Skip to main content

For months, now, I've been having a bit of fun with the Jesus/Horus comparison.  Let's be honest, it's a grey area.  Sure, the more ancient religion of Egypt is just one country over to the west of Israel and must have had some influence, but there is not a 1:1 correlation between Horus and Jesus.

 

There are similarities between Jesus and many other allegedly important people, such as the miraculous birth, virgin or otherwise, miracles, son-of-god, crucifixion (See Dionysus), resurrection, etc.   But let's face it, Christianity is a Pauline fabrication.  That fabrication depends on the literal truth of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, which we all know now to be completely false.

 

No Eden, no Original Sin.  No Original Sin, no need for redemption.  No redemption, no need for Jesus.  Paul invented the whole concept out of blue sky.  Others perpetuated it out of mind and economic control through superstitious guilt.  It is clever, I'll admit, but not sufficient to be compelling.

 

What appears obvious is that Jesus was given attributes of several previous godmen.  Horus, Attis, Appolonius of Tyana, Mithra, even Julius Caesar, to name a few.  In the interval between Jesus' possible ministry and the writings of such, only oral tradition survived.  That tradition was steeped in the legends of other godmen who Jesus must have bettered in order to be supreme.  The Greeks who first wrote down the stories of Jesus were well steeped in the traditions of the other godmen.  Surely Jesus was as good as them, as holy, as miraculous, or so the story must have gone to make it palatable.

 

However, each godman has his own quirks.  Those of Jesus are often overlooked, such as his penchant for exorcism.  We now know that demons are not the cause of mental or physical diseases, but Jesus did not know this.  Son of God, indeed.

 

Also, in that interval, Paul wrote his rationalizations.  It seems the Gospels were influenced by Paul, or at least we must entertain that possibility.  Jesus' "prophesy" about the destruction of The Temple was only written after the destruction of it. 

 

The mythological story of Jesus was created and perpetuated in a time and place when such stories competed for the primitive understandings of the workings of Nature and the fears of imaginary afterlives.  Even at the time, must have such superstitions have despised such nascent science as existed?

 

We are better now.  We have the gift of the Enlightenment which opened our eyes to the Universe as it is, not as a series of firmaments around the geocentric Earth.  The common myth of walking on water pales beside the photography of a supernova.  The unoriginal miracles of raising the dead are paltry, indeed, beside the mapping of the human genome.  Our understanding of the diversity of life is so much grander than the magic of Creation and the deception of a trickster God who gives us evidence contrary to His Word.

 

The time is now to accept the reality that the Gods are fiction.  We, the honest, have come to the point where we will not tolerate even popular lies anymore.  We, who cannot pretend to believe in absurd fiction anymore, hold the superstitious to bear to demonstrate their claims, inasmuch as any other field of human endeavor.  We, the realists, the Rationalists, hold the high ground, and it is up to the religious to remove us with the arms of truth, reason, and evidence.  So far, none has been forthcoming.  I predict none will.

 

Truth is greatest among all things.  The scribblings of primitive goadherds are no basis on which to lead 21st Century lives.  We can deal with our problems in a 21st Century fashion, or in a 2nd Century fashion.  I know which I prefer.

 

DF

Make time for great justice.  Expect us.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Here is the problem with the comparison theory.

 

A little bit of research and the theory falls apart. People believe this theory not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.

 

Here's proof.

 

Deep, you said "There are similarities between Jesus and many other allegedly important people, such as the miraculous birth, virgin or otherwise, miracles, son-of-god, crucifixion (See Dionysus), resurrection, etc."

 

Do you believe the Greek myth of Dionysus includes him being crucified?

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Who knows, nash?  The historicity of Jesus is indis****bly obscure.  What is most likely is that he was the creation of Greek scribes who invented him from several Holy Men of antiquity.

 

http://www.atheistview.com/on_christianity.htm

 

DF

 

It's not obscure, it's very clear. When you look at the facts, it is very unlikely that He was created by Greek scribes.

 

Think about it, why would writers in Greece create a god in Jewish territory occupied by Romans? How does that benefit them?

 

Then you have to address the question of if Greek scribes invented Jesus, why would anyone suffer and die for those writings?

 

Liars make poor martyrs. Read how Pliny the Younger treated early Christians. It leaves two options, either those Greek scribes were the most convincing writers ever, or something very significant really happened.

 

The second option is the most logical given the circumstances.

 

So to tie in the video you posted, believing Jesus is a recycled myth is just like believing the Earth is 6000 years old. One has to deny a lot of evidence and really want to believe it, because a rational person can easily see it's not true.

By the way, I looked at the link from "atheistview.com" you posted. Specifically, the "Historicity of Jesus FAQ".

 

Not a single source cited in the whole thing. The reader is simply supposed to blindly trust the writer. So why believe it?

 

Here is what the same topic looks like when written with citations. Of course, since it relies on actual historical evidence, the conclusion is very different.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

 

I think we would agree that a logical person will go where the evidence leads. That's all I'm doing.

Nash didn't like df's source so he posted a link to what?  So with that in mind:

 

 

Debunking the Historical Jesus

What the Bible-Belt Media Didn't Tell You about Italian Lawsuit

By Dan Barker

 

 

 

The question of the historical existence of Jesus has hit the news with the recent, intriguing lawsuit in Italy by Luigi Cascioli, who is suing a priest, Rev. Enrico Righi, over his published assertion that "Jesus did indeed exist." Such a claim, Cascioli says, is a deception, an "abuse of popular belief," which is against Italian law. The lawsuit refreshingly demands that Righi prove that Jesus existed.

In his defense, Righi and obliging media have trotted out many alleged evidences for Jesus, long ago discounted, yet which continue to pepper the credulous writings of conservative religious authors and scholars.

According to the Associated Press, Righi "cited many known observers, including non-Christian ones, who have written about the existence of Jesus, such as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, considered by scholars to be the most important non-Christian source on Christ's existence."

Here is the paragraph that currently appears in The Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus around 95 C.E.:

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."

 

If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

The Associated Press chose to omit the fact that scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragraph- as a later interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time.

All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph cited so blithely by the Associated Press.

This paragraph mentions that Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus does not tell us who those prophets were or what they said. This is religious propaganda, not history. If Jesus had truly been the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, then Josephus would have been the exact person to confirm it.

And this is the "most important" historical evidence for Jesus!

The other phrase from Josephus that Righi and AP cite concerns James, the so-called "brother of Jesus," and is likewise flimsy. It says that a man named James was stoned to death, which is not mentioned in the bible. Many scholars believe the "brother of Jesus" phrase is a later interpolation, and that Josephus was referring to a different James, possibly the same James that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Contradicting Josephus, Hegesippus wrote a history of Christianity in 170 C.E. saying that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court.

Righi also cited Pliny the Younger, who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is; and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate, could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs" (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one. Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time. Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles of Joseph Smith--doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but not the actual facts.

Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most d a m ning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus.

Such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

Historians have no evidence of a historic Jesus dating from the early first century, even though many contemporary writers documented the era in great detail. Philo of Alexandria, for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus. Many other contemporary writers covered that era, yet there is not a single mention of any existence, deeds, or words of a man named Jesus.

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in their book The Jesus Mysteries, explain how the myth and legend of Jesus could easily have arisen without a historical founder. The Jesus story was pressed from the same template as other mythical savior-gods who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis.

Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered "nothing different" from paganism. Arguing with pagans around 150 C.E., Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word [Jesus], who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." Fourth-century Christian scholar Fermicus, in attempting to establish the uniqueness of Christianity, met at every turn by pagan precedents to the story of Jesus, in exasperation concluded: "The Devil has his Christs!"

The Gospels are not history; they are religious propaganda, contradictory, exaggerated, and mythical. The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus (except for the ritualistic Last Supper formula), and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.

There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented.

In covering Luigi Cascioli's fascinating lawsuit, the media need to stop acting like a megaphone for religion, and start doing some balanced reporting. 


http://www.exminister.org/Bark...istorical-Jesus.html



Bestworking. I went over the article you posted, there are lots of problems with it.

 

First of all, check the references. As I mentioned earlier, supporters of the "recycled Jesus" myth have no legitimate references. They simply reference each other.

 

It's an example of circular reasoning. Atheists love to attack anyone else who falls into this trap, yet the article you posted shows that non-believers are guilty of it as well.

 

Second, objectivity. Of course the founder of Freedom From Religion is going to be a proponent of the "recycled Jesus" myth. The last thing he wants is for Jesus to have existed as a real person. So he has to find a way to discredit the evidence.

 

The only way he can is by citing others who have tried to discredit the evidence. Not necessarily historians, but simply other atheists who will say what he wants to hear.

 

It would be time consuming and not very productive to go through piece by piece and point out the flaws in Barker's arguments. Instead, I'll just re-post the link I provided earlier. Real citations, legitimate evidence, a much more scholarly work. It basically shreds the article you posted for me.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

 

 

 

Originally Posted by NashBama:

Here is the problem with the comparison theory.

 

A little bit of research and the theory falls apart. People believe this theory not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.

 

Here's proof.

 

Deep, you said "There are similarities between Jesus and many other allegedly important people, such as the miraculous birth, virgin or otherwise, miracles, son-of-god, crucifixion (See Dionysus), resurrection, etc."

 

Do you believe the Greek myth of Dionysus includes him being crucified?

maybe, maybe not.  Dionysus is one of the died-returned godmen, however.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity for a start.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, after much research, the story of Jesus is not original.  It contains elements of many former and contemporary godmen.  Knowing that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' life, it's altogether likely that he was given the attributes of all respectable godmen of the time-- miraculous birth, miracles, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, murder and resurrection.  None of these qualities is original with Jesus.

 

As for the Greek writers, there are zero examples of pre-Greek writings on the subject of Jesus.  The Gospels, seen in their original literature, are replete with Greek idioms, puns, and references.  Christianity is a Greek construct, based on oral legends that existed for decades before they were committed to writing.  The Greeks simply attributed to Jesus the necessary and desirable qualities of the various godmen who came before him, or who were confused with him in contemporary terms.  These included Mithra and Appolonius of Tyana, to name only a couple.

 

Every religion has it's own spin.  The spin of Christianity is that Original Sin needed to be erased.  Jesus was the medium by which it could be erased.  This was Paul's concept, based on the erroneous literalism of the Genesis account of Eden and Adam and Eve.  We know better now.  Even if one accepts Paul at face value, one discounts the affection and power of God to simply forgive sins without the primitive and brutal act of a successful human sacrifice.  I'll pass on a God like that.

 

Original Sin is an absurd concept.  Redemption from an absurd concept is equally absurd.  Nash, it's all nonsense and superstition, and it's holding us back from the potential we hold.  I like you and, while I don't insist you agree with me, I do ask you to investigate the arguments against your prejudices.  I think you are honest and intelligent enough to do so in good faith.

 

Regards,

 

DF

First of all, check the references. As I mentioned earlier, supporters of the "recycled Jesus" myth have no legitimate references. They simply reference each other.

 

You must not have read it then. But I'm not surprised, seeing where YOU go for "unbiased" information.

 

(Tekton Apologetics Ministries)

 

BTW, ever hear of Albert Schweitzer?

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

Here is the problem with the comparison theory.

 

A little bit of research and the theory falls apart. People believe this theory not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.

 

Here's proof.

 

Deep, you said "There are similarities between Jesus and many other allegedly important people, such as the miraculous birth, virgin or otherwise, miracles, son-of-god, crucifixion (See Dionysus), resurrection, etc."

 

Do you believe the Greek myth of Dionysus includes him being crucified?

maybe, maybe not.  Dionysus is one of the died-returned godmen, however.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity for a start.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, after much research, the story of Jesus is not original.  It contains elements of many former and contemporary godmen.  Knowing that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' life, it's altogether likely that he was given the attributes of all respectable godmen of the time-- miraculous birth, miracles, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, murder and resurrection.  None of these qualities is original with Jesus.

 

As for the Greek writers, there are zero examples of pre-Greek writings on the subject of Jesus.  The Gospels, seen in their original literature, are replete with Greek idioms, puns, and references.  Christianity is a Greek construct, based on oral legends that existed for decades before they were committed to writing.  The Greeks simply attributed to Jesus the necessary and desirable qualities of the various godmen who came before him, or who were confused with him in contemporary terms.  These included Mithra and Appolonius of Tyana, to name only a couple.

 

Every religion has it's own spin.  The spin of Christianity is that Original Sin needed to be erased.  Jesus was the medium by which it could be erased.  This was Paul's concept, based on the erroneous literalism of the Genesis account of Eden and Adam and Eve.  We know better now.  Even if one accepts Paul at face value, one discounts the affection and power of God to simply forgive sins without the primitive and brutal act of a successful human sacrifice.  I'll pass on a God like that.

 

Original Sin is an absurd concept.  Redemption from an absurd concept is equally absurd.  Nash, it's all nonsense and superstition, and it's holding us back from the potential we hold.  I like you and, while I don't insist you agree with me, I do ask you to investigate the arguments against your prejudices.  I think you are honest and intelligent enough to do so in good faith.

 

Regards,

 

DF

 

_____________________

 

I've investigated the arguments against my prejudices. When I first saw the comparison between Jesus and Horus, I instantly had a moment of serious doubt. That doubt vanished when I saw how inaccurate the comparison was.

 

I would suggest that you also investigate the arguments against your prejudices. I think if you do, you'll see just how bad the "recycled Jesus" myth really is.

 

The reality is that many religions adapted portions of Jesus' story to their own. Christianity spread so rapidly and despite such dire consequences, it's only human nature for others to try and copy it. The major difference is that one event really happened while the others are fictional.

 

You're a smart guy and I know we'll more than likely have to agree to disagree on this issue. I simply enjoy the conversation. Like I've always said, I'm not trying to forcibly convert you or judge you. I've simply discovered through my own search that Christianity isn't a myth believed by delusional followers. There is evidence and there is a lot more to it than you realize.

Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

Here is the problem with the comparison theory.

 

A little bit of research and the theory falls apart. People believe this theory not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.

 

Here's proof.

 

Deep, you said "There are similarities between Jesus and many other allegedly important people, such as the miraculous birth, virgin or otherwise, miracles, son-of-god, crucifixion (See Dionysus), resurrection, etc."

 

Do you believe the Greek myth of Dionysus includes him being crucified?

maybe, maybe not.  Dionysus is one of the died-returned godmen, however.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity for a start.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, after much research, the story of Jesus is not original.  It contains elements of many former and contemporary godmen.  Knowing that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' life, it's altogether likely that he was given the attributes of all respectable godmen of the time-- miraculous birth, miracles, raising the dead, feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, murder and resurrection.  None of these qualities is original with Jesus.

 

As for the Greek writers, there are zero examples of pre-Greek writings on the subject of Jesus.  The Gospels, seen in their original literature, are replete with Greek idioms, puns, and references.  Christianity is a Greek construct, based on oral legends that existed for decades before they were committed to writing.  The Greeks simply attributed to Jesus the necessary and desirable qualities of the various godmen who came before him, or who were confused with him in contemporary terms.  These included Mithra and Appolonius of Tyana, to name only a couple.

 

Every religion has it's own spin.  The spin of Christianity is that Original Sin needed to be erased.  Jesus was the medium by which it could be erased.  This was Paul's concept, based on the erroneous literalism of the Genesis account of Eden and Adam and Eve.  We know better now.  Even if one accepts Paul at face value, one discounts the affection and power of God to simply forgive sins without the primitive and brutal act of a successful human sacrifice.  I'll pass on a God like that.

 

Original Sin is an absurd concept.  Redemption from an absurd concept is equally absurd.  Nash, it's all nonsense and superstition, and it's holding us back from the potential we hold.  I like you and, while I don't insist you agree with me, I do ask you to investigate the arguments against your prejudices.  I think you are honest and intelligent enough to do so in good faith.

 

Regards,

 

DF

 

_____________________

 

I've investigated the arguments against my prejudices. When I first saw the comparison between Jesus and Horus, I instantly had a moment of serious doubt. That doubt vanished when I saw how inaccurate the comparison was.

 

I would suggest that you also investigate the arguments against your prejudices. I think if you do, you'll see just how bad the "recycled Jesus" myth really is.

 

The reality is that many religions adapted portions of Jesus' story to their own. Christianity spread so rapidly and despite such dire consequences, it's only human nature for others to try and copy it. The major difference is that one event really happened while the others are fictional.

 

You're a smart guy and I know we'll more than likely have to agree to disagree on this issue. I simply enjoy the conversation. Like I've always said, I'm not trying to forcibly convert you or judge you. I've simply discovered through my own search that Christianity isn't a myth believed by delusional followers. There is evidence and there is a lot more to it than you realize.

Well, thankee much, nash.  Let's hear the evidence for Jesus' divinity.

 

DF

If you reject the evidence that shows Jesus actually existed, then you'll do the same for any that proves divinity.

 

If Jesus never existed, then obviously He can't be divine. That's the whole point of those comparisons. The problem is they are inaccurate.

 

Once it's established that Jesus' existence is historical fact, then one can question His divinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleisthenes

 

Hold ON a minute!! This guy has SO many similarities to Thomas Jefferson! Wow!! Thomas Jefferson must not have existed!! They just made him up using the history of Cleisthenes and some other forward thinking men of ancient times!!!

 

And on top of THAT, there really is no proof that Cleistenes existed either!! Are we supposed to take the word of ancient historians??!! Nah! They must BOTH be a myth!!!

Originally Posted by willie:

ok... no offense to anyone... someone show me proof jesus existed... give me one link to something showing jesus existed... NOT from the bible!
i'm serious!

 

Here you go. The most commonly quoted, but there are plenty more non-Christian writers who mentions Jesus' existence.

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Tac.+Ann.+15.44&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078

 

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Nash,

 

Tacitus journalized Christians, not Christ.  Many ancient Greeks journalized Zeusians, that does not make Zeus real.

 

DF

Actually, Tacitus was speaking about Nero torturing and executing Christians. Tacitus was explaining their "superstition" and it's origin, blaming Pilate for executing Christ which led to the beginning of Christianity. Since Tacitus was a historian, it provides an excellent non-Biblical confirmation that like Pilate and Nero, Jesus did in fact exist as a real person.

Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Nash,

 

Tacitus journalized Christians, not Christ.  Many ancient Greeks journalized Zeusians, that does not make Zeus real.

 

DF

Actually, Tacitus was speaking about Nero torturing and executing Christians. Tacitus was explaining their "superstition" and it's origin, blaming Pilate for executing Christ which led to the beginning of Christianity. Since Tacitus was a historian, it provides an excellent non-Biblical confirmation that like Pilate and Nero, Jesus did in fact exist as a real person.

Even if what you said is true, you only have evidence of the existence of a crazy person, no likely to be the "son of god".

Originally Posted by lexum:

        Df apparently you have little to do. Why don’t you busy yourself in some noble adventure as your brother?





------
why don't you mind your own business rramm? you must really like DF. you made the screen name deep.fat so you could pretend to be him. everybody sees what you do. you aren't fooling anyone troll.

i would think, if the son of god, walked the earth preforming miracles and raising the dead... there would be TONS of stuff written about it... even if it was from the oral tales passed through the generations... but, you only see one book... and it's riddled with inconsistency!  so, let's say i have my doubts about the whole religious process.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×