Oneness is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians.

C

CYBER_TRUTH

New Member
Oneness doctrine known as Modalist Monarchian is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians, while the so-called orthodox Trinity doctrine was formulated in the late 3rd century on 381 AD. This is a historical facts that cannot be refuted!
 
Binitarianism among the Jews is much older. They struggled with verses like Genesis 19:24 and Elohim revealing Himself in plural form from the very beginning in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

I'm a Trinitarian because that's how God revealed Himself to us in Scripture. Know thy God and His Word before you know church politics and history.
 
Septextura said:
Binitarianism among the Jews is much older. They struggled with verses like Genesis 19:24 and Elohim revealing Himself in plural form from the very beginning in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

I'm a Trinitarian because that's how God revealed Himself to us in Scripture. Know thy God and His Word before you know church politics and history.
Click to expand...
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; KJV

In efforts to support their doctrines well-meaning but perhaps over zealous Trinitarians appeal to this verse to imply more than one person in the nature of God. At the very least they want this verse to give us some implication of the Trinity. Notice the remarks of John Wesley from his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:

"Then the Lord rained - from the Lord - God the Son, from God the Father, for the Father has committed all judgment to the Son. He that is the Saviour will be the destroyer of those that reject the salvation."

Trinitarians are thinking that there is one Lord who rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah and yet another, within the same text and using the same noun, who also rains down. By necessity this conclusion would imply that there are two Lords at work here. Yet, the Lord of the Old Testament is repeatedly said to be one and never two or three (Deuteronomy 6:4). There is not just one Lord, but the Lord is one. Let's look at this verse closer to see what could be happening. Consider some other translations of this text:

NET | ‎Then the LORD rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the LORD.

NIV| Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

TEV| Suddenly the LORD rained burning sulfur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

The NET actually makes two sentences out of the verse and the NIV uses the dash. Both are emphasizing the source of the destruction is from the Lord above. Notice that the KJV had "brimstone and fire" where as the above translations have "sulfur and fire" and "burning sulfur" since in the context they are actually to be understood as one and the same. The TEV actually does not include the second reference to the Lord in their translation indication it is the same Lord in either case. Notice the NKJV rendering below:

NKJV | ‎Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.

The NKJV adds the comma to separate the second instance of Lord to more clearly indicate that the second instance is indicating or emphasizing the source. It is not an indication of a second person in the Trinity nor does it indicate the Lord is actually a divine being comprised of more than one person. Notice 2 Chronicles 9:2 from the KJV:

KJV| And Solomon told her all her questions: and there was nothing hid from Solomon which he told her not.

Here the noun Solomon is repeated for emphasis, not to point out that Solomon is actually two persons in one being or that another person named Solomon has suddenly entered the context. Solomon answered all of her questions. Meaning there was nothing hidden from Solomon that he could not explain to her. The second reference helps to shed light or emphasize information disclosed in the first. Notice the following two later verses which summarize the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Deuteronomy 29:23 the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath--ESV


2 Peter 2:6 ESV if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; ESV

In both accounts the Lord which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with burning sulfur is described with singular personal pronouns like "his" and "he". Therefore, if Genesis 19:24 was teaching that more than one divine person was involved in the destruction it was lost upon Moses and Peter for they certainly never recorded it in any way. Instead, they refer to the Lord of Israel as uni-personal. Trinitarians should rethink such arguments and more closely align their view of the God of Israel to that of Biblical monotheism.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Himself rebukes the Pharisees with Psalm 110. It was an old dilemma for the Jews. There's no more dilemma for me.

Matthew 22:44
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
 
Septextura said:
Jesus Himself rebukes the Pharisees with Psalm 110. It was an old dilemma for the Jews. There's no more dilemma for me.

Matthew 22:44
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Click to expand...
Psalm 110:1 “YAHWEH (the Divine Name appears) said to my Lord (adon means a human lord), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.” The text does not say, “Yahweh said to my Yahweh,” nor “Yahweh said to my Adonai (which would mean Yahweh said to God). Here we have One Yahweh Person who spoke to one human son person rather than two co-equal Yahweh Persons. If Jesus had eternally existed as an alleged God the Son beside the Father throughout eternity past, then why did the Father say to the son, "sit at my right hand" if he was already at the Father's right hand? FOR MORE DETAILS, SEE THIS VIDEO.....
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Psalm 110:1 “YAHWEH (the Divine Name appears) said to my Lord (adon means a human lord), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.” The text does not say, “Yahweh said to my Yahweh,” nor “Yahweh said to my Adonai (which would mean Yahweh said to God). Here we have One Yahweh Person who spoke to one human son person rather than two co-equal Yahweh Persons. If Jesus had eternally existed as an alleged God the Son beside the Father throughout eternity past, then why did the Father say to the son, "sit at my right hand" if he was already at the Father's right hand?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what Jesus was saying though? Do you believe Him?
 
Septextura said:
Binitarianism among the Jews is much older.
Click to expand...
Binitarianism taught that the Father and Son were two separate and distinct gods, beings or persons in the godhead. They did not teach equality of persons. They taught that the Father created another god or being or person before the world began, which He called the Son. This meant that they considered Jesus to be“homoiousios” or“of like substance” with the Father, which made Him a lesser God than the Father since He did not share in the Father’s substance. This kind of teaching is contradicted with the teaching of Trinity, in which Septextura want to reconcile with (n)
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; KJV

In efforts to support their doctrines well-meaning but perhaps over zealous Trinitarians appeal to this verse to imply more than one person in the nature of God. At the very least they want this verse to give us some implication of the Trinity. Notice the remarks of John Wesley from his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:

"Then the Lord rained - from the Lord - God the Son, from God the Father, for the Father has committed all judgment to the Son. He that is the Saviour will be the destroyer of those that reject the salvation."

Trinitarians are thinking that there is one Lord who rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah and yet another, within the same text and using the same noun, who also rains down. By necessity this conclusion would imply that there are two Lords at work here. Yet, the Lord of the Old Testament is repeatedly said to be one and never two or three (Deuteronomy 6:4). There is not just one Lord, but the Lord is one. Let's look at this verse closer to see what could be happening. Consider some other translations of this text:

NET | ‎Then the LORD rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the LORD.

NIV| Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

TEV| Suddenly the LORD rained burning sulfur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

The NET actually makes two sentences out of the verse and the NIV uses the dash. Both are emphasizing the source of the destruction is from the Lord above. Notice that the KJV had "brimstone and fire" where as the above translations have "sulfur and fire" and "burning sulfur" since in the context they are actually to be understood as one and the same. The TEV actually does not include the second reference to the Lord in their translation indication it is the same Lord in either case. Notice the NKJV rendering below:

NKJV | ‎Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.

The NKJV adds the comma to separate the second instance of Lord to more clearly indicate that the second instance is indicating or emphasizing the source. It is not an indication of a second person in the Trinity nor does it indicate the Lord is actually a divine being comprised of more than one person. Notice 2 Chronicles 9:2 from the KJV:

KJV| And Solomon told her all her questions: and there was nothing hid from Solomon which he told her not.

Here the noun Solomon is repeated for emphasis, not to point out that Solomon is actually two persons in one being or that another person named Solomon has suddenly entered the context. Solomon answered all of her questions. Meaning there was nothing hidden from Solomon that he could not explain to her. The second reference helps to shed light or emphasize information disclosed in the first. Notice the following two later verses which summarize the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Deuteronomy 29:23 the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath--ESV


2 Peter 2:6 ESV if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; ESV

In both accounts the Lord which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with burning sulfur is described with singular personal pronouns like "his" and "he". Therefore, if Genesis 19:24 was teaching that more than one divine person was involved in the destruction it was lost upon Moses and Peter for they certainly never recorded it in any way. Instead, they refer to the Lord of Israel as uni-personal. Trinitarians should rethink such arguments and more closely align their view of the God of Israel to that of Biblical monotheism.
Click to expand...
No one has seen God except the Son

The Lord, met Moses in physical form at the trees of Mamre.
It was a Christophany

God is immutable.
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Psalm 110:1 “YAHWEH (the Divine Name appears) said to my Lord (adon means a human lord), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.” The text does not say, “Yahweh said to my Yahweh,” nor “Yahweh said to my Adonai (which would mean Yahweh said to God). Here we have One Yahweh Person who spoke to one human son person rather than two co-equal Yahweh Persons. If Jesus had eternally existed as an alleged God the Son beside the Father throughout eternity past, then why did the Father say to the son, "sit at my right hand" if he was already at the Father's right hand? FOR MORE DETAILS, SEE THIS VIDEO.....
Click to expand...
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

◄ Isaiah 9:6 ►
Isaiah 9 - Click for Chapter
3588 [e] 6
kî- 6
כִּי־​
 6
For 6
Conj 6​
3206 [e]
ye·leḏ
יֶ֣לֶד
a Child
N‑ms​


､

​
​
3205 [e]
yul·laḏ-
יֻלַּד־
is born
V‑Pual‑Perf‑3ms​

lā·nū,
לָ֗נוּ
unto us
Prep | 1cp​
1121 [e]
bên
בֵּ֚ן
a Son
N‑ms​


–

​
​
5414 [e]
nit·tan-
נִתַּן־
is given
V‑Nifal‑Perf‑3ms​

lā·nū,
לָ֔נוּ
Unto us
Prep | 1cp​
4951 [e]
ham·miś·rāh
הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה
the government
Art | N‑fs​
5921 [e]
‘al-
עַל־
upon
Prep​


–

​
​
7926 [e]
šiḵ·mōw;
שִׁכְמ֑וֹ
His shoulder
N‑msc | 3ms​
7121 [e]
way·yiq·rā
וַיִּקְרָ֨א
and will be called
Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms​
8034 [e]
šə·mōw
שְׁמ֜וֹ
His name
N‑msc | 3ms​


､

​
​
6382 [e]
pe·le
פֶּ֠לֶא
Wonderful
N‑ms​


､

​
​
3289 [e]
yō·w·‘êṣ
יוֹעֵץ֙
Counselor
V‑Qal‑Prtcpl‑ms​


､

​
​
410 [e]
’êl
אֵ֣ל
God
N‑ms​
1368 [e]
gib·bō·wr,
גִּבּ֔וֹר
Mighty
Adj‑ms​
5703 [e]
’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ
אֲבִיעַ֖ד
Everlasting-Father
N‑proper‑ms​
8269 [e]
śar-
שַׂר־
Prince
N‑msc​


.

​
​
7965 [e]
šā·lō·wm.
שָׁלֽוֹם׃
of Peace
N‑ms​
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Oneness doctrine known as Modalist Monarchian is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians, while the so-called orthodox Trinity doctrine was formulated in the late 3rd century on 381 AD. This is a historical facts that cannot be refuted!
Click to expand...
I can refute your "historical" facts. Oneness teaches that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His incarnation so I have a question for you? At Genesis 22:1 it says that God tested Abraham. Then at Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched his hand with a knife to slay his son Isaac.

At vs11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, and Abraham said, here I am." At vs12 the angel of the Lord said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, FROM ME."

Then at vs 15, the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven." vs16, and said, By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son. vs17, indeed I will greatly bless you and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Vs18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have OBEYED MY VOICE." So Cyber-Truth, why is the angel of the Lord calling out from heaven two times claiming to be God and swearing an oath to Abraham that He will multiply his descendants?

At Exodus 20:22 it says, "Then the Lord said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, You yourselves have seen that I have spoken TO YOU FROM HEAVEN." So in your opinion, how do you reconcile the angel of the Lord calling from heaven and the Lord calling from heaven to Moses and Israel?

In Him,
jamesh
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Oneness doctrine known as Modalist Monarchian is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians, while the so-called orthodox Trinity doctrine was formulated in the late 3rd century on 381 AD. This is a historical facts that cannot be refuted!
Click to expand...
But it's also totally unimportant. God is ONE - no question about that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - however that works.
 
jamesh said:
I can refute your "historical" facts. Oneness teaches that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His incarnation so I have a question for you? At Genesis 22:1 it says that God tested Abraham. Then at Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched his hand with a knife to slay his son Isaac.

At vs11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, and Abraham said, here I am." At vs12 the angel of the Lord said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, FROM ME."

Then at vs 15, the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven." vs16, and said, By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son. vs17, indeed I will greatly bless you and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Vs18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have OBEYED MY VOICE." So Cyber-Truth, why is the angel of the Lord calling out from heaven two times claiming to be God and swearing an oath to Abraham that He will multiply his descendants?

At Exodus 20:22 it says, "Then the Lord said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, You yourselves have seen that I have spoken TO YOU FROM HEAVEN." So in your opinion, how do you reconcile the angel of the Lord calling from heaven and the Lord calling from heaven to Moses and Israel?

In Him,
jamesh
Click to expand...
 
jamesh said:
I can refute your "historical" facts. Oneness teaches that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His incarnation so I have a question for you? At Genesis 22:1 it says that God tested Abraham. Then at Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched his hand with a knife to slay his son Isaac.

At vs11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, and Abraham said, here I am." At vs12 the angel of the Lord said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him, for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, FROM ME."

Then at vs 15, the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven." vs16, and said, By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son. vs17, indeed I will greatly bless you and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Vs18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have OBEYED MY VOICE." So Cyber-Truth, why is the angel of the Lord calling out from heaven two times claiming to be God and swearing an oath to Abraham that He will multiply his descendants?

At Exodus 20:22 it says, "Then the Lord said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, You yourselves have seen that I have spoken TO YOU FROM HEAVEN." So in your opinion, how do you reconcile the angel of the Lord calling from heaven and the Lord calling from heaven to Moses and Israel?

In Him,
jamesh
Click to expand...
 
Ok Cyber_Truth let me first say I was a little disappointed that you did not give your opinion of what I posted, (i.e do a little thinking on your own) but that's alright. I listened to the complete tape of 26 minutes and within the first 2 minutes I knew what the main mistake Mr. Ritchie had made.

He automatically "ASSUMED" that the angel of the Lord is an actual angel like Gabriel or Michael. He then went on to try and prove it but failed. In other words, if your premise is wrong, (meaning his assumption) the rest of what you say will be wrong as well but not completely.

What I mean is that yes, angels are ministering spirits and that is their function. But the angel of the Lord is "NOT" an actual angel. The man never mentioned the origin of the word "angel." In Hebrew the word is "malak" and this word means "messenger." How the word is used depends on the context of how it is used.

For example, Malachi 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger" and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; (who do you think the Lord is here?) and the "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, He is coming." (Who's the Lord who is coming that is clearly identified as the messenger of the covenant? And what covenant?) says the Lord of hosts."

The "malak/angel/messenger" who will clear the way of the Lord would be John the Baptist. John is not an angel, he's a human being that is a messenger. Please read Mark 1:1-4 which clearly identifies him. The messenger of the covenant is the angel of the Lord, the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. And it is Jesus Christ who will come to "HIS" temple.

Mr. Ritchie in the tape brought up verses that say God cannot be seen. He failed to take into account Genesis 16:7-13. At verse 16 is the first appearance of the angel of the Lord as the angel of the Lord. He said to Hagar at vs9, "Then the angel of the Lord said to her/Hagar. Return to your mistress (Sarai) and submit yourself to her authority."

Vs10, Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count." At verses 11-12, the angel of the Lord she is with child and will bear a son. His name will be Ishmael, and he will be a wild donkey of a man. The Arabs today are from the Ishmael's blood line.

At verse 13 Hagar says the following. "Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, Thou art a God who sees; for she said, Have I even remained alive here AFTER SEEING HIM?" Others also have claimed to see God as well at Exodus 24:8-11.

Now look if you would at Genesis 17:1-2. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, THE LORD APPEARED to Abraham, and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me and be blameless. Vs2, "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Would you agree that the same being, (i.e the angel of the Lord in Genesis 16 who multiplied Hagar's descendants) also multiplied Abraham's descendants claiming to be God Almighty? Btw, when God appeared to Abraham at Genesis 17:1 it was a physical appearance. Not a vision and not in a dream. Genesis 17:22 proves this. "And when He/God finished talking to him/Abraham, God went up from Abraham."

Mr. Ricthie also brought up Genesis 18 and categorically stated that it was three angels that appeared to Abraham. That also is incorrect based on the context of what happened. Right at Genesis 1:1 it says, "Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day." Again, this is a physical appearance.

Starting at vs 3 Abraham says, "My lord if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by, vs4, "Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree." Vs5, "And I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; etc. Please read the rest of the chapter on what Abraham says to the Lord God about Sodom and Gomorrah and what God says to Abraham.

As I stated, Mr.Ritchie stated there were three angels in this chapter. No, there was the angel of the Lord clearly identified as the angel of the Lord and two actual angels. At the very end of the chapter it says the following? Vs33, "And as soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed; and Abraham returned to his place.

What about the other two angels? Genesis 19:1, Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom etc. There are other issues Mr. Ritche brought up that I can address but I will stop for now and let you think about this. I have "NOT" given you the very best argument I have proving the angel of the Lord is not an actual angel but is the Lord God Himself. PS: I would love to debate Steve Ritche.

IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
jamesh
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Oneness doctrine known as Modalist Monarchian is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians, while the so-called orthodox Trinity doctrine was formulated in the late 3rd century on 381 AD. This is a historical facts that cannot be refuted!
Click to expand...


1Cor 1:10--unity of thought( every matter of Gods truth) no division-means a single religion has Jesus, yet there are 34,000 different ones claiming to be christian, how does one choose the one real one? The teachers Jesus have appointed teach exactly what Jesus teaches-the rest teach a little of what Jesus actually teaches and dogmas taught in the schools of men.
 
keiw said:
1Cor 1:10--unity of thought( every matter of Gods truth) no division-means a single religion has Jesus, yet there are 34,000 different ones claiming to be christian, how does one choose the one real one? The teachers Jesus have appointed teach exactly what Jesus teaches-the rest teach a little of what Jesus actually teaches and dogmas taught in the schools of men.
Click to expand...
Stick with the one that was established by Christ 2,000 years ago... that Church is still here (y)
 
CYBER_TRUTH said:
Oneness doctrine known as Modalist Monarchian is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians, while the so-called orthodox Trinity doctrine was formulated in the late 3rd century on 381 AD. This is a historical facts that cannot be refuted!
Click to expand...
we don't need to know about Modalist Mon... whatever -- bc logic alone tellss us we Christians should be one (Then there's Jesus' prayer about such in I think John 17..)

obviously we are not one.. Methodistss over here, JWs over there... Lutherans.. Catholics..

But there is only one Church and that is the Catholic Church. In the beginning days of the Church, there weren't the big cathedrals we have today so people think that God doesn't approve of said buildings for worship, yet in the beginning Christians were persecuted and HAD to meet in one another's homes, no choice. They did not have churches as we know them today. Then Constantine made it OK to be Christian and so rich people started contributing to the building of Churches and things went on as they have until today...

I do think that the Church spends way too much $$ on Churches when people are living on the streets.. no place to shower, etc... That is NOT right and there is no way any Catholic can say it is right... and believe it or not, not all homeless people, maybe not even 30% are on drugs.. or doing something nefarious. I talked to someone who has worked w/ homeless ppl for years and she said most people are homeless these days because of the STUPID covid policies that shut things down so that people lost their jobs and couldn't afford the high rent..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top