flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > 2 + 2 is &, my bible told me so... (Remotely hosted imag

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
You havn't come up with prositive proof yet. I thought we all agreed that positive proof (non questionable/100% accuret) is impossible.

Positive proof of what? I still don't exactly understand which of my claims you are challenging. Can you tell exactly proof of WHAT do you want? Please try to be as specific as possible, so we can stop arguing about definitions of words, and go to presenting and judging evidence.

Quote:
Studying possible forgeries will teach me how these were "scientifically verfied?"

absolutely: you will learn by what methods are documents discovered to be forgeried, and by which are documents considered real verified.

Quote:
The idea is that you'll never change anyway

I hope that i WILL change. Only by changing I can become better, if I wouldn't change, I would be stagnating. In fact, I learned some things even in this debate, when looking for evidence to present to you.
Post 26 Dec 2007, 18:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
... That's like saying information of microwaving popcorn can be found in the Quran...
no, that's like reading in the Quran, if you will take the time to do so, that jesus of nazareth was a prophet, not a divinity, a live, flesh and blood human, not a deity.
This brings me back to my original challenge to you kohlrak, to explain why Emperor (= Lord) Constantine PRESENTED jesus of nazareth with a birthdate corresponding to the winter solstice, the SECOND most important holiday of Constantine's pagan religion. To whom did he deliver the MOST important holiday of his pagan religion, and more importantly, WHY??? Why did Constantine choose THAT man for the most important holiday, and not Jesus?
I think that you may have been a bit sidetracked by my introduction of the gospel according to (Saint) Peter. My point was elegantly reiterated by vid, namely, that AT THAT TIME, (i.e. about one hundred years after the death of jesus,) proximate to Jeruselem, i.e. in Damascus, and in Cairo, (two of the four original centers of the founding Christian church) THERE WERE NO OTHER GOSPELS, only the forgery of Peter. But, what of the other early writings, for example, the "gospels" of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? When were they written, and by whom? What was the life expectancy in Jeruselem 2000 years ago, kohlrak? Perhaps 40, maybe 38. Possibly 46. Surely, NOT 70 years. But, how old would the disciples of Jesus have been if they wrote these "Gospels" thirty, forty, and fifty years AFTER the death of Jesus? If the average person lived five decades, back then, how long would a radical revolutionary expect to live? Those disciples of jesus, all of whom died violently, most likely did not live the AVERAGE life expectancy--they most likely died, for political reasons, BEFORE their normal time to expire. In other words, I am arguing here, that I disbelieve the story that these four gospels were authored by the actual followers of Jesus, all of whom, I believe, were DEAD within thirty years of jesus' death. How could they author manuscripts from the grave? I think those four gospels were more likely penned by folks who never knew jesus at all, or, perhaps met him when they were just little kids. In that regard, the four gospels are of no more credence, to my way of thinking, than the Quran. Neither one is credible, neither one represents first hand accounts. Both the gospels, and the Quran have, in my opinion, been "EDITED", MANY times over the centuries, to accommodate special interests of rulers, kings, emperors, popes, and other "great" leaders.
I am not trying to change the subject, but I would draw to your attention, kohlrak, partially in gratitude to your having introduced these themes, which compelled me to LEARN something, by reading about the phony gospel of Peter, about which I knew nothing prior to encountering your informative thread here on the FASM forum, the terrible distortions, and outright misinformation about Aristarchus, which exists TODAY, in a 2007 publication, authored, not by some clumsy, illiterate oaf like me, but by a Federal Judge, Posner, a professor at University of Chicago law school, who has published MANY books, and who therefore ought to know better.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagiarism-Richard-Posner/dp/037542475X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198712169&sr=8-1
Posner's 2007 book, titled "the little book of plagiarism", repeats the same old nonsense which I learned as a schoolboy, namely, that Copernicus discovered (Posner citing the work of Aristarchus, states that he "REdiscovered") heliocentrism. NO. Of course not. Copernicus plagiarized Aristarchus writings, presenting the conclusions as his own, without replicating Aristarchus' experiments, and without providing proper attribution. My point then, is this, kohlrak, if even today, with all of our sophisticated methods, retrieval abilities, sources, libraries, internet, everything, all of that, a guy can err on that magnitude, well, it takes one's breath away, right? Here's a renowned Appellate Court judge, professor of law, author of many legal textbooks, UNABLE to discern the truth, about something which, compared to the myths about jesus, is well documented. Why?
Hmm. Let's see now. Posner? hmm. Do you think kohlrak, that this name, I mean, does it sound just a tiny bit POLISH, to you, kohlrak? Do you think maybe there possibly could be just a tad of POLISH influence in his upbringing????? Kopernik, = Pole. Pozner = Pole. Hmm.
If even such a distinguished person can err on a question of scholarship of this magnitude, kohlrak, then, how can we accept that 2000 years ago, there were not similar episodes of fraudulent representation, concerning a jewish rabbi, executed by his own leaders? Incidently, kohlrak, what happened to all of the carefully hand copied illustrations from Aristarchus' scientific measurements and calculations, (which Copernicus encountered in 1500, when studying medicine at Padua), faithfully preserved over the centuries, (one thousand seven hundred years after Aristarchus' death), so that one day in CE 1500, a Polish medical student could recognize their incredible significance, and publish the results, without attribution, as if he himself had performed the research? Where are all those manuscripts today???? They existed five hundred years ago, when Copernicus saw them. Where are they now? More importantly, WHY DID THE CHRISTIANS destroy this evidence of the TRUTH about our solar system? kohlrak, do you remember writing some nonsense about "the" bible representing EVIDENCE of god, at the outset of this thread??? Well, guess what, those same type of thinkers, five hundred years ago, ALSO encountered these fantastic manuscripts of Aristarchus. Copernicus wasn't the only one who saw them. Only, those guys didn't think it was proper for such heresy to exist, so they BURNED the manuscripts, because they contradict "the" bible.
As far as I know, there are no longer any extant manuscripts of Aristarchus' brilliant research. The precious manuscripts survived a thousand years after the muslim anarchy, but could not survive the inquisition, and the book burnings by the Protestants and the Catholics. Those two groups NEEDED the books to start the kindling, to get the logs going, to properly roast the heretics like me, who were tied up at the stake, for believing that the BIBLE is wrong, when it asserts geocentrism, following Plato and Aristotle. kohlrak, how can "the" bible be both DIVINELY authored, or "inspired", and also WRONG? The answer: the bible, is simply a collection of writings by unknown authors, modified to suit the fantasies and delusions of various rulers during the past two thousand years. It contains anecdotes, fables, allegories, poetry and opinions, not facts. It was neither created by, nor represents evidence of, a supernatural power.
Post 27 Dec 2007, 00:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Positive proof of what? I still don't exactly understand which of my claims you are challenging. Can you tell exactly proof of WHAT do you want? Please try to be as specific as possible, so we can stop arguing about definitions of words, and go to presenting and judging evidence.


The sites themselves. You present to me sites. I still don't see why i should trust them. They're websites. They could be edited in an instant by the owner. They can be written by clowns for all we know? Instead of trusting many, many generations' intellegent thought and conclusion, we are changing our perspective now based mearly on a collection of websites? Websites that been swayed back and forth by only they know. All they put down is their referances, and i havn't even checked if they all do that. I havn't checked their references, i havn't checked the referances of their referances, and even then i'm probably not going to be convinced. Especially because it's a political topic (religion always has and always will be), though i havn't made that point yet in this debate. Politics is a dangerous world of forgery of forgery of forgery and twisting of words. I won't just trust some random shmoe i never heard of till now over a very large number of people, some of which are scientists themselves. Thing is, this isn't really even an issue of science. The only science is the picking up of the objects. That's the field of archaeology (sp?) and that's theoretically not science, because it's not testing anything, really. From there it's a matter of historians and peons like us arguing back and forth about each little peice of the puzzle that they found. It's really not much to make any grand revolutions, as far as i can see. Sure we can get accuret, but it's nothing in special case scenarios where things would be really out of place, which would be the case for an important event such as Jesus, whether authentic or not. Big situations make people act in weird ways. Surely, any situation that would have a murderer go free instead of letting a "madman" go free would surely count as a sign of aspecial situation. Someone comming talking about being God himself encased in flesh, that would surely be counted as a special situation if people actually believed. In such situations, you would expect everyone to act out in chaos, just as they did when War of the Worlds was broad casted on the radio.

Quote:
absolutely: you will learn by what methods are documents discovered to be forgeried, and by which are documents considered real verified.


but perhaps not the real accurecy of such methods. Really hard to judge such methods in practice accurecy when the application is harder than the test. (In other words, it's hard to figured out how well it is, when we ourselves must've tested it on something more recent, otherwise we would be omnicient (sp?) of this time period.)

Quote:
I hope that i WILL change. Only by changing I can become better, if I wouldn't change, I would be stagnating. In fact, I learned some things even in this debate, when looking for evidence to present to you.


The only thing that changes is your knowledge, but you're still stubborn to hold your oppinions. You're still stubborn in the action of trusting the now. Similarly, i've learned alot in this debate, but i still havn't changed. I've noticed that you reply quite quickly. So quickly that you must not be checking your evidence before throwing it out onto the table. I'll admit that i havn't really double checked the book that i referanced, but for some one who says that they don't just trust random sites, you sure do post those links pretty quickly.

Quote:
This brings me back to my original challenge to you kohlrak, to explain why Emperor (= Lord) Constantine PRESENTED jesus of nazareth with a birthdate corresponding to the winter solstice, the SECOND most important holiday of Constantine's pagan religion.


I thought i stated this before, and more than once. This was for easier acceptance of christianity. Philisophical Christians today don't agree that this was his actual birth time, or luckily if so. I've never found anyone, though, who ever thought it was important enough to know.

Quote:
To whom did he deliver the MOST important holiday of his pagan religion, and more importantly, WHY??? Why did Constantine choose THAT man for the most important holiday, and not Jesus?


To whom is a good question. Never bothered to look that up, and nor do i care. I take it that you have the answer, or do you want me to look that up for you when i have a little more than just short burts of time to make these posts?

Quote:
I think that you may have been a bit sidetracked by my introduction of the gospel according to (Saint) Peter. My point was elegantly reiterated by vid, namely, that AT THAT TIME, (i.e. about one hundred years after the death of jesus,) proximate to Jeruselem, i.e. in Damascus, and in Cairo, (two of the four original centers of the founding Christian church) THERE WERE NO OTHER GOSPELS, only the forgery of Peter. But, what of the other early writings, for example, the "gospels" of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? When were they written, and by whom? What was the life expectancy in Jeruselem 2000 years ago, kohlrak? Perhaps 40, maybe 38. Possibly 46. Surely, NOT 70 years. But, how old would the disciples of Jesus have been if they wrote these "Gospels" thirty, forty, and fifty years AFTER the death of Jesus? If the average person lived five decades, back then, how long would a radical revolutionary expect to live? Those disciples of jesus, all of whom died violently, most likely did not live the AVERAGE life expectancy--they most likely died, for political reasons, BEFORE their normal time to expire. In other words, I am arguing here, that I disbelieve the story that these four gospels were authored by the actual followers of Jesus, all of whom, I believe, were DEAD within thirty years of jesus' death. How could they author manuscripts from the grave? I think those four gospels were more likely penned by folks who never knew jesus at all, or, perhaps met him when they were just little kids.


I could have sworn i made this quite clear numerous times throughout this post. But, i guess i'll have to say it again... I've been even told this one during a Sunday service in the church that i go to. Rather than the deciples themselves writing them, the deciples of the deciples wrote the gospels IN HONOR OF THEM. Therefor, they would have taken as much care as they possibly could to make sure that the message was passed onto someone who could write it down as close to the deciples themselves as they could. Primitive, and it was the best of the time. It may even show in minor points of the new testement, such as the referance to being a day in conflict here and there.

Quote:
In that regard, the four gospels are of no more credence, to my way of thinking, than the Quran.


Then let that be. I have no intent on changing you. You've got your hatred for christianity, and it shows. I won't even bother trying to convert you to christianity. I won't even try converting vid either. I won't try converting anyone. I just demand some respect for my religion and it's followers.

Quote:
Neither one is credible, neither one represents first hand accounts. Both the gospels, and the Quran have, in my opinion, been "EDITED", MANY times over the centuries, to accommodate special interests of rulers, kings, emperors, popes, and other "great" leaders.


Once again, until you can prove 100%, that is to be considered slander. It's ignorant to just take evidence and destroy something based on that. It's like giving capital punishment based on 20 eye witness accounts. Who's to say that those 20 people just didn't like the guy and/or are protecting the guy who did do it?

Quote:
I am not trying to change the subject, but I would draw to your attention, kohlrak, partially in gratitude to your having introduced these themes, which compelled me to LEARN something, by reading about the phony gospel of Peter, about which I knew nothing prior to encountering your informative thread here on the FASM forum, the terrible distortions, and outright misinformation about Aristarchus, which exists TODAY, in a 2007 publication, authored, not by some clumsy, illiterate oaf like me, but by a Federal Judge, Posner, a professor at University of Chicago law school, who has published MANY books, and who therefore ought to know better.


Federal judge... If the person's a politition, it's not really very reputable. I mean, common, look at this guy's other books. THe titles speak for themselves. The guy writes books and he has a large list of genre. Politions will do whatever it takes to gain power. If that means changing the bible they will try. The real question becomes, will such changes be retained? (My answer is, "no." But that's what this debate is about, is it not?)

Quote:
Posner's 2007 book, titled "the little book of plagiarism", repeats the same old nonsense which I learned as a schoolboy, namely, that Copernicus discovered (Posner citing the work of Aristarchus, states that he "REdiscovered") heliocentrism. NO. Of course not. Copernicus plagiarized Aristarchus writings, presenting the conclusions as his own, without replicating Aristarchus' experiments, and without providing proper attribution. My point then, is this, kohlrak, if even today, with all of our sophisticated methods, retrieval abilities, sources, libraries, internet, everything, all of that, a guy can err on that magnitude, well, it takes one's breath away, right? Here's a renowned Appellate Court judge, professor of law, author of many legal textbooks, UNABLE to discern the truth, about something which, compared to the myths about jesus, is well documented. Why?
Hmm. Let's see now. Posner? hmm. Do you think kohlrak, that this name, I mean, does it sound just a tiny bit POLISH, to you, kohlrak? Do you think maybe there possibly could be just a tad of POLISH influence in his upbringing????? Kopernik, = Pole. Pozner = Pole. Hmm.


Here comes my point. it works both ways. This guy can make a mistake and so can many people like him today. I flat out don't think that guy cared if he was right or not, just that he wrote a book that appealed to some one enough for them to want to vote on him. Though, IF he did do a search, that just shows the unlikely-hood that this "less documented" topic would even have as much dispute, especially of the false evidence. As for being polish, i couldn't care less if he's chinese or hawaiian. He could be an Eskimo for all i care. Though, i'm assuming that you're making some sort of point by bringing it up?

Quote:
If even such a distinguished person can err on a question of scholarship of this magnitude, kohlrak, then, how can we accept that 2000 years ago, there were not similar episodes of fraudulent representation, concerning a jewish rabbi, executed by his own leaders?


We can accept only if we alredy believe so, but not if we don't already believe, and neither side can accept change to the belief that they already have. Neither side will be convinced.

Quote:
Incidently, kohlrak, what happened to all of the carefully hand copied illustrations from Aristarchus' scientific measurements and calculations, (which Copernicus encountered in 1500, when studying medicine at Padua), faithfully preserved over the centuries, (one thousand seven hundred years after Aristarchus' death), so that one day in CE 1500, a Polish medical student could recognize their incredible significance, and publish the results, without attribution, as if he himself had performed the research? Where are all those manuscripts today???? They existed five hundred years ago, when Copernicus saw them. Where are they now?


Good question. And now the speculation begins... Or maybe not... Laughing

Quote:
More importantly, WHY DID THE CHRISTIANS destroy this evidence of the TRUTH about our solar system? kohlrak, do you remember writing some nonsense about "the" bible representing EVIDENCE of god, at the outset of this thread??? Well, guess what, those same type of thinkers, five hundred years ago, ALSO encountered these fantastic manuscripts of Aristarchus. Copernicus wasn't the only one who saw them. Only, those guys didn't think it was proper for such heresy to exist, so they BURNED the manuscripts, because they contradict "the" bible.


Erratic behavior by a group of people... Could be another example of my "special scenario" idea above. I assume, that once again, we're referring to the Catholic church (sounds to be the right time)... The time that the bible wasn't exactly available to everyone and the church was the ones who was to interpret it, not the regular peon. These manuscripts were as much against christianity as Jesus was against the old testiment. That would make example number 2 of when religious people have a conflict with truth (from my point of view) due to personal power. Though, i really do hate to sit here and blame everything on the catholics.

Quote:
As far as I know, there are no longer any extant manuscripts of Aristarchus' brilliant research. The precious manuscripts survived a thousand years after the muslim anarchy, but could not survive the inquisition, and the book burnings by the Protestants and the Catholics. Those two groups NEEDED the books to start the kindling, to get the logs going, to properly roast the heretics like me, who were tied up at the stake, for believing that the BIBLE is wrong, when it asserts geocentrism, following Plato and Aristotle.


All about shift of power. I'm sure that the lord (though you don't believe in him it appears) has a special spot in hell for them, for handling the matter in such an inappropriate, non-Jesus-like way.

Quote:
kohlrak, how can "the" bible be both DIVINELY authored, or "inspired", and also WRONG?


Who proved it wrong? it was only mear interpretation and/or "old wives tales" that proposed that the earth was the center of all. It's what supposedly got Jesus hung on the cross.

Quote:
The answer: the bible, is simply a collection of writings by unknown authors, modified to suit the fantasies and delusions of various rulers during the past two thousand years. It contains anecdotes, fables, allegories, poetry and opinions, not facts. It was neither created by, nor represents evidence of, a supernatural power.


Nice allegation. Replace "the" with "My." There is more than one answer, more than one conclusion at this point.
Post 27 Dec 2007, 05:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...Rather than the deciples themselves writing them, the deciples of the deciples wrote the gospels IN HONOR OF THEM....
ok, thanks for teaching me this. So, we have acknowledgement then, (sorry, I did not realize this fact!!!) that the "gospels" are NOT first hand accounts, authored by Jesus' disciples, themselves. Then, how do these "gospels" assume such importance, given the evidence of fabrication in other "gospels", such as those of Thomas and Peter, to say nothing of more recent hoaxes, such as the Mormon gold tablets?
kohlrak wrote:
...To whom is a good question. Never bothered to look that up, and nor do i care....
Hmm. a somewhat unusual reply. Surprising, because one rarely encounters a response which so clearly contradicts itself: "good question", juxtaposed to "nor do I care". If it were truly a worthy question, you would have already sought the answer....
responding to my inquiry about the rationale for Constantine's selection of the SECOND most important holiday of the year, to serve as Jesus' birthdate, kohlrak wrote:
...This was for easier acceptance of christianity. Philisophical Christians today don't agree that this was his actual birth time, or luckily if so. I've never found anyone, though, who ever thought it was important enough to know.
Nonsense.
Constantine was EMPEROR. His word was the law. He wasn't interested in whether or not anyone agreed with his decision. This was done NOT for marketing or propaganda purposes, but to SHOW RESPECT, something which you claim to seek for your religion. How strange, that, at this time of the year, when multitudes run about like chickens with their heads cut off, you simultaneously demand respect for your private delusions, yet, express disinterest in learning the rationale for Constantine's decision to assign the SINGLE MOST important day of the year, for Christians, the date of Jesus' birth, as the SECOND most important date of the pagan calendar. kohlrak, your lack of inquisitiveness interferes with your logic. The theme of this thread concerns the importance of your bible. Why is it important? Well, it is important to you, because it represents TRUTH. Fine. Then, please investigate the matter, when a bug appears in the code. The significance of Constantine's decision concerns the ATTITUDE of the religious authorities of that era, almost 1700 years ago, in particular their opinions about Jesus. Hint: The Quran's representation, composed some three hundred years after Constantine, is not so far away from the thinking at CE 325. I think you will be suitably impressed, upon learning the answer to my inquiry.
Responding to my question of how "the" bible (and of course, the Catholic bible and protestant bibles are very different, for one thing, there is no book of Tobias in the Protestant versions!) could be at the same time divinely authored, yet contain the erroneous interpretation, authored by Ptolemy,(distant relative of Alexander's famous general of the same name, who served as governor of Alexandria, upon the emperor's death) in the first century,CE, that the planet earth sits at the center of the universe, with the sun and other bodies orbiting around it,
kohlrak wrote:
...Who proved it wrong? it was only mear interpretation and/or "old wives tales" that proposed that the earth was the center of all. It's what supposedly got Jesus hung on the cross.
The word is mere, not "mear". Geocentrism, taught as the authentic, scientific explanation of our solar system, by Plato and Aristotle, is not an "old wives' tale". I have never encountered, until this very moment, kohlrak, the notion that Jesus was murdered because he taught the opposite: i.e. Aristarchus' heliocentrism. It is unclear to me, why exactly, Jesus was executed, though I attribute his death to his unrelenting opposition to both the Romans, who ruled Palestine, and to the main group of jews, who favored the wealthy, at the expense of the poor (and collaborated with the Romans). I may be entirely incorrect on this point, but I genuinely doubt that a jewish rabbi would be crucified for defending Aristarchus against Aristotle. As I understand his political stance, Jesus was either an Essene, or someone with political tendencies similar to their philosophy, which makes absence of mention of his death in the recently discovered "dead sea scrolls", authored by the Essenes, all the more remarkable.
Smile
Post 27 Dec 2007, 14:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I decided not to comment more on "I don't know anything about it, but I don't like it, so I dismiss it with excuse that it might not be 100% right". Arguing over this leads nowhere, if you don't want to accept more probable explaination (not 100% probable though), and you prefer to found your opinion on emotions, then there is no reason to continue.

Let's move to other things:

Quote:
The only thing that changes is your knowledge, but you're still stubborn to hold your oppinions. You're still stubborn in the action of trusting the now. Similarly, i've learned alot in this debate, but i still havn't changed.

I couldn't be stubborn to simply trusting, because I read opinions of "both sides" of debate. I can't trust both of them Very Happy

You could say taht I "trust" to one who provides better evidence, but that's not really trusting according to my definition of "trusting".

Quote:
I've noticed that you reply quite quickly. So quickly that you must not be checking your evidence before throwing it out onto the table.

- In some cases, I have already checked some evidence before
- Some evidence was particulary easy to check deep enough (historical accounts of gospel of peter in 2nd century, for example)
- Some evidence I didn't check.

Anyway, I already explained to you how checking evidence should work. You don't always check everything into infinite depth, that's impossible. You check things which are disputed. It is task of "other side" of debate to check and dispute your claims.

Quote:
Once again, until you can prove 100%, that is to be considered slander. It's ignorant to just take evidence and destroy something based on that. It's like giving capital punishment based on 20 eye witness accounts. Who's to say that those 20 people just didn't like the guy and/or are protecting the guy who did do it?

Once again, nothing can be proven 100%. But it's very bad excuse for something with 1% probability, to say that other thing is just 99% probable and not 100% probable.

As for editing bible, you might want to study something about synoptic problem, regarding which even most biblical scholars agree that editing took place. Nice introduction is here: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
Post 27 Dec 2007, 15:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Thank you, vid, a sensational web site!
Post 27 Dec 2007, 17:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
ok, thanks for teaching me this. So, we have acknowledgement then, (sorry, I did not realize this fact!!!) that the "gospels" are NOT first hand accounts, authored by Jesus' disciples, themselves. Then, how do these "gospels" assume such importance, given the evidence of fabrication in other "gospels", such as those of Thomas and Peter, to say nothing of more recent hoaxes, such as the Mormon gold tablets?


Because, unlike the hoaxes, they were written in honor of the deciples, Jesus, and God, and supposedly the writers actually knew the deciples.

Quote:
Hmm. a somewhat unusual reply. Surprising, because one rarely encounters a response which so clearly contradicts itself: "good question", juxtaposed to "nor do I care". If it were truly a worthy question, you would have already sought the answer....


"Good question" is a phrase in English, or at least in my area, is another way of saying, "I don't know."

Quote:
Nonsense.
Constantine was EMPEROR. His word was the law. He wasn't interested in whether or not anyone agreed with his decision. This was done NOT for marketing or propaganda purposes, but to SHOW RESPECT, something which you claim to seek for your religion. How strange, that, at this time of the year, when multitudes run about like chickens with their heads cut off, you simultaneously demand respect for your private delusions, yet, express disinterest in learning the rationale for Constantine's decision to assign the SINGLE MOST important day of the year, for Christians, the date of Jesus' birth, as the SECOND most important date of the pagan calendar. kohlrak, your lack of inquisitiveness interferes with your logic. The theme of this thread concerns the importance of your bible. Why is it important? Well, it is important to you, because it represents TRUTH. Fine. Then, please investigate the matter, when a bug appears in the code. The significance of Constantine's decision concerns the ATTITUDE of the religious authorities of that era, almost 1700 years ago, in particular their opinions about Jesus. Hint: The Quran's representation, composed some three hundred years after Constantine, is not so far away from the thinking at CE 325. I think you will be suitably impressed, upon learning the answer to my inquiry.


My googling skills lead me to this... i doubt that this is what you want me to see... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=constantine+%22most+important+pagan+holiday%22&spell=1 Humor me, and teach me good google skills. =p

Quote:
Responding to my question of how "the" bible (and of course, the Catholic bible and protestant bibles are very different, for one thing, there is no book of Tobias in the Protestant versions!) could be at the same time divinely authored, yet contain the erroneous interpretation, authored by Ptolemy,(distant relative of Alexander's famous general of the same name, who served as governor of Alexandria, upon the emperor's death) in the first century,CE, that the planet earth sits at the center of the universe, with the sun and other bodies orbiting around it


The quran is interpreted to say that suicide for allah gets you 72 virgins. I don't think more needs to be said about that, unless you can point where in the bible it says that the earth is the center of the universe.

Quote:
The word is mere, not "mear". Geocentrism, taught as the authentic, scientific explanation of our solar system, by Plato and Aristotle, is not an "old wives' tale". I have never encountered, until this very moment, kohlrak, the notion that Jesus was murdered because he taught the opposite: i.e. Aristarchus' heliocentrism. It is unclear to me, why exactly, Jesus was executed, though I attribute his death to his unrelenting opposition to both the Romans, who ruled Palestine, and to the main group of jews, who favored the wealthy, at the expense of the poor (and collaborated with the Romans). I may be entirely incorrect on this point, but I genuinely doubt that a jewish rabbi would be crucified for defending Aristarchus against Aristotle. As I understand his political stance, Jesus was either an Essene, or someone with political tendencies similar to their philosophy, which makes absence of mention of his death in the recently discovered "dead sea scrolls", authored by the Essenes, all the more remarkable.


I thought i said before that Jesus was killed for opposing the interpetation of the high preists of israel... As for old wivs' tale, pardon me for dimuting the belief. I will say that it must've been a real big change to their centralization of debates and/or philosophies. As for Rome, i don't think i've heard of much criticism of them, but i will point out that he criticized the high preists alot. This would be clear motive.

Quote:
I decided not to comment more on "I don't know anything about it, but I don't like it, so I dismiss it with excuse that it might not be 100% right". Arguing over this leads nowhere, if you don't want to accept more probable explaination (not 100% probable though), and you prefer to found your opinion on emotions, then there is no reason to continue.


I would like to add to that, but i'd rather just stop talking about that in general.

Quote:
I couldn't be stubborn to simply trusting, because I read opinions of "both sides" of debate. I can't trust both of them


I mean more along the lines of being biased in which you choose to believe, based soley on your and their current stance, which i'll admit is truely impossible to avoid completely, for, alas, i would be guilty of that myself.

Quote:
You could say taht I "trust" to one who provides better evidence, but that's not really trusting according to my definition of "trusting".


Then perhaps a better way of my commenting, is that your judgement of evidence is biased.

Quote:
- In some cases, I have already checked some evidence before
- Some evidence was particulary easy to check deep enough (historical accounts of gospel of peter in 2nd century, for example)
- Some evidence I didn't check.


At least you're honest.

Quote:
Anyway, I already explained to you how checking evidence should work. You don't always check everything into infinite depth, that's impossible. You check things which are disputed. It is task of "other side" of debate to check and dispute your claims.


A long process which no matter how deep you go, is still very un-reliable. This is why i really don't like using anything outside of the brain (ex: taking evidence from the internet) for something that can't be directly tested (an example of directly testable would be a code you can compile or sticking something into something else). I just can't help, but believe that something was missed, skipped, forged, unconsidered, etc.

Quote:
Once again, nothing can be proven 100%. But it's very bad excuse for something with 1% probability, to say that other thing is just 99% probable and not 100% probable.


Truth of the matter is, the percentages are off. We have a denominator of infinity (things we havn't checked for), and we're not sure what the top number is. The denominator is an on going list of things like "inconsideration," "forgery," "skipping," "missing," etc... As the numbers get closer to 50%, then it becomes a better and better excuse.

Quote:
As for editing bible, you might want to study something about synoptic problem, regarding which even most biblical scholars agree that editing took place. Nice introduction is here: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/


Though skimming isn't very reliable, my skimming tells me speculation is involved. Though, speculation isn't intirely a bad thing. Lemme point out that i'm not most biblical scholars, therefor i don't follow their belief. I just read a little more after that last sentance, and i'm amused. I believe the "oral to hand" theory (though probably called something else there) would suffice for a possible answer, and the answer that i stated even before hearing about this. Why bother changing? I agree that there are differences in the gospels, but are there out right conflicts..?
Post 28 Dec 2007, 03:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Though skimming isn't very reliable, my skimming tells me speculation is involved. Though, speculation isn't intirely a bad thing. Lemme point out that i'm not most biblical scholars, therefor i don't follow their belief. I just read a little more after that last sentance, and i'm amused. I believe the "oral to hand" theory (though probably called something else there) would suffice for a possible answer, and the answer that i stated even before hearing about this. Why bother changing? I agree that there are differences in the gospels, but are there out right conflicts..?

point of synoptic problem is that gospels are too similar to be written as independent accounts by three different persons. If you let 3 people write about independent event, they WON'T write same things in same order using exactly same words in some places, and completely disagree in other places. This doesn't happen in oral tradition, especially not after few dozen years. This happens when you edit common literary source.

This "speculation" conviced almost everyone who studied it, including very strong believers, that some gospels are edited versions of other gospels.
Post 28 Dec 2007, 09:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
where's the formula to calculate the probability percentages?

please don't say 'common sense', because it's not that 'common' Wink
Post 28 Dec 2007, 12:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
where's the formula to calculate the probability percentages?

No formula, that was just an example.

If you have to rely on unprobability for something to be true, then it's probability of course decreases. If you have to rely on many improbabilities, then it's probability approaches that 99.99...% very quickly.
Post 28 Dec 2007, 14:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
point of synoptic problem is that gospels are too similar to be written as independent accounts by three different persons. If you let 3 people write about independent event, they WON'T write same things in same order using exactly same words in some places, and completely disagree in other places. This doesn't happen in oral tradition, especially not after few dozen years. This happens when you edit common literary source.

This "speculation" conviced almost everyone who studied it, including very strong believers, that some gospels are edited versions of other gospels.


Now, here comes the big argument i've used for a long time for every time some one whips out something like this, critical of the wording of the bible. Are you talking about the English version, or the original? =p You'd be surprised how many "scholars" forget which versioin they're being critical of. I just want to clear that up before we get into the meat of things.
Post 28 Dec 2007, 17:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...The quran is interpreted to say that suicide for allah gets you 72 virgins. I don't think more needs to be said about that, unless you can point where in the bible it says that the earth is the center of the universe. ...
I don't think trivializing the Quran is appropriate, for those who believe in a similar collection of delusions--"the" bible. Seeking respect for one's own religion, while concurrently demeaning other religions seems counterproductive. Regarding evidence that "the" Bible asserts geocentrism, one thinks immediately about the imprisonment of Galileo, who committed the crime of resurrecting (Copernicus' plagiarized account of) Aristarchus' scientific computations and measurements favoring heliocentrism?
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml
..."The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith"....

kohlrak wrote:
...teach me good google skills.

fastest method: (save our time for more important tasks)
find out the name of the person whose birthday occurs on the MOST important date of the pagan calendar. What is this date? Intuitively, if the SECOND most important date is the WINTER solstice, then, the MOST important date is the ? (summer solstice!!, aka: "midsummer")
Go to wikipedia, and enter "midsummer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer
scroll down to "History"
answer: Saint John the Baptist.
step 2: confirm that Constantine assigned the summer solstice to represent John's birthdate:
While seeking a source for this opinion, I ran across this interesting web site:
http://www.jasher.com/Xmas.htm
which points out, that there is no mention in the gospels of the celebration of either Jesus' birth, or his death, and that apparently, like the ascetic Essenes, most celebrations were frowned upon by the earliest disciples of Jesus....
I chanced upon another interesting reference, this one from the Bible:
Luke 1:8-11
More about this, below, first, one must bear in mind that the Jews worked with a lunar calendar, while the Romans employed a solar calendar.
Today, writing this note, I learned several things which I did not know previously, and accordingly, I have modified my position considerably:
1. Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself the 13th disciple of Jesus.
2. Catholics celebrate the conception of John the Baptist in September, in conformance with Lord Constantine's assigned summer solstice birth date, 9 months later, but, apparently, Jews claim that John was conceived at the spring equinox, i.e. during passover--which would then lead to his birth during the winter solstice. I have also read, in the jewish encyclopedia, that John was born during passover, and if so, then Jesus would have been born at the autumn equinox, six months later.....
3. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, teaching in the latter part of the third century CE, belived that Jesus was an inspired prophet, but not someone possessing a divine nature, and Constantine created the Council of Nicea primarily to address these controversial teachings of Arius. According to at least one source, Constantine himself, and his mother, accepted the teachings of Arius, which would be at least consistent with his assignment of the most important holiday to John's birthday, rather than that of his cousin, Jesus.
http://www.geocities.com/constantine325ist/early.html

Although the notion that Jesus and his older cousin, John, were both regarded by the early Christian church, as prophets, of approximately equal importance, seems incongruous to us, today, it is entirely consistent with the Quran. My main point here, is this: I don't believe that Constantine acted preciptously. I do not think he assigned birth dates illogically, or randomly, or in alphabetical order. I think he himself believed that John was the more important figure, and I suppose, without evidence, that Constantine's opinion, reflected by his assignment of birthdates, was based upon whichever texts were available to him, at that time. It may be that his friend, Bishop Eusebius, who created the first "bible", on direct orders from Constantine (who personally selected the books to include in the first edition of the new testament) is responsible for changing the focus to Jesus, exclusively, away from John.
4. James, was the brother of Jesus. Well, Jesus seems to have had lots of brothers, including, according to some accounts, a TWIN brother, thomas ("thomas" means "twin" in Aramaic) bearing another man's DNA, hence a fraternal twin, not an identical twin. How strange, we know so little, yet have such forceful opinions.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/post-biblicaljohn.html
5. Trying to understand more about the life of John the Baptist, I encountered reference to Luke 1: 8-11, but, continuing a little further: Luke 1: 32, which is describing a conversation reputed to have taken place between the youthful teenager, Mary, and an "Angel", Gabriel, explaining (about her son to be, Jesus,) to the young girl, whose protests to the pedophile, that, as a mere youth, she remained innocent, and did not yet possess carnal knowledge of men, were apparently unpersuasive:
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"
Gosh, that's strange. The house of David: Hmm. Wasn't Joseph, Mary's betrothed, affiliated with the house of David? So, if there were twins born, then, Joseph (house of David) provided the sperm for one of them, and some "angel" provided the sperm for the other one. Sounds a bit like fooling around, to me, but where is the evidence for the birth of twins? If only one child was born, and he was related to the house of David, then, Joseph seems to me to be the most likely suspect, why must we introduce the notion of a virgin birth, or insemination by an angel??
6. But, then, I encountered THIS passage, which explains why John's birthdate is six months before Jesus':
the gospel according to Luke1: 36 wrote:

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

So, I now doubt my rationale for thinking that Jesus was assigned the SECOND most important holiday as birthdate (ostensibly because of the supposed primacy of his elder cousin, John, in the earliest Christian dogma.) There may have been some ancient documents, no longer extant, which pointed either to Elizabeth, or to cousin Mary's, dates of conception, thereby compelling Constantine to choose the lesser of the two solstices for Jesus birth. On the other hand, if the jewish documents are correct, and John's conception occured during passover, i.e. spring equinox, then, John should have received the winter solstice as birth date, and Jesus the summer solstice, which would also be more logical, i.e. in harmony with the traditional pagan calendar. The mystery continues....Here's a reference to the gospel according to Saint Thomas, a book supposedly older than the four accepted gospels, which may have served as a precursor for their elaboration:
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html
Chicken and egg: It is now unclear to me, upon further reading, whether Constantine FIRST assigned the winter solstice as Jesus' birth date, and that led, by default, then SECONDARILY, to the assignment for his older cousin, John the Baptist, born six months before Jesus, of the summer solstice as birth date, or vice versa, as I had intially envisioned, when urging kohlrak to investigate this dilema:
http://qumran.com/Holiday_Files/a_christmas_story.htm wrote:

Since his birth date had been forgotten, when Jesus was made a god by Constantine, 25 December was selected as his birthday, because it was the birthday of other gods, and particularly that of the chief rivals to Christianity in the Roman Empire, Sol Invictus and Mithras.

This thread, commenced by kohlrak, has been an eye-opener, for me:
http://bible-research.net/content/view/37/9/
I now believe that my request that kohlrak search to discover the rationale for Constantine's assignment of the most important holiday of the pagan calendar to John, to have been incorrect. I am the one who should have been doing his homework, not kohlrak. Thanks again, kohlrak, for challenging my opinions and many prejudices.
Smile
Post 29 Dec 2007, 21:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
I don't think trivializing the Quran is appropriate, for those who believe in a similar collection of delusions--"the" bible. Seeking respect for one's own religion, while concurrently demeaning other religions seems counterproductive.


Not trivializing the Quran, just "trivializing" the fact that people often make assumptions of something being there, when it's not. A common insult to muslims to challenge their faith is to ask them to point out in the Quran where it says that they'll get 72 virgins in heaven. If something's part of a belief of something passed down generation after generation, one attributes it to the religion of the family, whether it's part of the religion or not. Not sure if this is the case for 72 virgins, but it is likely to be the case for geocentrism. If you commit heresy, whether it's not in the holy text or not, the heretic isn't liked by the anti-heretists... Making sence?

Quote:
Regarding evidence that "the" Bible asserts geocentrism, one thinks immediately about the imprisonment of Galileo, who committed the crime of resurrecting (Copernicus' plagiarized account of) Aristarchus' scientific computations and measurements favoring heliocentrism?


The bible was to be written into the perspective of regular man of that time. In that time, they were geocentrist, so the only way for it to be understood would be for a geo-centrist's perspective to be used. I skimmed over that site, and didn't find anything in particular that would conflict with my idea.

Quote:
fastest method: (save our time for more important tasks)
find out the name of the person whose birthday occurs on the MOST important date of the pagan calendar. What is this date? Intuitively, if the SECOND most important date is the WINTER solstice, then, the MOST important date is the ? (summer solstice!!, aka: "midsummer")
Go to wikipedia, and enter "midsummer"


Wasn't sure if it would have been mid summer, crossed my mind, but i wasn't sure.

Quote:
step 2: confirm that Constantine assigned the summer solstice to represent John's birthdate:
While seeking a source for this opinion, I ran across this interesting web site:
http://www.jasher.com/Xmas.htm
which points out, that there is no mention in the gospels of the celebration of either Jesus' birth, or his death, and that apparently, like the ascetic Essenes, most celebrations were frowned upon by the earliest disciples of Jesus....
I chanced upon another interesting reference, this one from the Bible:
Luke 1:8-11
More about this, below, first, one must bear in mind that the Jews worked with a lunar calendar, while the Romans employed a solar calendar.
Today, writing this note, I learned several things which I did not know previously, and accordingly, I have modified my position considerably:
1. Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself the 13th disciple of Jesus.
2. Catholics celebrate the conception of John the Baptist in September, in conformance with Lord Constantine's assigned summer solstice birth date, 9 months later, but, apparently, Jews claim that John was conceived at the spring equinox, i.e. during passover--which would then lead to his birth during the winter solstice. I have also read, in the jewish encyclopedia, that John was born during passover, and if so, then Jesus would have been born at the autumn equinox, six months later.....
3. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, teaching in the latter part of the third century CE, belived that Jesus was an inspired prophet, but not someone possessing a divine nature, and Constantine created the Council of Nicea primarily to address these controversial teachings of Arius. According to at least one source, Constantine himself, and his mother, accepted the teachings of Arius, which would be at least consistent with his assignment of the most important holiday to John's birthday, rather than that of his cousin, Jesus.
http://www.geocities.com/constantine325ist/early.html


The only thing i can sayto that is, if that theory is correct, Constantine was probably a nut job. When was constantine alive again? I can't see how he could possibly have been a 13th deciple, considering the years...

Quote:
Although the notion that Jesus and his older cousin, John, were both regarded by the early Christian church, as prophets, of approximately equal importance, seems incongruous to us, today, it is entirely consistent with the Quran. My main point here, is this: I don't believe that Constantine acted preciptously. I do not think he assigned birth dates illogically, or randomly, or in alphabetical order. I think he himself believed that John was the more important figure, and I suppose, without evidence, that Constantine's opinion, reflected by his assignment of birthdates, was based upon whichever texts were available to him, at that time. It may be that his friend, Bishop Eusebius, who created the first "bible", on direct orders from Constantine (who personally selected the books to include in the first edition of the new testament) is responsible for changing the focus to Jesus, exclusively, away from John.


If constantine believed that John was more important, why did his friend shift focus away from John? If the story of Jesus is true, then he would have to be the most important figure (Jesus), for what would be more important, one who says how to live with their words, or one who shows how to live with their own life? Who would be more important, one who baptizes with water, or one who baptizes with "the holy spirit and fire?"

Quote:
4. James, was the brother of Jesus. Well, Jesus seems to have had lots of brothers, including, according to some accounts, a TWIN brother, thomas ("thomas" means "twin" in Aramaic) bearing another man's DNA, hence a fraternal twin, not an identical twin. How strange, we know so little, yet have such forceful opinions.


There are accounts of Jesus getting married, but i don't see that actually happening either.

Quote:
5. Trying to understand more about the life of John the Baptist, I encountered reference to Luke 1: 8-11, but, continuing a little further: Luke 1: 32, which is describing a conversation reputed to have taken place between the youthful teenager, Mary, and an "Angel", Gabriel, explaining (about her son to be, Jesus,) to the young girl, whose protests to the pedophile, that, as a mere youth, she remained innocent, and did not yet possess carnal knowledge of men, were apparently unpersuasive:
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"
Gosh, that's strange. The house of David: Hmm. Wasn't Joseph, Mary's betrothed, affiliated with the house of David? So, if there were twins born, then, Joseph (house of David) provided the sperm for one of them, and some "angel" provided the sperm for the other one. Sounds a bit like fooling around, to me, but where is the evidence for the birth of twins? If only one child was born, and he was related to the house of David, then, Joseph seems to me to be the most likely suspect, why must we introduce the notion of a virgin birth, or insemination by an angel??


Mary is supposedly one of David's decendents. Or, at lest, that's how i interpreted it. We don't have to introduce virgin birth as a concept, but it strengthens the concept of Jesus not being an ordinary man, but God himself in the "flesh" of a human. This concept amuses me, especially, because i actually interpret God to be the size of you or me, and shaped like you or me, while differing in appearences like you and me.

Quote:
So, I now doubt my rationale for thinking that Jesus was assigned the SECOND most important holiday as birthdate (ostensibly because of the supposed primacy of his elder cousin, John, in the earliest Christian dogma.) There may have been some ancient documents, no longer extant, which pointed either to Elizabeth, or to cousin Mary's, dates of conception, thereby compelling Constantine to choose the lesser of the two solstices for Jesus birth. On the other hand, if the jewish documents are correct, and John's conception occured during passover, i.e. spring equinox, then, John should have received the winter solstice as birth date, and Jesus the summer solstice, which would also be more logical, i.e. in harmony with the traditional pagan calendar. The mystery continues....Here's a reference to the gospel according to Saint Thomas, a book supposedly older than the four accepted gospels, which may have served as a precursor for their elaboration:
http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html


I don't know much about how John relates to Jesus, may not even by blood relation, but i havn't read that far in the bible to become overly concerned with it. It could also be possible that they were born on different years.

Quote:
This thread, commenced by kohlrak, has been an eye-opener, for me:
http://bible-research.net/content/view/37/9/
I now believe that my request that kohlrak search to discover the rationale for Constantine's assignment of the most important holiday of the pagan calendar to John, to have been incorrect. I am the one who should have been doing his homework, not kohlrak. Thanks again, kohlrak, for challenging my opinions and many prejudices.


Hey, some one has to do it, even though i shouldn't be... I've learned many things from this, but the most important thing i have learned from this, is that it's not always futile to argue about religion, that sometimes there is a conclusion in the end. I thank you for teaching me that, Tom.
Post 30 Dec 2007, 04:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.