God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man.

Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?
Huh? How did we go from discussing malakhim to the Trinity? I didn't follow your leap. Under no circumstances is a malakh the same thing as God. They are God's MESSENGERS, not God himself.

I'm applying your definition of Malakh onto my understanding of Genesis 32:30 to show that this definition doesn't hurt Trinitarianism. Such is the wider context.

Angels by definition are spiritual beings. However, they are able to manifest physically, such as the angel that was in the burning bush. However, if the text says that the malakh is a man, that is not a heavenly host.

Then why did you say "In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man." as to imply this man was not also a Spiritual being? If an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?

God Bless
 
Hello? That men can be angels doesn't imply any particular person should be recognized as an angel. Why are you arguing that can imples does above?
You don't understand the Hebrew then. The term just means messenger. By the same token, since men can be referred to as God, then calling them doesn't mean they are divine. Be consistent.

This is you claiming to take Genesis 32:30 seriously while doing all you can not to interact with what Genesis 32:30 actually says, aka you are not taking seriously what Genesis 32:30 says. Every time you reference a verse like you did above is nothing but miss placed whataboutism. Try answering the challenge directly.
I've answered the so called challenge. Do you have something else of substance?

You literally have nothing in Scripture that would tell you Jacob didn't meet YHWH in Genesis 32:30. That's just your dogma. Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.
Nothing in Genesis 32:30 or it's context says the man was YHWH, nor that YHWH is meek or weak. You got something else other than your dogma, DOGB?

Given that I've never denied that normal humans can be angels, this excuse seems vacuous.
Then the normal man in Gen 32:30 was just a normal messenger.

Not in the least. And if you read the paragraph I just reposted, you would know that. That's the point of that paragraph.
You're still flailing. That's why your grasping at other verses. ;)

You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
I realize you've lost the point and moving to another.

Intersting. Noted. So, Hosea commented on Genesis 32, then comments on Genesis 28. Got it. Hosea isn't following chronological order.
Scripture isn't always in chronological order. If you've bothered to look at the location of the events of Genesis 28, Bethel, and then the location of Genesis 32, Machanaim, you can make sense of Hosea 12:3-4.

It doesn't look like you've considered that. ;)

God Bless
That's what was promised to Abraham and his descendants. ;)
 
Last edited:
Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man.
There's zero support for persons in God, or the trinity.

It's clear God has said He isn't man.

Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?
They're created and physical.
 
I'm applying your definition of Malakh onto my understanding of Genesis 32:30 to show that this definition doesn't hurt Trinitarianism. Such is the wider context.

Then why did you say
"In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man." as to imply this man was not also a Spiritual being? If an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?
As I stated earlier, angels are men or created forces, ie, Psalm 104:3-4, Psalm 78:49.
 
Hello? That men can be angels doesn't imply any particular person should be recognized as an angel. Why are you arguing that can imples does above?
You don't understand the Hebrew then. The term just means messenger. By the same token, since men can be referred to as God, then calling them doesn't mean they are divine. Be consistent.

You are not listening. What part of "That men can be angels" didn't you understand?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is you claiming to take Genesis 32:30 seriously while doing all you can not to interact with what Genesis 32:30 actually says, aka you are not taking seriously what Genesis 32:30 says. Every time you reference a verse like you did above is nothing but miss placed whataboutism. Try answering the challenge directly.
I've answered the so called challenge. Do you have something else of substance?

Did you? Not once did you even quote the passage. You're not taking it seriously. You are just excusing its existence and attacking me.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You literally have nothing in Scripture that would tell you Jacob didn't meet YHWH in Genesis 32:30. That's just your dogma. Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.
Nothing in Genesis 32:30 or it's context says the man was YHWH, nor that YHWH is meek or weak. You got something else other than your dogma, DOGB?

Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.

FYI, Genesis 32:30 screams out that Jacob meet YHWH face to face. Jacob, the prophet who regularly interacted with angels, was socked that he was still alive after wrestling some guy? That's absurd. Why would Jacob, who saw the ladder, be surprised to be alive after wrestling a random human when he experienced that? Why would he name the place Paniel? Oh because he was blessed? Really? Talk about stretching things beyond credulity. Are you a politician by triad? That man blessed him. That man didn't say God will bless you like in the shema. He blessed him. Does Israel's name mean he struggled agains YHWH, or some random dude who could technically be called a god? After all, the text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Does it mean he struggled with men and mighty men? Or, does God mean what God normally means in the Tanakh? The deeper I look into this passage, the stronger my case gets. But, stick with your excuses. It's alway more rational to ignore what Scripture says and go with your rabbis' dogma. NOT!


DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Given that I've never denied that normal humans can be angels, this excuse seems vacuous.
Then the normal man in Gen 32:30 was just a normal messenger.

Can does not imply does.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not in the least. And if you read the paragraph I just reposted, you would know that. That's the point of that paragraph.
You're still flailing. That's why your grasping at other verses. ;)

Not in the least. And if you read the paragraph I just reposted, you would know that. That's the point of that paragraph.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
I realize you've lost the point and moving to another.

You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Intersting. Noted. So, Hosea commented on Genesis 32, then comments on Genesis 28. Got it. Hosea isn't following chronological order.
Scripture isn't always in chronological order. If you've bothered to look at the location of the events of Genesis 28, Bethel, and then the location of Genesis 32, Machanaim, you can make sense of Hosea 12:3-4.

It doesn't look like you've considered that.

Are you that argumentative? I say I understand you position, and you still attack?

Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man.
There's zero support for persons in God, or the trinity.
It's clear God has said He isn't man.

It's interesting that you think such assertions are meaningful. They aren't in anyway. They neither interact with what I just said nor argue against any position I hold. They are just opinions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?
They're created and physical.

And? God is all-powerful. God can do anything. So, why do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?

I'm applying your definition of Malakh onto my understanding of Genesis 32:30 to show that this definition doesn't hurt Trinitarianism. Such is the wider context.
Then why did you say
"In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man." as to imply this man was not also a Spiritual being? If an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?
As I stated earlier, angels are men or created forces, ie, Psalm 104:3-4, Psalm 78:49.

And, why couldn't a created force take on human flesh? Jacob was able to see them going up and down the ladder? Gabriel had to get Michel to help him meet up with Daniel, and he appeared as a man. So again, if an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?

God Bless
 
I'm applying your definition of Malakh onto my understanding of Genesis 32:30 to show that this definition doesn't hurt Trinitarianism.
A being cannot be a messenger of God and God at the same time.

What? I did not describe a being being God and a messenger of God. I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God.

God Bless
 
What? I did not describe a being being God and a messenger of God. I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God.

God Bless
You brought up the Trinity, which is the old one God three persons thing, Jesus being God the son, etc. IOW you were saying that the malakh was God. And my reply is that someone cannot be both God and a messenger of God. They are either one or the other.
 
You brought up the Trinity, which is the old one God three persons thing, Jesus being God the son, etc. IOW you were saying that the malakh was God. And my reply is that someone cannot be both God and a messenger of God. They are either one or the other.

Again, I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God. That's the framework. The malakh was God, but the malakh was not the person who sent the message. That was another person who is that same God.

God Bless
 
You are not listening. What part of "That men can be angels" didn't you understand?
Great, so you understand.

Did you? Not once did you even quote the passage. You're not taking it seriously. You are just excusing its existence and attacking me.
Rotfl.... you've quoted it enough, and I've rebutted. I think you're a bit too sensitive.

Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.

FYI, Genesis 32:30 screams out that Jacob meet YHWH face to face. Jacob, the prophet who regularly interacted with angels, was socked that he was still alive after wrestling some guy? That's absurd. Why would Jacob, who saw the ladder, be surprised to be alive after wrestling a random human when he experienced that? Why would he name the place Paniel? Oh because he was blessed? Really? Talk about stretching things beyond credulity. Are you a politician by triad? That man blessed him. That man didn't say God will bless you like in the shema. He blessed him. Does Israel's name mean he struggled agains YHWH, or some random dude who could technically be called a god? After all, the text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Does it mean he struggled with men and mighty men? Or, does God mean what God normally means in the Tanakh? The deeper I look into this passage, the stronger my case gets. But, stick with your excuses. It's alway more rational to ignore what Scripture says and go with your rabbis' dogma. NOT!
Rotfl... The opening of Genesis 32 shows Jacob interacting with men that are also called angels, and part of the camp of God. There's no mention of YHWH here, nor any mention of God being meek here or anywhere else. Come back with some evidence, DOGB.

Can does not imply does.
Normal. A Mighty God doesn't lose in a fight.

Not in the least. And if you read the paragraph I just reposted, you would know that. That's the point of that paragraph.
Even your elongated explanation above doesn't help you.

You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
Your logic makes zero sense and is unsupported.

Are you that argumentative? I say I understand you position, and you still attack?
Great, I hope you understand.

It's interesting that you think such assertions are meaningful. They aren't in anyway. They neither interact with what I just said nor argue against any position I hold. They are just opinions.
Just like the trinity is an unsupported opinion, bad one at that.

And? God is all-powerful. God can do anything. So, why do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?
Because God said He isn't a man on at least 3 occasions. God has no hint of sin or possibility of it. Being human adds that possibility. That's an inherent fault and imperfection, DOGB.

Your general statement that God is all-powerful and can do anything is pretty funny and filled with contradictions. I'll prove it to you here. Is it possible for God to be sinful, imperfect, misjudge, selfish, etc. If your answer is no, then you debunk your statement that God can do anything and that He can be a Man. ;)

And, why couldn't a created force take on human flesh?
I didn't say that wind, air, isn't part of the human make-up. But, they are created, and God isn't.

Jacob was able to see them going up and down the ladder?
That was a dream.

Gabriel had to get Michel to help him meet up with Daniel, and he appeared as a man.
Nothing says Gabriel nor Michael are supernatural. Either way, they are created.

So again, if an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?
Because God isn't created, and He specifically says He isn't a man that can sin, lie, etc. It isn't hard to understand.

God Bless
Always
 
Last edited:
Again, I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God. That's the framework. The malakh was God, but the malakh was not the person who sent the message. That was another person who is that same God.

God Bless
You seem oblivious to just how nutty that sounds.
 
What? I did not describe a being being God and a messenger of God. I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God.
Do you see your contradictions above? Someone sending someone else can't be same God. What term do you use to define a person in Tanakh?
 
Did you? Not once did you even quote the passage. You're not taking it seriously. You are just excusing its existence and attacking me.
Rotfl.... you've quoted it enough, and I've rebutted. I think you're a bit too sensitive.

Rebuttals that don't interact with the actual wording of the text are not rebuttals.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.

FYI, Genesis 32:30 screams out that Jacob meet
YHWH face to face. Jacob, the prophet who regularly interacted with angels, was socked that he was still alive after wrestling some guy? That's absurd. Why would Jacob, who saw the ladder, be surprised to be alive after wrestling a random human when he experienced that? Why would he name the place Paniel? Oh because he was blessed? Really? Talk about stretching things beyond credulity. Are you a politician by triad? That man blessed him. That man didn't say God will bless you like in the shema. He blessed him. Does Israel's name mean he struggled agains YHWH, or some random dude who could technically be called a god? After all, the text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Does it mean he struggled with men and mighty men? Or, does God mean what God normally means in the Tanakh? The deeper I look into this passage, the stronger my case gets. But, stick with your excuses. It's alway more rational to ignore what Scripture says and go with your rabbis' dogma. NOT!
Rotfl... The opening of Genesis 32 shows Jacob interacting with men that are also called angels, and part of the camp of God. There's no mention of YHWH here, nor any mention of God being meek here or anywhere else. Come back with some evidence, DOGB.

So, he called the place Paniel because he met some guy. He was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. And for some reason, Jacob thought just wrestling with a random dude is a reason to be surprised at still being alive. Your reading of the text makes no sense.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
Your logic makes zero sense and is unsupported.

You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And? God is all-powerful. God can do anything. So, why do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?
Because God said He isn't a man on at least 3 occasions. God has no hint of sin or possibility of it. Being human adds that possibility. That's an inherent fault and imperfection, DOGB.

You are clearly not reading what I'm writing.

Your general statement that God is all-powerful and can do anything is pretty funny and filled with contradictions. I'll prove it to you here. Is it possible for God to be sinful, imperfect, misjudge, selfish, etc. If your answer is no, then you debunk your statement that God can do anything and that He can be a Man. ;)

You've clearly have never interacted with the Christian doctrine of the omnipotence of God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, why couldn't a created force take on human flesh?
I didn't say that wind, air, isn't part of the human make-up. But, they are created, and God isn't.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Jacob was able to see them going up and down the ladder?
That was a dream.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Gabriel had to get Michel to help him meet up with Daniel, and he appeared as a man.
Nothing says Gabriel nor Michael are supernatural. Either way, they are created.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So again, if an angel can appear as a burning bush, then why couldn't he appear as a man?
Because God isn't created, and He specifically says He isn't a man that can sin, lie, etc. It isn't hard to understand.

You are clearly not reading what I'm writing.

What? I did not describe a being being God and a messenger of God. I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God.
Do you see your contradictions above? Someone sending someone else can't be same God. What term do you use to define a person in Tanakh?

There isn't one unless you assume Unitarianism. But then again, that's not really a contradiction. What is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine nature? Note: anything you bring up to answer this question will assume what your trying to assert making it irrational. Good luck.

God Bless
 
Again, I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God. That's the framework. The malakh was God, but the malakh was not the person who sent the message. That was another person who is that same God.
You seem oblivious to just how nutty that sounds.

That's you being culturally closed-minded. It's not like my position or wording is unusual.

God Bless
 
Rebuttals that don't interact with the actual wording of the text are not rebuttals.
It's been dealt with. You just don't like the response.

So, he called the place Paniel because he met some guy. He was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. And for some reason, Jacob thought just wrestling with a random dude is a reason to be surprised at still being alive. Your reading of the text makes no sense.
What's ironic is you think this man is God who loses a fight. I think this man represents God. The difference being that I don't hold the man is divine. People give blessings on behalf of God.

Again, the man wrestled with Jacob. They didn't dance.

You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
I realize your ideas have no logic or reasoning.

You are clearly not reading what I'm writing.
You clearly don't like what I have to say.

You've clearly have never interacted with the Christian doctrine of the omnipotence of God.
You clearly didn't have a rebuttal.

You are clearly not reading what I'm writing.
Wrong, you just don't have a rebuttal.

There isn't one unless you assume Unitarianism.
Sure there is. Tell me what term is used for a person in Tanakh? Using grammar, how would a singular person be identified?

Why do you think Jacob wrestled with one man vs. 3?

But then again, that's not really a contradiction. What is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine nature?
Human beings share the same divine nature, image. We're just different persons and beings. That's how the grammar shows it.

We don't assume human beings are one being. That's illogical and irrational.

Note: anything you bring up to answer this question will assume what your trying to assert making it irrational. Good luck.
Rotfl... kind of like your irrational idea that 3 persons are really one? ... Rotfl...

God Bless
Always.
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, he called the place Paniel because he met some guy. He was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. And for some reason, Jacob thought just wrestling with a random dude is a reason to be surprised at still being alive. Your reading of the text makes no sense.
What's ironic is you think this man is God who loses a fight. I think this man represents God. The difference being that I don't hold the man is divine. People give blessings on behalf of God.

Again, the man wrestled with Jacob. They didn't dance.

The text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." I'm just letting the text speak for itself. So, If it wasn't YHWH, or a spiritual angel made flesh, who he prevailed against, then he was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. My critique was valid. You "think this man represents God." as to reject what Scripture says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
I realize your ideas have no logic or reasoning.

You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You are clearly not reading what I'm writing.
You clearly don't like what I have to say.

That's because I care about having theology based upon Scripture as opposed to underhanded debate tactics, like the ones you've been employing. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There isn't one unless you assume Unitarianism.
Sure there is. Tell me what term is used for a person in Tanakh? Using grammar, how would a singular person be identified?
Why do you think Jacob wrestled with one man vs. 3?

Are you trying to be irrational? You used the term contradiction and supported such by challenging me to justify things Scripturally. Nothing else needs to be said. You attacked my logic and demanded me justify my presets. If you can't tell the difference between such, how do you function in your everyday life?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
But then again, that's not really a contradiction. What is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine nature?
Human beings share the same divine nature, image. We're just different persons and beings. That's how the grammar shows it.
We don't assume human beings are one being. That's illogical and irrational

There are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image". So, what is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine being?


DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Note: anything you bring up to answer this question will assume what your trying to assert making it irrational. Good luck.
Rotfl... kind of like your irrational idea that 3 persons are really one? ... Rotfl...

Wow, you think hubris makes for a rational argument?

God Bless
 
The text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." I'm just letting the text speak for itself. So, If it wasn't YHWH, or a spiritual angel made flesh, who he prevailed against, then he was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. My critique was valid. You "think this man represents God." as to reject what Scripture says.
YHWH isn't in the context. Jacob encountered the camp of God, angels, and sent angels, men, to Esau. Men represent God and are called God. It's easy to understand.

God doesn't lose in a wrestling match. Man does. Men give blessings too.

Jacob encounters Esau latter in Genesis 33:10 and says seeing Esau's face is like seeing God, and receiving his blessings. This has all been explained to you.

You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
You're being redundant again.

That's because I care about having theology based upon Scripture as opposed to underhanded debate tactics, like the ones you've been employing. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.
I've read what you've said. And it's nonsense that God loses a fight. This is omnipotent in your mind?

What exactly was underhanded? That your god really can't do anything?

Are you trying to be irrational? You used the term contradiction and supported such by challenging me to justify things Scripturally. Nothing else needs to be said. You attacked my logic and demanded me justify my presets. If you can't tell the difference between such, how do you function in your everyday life?
Excuse me. Did you have some logic previously?

Do you have any justification for your ideas?

There are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image". So, what is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine being?
Aren't you listening or reading? Men have the image of God.

Do your divine persons share worship of each other, the same knowledge, etc.?

So, what term in Tanakh do you use for being? What tells you Jacob wrestled with one man vs. 3?

Wow, you think hubris makes for a rational argument?
And you think declaring the trinity is a rational argument?

God Bless
Of course.
 
Last edited:
The text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." I'm just letting the text speak for itself. So, If it wasn't YHWH, or a spiritual angel made flesh, who he prevailed against, then he was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. My critique was valid. You "think this man represents God." as to reject what Scripture says.
YHWH isn't in the context. Jacob encountered the camp of God, angels, and sent angels, men, to Esau. Men represent God and are called God. It's easy to understand.
God doesn't lose in a wrestling match. Man does. Men give blessings too.
Jacob encounters Esau latter in Genesis 33:10 and says seeing Esau's face is like seeing God, and receiving his blessings. This has all been explained to you.

Again, the text makes a purposeful distinction between men and this one called God by saying: "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." So, who is this God that struggled with Jacob? It's not a man called a god given the contrast with men. How about dealing with what the text says as opposed to repeating all the reasons why you can't read the text literally.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You think that because you are not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
You're being redundant again.

When I ask a question, and it isn't answered. I tend to repeat myself. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That's because I care about having theology based upon Scripture as opposed to underhanded debate tactics, like the ones you've been employing. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.
I've read what you've said. And it's nonsense that God loses a fight. This is omnipotent in your mind
What exactly was underhanded? That your god really can't do anything?

And, Junior High Students "read" the books assigned to them also. Neither of you show any comprehension of the reading. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Are you trying to be irrational? You used the term contradiction and supported such by challenging me to justify things Scripturally. Nothing else needs to be said. You attacked my logic and demanded me justify my presets. If you can't tell the difference between such, how do you function in your everyday life?
Excuse me. Did you have some logic previously?
Do you have any justification for your ideas?

When your irrationality is expressed, attack the other to save face.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image". So, what is so illogical about multiple persons sharing one divine being?
Aren't you listening or reading? Men have the image of God.

I didn't deny men have the image of God, but there are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image".

God Bless
 
That's you being culturally closed-minded. It's not like my position or wording is unusual.
Yes it is.

A position literally held by like 2 billion people alive today being described using the normal words used to describe it in the most used language on the planet cannot be said to be unusual.

FYI, none of this is evidence for it's truth, I'm just saying I'm not odd, and you attacks are more cultural that logical.


God Bless
 
Back
Top