Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Matthews

Under Law

Recommended Posts

Gustave
1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

This understanding may have been held (and still held) by orthodox Jews, but the Pharisees lost the battle as far as Gentile Christians go. in the incident described in acts 15:

"When they finished, James spoke up. ...  “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (Acts5:13 - 20)

No mention of circumcision here.  Also, no mention of Sabbath-keeping. Also, it appears that James is giving the orders for the whole church here; not Peter.

Yes, that's my point.

The group of Pharisee Christians were insisting that the new Gentile converts coming into the Church 1st needed to be circumcised and then start observing the Law of Moses. That's means everything, the food laws, the Liturgical Calendar to include the weekly Sabbath's, everything. 

The Holy Spirit acting through the Apostles said NO, no need to do all of that, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

8thdaypriest
18 hours ago, Gustave said:

those things that SEPARATED Jew from Gentile

I understand it as specifically those things that would prevent Gentile converts from worshiping with Jews, or enjoying fellowship with Jews.  

Paul specifically mentions the "wall of separation" - referring to the wall beyond which uncircumcised Gentiles could not advance into an inner court before the Temple at Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice.

Ephesians 2:14 "For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, 15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace (NET).

This "decrees" or "ordinances" came from the "Oral Torah" traditions, which forbade Jews even to eat with Gentiles.  They took the prophecy of Ezekiel 44:7-9, of the LORD's future Temple and applied it literally, forbidding uncircumcised Gentile men from entering the courtyard where sacrifices were presented.  Peter indirectly refers to that "law" when he meets Cornelius.  "Then he said to them, 'You know how for a unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.  But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."  (Acts 10:28)

Peter reverted back to that rule in Gal 2:12 and Paul roundly rebuked him.

Galatians 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. (NKJ)

There was also Ezra 9:12.    "Now therefore, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons; and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever."   But Paul also strongly condemned marriage between Christians and unbelievers.  So that one really didn't go away."

In my opinion, "the former commandment" that was weak and unprofitable after Christ died, was the system of animal sacrifices offered through the Aaronic priesthood at the Temple of Jerusalem. 

Hebrews 7:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,"

That unprofitable former commandment would not include the Ten Commands, which include the Rest of the 7th Day.  That Rest is "profitable" and will last for eternity.  (Isa 66:22-23).  That Rest was instituted before sin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Come to think of it, Paul later made the argument that no idol could change the food. 

In 1Corinthians 8, the whole subject is "things offered to idols" . 

v.4  "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." 

Some of the believers would not eat anything first offered to an idol "their conscience, being weak, is defiled".  Others who understood that an idol was "nothing in the world", would eat the foods.  Paul was warning them to be careful of their "weaker" brothers who might not understand their actions, who might assume it was fine to worship other gods or take part in pagan festivals.   

Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

In the Roman world, all the produce sold in the market - except vegetables - was first "offered" to the gods for their blessing, before being sold.  One "weak in faith" (without Paul's understanding that idols cannot change the food) would avoid eating anything that might have been offered to an idol - as per James.

 

Then there is Jesus own statement. 

Mark 7:16  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) 20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. (NIV)

The key word here is "foods".  (What the Jews regarded as "food" is NOT what the Gentiles regarded as "food".) 

All foods are clean whether or not one ceremonially washes his hands before a meal. 

Mark 7:3-5  "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (NKJ)

In context Jesus, is criticizing the "traditions" of the Pharisees.  He is not nullifying His own own separation of clean from unclean when it comes to animals designated for consumption by humans.  That designation was evident at the flood of Noah.  He called them "clean" and "unclean" long before His incarnation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
9 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Holy Spirit acting through the Apostles said NO

That was for Gentile Christians - the ancient equivalent of babies in the faith.  But when I read James, he appears to take a "stricter" look at things.  I believe that is because his letter was to the church in Jerusalem - basically mature believers who already knew the law backwards and forwards.  Different audience, different messages. It's no different in the church today.  Whether in church or in small Bible studies, we don't (or at least shouldn't) start people out with the legal part of our faith, we start (or should start) with getting them acquainted with Jesus.  Once we get people reading their Bibles and listening to the HS, we can get into more challenging issues.

While I am a devoted observer of Sabbath, I don't "judge" anyone who worships or "rests" on Sunday.  They are not doing so in rebellious defiance of God; they are doing so with a heart for God.  God looks at the heart, not the exterior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

That was for Gentile Christians - the ancient equivalent of babies in the faith.  But when I read James, he appears to take a "stricter" look at things.  I believe that is because his letter was to the church in Jerusalem - basically mature believers who already knew the law backwards and forwards.  Different audience, different messages. It's no different in the church today.  Whether in church or in small Bible studies, we don't (or at least shouldn't) start people out with the legal part of our faith, we start (or should start) with getting them acquainted with Jesus.  Once we get people reading their Bibles and listening to the HS, we can get into more challenging issues.

While I am a devoted observer of Sabbath, I don't "judge" anyone who worships or "rests" on Sunday.  They are not doing so in rebellious defiance of God; they are doing so with a heart for God.  God looks at the heart, not the exterior.

The letter was "generated in Jerusalem" and exported from there back to the origin (Antioch) of the question. 

"Certain people came down from Judea TO ANTIOCH" Acts 15, 1 - and proceeded to make some teachings that contradicted Paul and Barnabas' understanding. This dispute was brought to Jerusalem, a Council was held, a decision was reached with the unity of the Holy Spirit and the determination was put into a letter and promulgated back to Antioch, Syria & Cilicia.   

So, it was Judaizers, who came from Judea without any authority to teach that attempted to "get a doctrine" into the Church at Antioch. It's likely that this "unauthorized teaching" originated from Pharisee Christians from Judea. In fact the first attack on the Christian Church came from Judaizers, the 2nd attack came from the Gnostics.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Come to think of it, Paul later made the argument that no idol could change the food. 

In 1Corinthians 8, the whole subject is "things offered to idols" . 

v.4  "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." 

Some of the believers would not eat anything first offered to an idol "their conscience, being weak, is defiled".  Others who understood that an idol was "nothing in the world", would eat the foods.  Paul was warning them to be careful of their "weaker" brothers who might not understand their actions, who might assume it was fine to worship other gods or take part in pagan festivals.   

Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

In the Roman world, all the produce sold in the market - except vegetables - was first "offered" to the gods for their blessing, before being sold.  One "weak in faith" (without Paul's understanding that idols cannot change the food) would avoid eating anything that might have been offered to an idol - as per James.

 

Then there is Jesus own statement. 

Mark 7:16  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) 20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. (NIV)

The key word here is "foods".  (What the Jews regarded as "food" is NOT what the Gentiles regarded as "food".) 

All foods are clean whether or not one ceremonially washes his hands before a meal. 

Mark 7:3-5  "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (NKJ)

In context Jesus, is criticizing the "traditions" of the Pharisees.  He is not nullifying His own own separation of clean from unclean when it comes to animals designated for consumption by humans.  That designation was evident at the flood of Noah.  He called them "clean" and "unclean" long before His incarnation. 

No, it's ANYTHING sold in the meat market ( 1st Corinthians 10, 25 ). Trust me, there were things in the Corinth meat market that an observant Jew wouldn't touch due to the items being considered unclean. How do you reconcile your interpretation with this text? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
14 hours ago, Gustave said:

In fact the first attack on the Christian Church came from Judaizers,

In fact, the first attack came from a Pharisee of Pharisees - Paul himself.  A few years later he was the loudest critic of Christians keeping the traditions of men or the ceremonial law.

18 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) 20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. (NIV)

IMHO, The bold part of the above statement is a parenthetical statement of opinion made by Mark.  Given the context of the scripture, I'm not sure that Jesus was indeed declaring all foods clean.  I think He was speaking of the sins people commit with their words.  That being said, I don't think anyone will burn just cuz they ate some spare ribs or fried jumbo shrimp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
6 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

In fact, the first attack came from a Pharisee of Pharisees - Paul himself.  A few years later he was the loudest critic of Christians keeping the traditions of men or the ceremonial law.

IMHO, The bold part of the above statement is a parenthetical statement of opinion made by Mark.  Given the context of the scripture, I'm not sure that Jesus was indeed declaring all foods clean.  I think He was speaking of the sins people commit with their words.  That being said, I don't think anyone will burn just cuz they ate some spare ribs or fried jumbo shrimp.

If Jesus really did declare all foods clean & 1st Corinthians 10, 25 really did mean "everything sold in the meat market" that Roman's and Greeks frequented - would these texts contradict the Scriptures or would they perhaps contradict Ellen White? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
2 hours ago, Gustave said:

If Jesus really did declare all foods clean & 1st Corinthians 10, 25 really did mean "everything sold in the meat market" that Roman's and Greeks frequented - would these texts contradict the Scriptures or would they perhaps contradict Ellen White? 

When I see what I perceive to be contradictions in scripture, I automatically assume I am misunderstanding things; because in my mind, scripture is never wrong.  There are a lot of things in scripture that contradict Ellen White and a lot of things in Ellen White that contradict scripture. When I see a contradiction,  I'll take scripture over her every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
19 hours ago, Gustave said:

No, it's ANYTHING sold in the meat market ( 1st Corinthians 10, 25 ). Trust me, there were things in the Corinth meat market that an observant Jew wouldn't touch due to the items being considered unclean. How do you reconcile your interpretation with this text? 

 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. (NAS)

Alexandrian manuscripts omit "for me" - as in "lawful for me".  

Again:  In context, Paul is talking about avoiding foods that had been presented as offerings to pagan gods.  Paul's policy was "don't ask - don't tell", because he knew the idols could not literally change the food.    

1 Corinthians 10:23 "I have the right to do anything," you say-- but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"-- but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience." (NIV)

1 Timothy 4:3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. 5 For it is sanctified by God's word and by prayer. (1Ti 4:3 NET)

What meats were "sanctified by God's word" ?  Answer:  meats from fish or birds, or "clean" animals that had been bled out.

Define "foods that God created".  Those things specifically "created" to be food, were fruits, grains, and nuts.  Vegetables were added later, as were meats. 

"For every creation of God is good".  Doesn't mean everything that God created.  The "of God" means that "creation" specifically allowed by God - to be eaten.  It excludes those not "of God" - not approved "of God".

The Jerusalem Council said that Gentile converts should abstain "from things strangled".  This was to avoid eating blood.  Kosher meat has been drained of blood.  It is really tasteless, and has to be seasoned.  This command came down from the LORD's command to Noah.  Genesis 9:4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (NIV)

Do you think the LORD's command to Noah was also "changed" or rendered void when Christ died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

When I see what I perceive to be contradictions in scripture, I automatically assume I am misunderstanding things; because in my mind, scripture is never wrong.  There are a lot of things in scripture that contradict Ellen White and a lot of things in Ellen White that contradict scripture. When I see a contradiction,  I'll take scripture over her every day.

What level of contradiction would be sufficient to activate your leaving of the SDA Church not unlike the matter you had with the Priest which caused your exodus from Catholicism?

just curious is all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
15 minutes ago, Gustave said:

What level of contradiction would be sufficient to activate your leaving of the SDA Church

It depends on what you mean by "leave".  I currently am not a member of any SDA congregation; my membership is with the Conference; based on the last time I "left" an SDA Church. I am free to attend any SDA church I want to attend.  Sometimes this forum is my "church".

I am very comfortable in the SDA congregation I usually attend.  Most of us have the same attitude I have - freedom to worship as we think God wants us to.  We have no pastor, head elder or church board.  We all just pitch in with teaching, preaching, financially and with breakfast every week.  We are small (less than 30 people); but everything gets done in an orderly fashion; and we never need to make an appeal for money.  We have a great diversity of "opinions"; although we pretty much agree on core doctrines.  Most (not all) of us have some "eccentric beliefs (for SDA's anyways) like we are fans of some form of rapture (SDA-speak - "translation") and  believe that Nephillim were the offspring of fallen angels and human women; and that EGW - although a gifted and inspired writer - is not an inerrant prophet in the OT sense. We study the Bible and the Bible only.

I feel no motivation to leave the denomination; and the denomination has no reason to kick me out.  I just want to worship with a group of well-studied, open-minded Christians - regardless of denomination. The SDA congregation I currently attend fits that bill.

What would make you leave the RCC? Anything? Like you, just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
19 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

It depends on what you mean by "leave".  I currently am not a member of any SDA congregation; my membership is with the Conference; based on the last time I "left" an SDA Church. I am free to attend any SDA church I want to attend.  Sometimes this forum is my "church".

I am very comfortable in the SDA congregation I usually attend.  Most of us have the same attitude I have - freedom to worship as we think God wants us to.  We have no pastor, head elder or church board.  We all just pitch in with teaching, preaching, financially and with breakfast every week.  We are small (less than 30 people); but everything gets done in an orderly fashion; and we never need to make an appeal for money.  We have a great diversity of "opinions"; although we pretty much agree on core doctrines.  Most (not all) of us have some "eccentric beliefs (for SDA's anyways) like we are fans of some form of rapture (SDA-speak - "translation") and  believe that Nephillim were the offspring of fallen angels and human women; and that EGW - although a gifted and inspired writer - is not an inerrant prophet in the OT sense. We study the Bible and the Bible only.

I feel no motivation to leave the denomination; and the denomination has no reason to kick me out.  I just want to worship with a group of well-studied, open-minded Christians - regardless of denomination. The SDA congregation I currently attend fits that bill.

What would make you leave the RCC? Anything? Like you, just curious.

The RCC condoning same sex marriage, reversing an Official Church Teaching, things like that would cause me to question my affiliation.  

Several years ago I saw a Christian Church that had been buried under sand and dirt since around 330 A.D. It looked JUST  like an Orthodox Church. I've known some very saintly Orthodox Christians. If something happened that caused me to leave the Catholic Church I would become Eastern Orthodox in a microsecond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
1 hour ago, Gustave said:

The RCC condoning same sex marriage, reversing an Official Church Teaching, things like that would cause me to question my affiliation.

Now that you mention it, these are things similar to what I would leave Adventism (and probably abandon denominational religion altogether) for. If forced to accept EGW as an inerrant prophet, if the denomination turned its back on the Sabbath, or became an ardent supporter of globalism or one-world religion, I would leave.  I would probably try to find a Messianic Jewish congregation that I could fit into.

While I believe public worship is an integral part of being a believer, I don't think belonging to a denomination is.  I don't believe Christ or the Apostles had formal denominations or mega-churches in mind 2,000 years ago.  Like I said earlier, I am currently a member of a congregation affiliated with the SDA denomination; but I doubt that any of us would lose much sleep if that affiliation came to an end.  That being said, Adventism is the closest thing to a common denominator that we have.  I thank God that Adventism (at least where I live) gives people quite a bit of leeway on what to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
4 hours ago, Gustave said:

JoeMo,

Have you read the book of Enoch? 

Yes I have. It opened my eyes to several things I didn't understand from the Bible alone - like some of the stuff spoken of in Genesis 6 , Matthew 24-25, and Jude. It pretty much solidified my suspicion based on a literal read of Genesis 6.  Enoch was popular among Jews - even the apostles - in apostolic times. The first Book of Enoch was fairly understandable.  The Second and Third Books got a little strange for me.

I am also currently reading 1 and 2 Maccabees.  Fascinating history of the second century BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
32 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Yes I have. It opened my eyes to several things I didn't understand from the Bible alone - like some of the stuff spoken of in Genesis 6 , Matthew 24-25, and Jude. It pretty much solidified my suspicion based on a literal read of Genesis 6.  Enoch was popular among Jews - even the apostles - in apostolic times. The first Book of Enoch was fairly understandable.  The Second and Third Books got a little strange for me.

I am also currently reading 1 and 2 Maccabees.  Fascinating history of the second century BC.

I have read all those Books as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
9 hours ago, Gustave said:

I have read all those Books as well.

 

I'd be interested in your overall take on the first part of Genesis 6 in light of the Book of Enoch if you don't mind sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Does anyone have anything else to say about what it means to be "under the law"? 

Can one be both - under the law and under grace?  I don't think so.  Paul seem to nix that idea. 

Speaking to believers, Paul said, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." (Rom 6:14 )

Does being "under the law" mean that sin has "dominion over" us?

Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (NKJ)

The difference seems to be in whether one is "led by the Spirit". 

But those "lead of the Spirit" did not begin to violate every Old Testament commandment.  Quite the contrary.  They kept them better and more consistently.  The promise in Ezekiel and Jeremiah clearly says the effect of His Spirit will result in keeping and doing "His Law". 

Ezekiel 36:27 "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. " (Jer 31:31-34)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
26 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I don't accept the First Book of Enoch as inspired - at all.  So guess I'll leave you to discuss that between you two. 

Could you start another thread for that topic, cause I can't see what that has to do with our salvation, or with understanding our relationship to "the Law". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'd be interested in your overall take on the first part of Genesis 6 in light of the Book of Enoch if you don't mind sharing.

I’ll do that - but it will take me a few days. 

Im Buried at work and additionally have another matter that’s requiring about all of my free time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Can one be both - under the law and under grace?  I don't think so.  Paul seem to nix that idea. 

I agree - Paul nixed the idea.

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

What is our motivation for being under grace?  In an earthly example, the son of the owner of a big business may be "under grace" as the preferred successor of owning the business.  But if that son shows himself to use this grace to unethically enrich himself at the expense of the company through embezzlement or fraud,  that grace had no effect; and a wise father would "fire" that son.  If our motivation for being under grace is to have a license to sin, that grace is of no avail; and we may be "fired" from carrying on the Family business.

Personally, many of the believers I know who consider themselves to be  "under grace" are pretty compliant, compassionate Christians. There are exceptions; but few believe those exceptions are even Christians. I guess "by their fruits you will know them".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Could you start another thread for that topic,

It depends on how interested Gustave may be in the topic.  I have started a couple threads on the topic of Nephilim before; and they were met with quite a bit of resistance and some hostility.

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I can't see what that has to do with our salvation

We discuss a lot of things on here that are not salvational issues; but are nice to know or fun to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Gregory,

I read the article several times.  I really like Heppenstall's statement that the OT and specifically the Law in the OT is a "progressive revelation" of God - of His justice, mercy, power, faithfulness (to His promises) - with Christ as the full revelation.

With that "progressive revelation" - "schoolmaster" definition of "the law", I can see that "under the Law" would mean living under - governed by, that "revelation" given through the OT Law of the Hebrews.    

I liked his point that sin is defined in Scripture as transgression against the revealed and known will of God the Creator.  Because sin is personal rebellion against a personal God, it can only be forgiven by that personal God Himself.  I liked that.  

Has God ever been called "the forgiver" ?  

I had trouble understanding clearly what point Heppenstall was coming to in the second part of his article.  Maybe you can help with that.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...