Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-27-2010, 07:23 AM

Hi aa5874,

Here's the problem text:

Quote:

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion
regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of
the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then
suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful
to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him
of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any
other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher
He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did
not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age
of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed
His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age
(for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now
Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He
came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached
only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth
year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no
means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early
life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the
fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and
fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as
the Gospel and all the elders testify;

The problem is that the text is upholding two arguments at the same time, that Jesus died at 50 and he died at 30. We need to separate out the two arguments:

Quote:

They, however, that they may establish their false opinion
regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of
the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then
suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful
to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him
of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any
other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher
He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did
not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age
of a Master? Now, that the first stage of early
life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the
fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and
fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as
the Gospel and all the elders testify;

Quote:

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed
His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age
(for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now
Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He
came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached
only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth
year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no
means attained to advanced age.

Notice how much smoother the argument runs when we take out the contradictory argument.

One may suppose that Eusebius ordered his scribes to insert the Jesus was 30's argument into the text to replace the Jesus was 50's argument. Some dimwitted scribe got confused and placed it in the text, but forgot to take out the material above and below. We may take it as scribal error that the two arguments appear mixed.
Assuming that Eusebius doesn't know about Irenaeus' argument does not solve the problem of why we are getting two contradictory arguments mixed together. This hypothesis does.

Incidentally, this is the only time in books 1,2,4 and 5, that a passage exclusively found in the Gospel of Luke is quoted. Once we see that this passage is an interpolation, we can see that the original author demonstrates no knowledge of the Gospel of Luke, except in Book 3, which we may take as a book nearly entirely rewritten by another author.

Warmly,
Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, it is just a case of futility trying to compare parts of a LATIN text with a Greek text in order to date them when the dates of composition for each one is NOT secured.

This is basic.

The "TF", "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 was not deemed to be a forgery by ONLY comparing texts.

"Against Heresies" contains numerous blatant errors and heresies that could NOT possibly have been known to the Church writers AFTER the supposed time of Irenaeus.

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 1.10.1-2..

Quote:

1. It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea, that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

2. The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed.

Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.

So, Eusebius claimed Jesus was NO MORE than 34 years old when he was crucified and NOT 50 years like Irenaeus.

But, this is the very Eusebius claiming that Irenaeus MAINTAINED orthodoxy of the Church in Church History 3.23.1-2

Quote:

1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia.......

2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses.

They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.

But, it was the very Irenaeus who claimed the apostle John preached that Jesus was fifty old when he was crucified.

How could ALL the Church writers NOT see or hear about "Against Heresies" 2.22 when Irenaeus made his HERETICAL and FALSE claims that the apostle John, the ELDERS and the Gospel show that Jesus was 50 years old when he suffered?

How could ALL the Church writers not see or hear that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius?

Eusebius mentioned Irenaeus about FORTY times in Church History and still did not write about the HERETICAL and False claims of Irenaeus.

It is very likely that NO Church writer SAW or heard today's version of "Against Heresies".

aa5874 · 09-27-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...The problem is that the text is upholding two arguments at the same time, that Jesus died at 50 and he died at 30. We need to separate out the two arguments...

There are NOT two arguments coming from "Irenaeus".

One argument is coming from the so-called Heretics that Jesus was 30 years when he suffered and ONLY preached for a year which "Irenaeus" STATES in "Against Heresies" 2.22.

The other argument is one of the basis of the Refutation against Heresies, that is "Irenaeus" REFUTES that Jesus was 30 years but that he was about 50 years old when he suffered and that he did NOT preach for one year.

This is the very START of chapter 22 of Against Heresis 2.

Quote:

1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every
respect; too few AEons, as they represent them, being at one time
found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with
that number].

There are not, therefore, thirty AEons, nor did the
Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this
reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent(3) AEons of their
system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the
Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all.

Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"(4)), being truly blind,
inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution.

For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months.

For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words....

"Irenaeus" was NOT arguing AT all that Jesus was both thirty and fifty years old at the same time.

"Against Heresies" 22.6

Quote:

... For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood.

He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"

He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year...

There was NO argument in "Against Heresies" from "Irenaeus" that Jesus was 30 years old at crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

....One may suppose that Eusebius ordered his scribes to insert the Jesus was 30's argument into the text to replace the Jesus was 50's argument. Some dimwitted scribe got confused and placed it in the text, but forgot to take out the material above and below. We may take it as scribal error that the two arguments appear mixed....

But, such speculation cannot explain why "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" supposedly by Irenaeus stated that Pontius Pilate was a governor of Claudius Caesar.

And your speculation does NOT account for ALL the blatant contradictions that NO Church writers ever mentioned.

Why did Tertulluian NOT use the same list of bishops of Rome as "Irenaeus"?

Why did NOT Augustine of Hippo use the same list of bishops of Rome as "Irenaeus"?

Why did Hippolytus NOT agree with "Irenaeus" about the doctrine of "Basilides"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

...Incidentally, this is the only time in books 1,2,4 and 5, that a passage exclusively found in the Gospel of Luke is quoted. Once we see that this passage is an interpolation, we can see that the original author demonstrates no knowledge of the Gospel of Luke, except in Book 3, which we may take as a book nearly entirely rewritten by another author....

So, when did these interpolations occur? What did the original author write? And why did NO Church writer after Eusebius RE-INTERPOLATE and RE-HARMONIZED "Against Heresies" to show that Jesus was 30 thirty years old at crucifixion as claimed by Clement of Alexander in Stromata 1.

Quote:

...And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ." This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel.

Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

"Irenaeus" claimed Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus but Clement wrote that it was in the 28th year of Augustus.

"Against Heresies" 3.21.3

Quote:

...for our Lord was bern about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus.....

Stromata 1

Quote:

....And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon.....

Why did NO Church writer identify, address or CORRECT all the blatant errors in "Against Heresies"?

It is likely that the Church writers did NOT see or hear of present day "Against Heresies" but Eusebius mentioned "Irenaeus" about FORTY times in "Church History"

andrewcriddle · 09-27-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

both [Latin translator and Tertullian] failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [to fence around with posts] which means "vallo cingi" [to form a defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

I find this very strong evidence that Tertullian was working from the Latin translation of Irenaeus. (I don't find the other examples particularly strong.)

My main reservation is the point raised by Philosopher Jay about how certain we can be that our manuscripts of Epiphanius preserve accurately the original Greek of Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 09-27-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

both [Latin translator and Tertullian] failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [to fence around with posts] which means "vallo cingi" [to form a defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

I find this very strong evidence that Tertullian was working from the Latin translation of Irenaeus. (I don't find the other examples particularly strong.)

My main reservation is the point raised by Philosopher Jay about how certain we can be that our manuscripts of Epiphanius preserve accurately the original Greek of Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle

What you claim does not make much sense. The evidence is WEAK.

The Latin version may have been copied from Tertullian and the very same problem would have existed.

This is BASIC stuff.

One cannot compare two passages and arbitrarily claim one must have predated the other.

avi · 09-27-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

My main reservation is the point raised by Philosopher Jay about how certain we can be that our manuscripts of Epiphanius preserve accurately the original Greek of Irenaeus.

Thanks for this comment.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To me, we should not write "Irenaeus" wrote thus and so, but rather, 'according to Epiphanius' ....

We don't know beans about "Irenaeus".

Do we write "Lucian", instead of "Arius"?

NO.

Perhaps everything that we attribute to Arius, was actually formulated, first, by his mentor, Lucian, but, we write Arius, because he is the guy whose manuscripts we have, or we have reference to.

Arius himself, would perhaps have been surprised to read so much about "his" contributions to theology, thinking instead, that all of the credit belonged to Lucian.

"Irenaeus" may well have done and been all the things that have been recorded about him, but, since we lack original documents by him, I think we ought, instead, cite Epiphanius or Hippolytus, as one prefers. Trying to figure out who is on first, who on second, and who on third, by reading Tertullian, just seems hopelessly entangled, to me.

avi

DCHindley · 09-27-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

Thanks for this.

I wish I had more time to research this. Hopefully, this week I'll have some time. I have just one quick comment.

I think the problem with the translation "APOSTAURWQHNAI" (fenced off) is not that Latin AH and Tertullian both translate it wrongly as "crucifixam." This is a correct translation from Greek to Latin of the term. The problem is that the text of Epiphanius has "APOSTERHQHNAI" (was deprived) rather than "APOSTAURWQHNAI" (fenced off). Instead of assuming that Tertullian was copying from Latin AH, we may assume that Epiphanius or a previous scribe misread the original word APOSTAURWQHNAI and substituted the similar word APOSTERHQHNAI. This would be an equally or more plausible explanation for why the word is translated the way it is in both Latin documents, but a different word appears in the Later Greek document.

I don't think that there is much disagreement that Latin Irenaeus and Tertullian could not have got crucifixam without reading APOSTAURWQHNAI rather than the APOSTERHQHNAI in Epiphanius. Whether or not Epiphanius made a slip or had a variant text at his hands, it doesn't change the fact that either both Latin translator and Tertullian, or at least Latin Irenaeus translator, read APOSTAURWQHNAI. Elsewhere, Epiphanius mirrors Latin Irenaeus almost exactly, clause by clause, but that doesn't rule out variants in circulation.

According to Novum Lexicon Manual Graeco-Latinum et Latino-Graecum, 4th edition 1825 vol. 1, pg 504 (available @ Google Books) APOSTAUROW corresponds to Vallis (palisade/stockade), seu palis (to stake), ligneis in terram defixis munio (wood cut in the land defences to build), seu cingo: seclude (to surround/seclude), 2) Adfigo cruci (from affigo = affix + crucio = to torment)

I'm sure you refer to an equation like #2 above, and while I acknowledge that such a translation as crucifixam is possible (I did find another Gr-Lat lexicon which had this form next to adfigo cruci), it seems that the term could also be used to refer to the posting of war trophies or captured soldiers on stakes in the sight of the enemy to torture the enemy with shame on account of their capture. I would feel better if someone could provide an actual case where this Greek word is actually translated so in ancient literature. For all we know, the equation with crucifixam is there precisely because it seems that Latin Irenaeus and Tertullian do so, and is thus circular.

Searching for forms of the words adfigo and crucio in the same passage, the only passage I could find was Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum 28.1.10 "Thus Maximinus gained the power of doing harm and poured out the natural cruelty implanted in his hard heart" … and 13 "[Maximinus] ruled that all those whom the justice of the ancient code and the edicts of deified emperors had made exempt from inquisitions by torture should, if circumstances demanded, be examined with torments."

At Perseus.org a form of APOSTAUROW is found about 10 times:

Xenophon:

Anabases 6.5 Before breakfast time came, they proceeded to dig a trench across the way of approach1 to the place, and they backed it along its entire length with a palisade,

Hellenica 5.4 When he found, however, that the plain and the most valuable portions of their territory had been surrounded by a protecting trench and stockade

Hellenica 7.4 the Arcadians and those with them were so fearful for the coming day that they did not so much as go to rest during the night, being engaged in cutting down the carefully constructed booths [built by merchants or for the shelter and convenience of visitors] and building a stockade.

Agesilaus Ages.2 he made another expedition against Thebes, and, after crossing the stockade and trenches

Thucidydes:

Peloponnesian War 4.69 and the fruit-trees and timber cut down to make a palisade wherever this seemed necessary

Peloponnesian War 6.101 As soon as the Athenians had finished their work at the cliff they again attacked the stockade and ditch of the Syracusans.

Peloponnesian War 7.80 they found there also a Syracusan party engaged in barring the passage of the ford with a wall and a palisade

Polybius:

Histories 4.56 and they [the Sinopeans] accordingly determined to strengthen the line of the peninsula, where it was washed by the sea, by putting up wooden defences and erecting palisades

Histories 16.30 Having then invested Abydos partly by a palisade and partly by an earthwork,

Appian:

The Civil Wars 1.14 He [Licinius Crassus] overtook them [Sparticus and his remaining forces] and enclosed them with a line of circumvallation consisting of ditch, wall, and paling.

These are all cases of erecting defensive palisades, not one of crucifixion. Impaling of trophies or war captives would more likely have been expressed in Greek with a form of ANASTAUROW (Plut.2. impale, Sid Ep 6.1, Ambrose Sacram 6.2.8, concrucifigo sacrum)

Here is a description of Roman use of these kinds of palings, from Julius Caesar's Gallic War 7.73 " Caesar thought that further additions should be made to these works, in order that the fortifications might be defensible by a small number of soldiers. Having, therefore, cut down the trunks of trees or very thick branches, and having stripped their tops of the bark, and sharpened them into a point, he drew a continued trench every where five feet deep. These stakes being sunk into this trench, and fastened firmly at the bottom, to prevent the possibility of their being torn up, had their branches only projecting from the ground. There were five rows in connection with, and intersecting each other; and whoever entered within them were likely to impale themselves on very sharp stakes [se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant]. The soldiers called these "cippi" [the stakes]. Before these, which were arranged in oblique rows in the form of a quincunx, pits three feet deep were dug, which gradually diminished in depth to the bottom. In these pits tapering stakes, of the thickness of a man's thigh; sharpened at the top and hardened in the fire, were sunk in such a manner as to project from the ground not more than four inches; at the same time for the purpose of giving them strength and stability, they were each filled with trampled clay to the height of one foot from the bottom: the rest of the pit was covered over with osiers and twigs, to conceal the deceit. Eight rows of this kind were dug, and were three feet distant from each other. They called this a lily from its resemblance to that flower. Stakes a foot long, with iron hooks attached to them, were entirely sunk in the ground before these, and were planted in every place at small intervals; these they called spurs."

Aren't these Greek-Latin Lexicons meant to help modern students translate Greek classics into Latin for composition exercises? It is basically hypothetical, not always actual. Aside from Latin Irenaeus and Tertullian, I am beginning to doubt that this equation was actually made in ancient literature.

DCH

DCHindley · 09-27-2010, 08:06 PM

Yes, assuming that Epiphanius made a slip or had a copy with a variant reading here, it seems certain that the translator of Latin Irenaeus and maybe Tertullian (if he didn't get it from Latin Irenaeus) read APOSTAURWQHNAI rather than Epiphanius' APOSTERHQHNAI. The former also makes more sense than the latter in the context of the discussion, which was the quarantine of Sophia's enthymesis from the pleroma by creating a barrier around it.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

both [Latin translator and Tertullian] failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [to fence around with posts] which means "vallo cingi" [to form a defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

I find this very strong evidence that Tertullian was working from the Latin translation of Irenaeus. (I don't find the other examples particularly strong.)

My main reservation is the point raised by Philosopher Jay about how certain we can be that our manuscripts of Epiphanius preserve accurately the original Greek of Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham · 09-27-2010, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Our next smilie: beating a dead hobby horse.

:horsecrap:

;p

aa5874 · 09-28-2010, 06:44 PM

It is in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that the supposed writer Irenaeus VEHEMENTLY argued AGAINST so-called Heretics that Jesus of the NT was about 50 years when he was crucified, NOT 30 years of age.

Irenaeus implied that it was ORTHODOX in the Churches in the 2nd century that Jesus was believed to be 50 years old but NO such teaching can be found in ANY other Church writer from any century.

But, what is REMARKABLE is that NO CHURCH writer ever mentioned the error by Irenaeus.

The "historian" of the Church, Eusebius, appears to have read the VERY chapter 22 of book 2 where Irenaeus made the HERETICAL claims and still did NOT write a word about the Heresy of Irenaeus.

In fact, the passage from "Against Heresies" 2.22.5 quoted by Eusebius is EXACTLY where Irenaeus is claiming Jesus was about 50 years old and that John the apostle and the ELDERS testify that it is true.

"Against Heresies" 2.22.5

Quote:

....Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. (2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan....

Now, Eusebius, will COMPLETELY miss, or it was missing, Irenaeus' Heresy about the age of Jesus and stated that Irenaeus MAINTAINED orthodoxy in the Church.

Church History 3.23.1-3

Quote:

1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia......

2. And that he was still alive at that time may be established by the testimony of two witnesses.

They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria.

3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: "And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan."

Incredibly at the VERY chapter 22 and book 2 of "Against Heresies" where Irenaeus appears to be HERETICAL and argued Jesus was about 50 years old, Eusebius quoted parts of that very chapter 22 and book 2 and claimed that Irenaeus maintained the ORTHODOXY of the Church.

Eusebius In Church History1.10.1-2 claimed Jesus was about 34 years old at crucifixion.

Irenaeus supposedly in "Against Heresies" 2.22. claimed Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion.

Who saw, read or heard of the version of "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century where Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old at crucifixion?

No-one.

It is obvious that ALL or parts of todays "Against Heresies" was unknown in the 2nd century by the Church writers and so-called Heretics.

mountainman · 09-28-2010, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am suspicious of anyone who by ignoring the evidence already in our possession rules out the historical possibility of piously forged manuscripts.

I think your hypothesis is certainly possible. It just isn't the simplest explanation of the evidence as far as I'm concerned.

For the sake of the OP lets put my hypothesis to the side.

Quote:

However, I do believe you are right that there was (and still is) quite a bit of pious fraud going on, which makes it more difficult to figure out the real story.

There are at least two separate strands of "evidence" here being examined by the OP in avi. These are (1) the manuscript/document tradition itself in regard to the transmission of physical manuscripts of "Irenaeius" to the present day, and (2) the textual analysis of the various related texts as they relate to the manuscripts and the text of "Irenaeus".

Avi is correct in pointing out that in (1) the manuscript/document tradition the evidence is exceeding late a framgmentary (as is the case for most of this "early christian documents") and others are correct in pointing out that the text of any "Original Irenaeus" may have been preserved via variously hypothetical pathways.

But was "Irenaeus" forged, and why?

What value was there to anyone to forge the writings of a fictitious "Irenaeus"?
What was gained by this forgery and who benefited?
These sorts of questions become more important the closer we get to Nicaea.
What purpose does this "Irenaeus" serve in the fabrication of the Christians?
Why does "Irenaeus" describe "heretics" when there was no orthodoxy?
This OP is a real can of worms.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.