|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A Church?
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
We call carbonated beverages "pop," thank you very much.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
We call carbonated beverages "pop," thank you very much.
And why the bloody hell should I know where Indiana is? Do you know where on the map of England Newcastle is? That' question is asked of an American who, by the track record of your presidents have not realised that England is not the whole of the British Isles and that Paris is in France and that Australia is not actually part of Europe!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
We call carbonated beverages "pop," thank you very much.
And why the bloody hell should I know where Indiana is? Do you know where on the map of England Newcastle is? That' question is asked of an American who, by the track record of your presidents have not realised that England is not the whole of the British Isles and that Paris is in France and that Australia is not actually part of Europe!
That was not an attack on you.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
Petulance against the Roman Catholic Church? When the people arguing against your theology were Anglicans? This should probably be an instance of self-reflection for you.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in....
Indeed.
From the Trisagion Prayers we hear this: quote:
O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who are everywhere present and fill all things, the Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and abide in us and cleanses us from every impurity, and, O Good One, save our souls.
He is everywhere present and yet we still beg him to abide in us.
That "everywhere present" ought to instill in us a a modicum of humility as charge into the Ranks of the Heathen behind our Great Commission Banner.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Mudfrog, it has been denied at every point that TSA lacks grace altogether. Your constant tantrums that we are denying grace to you and your fellows are ridiculous.
And it's precisely this theological puffery I was talking about. Yes, God offers his grace in many ways to all people, but when you let that doctrine come between you and the clear command of Scripture, you have some serious issues with your theology.
[ 30. September 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Perhaps I haven't been reading closely enough. Where (and by whom) were you called not a Christian?
HEY! This TSA objects to that statement.
[ 30. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps I haven't been reading closely enough. Where (and by whom) were you called not a Christian?
I said it, owing to the fact that they do not practice baptism.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are supposedly deficient in the grace of God because we have not got the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
Dang crypto-papist Presbyterians! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Who is this "rest of us" that want to be accepted as a church but don't administer the dominical sacraments? There really is just YOU (pl). Quakers maybe but some of them aren't sure they want to be called Christians much less a church.
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who graciously do actually regard The Salvation Army as being within the Universal Church and qualified by grace to call itself a denomination of that Church.
Universal Church! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What's that? Some kind of writers guild?
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist for us in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Wow...three straw men in one sentence. I'm impressed. We, Anglicans, are known to be Pharisees. Does this mean you are taking death over cake?
Oh, by the way, what does Salvation Army think about...nevermind...that's Dead Horse territory.
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your narrow opinions, and that the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe to your prescriptive church procedures.
The rest of us, by rest of us I mean the billion+ Christians who administer the dominical sacraments, are merely following the "prescriptive procedures" found in the New Testament. You know the New Testament? The one your Soldier's Covenant says constitutes the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice? Speaking of the Soldier's Covenant, it concludes with these inclusive and generous words, "We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked."
Nothing says open to the Holy Spirit working in the lives of so many people outside of prescriptive procedures like confessing the assurance of endless punishment for the wicked.
We Pharisee-like Anglicans content ourselves with The Nicene Creed which says nothing about eternal punishment of anybody. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps I haven't been reading closely enough. Where (and by whom) were you called not a Christian?
HEY! This TSA objects to that statement.
TSA, in this context, is "The Salvation Army."
Absolutely no one has said that they lack grace. Indeed, their good works and good beliefs have been commended by all hands on this deck.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
I have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body.
With my heart I have believed and with my mouth I have confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. I am therefore, by the word of God, saved.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
I have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body.
With my heart I have believed and with my mouth I have confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. I am therefore, by the word of God, saved.
No amount of good works or professions can make you or anyone else a Christian.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
I have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body.
With my heart I have believed and with my mouth I have confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. I am therefore, by the word of God, saved.
No amount of good works or professions can make you or anyone else a Christian.
No, that's why I'm not a Catholic! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
We are saved by grace through faith.
Those phrases I quoted are from Scripture. I have received the free grace of god and I don't need the mediation of a priest - that's why I'm a protestant.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are supposedly deficient in the grace of God because we have not got the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of you who are 'in Rome' anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content simply to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God given and received freely in our midst anyway, without the supposed mediation of a priestly caste and the ritual of sacramental salvation.
I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who graciously do actually regard The Salvation Army as being within the Universal Church and qualified by grace to call itself a denomination of that Church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist for us in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your narrow opinions, and that the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe to your prescriptive church procedures.
I hope I didn't contribute to your feeling this way with my comment. I did not mean that I don't think SA is a church or can call itself, just that I was unaware of it functioning as a church rather than as a Christian charity because that is their main public profile in the US.
I'm as far from Rome as one can get in the Anglican Communion - charismatic/evangelical - and we get a lot of stick around here for our beliefs and practices too. Don't take it too personally.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Does the Holy Spirit descend upon everybody who participates in a Jewish ritual washing? Jesus established Christian baptism by being baptized. Christians have followed Jesus in water baptism ever since. Now, as you tell it, Jesus, who didn't need to be ritually purified, submitted to a ritual purification involving water called baptism. His followers then told people to be baptized for the remission sins to receive the Holy Spirit but really that baptism had nothing to do with water whatsoever even though it's clear from scripture that it did.
Yeah...yeah...that's the ticket.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Does the Holy Spirit descend upon everybody who participates in a Jewish ritual washing? Jesus established Christian baptism by being baptized. Christians have followed Jesus in water baptism ever since. Now, as you tell it, Jesus, who didn't need to be ritually purified, submitted to a ritual purification involving water called baptism. His followers then told people to be baptized for the remission sins to receive the Holy Spirit but really that baptism had nothing to do with water whatsoever even though it's clear from scripture that it did.
Yeah...yeah...that's the ticket.
Why do you think John questioned him about the necessity of this baptism for himself? He didn't need it.
Jesus did not establish Christian baptism by being baptised. Are you suggesting that all the people baptised by John by Christians? Evidently not if the testimony of the Ephesian disciples is anything to go by. They 'only' had the baptism of John which was a ritual washing within the Jewish tradition. I am not denying that they were then given a baptism in the name of Jesus but that was in the context of not having heard about the Holy Spirit's infilling.
You do not appreciate the fact that the disciples and everyone else at the time were Jews! Everything they did was Jewish ritual and tradition - Jesus did not invent any new ceremonies. Instead he infused them with new meaning.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Beeswax
First, as someone pointed out, it was not the church that wrote the synoptics--or for that matter, John. Did the church write the letters of Paul? I think Paul would have problems with that claim. What the church did was eventually incorporate them into Scripture, but there are some vested interests into why they were incorporated--that is another topic.
Of course, there is material in Matthew that Mark and Luke don't have. Likewise, Luke has material that Matthew and Mark don't have. Does that make one or the other Gospel any less valid (Both Matthew and Luke contain much of what Mark wrote, though in slightly different ways)?
Matthew concentrates on the life of the church. It would stand to reason he would use material which would support what he is writing about.
As far as me reading into the Scriptures my point of view, I would argue that it is you who is doing it, not me. I can tell you are a strong sacramentalist. Consequently, you are reading the Scriptures through that prism. When you are confronted with material that does not fit your understanding, you find ways to discount it or discount the presenter.
Where is it when the disciples came to Jesus and said someone not of their group was doing miracles in Jesus name, and Jesus said "Leave him alone, for whoever is not against me is for me." Now I think you can find that in all three Synoptics.
Beeswax, I am Lutheran and am, therefore, a sacramentalist too. But I am willing to remove those glasses to let Scripture speak for itself. Likewise, I think if you read through my posts in Kerygma you will find I am trained in the historical critical method and will likely take some quite liberal positions on many points of Scripture. I am far from a fundamentalist and I will likely reject what you are calling a mechanical interpretation of Scripture.
As a member of a confessional, sacramental church, I am very willing to allow that others, not of our group, can do miracles in Jesus name; and I am very open to allowing other fellowships being a part of the universal church. I have long learned whenever we try to draw a line demarking "us from them" we will find Jesus on the other side.
That said, there are many things about Salvation Army I do not agree with, such as their position on homosexuality and reproductive rights. I would wish they also practice the sacraments because I think they lose out on some key means of grace.
No, I will let Matthew speak for himself.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Tell it, brother! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Ah, do you have an account of Jesus undergoing a baptism without water?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
You do not appreciate the fact that the disciples and everyone else at the time were Jews! Everything they did was Jewish ritual and tradition - Jesus did not invent any new ceremonies. Instead he infused them with new meaning.
Well, when your position lacks biblical substantiation, you can just make some substantiation up.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
And is totally justified IMO as i read more of this literalism concerning baptism. It seems to me that there is a 'salvation by works' thing going on here - often the works' of parents getting their children christened, which is often more about kowtowing to the wishes of the grandparents than anything else.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
As far as me reading into the Scriptures my point of view, I would argue that it is you who is doing it, not me. I can tell you are a strong sacramentalist. Consequently, you are reading the Scriptures through that prism. When you are confronted with material that does not fit your understanding, you find ways to discount it or discount the presenter.
No, I'm allowing the rest of the NT and church history to interpret scripture for me. I gave reasons for rejecting your interpretation. You respond with bluster and indignation. I'm sure that impresses somebody.
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
No, I will let Matthew speak for himself.
No, you will let yourself speak through Matthew which is a poor way of doing exegesis. It's a typical problem with liberalism. Kind of like all those scholars who go looking in the well of history for the historical Christ and always find their own reflection in the water below.
[ 30. September 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
Hmmm...I sure wish we had some way of knowing how the Apostles and early church interpreted that. Oh wait...we do!!! I'm happy to keep repeating the obvious until some bothers to address it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
And is totally justified IMO as i read more of this literalism concerning baptism. It seems to me that there is a 'salvation by works' thing going on here - often the works' of parents getting their children christened, which is often more about kowtowing to the wishes of the grandparents than anything else.
Well, that would mean that all the sacraments are works. If grace comes through faith and the sacraments are works, then grace cannot come through the sacraments. Now, that is clearly at odds with bog standard Anglicanism much less the Anglo-Catholicism you profess, but such contradictions only bother those concerned with coherence which is surprisingly not everybody.
When I was an Evangelical, it was the conservatives who asked me to leave my brain at the door. Now that I'm Episcopalian, it's the liberals. Interesting...
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
Indeed. This is precisely the problem when Bible translators use a word that nowadays only has one meaning.
quote:
22. The cup
This is a common metaphor in O.T. for sorrow and suffering. The reference to 'baptism' is similar in meaning, and has no certain connection with the sacrament of the same name. But this should be omitted as in RV
Gospel According to St Matthew GEP Cox, Torch Commentaries SCM Press
The reference to baptism is omitted by the NU, according to the footnotes
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
While I like SCK'S image of being immersed in God (something I certainly need!)I don't think we can get away from the fact that water baptism was normative in the early church (e.g.Acts 8:36, 10:47). And if we take the usual understanding of the "great commission" as a reference to water baptism, we must also take it as a command.
Irrespective of views regarding water baptism being essential to salvation, it would therefore be(in any case)an act of disobedience not to submit to it. Unless one is utterly convinced that Christ was referring to a different sort of baptism - and that following the church fathers' example was merely optional - I would suggest that no case can be made for a follower of Christ declining to be baptized.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
While I like SCK'S image of being immersed in God (something I certainly need!)I don't think we can get away from the fact that water baptism was normative in the early church (e.g.Acts 8:36, 10:47).
I agree, and would urge all Christians to be baptised. However, I'd absolutely not consider unbaptised Christians to not actually be Christians, neither would I consider an organisation or group not to be a Christian church merely because it didn't carry out baptism.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
The Didache is 1st/2nd century and describes water baptism, so that makes the suggestion that water baptism is due to a mistranslation over time a bit less convincing.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
22. The cup
This is a common metaphor in O.T. for sorrow and suffering. The reference to 'baptism' is similar in meaning, and has no certain connection with the sacrament of the same name. But this should be omitted as in RV
Gospel According to St Matthew GEP Cox, Torch Commentaries SCM Press
The reference to baptism is omitted by the NU, according to the footnotes
Uh, so the basis of Jesus' metaphor is?
Honestly, I can't even conceive of why you put so much energy behind these logical contortions to escape what is, you insist, an instance of God's grace.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
It is clear that you have never read the book of Acts, where not a single apostle labors under this interpretation.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Beeswax.
Ya got me! Your accusations are much like someone asking how many times have I hit my wife. No matter how much I will deny it, I am wrong.
I do not see my responses to you as bluster and indignation. On the other hand, I think you have a tendency to project your reactions on other people.
I would agree we have to take Matthew in context with the rest of Scripture, but we do have to allow that Matthew has some unique points to add to the conversation, too. I am allowing Matthew to say what has to be said.
You have not answered my point of Jesus saying to leave those not of our group alone because if they are not against us, they are for us, BTW.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You aren't allowing Matthew to speak for himself. You are speaking through Matthew. There is no real evidence in Matt. 18 to support your claim that Matthew defines church as when two or more or gathered in my name. Several of us have explained why that is absurd. Even if we assume Matthew was defining church as two or more gathered in my name we have to take your word not Matthews as to what constitutes being gathered in Christ's name. In any event, building a whole ecclesiology based on a novel interpretation of a single passage unique to Matthew which has no support in the rest of the NT is both bad exegesis and bad theology.
What was Jesus talking about when he said those who aren't against us are for us? He was referring to people acting in the name of Jesus without knowing the entire truth (like Apollos). Apollos when taught the whole truth about Jesus accepted it. This is a far cry from knowing the truth but refusing to listen because it would cause difficulties within your organization.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
You seem to be presuming that a few instances of metaphorical use of baptism frees us to interpret every use of the term metaphorically. This simply isn't the case, though. It is precisely the centrality of baptism to the early Church that makes it such a powerful symbol for Jesus to invoke in this circumstance.
Yes, a metaphorical interpretation of baptism, this silliness about being "immersed in God," is logically possible, but it strains the text mightily to do so. In the light of how baptism is treated in the early Church, seen especially in the Book of Acts, we have every reason to think that the baptism commanded by Jesus is indeed the ritual involving water. Water baptism is cited so many times, it becomes brazen silliness to presume otherwise after only a few pages.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
You seem to be presuming that a few instances of metaphorical use of baptism frees us to interpret every use of the term metaphorically. This simply isn't the case, though. It is precisely the centrality of baptism to the early Church that makes it such a powerful symbol for Jesus to invoke in this circumstance.
Yes, a metaphorical interpretation of baptism, this silliness about being "immersed in God," is logically possible, but it strains the text mightily to do so. In the light of how baptism is treated in the early Church, seen especially in the Book of Acts, we have every reason to think that the baptism commanded by Jesus is indeed the ritual involving water. Water baptism is cited so many times, it becomes brazen silliness to presume otherwise after only a few pages.
Firstly I do not see all references to baptism as metaphorical.
Secondly, there is no way that Jesus invoked the imagery and symbolism of Christian baptism in his rebuke to the disciples. For one thing there was no Christian baptism at that time - the Great Commission had not yet been given; and neither would the disciples have the foggiest idea what he was talking about.
Unless, of course, you believe that these words are not the words of Jesus but the words of 'the early church' put into the mouth of Jesus as part of the justification for baptism.
Two further questions: did Jesus use the Aramaic equivalent of the word 'baptize'? Or could his word - translated into Greek and used in some manuscripts - actually have a broader meaning than 'Christian baptism'?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Secondly, there is no way that Jesus invoked the imagery and symbolism of Christian baptism in his rebuke to the disciples. For one thing there was no Christian baptism at that time - the Great Commission had not yet been given; and neither would the disciples have the foggiest idea what he was talking about.
For the latter point, there is one place in one of the gospels where it explicitly says the disciples didn't know what he was talking about, but understood it later, after the resurrection. So that doesn't hold a lot of water (no pun intended).
For the first part, are you saying Jesus didn't know there would be Christian baptism? Didn't know he would one day give the Great Commission? His kenosis was so total that he was just winging it as he went along, with no plan at all for the future?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
"The...phrase which Jesus uses is actually misleading in this literal English version. He speaks of the baptism with which he was baptised. The Greek verb 'baptizein' means 'to dip'. Its past participle, 'bebaptismenos', means 'submerged', and it is regularly used of being 'submerged in any experience'. For instance, a spendthrift is said to be 'submerged' in debt. A drunk man is said to be 'submerged' in drink. A grief-stricken person is said to be 'submerged' in sorrow. ..The word is regularly used for a ship that has been wrecked and 'submerged' beneath the waves. The metaphor is very closely related to a metaphor which the Psalmist often uses. In Psalm 42:7 we read, 'All thy waves and thy billows have gone over me.' In Psalm 124:4 we read, 'Then the flood would have swept us away, the torrent would have gone over us.' The expression, as Jesus used it here, had nothing to do with technical baptism. What he is saying is, 'Can you bear to go through the terrible experience which I have to go through? Can you face being submerged in hatred and pain and death, as I have to be?' He is telling these two disciples that without a cross there can never be a crown."
William Barclay
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
From the Didache
quote:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water . But if you have no living water, baptize into other water ; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Sorry to bring it up again - but Mudfrog can you address this? Why in late 1st century/early 2nd century did they believe baptism to involve water, if the problem was a Greek mistranslation? People who knew the apostles were alive at this time.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think we're speaking about two different things here; I am not arguing against water baptism - i never have. I have never said that in the acts of the Apostles nor in the Gospels that water was never involved.
I have indeed said that the one baptism is the baptism with the holy Spirit - and that alone is necessary for entry into the Body of Christ - but I happily in agreement with you that water baptism was, is and always has been, a symbol and sign of that which is given by grace - the rebirth by the Spirit.
What we are discussing in this instance is the saying of Jesus, 'can you be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?' These words are nothing to do with Christian initiation, as shown by the two quotes from non-Salvation Army commentaries but speak of the depth of suffering that Jesus is anticipating and asking if the disciples are willing to share it?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
