Ghost Writer" for Peter). This exercise is a way to "flesh out the details", and also one which clarifies a lot of chronological and geographic details and circumstances. I don't have a problem with that. I would still be reading the Gospels "as they were written".

You seem to suggest that the process of looking at all four of the gospel accounts by the method above, that this is an "apologetic diatessaron which really never suits any of the individual Gospels". IMO, comparing different accounts in all four books is a way to increase understanding or insight as to what is going on, where and when certain events took place, and also what the writer more precisely meant when stating such and such, because other authors on the same topic state it with a subtly different nuance. I think comparison, more often than not, "fleshes out the details", and also clarifies certain ambiguities, by examining the Gospels as a collective whole. The one thing I must be careful about, however, is that I don't start putting "words in the mouth of one author" based on what the other writer(s) state. I admit that sometimes mistakes can be made, but that does not mean it would be better to abandon the whole process, and just read each account individually without any regard for any of the other accounts. Overall, I think that on balance, this does suit the individual Gospels, mistakes notwithstanding. Similarly, examining external historical evidences from outside the Gospel accounts also adds significant clarification and understanding as to what was going on.

I know that down thru history there have been a number of attempts made to present the gospel accounts into a single narrative, to give it a smoother flow, and also to fit all of the pieces of the puzzle within that consolidated version, because one writer didn't mention something the other writer did, and so on. These efforts are quite useful, but I would still revert back to the Gospel accounts individually and as a group, because they are as close as you can get to the original accounts. The closer you are to the original, the less likely you are to become steeped in error.

LOL,

Rod P.

John lived all his own life down there in Judea, while Jesus grew up in Galilee. After Jesus and John are both 30 years of age and recognized as adults, Jesus travels down to see John in Judea to get baptized by John

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Narkissos:

I just submitted a rather lengthy post here to your attention, but it seems it did not arrive. If I can't find it, will have to redo it later.

Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Narkissos: The scriptures you refer to in Mark and Matthew do not reflect a "distinct tradition" that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were NOT contemporaries. Your scriptural references must be placed in a proper time context in order to understand what they mean. Firstly, let's look at Mark 6: 7, 12-20 (RSV): vs.7 And he (Jesus) called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits..... vs.12 So they went out and preached that men should repent vs.13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. vs.14 King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said "John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him. (i.e. Jesus)" vs.15 But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." vs.16 But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised." vs.17 For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her. vs.18 For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." vs.19 And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, vs.20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. Mark 8:27-28 says pretty much the same thing: vs.27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? vs.28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist, and others, Elijah; but others One of the Prophets. From these verses we get the picture that Jesus sent his disciples out two by two, and they went all over the country preaching and performing miracles. This would give Jesus a high profile, and he started to become known all over, and so word of Jesus reached Herod, who was tetrarch over Galilee. So, some thought Jesus was John the Baptist who was risen, and not just Herod thought that. Some thought Jesus was Elija or Elias since they expected he would come just in advance of the Messiah, and would be risen. Others considered Jesus a Prophet, expecially given his miracles; but certainly not the Messiah. Herod is thought to have visited Jerusalem to attend the Passover. At the same time, Herod had just quite recently murdered John the Baptist, who he was convinced was an innocent man and a prophet. At the same time a lot of his circumstances, such as war, were faring very badly, like it was a kind of punishment from God, perhaps because of what he did to John. In his guilt, he may have worried that this Jesus he had been hearing so many stories and miracles about, was John the Baptist risen from the dead. It is thought that Herod feared John had risen when he heard that Jesus was visiting Jerusalem for the Passover. Mark 6:14 must be understood on the basis that Herod had already beheaded John, albeit recently. All these verse are proving is that they were spoken at a time when John the Baptist had recently been killed. They in no way establish that Jesus and John were not contemporaries. John and Jesus were cousins, and John was six months older than Jesus. In their day, a male was not considered an adult until they reached the age of thirty. Therefore, that is when both Jesus and John commenced their ministries. The beginning of John's ministry preceded the beginning of Jesus' ministry by six months. The beginning of Jesus' ministry was when he was baptized by John. In the account I explained to Gumby above, after Jesus was baptized by John, went into the wilderness for 40 days (in Judea), then to the wedding in Cana (Galilee), he later went to the Passover Celebration in Jerusalem (Judea), departing from Capernaum (Galilee), which celebration occurred Nisan 8 (March 23). After that, Jesus and his disciples went out into Judea and preached about the Kingdom of God and baptized new believer. At the same time, John and his disciples were out there preaching and baptizing, but in a different area. During this period of several months, John was not yet arrested, and so at this time John and Jesus were contemporaries. Now, during this period, Jesus and John and their respective disciples preached for about 6 or 7 months, after chich John teh Baptist was arrested and imprisoned by Herod. When that happened, Jesus and his disciples removed themselves from Judea, and went back to Galilee. Jesus' ministry continued, and he called his 12 apostles about one week before the 2nd Passover of his ministry (Nissan 14, or April 17 of that year). It was also shortly before this Passover Celebration that John the Baptist was beheaded. (Some claim it was in August) We could get into a lengthy treatise on these timelines with comparative chronologies from different sources. The point I am trying to make here is that all these scriputures we are examining need to be understood within the flow of events which happened over a significant period of time. After John was beheaded, Jesus continued on with his ministry for quite some time (about another yearO before being crucified. When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem to celebrate the 2nd Passover of his ministry, Jesus mentioned John the Baptist in the past tense, as though he were already dead: John 5:35 "He was the lamp that was burning and shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light" So when you read:Matthew 11:12-14: vs.12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. vs.13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, vs.14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." How are we to understand this? "From the days of John the Baptist until now" means from the time of the beginning of John the Baptist to the time that Jesus was giving this sermon on the kingdom of God (a period of about 3 years). ".....the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force." This is an analogy that God's Kingdom is like a besieged city, where men try to force an entrance, to enter prematurely. These people had preconceived ideas of this Kingdom, and they were trying to force the Kingdom to come and to blossum, instead of waiting for God's timing and keys for entering. "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". If we study the Old Testament, we see the work of a long series of prophets all prophesying of the coming of the Messiah and the Kingom of God. John the Baptist was at the end of this line, and his message was not prophecy, but rather an announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand. So the point here is that Matthew 11:12 does NOT prove that Jesus and John were not contemporaries. Jesus and John were contemporaries except that in the middle of their two ministries, with concurrent and overlapping activities, John got beheaded. Jesus simply marked time from the period of John's ministry to Jesus' present when he delivered that statement, even though John died during that period. Some say it is "from the beginning of John's ministry" while others say "from the time that John had fulfilled his ministry." Either way, this does not nullify the argument that this scripture does NOT prove that they weren't contemporaries. Too many people are too willing to claim Biblical contradictions by putting Synoptic passages side-by-side and then making it look like the writers are all talking about the same time and the same event, when, in fact, they are not. Similarly, Narkissos, you are taking Mark and Matthew and citing them on the basis that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist in the past tense, and Herod was referring to John the same way, while Jesus was yet alive (i.e. not yet crucified), and then claiming that therefore proves Jesus and John were not contemporaries. I feel that is somewhat fallacious reasoning. LOL, Rod P.

179

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

by gumby in

some big fat liar made sumthin up again!

looky here what i went and found in the bible!

remember that little dove that desended down on jesus right after he was baptised by john?

Rod P

Hey Gumby! Hey People!

Is anybody out there?

Don't all die at once! This was the hottest thread going. Suddenly, silence! Why?

LOL

Rpd P.