Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Reply to topic
Tart
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:05 pm  Determining Biblical Authorship Reply with quote

This topic is to present evidence and/or reasoning to establish if Biblical Authorship is authentic or non-authentic... Although I have seen many post throughout the years claiming that, for example, some of Paul's epistles are fakes and some are real, I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other. Ill have to note a disclaimer right now, that I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm very interested in it, as this is important for Christianity... And I'm namely talking about the New testament, but if anyone would like to discuss a book in the Old Testament that would be ok as well.

Here is a website that I just google with a quick search that ill say I might agree as what they say is "The New Testament - A Brief Overview" on authorship, as a quick starting point. (and note, I don't know why they have 1 Peter and 2 Peter, I think that may be a mistake on their part, but lets assume it is all on Peter even though I have heard 2 peter is a fraud)

Are these claims of authorship true or not? Why?

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testament/authors.html

(and as my computer time is running out at the library, ill put off posting the actual evidence of why I agree with some of these claims in the linked website, but will post it in a future date. Namely supporting the traditionally held authorship of the Gospels)
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:25 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Tcg
Tart wrote:

[Replying to post 11 by SallyF]

To your post about how God wrote the Bible

I dont believe that, and no body educated does, these pictures you posted were probably made to suggest God inspired its writers, and id agree with that, but im not going to respond to this any more... The Books had actual authors...lol

For example here is the first sentence of Romans.. It is of the author signing his name...

"1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God"

To be honest, i dont even know why i respond to post like this... Let the blind lead the blind into a ditch



I, Elizabeth II, Regina, Queen of Great Britain and the Dominions, by the Grace of God and Defender of the Faith, did write these words so that Member Tart and others may know that it was indeed me that fingered the keyboard herein, to advise and admonish the disparaging term "LOL" used in the above quotation, and that folks cannot know what bodies - educated or otherwise - may believe unless the bodies declare it themselves.

There you are Member Tart …!

A signed missive from Her Majesty Smile

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:16 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
Tart wrote:
I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other.
Difflugia wrote:
I'll bite and pick 1 Timothy.

If you're not interested in the Pastorals, most of the New Testament can be discussed.
  • The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are anonymous and there are few reasons to think they were written by the named NT characters.
  • John is technically anonymous, but claims of authorship are based on the whole "disciple that Jesus loved" thing. There are lingustic reasons for thinking it wasn't written by the Apostle John (or any of the disciples) and textual reasons for thinking "the disciple that Jesus loved" may not have been John.
  • Acts is generally considered to have been written by the author of Luke's Gospel (whether Luke or not), but there are modern scholars that disagree.
  • Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, and Galatians are accepted as Pauline by nearly all scholars. 1-2 Timothy and Titus are regarded as spurious by nearly all scholars. The others fall somewhere inbetween.
  • Though Hebrews was accepted into the Canon based on its presumed Pauline authorship, it doesn't itself include a claim of authorship. That means that there's no problem with inerrancy if he didn't write it, so even fundamentalists generally accept that it wasn't written by Paul. Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable exception.
  • James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude are traditionally attributed to the characters from the Gospels. Most modern scholarship rejects this, predominantly because the Greek style of these epistles conflicts with them having been written by Judaean peasants.
  • 1-3 John are essentially anonymous (2-3 John claim to have been written by "the Elder," which the early Church attributed to John of Zebedee). Most modern scholars believe that 1-3 John were written by the same person, but not by the author of John's Gospel. There is, however, a significant minority that disputes this, some thinking that they were all written by the same person and others finding multiple authors for 1-3 John.
  • Revelation claims to have been written by "John," but is unlikely to have been written by the evangelist or the author of the epistles. Independent of its relationship with the rest of the Johannine corpus, there are separate reasons why it probably wasn't written by John, son of Zebedee as he was portrayed by the Gospels.
Whether it's one you want to discuss or not, an old (1920) ICC volume on Revelation by R. H. Charles (Volume 1, Volume 2) is a really fascinating and entertaining read. I recommend it. From volume 1, pages xxii-xxiii:
Quote:
But unhappily the prophet [the author of Revelation] did not live to revise his work, or even to put the materials of 20:4-22:21 into their legitimate order. This task fell, to the misfortune of all students of the Apocalypse, into the hands of a very unintelligent disciple. This disciple was a better Greek scholar than his master, for he corrects his Greek occasionally, and was probably a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian of Asia Minor. He had not his master's knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any knowledge of it, and he was profoundly ignorant of his master's thought. If he had left his master's work as he found it, its teaching would not have been the unintelligible mystery it has been to subsequent ages; but unhappily he intervened repeatedly, rearranging the text in some cases, adding to it in others, and every such intervention has made the task of interpretation impossible for all students who accepted such rearrangements and additions as genuine features of the text Since, however, his handiwork and character are fully dealt with later, we need not waste more time here over his misdemeanours.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:31 am
Reply

Like this post (2): brunumb, Tcg
Tart wrote:

Tcg wrote:

Tart wrote:


I would suggest to you that this is radical skepticism, which you can take but like the vast vast vast majority of scholars would disagree.

<bolding mine>




Tart wrote:


But I have never really seen the actual evidence of it, usually we just get a statement that says "scholars think this" or "the majority of scholars think that", but in reality that is just appealing to authorities and not presenting the actual evidence of why scholars think one way or the other. Id like to discuss the evidence

<bolding mine>


You of course added, "vast vast vast", to your appeal to authorities, I suppose to sound more convincing, but not even a hint of evidence. I thought your goal was to discuss evidence?


Tcg



Ya and i suppose the key statement you left out of my quote is

"And why [do scholars think so]? I think it is because it is the best explanation of the evidence."

I have never seen any good reason to suggest someone like Paul never existed. In fact, i have good reason to believe everyone in the New Testament existed, because everyone we can confirm to be historical ends up being historical. And if you like to discuss why id be happy to do that.

Ill briefly sum up the case for someone like Paul, Peter, James, or John, in this way... There is no better explanation of the evidence, for the existence of the first churches and the existence of the books written in the Bible, then for these men to have actually existed and written at least some of them... Period... Now if you'd like to discuss the details id be happy to do that... But first, do you have any good explanation yourself? And if not, why would you believe otherwise? What would lead you to believe Paul, Peter, James, John didnt exist?


You claim there is no reason, yet you seem to forget all other religions.
Do you think all the other thousands of religions were created for 'no reason'?

Of course not, and all the reasons for competing religions to form would be possible reasons for your preferred religion to form. Your god concept is just one of thousands after all.

Why people commit this blunder of logic is the real question.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:34 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
Difflugia wrote:

Tart wrote:
I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other.

I guess I didn't realize until reading your post again that you meant "searching for" to mean that you wanted someone that disagreed with traditional authorship to pick one for debate. I'll bite and pick 1 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are pretty much universally considered to be pseudonymous by scholars that aren't inerrantists, to the point that when I'm checking a commentary that I'm not familiar with, I check its opinion of the authorship of the Pastorals as a shibboleth for whether it assumes inerrancy or not. As an example, the ESV Global Study Bible (which is a free ebook download or online commentary) writes this:
Quote:
The apostle Paul probably wrote this letter to Timothy in the mid-60s A.D., during a mission trip not recorded in Scripture. This trip took place after the events described in Acts, between Paul’s first and final Roman imprisonments.

On the other hand, The New Oxford Annotated Bible has a full-page essay (p. 2123 in the Fifth Edition). I probably shouldn't include the whole thing, but here are the central two paragraphs, which lay out the consensus view and the main challenges to it:
Quote:
The conclusion that these three epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive. It is possible to see how some passages may have been written to explain or definitively interpret passages in the authentic letters already in circulation (such as 1 Tim 2.9–19; cf. 1 Cor 14.33–36). Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers. Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul's trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership. They represent a bridge between the apostle and later generations. Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,” the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul's death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul's genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard.

Recent challenges to the pseudepigraphical nature of all three letters have come from scholars who argue that each should be judged separately, that the letters contain fragments of original Pauline material, or that the very concept of “authorship” of a Pauline letter requires nuance, given that Paul used secretaries and served as a member of a cooperative missionary team. Still, the prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix” his legacy (in both senses of the term). Even if not composed by Paul, they have historically had a very influential role in Christian thought and practice, and the controversies they sought to “fix”—such as the roles of women in the church—remain alive to the present day.


So, the first paragraph says that the Pastorals are often rejected "based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria," but doesn't elaborate, so it's up to us (or "me," as it were) to find the details. It turns out that the seminal study of the "literary" criterion was written just long enough ago (1921) that it's in the public domain in the US, but is still referenced by modern scholars: The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles by P. N. Harrison. It can be read or downloaded from Google Books or Internet Archive. It's a short read, if you're so inclined.

The argument is based on hapax legomena, which just means words unique to a particular work within a larger corpus. Harrison calculated the number of hapax legomena for each book in the New Testament. He compared the Pauline epistles and each of the Pastoral epistles has a much larger number of hapax legomena than the others. He reasoned that an author writing multiple times on similar topics should exercise roughly the same sort of vocabulary in each work. This is true for the other ten Pauline epistles. Furthermore, when ordered by the number of hapax legomena, the other epistles line up roughly in the order that they were likely written. Harrison sees this as characteristic of an author becoming more experienced and slowly expanding his working vocabulary. The Pastorals, on the other hand, have more than twice as many hapax legomena as would be expected based on this pattern. Here's his graph:



Some of the later points that Harrison makes are that the other ten Paulines (which he considers genuine) regularly use particular words and grammatical structures that are underused in or missing from the Pastorals and that the Pastorals share more vocabulary with Christian literature from the second and third centuries than the other Paulines do. I think I'll stop there for now, though.


Well that is certainly interesting. Thanks for the reply. Now im might make this hard on you, but bear with me. Because in order to establish a valid belief we would need valid reasoning. For example, saying "this is what scholars believe" without actually knowing why they believe it, wouldnt really be a valid reason to establish any belief... So im going to try to get some details.

Your reference says:

"Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive."

Can you give any verses to establish this from these Epistles? And/or outside evidence of these practices after Paul's death?

"Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers."

Can you give the verses in the Pastoral Epistles that can establish that they "minimize or lack" these characteristics, and verses that emphasize on adherence to tradition? Any evidence will do.

"Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul's trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership."

Any verse or evidence will do.

"Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,” the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul's death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul's genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard."

Any verses or evidence will do

"Still, the prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix” his legacy (in both senses of the term)."

Any verse or evidence will do

"The argument is based on hapax legomena, which just means words unique to a particular work within a larger corpus. Harrison calculated the number of hapax legomena for each book in the New Testament. He compared the Pauline epistles and each of the Pastoral epistles has a much larger number of hapax legomena than the others. He reasoned that an author writing multiple times on similar topics should exercise roughly the same sort of vocabulary in each work. This is true for the other ten Pauline epistles. Furthermore, when ordered by the number of hapax legomena, the other epistles line up roughly in the order that they were likely written. Harrison sees this as characteristic of an author becoming more experienced and slowly expanding his working vocabulary. The Pastorals, on the other hand, have more than twice as many hapax legomena as would be expected based on this pattern."


Id really like to know the actual words if possible... Would it matter? I suppose it would have to be judged based on the words used... What do you think?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:27 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
[Replying to post 2 by bluegreenearth]

Are we to assume that Bart Ehrman is unbiased? He consistently is engaged in public debates with the attempt to discredit Christianity. Sounds biased

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:53 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
Difflugia wrote:

Tart wrote:
I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other.
Difflugia wrote:
I'll bite and pick 1 Timothy.

If you're not interested in the Pastorals, most of the New Testament can be discussed.
  • The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are anonymous and there are few reasons to think they were written by the named NT characters.
  • John is technically anonymous, but claims of authorship are based on the whole "disciple that Jesus loved" thing. There are lingustic reasons for thinking it wasn't written by the Apostle John (or any of the disciples) and textual reasons for thinking "the disciple that Jesus loved" may not have been John.
  • Acts is generally considered to have been written by the author of Luke's Gospel (whether Luke or not), but there are modern scholars that disagree.
  • Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, and Galatians are accepted as Pauline by nearly all scholars. 1-2 Timothy and Titus are regarded as spurious by nearly all scholars. The others fall somewhere inbetween.
  • Though Hebrews was accepted into the Canon based on its presumed Pauline authorship, it doesn't itself include a claim of authorship. That means that there's no problem with inerrancy if he didn't write it, so even fundamentalists generally accept that it wasn't written by Paul. Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable exception.
  • James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude are traditionally attributed to the characters from the Gospels. Most modern scholarship rejects this, predominantly because the Greek style of these epistles conflicts with them having been written by Judaean peasants.
  • 1-3 John are essentially anonymous (2-3 John claim to have been written by "the Elder," which the early Church attributed to John of Zebedee). Most modern scholars believe that 1-3 John were written by the same person, but not by the author of John's Gospel. There is, however, a significant minority that disputes this, some thinking that they were all written by the same person and others finding multiple authors for 1-3 John.
  • Revelation claims to have been written by "John," but is unlikely to have been written by the evangelist or the author of the epistles. Independent of its relationship with the rest of the Johannine corpus, there are separate reasons why it probably wasn't written by John, son of Zebedee as he was portrayed by the Gospels.
Whether it's one you want to discuss or not, an old (1920) ICC volume on Revelation by R. H. Charles (Volume 1, Volume 2) is a really fascinating and entertaining read. I recommend it. From volume 1, pages xxii-xxiii:
Quote:
But unhappily the prophet [the author of Revelation] did not live to revise his work, or even to put the materials of 20:4-22:21 into their legitimate order. This task fell, to the misfortune of all students of the Apocalypse, into the hands of a very unintelligent disciple. This disciple was a better Greek scholar than his master, for he corrects his Greek occasionally, and was probably a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian of Asia Minor. He had not his master's knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any knowledge of it, and he was profoundly ignorant of his master's thought. If he had left his master's work as he found it, its teaching would not have been the unintelligible mystery it has been to subsequent ages; but unhappily he intervened repeatedly, rearranging the text in some cases, adding to it in others, and every such intervention has made the task of interpretation impossible for all students who accepted such rearrangements and additions as genuine features of the text Since, however, his handiwork and character are fully dealt with later, we need not waste more time here over his misdemeanours.


Ok, again im going to be asking for the evidence in these responses. We need to know why the scholars would believe these things. If we didnt know, anyone scholar could simply say anything that we would take as true.

Your last quote is an example.... Why would we believe this? What evidence tells us that someone rearranged Revelations 20-21? Or adding to it?

It would be kind of a bizarre thing to add text to the book of Revelations in chapters 20 and 22, when just one chapter later it says, "18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll."

Or was that added in as well? It would be kind of weird for a student to believe his master, to be educated by him, and perhaps a believing Christian, and then blatantly go against these words....?


"The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are anonymous and there are few reasons to think they were written by the named NT characters."

Ya i think it is possible for these Gospels to be identified by their authors in the very early church. I certainly believe these authors existed, and think it they may have been correctly identified as authors.

"John is technically anonymous, but claims of authorship are based on the whole "disciple that Jesus loved" thing. There are lingustic reasons for thinking it wasn't written by the Apostle John (or any of the disciples) and textual reasons for thinking "the disciple that Jesus loved" may not have been John."


Ya, possibly written by John, but im not sure.

"Acts is generally considered to have been written by the author of Luke's Gospel (whether Luke or not), but there are modern scholars that disagree."

It is certainly possible to be written by Luke, i wouldnt know why to doubt it...


"Though Hebrews was accepted into the Canon based on its presumed Pauline authorship, it doesn't itself include a claim of authorship. That means that there's no problem with inerrancy if he didn't write it, so even fundamentalists generally accept that it wasn't written by Paul."

Can you give evidence for Hebrews being accepted into the Canon based on its presumed Pauline authorship?... I dont know who wrote it...

"James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude are traditionally attributed to the characters from the Gospels. Most modern scholarship rejects this, predominantly because the Greek style of these epistles conflicts with them having been written by Judaean peasants."

Can you give the evidence for this quote; "Most modern scholarship rejects this, predominantly because the Greek style of these epistles conflicts with them having been written by Judaean peasants"?

"Most modern scholars believe that 1-3 John were written by the same person, but not by the author of John's Gospel. There is, however, a significant minority that disputes this, some thinking that they were all written by the same person and others finding multiple authors for 1-3 John."

What is the evidence?


"Revelation claims to have been written by "John," but is unlikely to have been written by the evangelist or the author of the epistles. Independent of its relationship with the rest of the Johannine corpus, there are separate reasons why it probably wasn't written by John, son of Zebedee as he was portrayed by the Gospels."

what is that evidence?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:02 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by Tart]


There are two major difficulties for assessing the traditional authorship of the contents of the Bible: one is fundamentalism. there are fundamentalists on both sides of the divide here: fundamentalist skeptics will rule out anything a priori that may support Christianity; fundamentalist Christians will accept anything that is likely to support it.

But there is another: and that is historical methodology. On this terrain it is the fundamentalist skeptics who commit the greater error. They for some reason think that only if a all possible alternative theories are ruled out, the traditional attributions have no credit.

Let me explain with details:

The traditional position is that the gospel of Mark was written by an associate of Peter, and perhaps that Mark so named John Mark in the N.T. The argument in favor of this attribution is:
1) If the book was known NOT to have been written by Mark, then assigning it to Mark yields zero motive: he was not a disciple or even apostle. Later Christian writings show a trend in assigning texts to actual disciples.

2) The gospel of Mark is never, anywhere, attributed to anyone else. As soon as historians see attribution, it is linked to a "Mark".

3) A 4th c. historian cites earlier memoirs (those of Papias) which link Mark and Peter.


Against this the hyperskeptics have nothing other than hyper skepticism. There is virtually no conflicting evidence. We have, therefore, a conflict of motive: there is motive, on the side of the skeptics, to remove the second gospel as far as possible from any primary sources; on the other hand, if the early church scratched its head at an unassigned gospel, and wondered, "who wrote this thing, it's damn good", what REASONABLE motive would they have, when inventing an attribution ex nihilo, for attributing it NOT directly to Peter!? Why make up Mark, even if they could find a Mark associated with Peter? They could have named anyone! ANYONE! They could have said "The gospel of Jesus, who wrote this just prior to his entry into Jerusalem."

this is the major problem with the thinking of hyperskepticism: they simply do not think objectively. They don't want to know what actually happened; they just care to attack what others say happened. And that makes them very, very poor thinkers: for they do not carry out their own position ad absurdum.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:10 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
[Replying to post 27 by liamconnor]

Ya, so i started this thread to get down to the actual evidence of biblical authorship and to come to conclusions based off the evidence.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:22 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post (1): brunumb
.
liamconnor wrote:

this is the major problem with the thinking of hyperskepticism:

What does it take to qualify as a HYPER skeptic?

liamconnor wrote:

they simply do not think objectively.

Blanket statement.

liamconnor wrote:

They don't want to know what actually happened;

Mind reading

liamconnor wrote:

they just care to attack what others say happened.

Being asked for verifiable evidence to support claims can be viewed as ‘attack’ by those who lack verifiable evidence.

liamconnor wrote:

And that makes them very, very poor thinkers:

According to opponents.

liamconnor wrote:

for they do not carry out their own position ad absurdum.

The absurd is well represented by those who claim knowledge without verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:40 pm
Reply
Re: Determining Biblical Authorship

Like this post
Tart wrote:

[Replying to post 27 by liamconnor]

Ya, so i started this thread to get down to the actual evidence of biblical authorship and to come to conclusions based off the evidence.


Ya (dude??) I gave the evidence. Do you honestly think that ancient history provides CIA databases? What kind of evidence do you honestly think is available from the 1st-3rd century about ANYTHING!? Do you think there are inscriptions on some 2nd c. tomb saying, I wrote Mark? or "I pretended to write Mark"? Do you think we have inscriptions of Plato saying, "I wrote what later centuries will call the Republic"?

What we have is what we have: a few ancient texts and good reasoning based on them.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version