I don't its from my mind. The Scripture I do so it's not misquoted.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Ahh thanks for clarification makes since once you lay it out. Have a blessed day.
You as well.
I specifically said knowing and not knowing.
Show me where in the Bible it says the midwives told the truth.
You are following the doctrines of one man, yourself, based on the understanding and interpretations of one man, yourself.
Where i got it from is in the first part of it.
Glad you will read it later because it's the best answer to your questions
You're the one suggesting they lied so that burden is on you. I'll let you know it's not in there that they lied. According to your organizations dogma say they lied I'm guessing. Or is it your personal opinion?
I'm following God's word. I'm sorry you have to find comfort in others doctrines. I do not. I do however like to read and broaden my knowledge. A fool would be one who doesn't accept knowledge.
I was hoping it came from you personally not your organizations doctrine. But I will read it. I agree with you most of the time, but when you say things that are not biblical like insinuating the midwives lied and the Bible does not say that. It says they disobeyed the order. That I disagree with. Also praying for the dead. That also isn't in the Bible.
So those areas are definitely not biblical.
It's my opinion. The text says neither that the lied or told the truth.
That means you are forming your own doctrine.
No need to be sorry. You are quite correct that I find comfort in the doctrines of those that decided what books were in God's word, which I take to mean the Bible, for the Church is the pillar and grond of truth and I hold fast to the tradition she teaches for that tradition produced your Bible, at the very least, your new testament.
I wouldn't reload without consulting a manual, I wouldn't try to trace a wiring problem without a wiring diagram, and I wouldn't attempt to work out my salvation without consulting those who have gone on before me.
Not sure why you think they told the truth when the Bible does not say that...unless you are following some tradition.
Praying for the dead? Not sure where that came from, but it is in the Bible. Maccabees.Does it do any good? It's a matter of opinion.
Negative the doctrine I follow is what the word of God says. It isn't mine.
I can worship with Orthodox Christians, Calvinists, Messianic Jews, and Wesleyans. This separation of people who are disciples of Messiah Jesus of Nazareth isn't good. If a congregation teaches Biblical truth I have no problem. Aren't we all supposed to be brothers, and sisters in Jesus?
What's wrong with following God's word only?
Studying it from the Septuagint, Tanakh, Textus Receptus? Reading commentary etc?
What Bible the Maccabees are not part of the Jewish Tanakh nor a part of the New Covenant Textus Receptus.
I know it's in the Maccabees.
It's not biblical.
It's clear the you believe your understanding of the word of God to be infallible. No need to go back and forth about it.
Yes we are.
It's not biblical to do so.
According to the Bible of your tradition. Your tradition attempts to take out of the Bible things that your tradition disagrees with.
It's also in 2 Tim but your tradition will decide the interpretation much as it does for the midwives.
No I do not.
Just because I disagree with many Doctrines that do not teach the whole word if God or add to it doesn't make me a know it all.
If I knew it all why would I still be reaching out to read from other Christians and their take on the Scripture.
I know what you are insinuating and it's wrong of you.
Just because I question and find that many Doctrines of many church organizations to not live up to God's word doesn't make me a know it all.
Just because I call you out on things that are not biblical in your Doctrines doesn't make me a know it all. I see things that are not biblical.
Thank you.
Tradition is speaking of what is Traditional from the Old Covenant thru the New Covenant. That is my understanding of it.
The Bible is the primary source of all Christian doctrine and practice. So if one follows the Doctrines set forth in the Bible he has biblical tradition and doctrine.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Notice the word Scripture.
What is the Doctrines taught in the New Covenant? That is doctrine I follow.
Do you find fault in doctrine coming from the Scriptures?
Do you prefer man making doctrine from tradition that isn't based on Scriptures?
Also notice reproof, and correction.
Since you believe that the midwives lied and its not biblical read the above about reproof, and correction. Same with praying for the dead.
Both beliefs are not biblical. Both are man's doctrines and not biblical.
Edit:
Do you agree or disagree that Scripture is the ultimate authority?
Last edited:
You disagree with many doctrines that do not teach the whole word of God as you understand it. I never said or used the phrase know it all. You are introducing language that I am not.
In the parts you think you do understand, you consider yourself infallible, not from haughtiness, but you are still certain you are right.
For example, going back to the midwives. You are certain they did not lie. The Bible is silent on this. It does not say they told the truth and it does not say they lied. It is open for interpretation. So I will ask you what you asked me, is it your opinion that they told the truth?
If you are certain they told the truth, then you are going beyond what the Bible itself says, and that is not an opinion.
You have not called me out on anything that the Orthodox Church doctrinally teaches that is not Biblical.
You are not that gracious in your statements though for you are certain you see things that are not Biblical. That is why I say you consider yourself infallible.
Christ the the primary source of all Christian Doctrine and Practice.
The quote from 2 Timothy can only apply to the Old Testament. Even stretching it to incorporate Paul's letters, it still would not encompass all of the New Testament. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
This is another eisegetical reading. You approach the text with the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura and that decides how you interpret the text.
I deny the premise that they are two separate things. Scripture is a part of Tradition. Without Tradition you would not have the scriptures.
Again, show how believing they lied is not biblical? Show how praying for the dead is not biblical?
It appears as if you are taking the approach that if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible it is not Biblical? Is that so?
If so, describe to me how the Sunday morning worship service at your church goes and show me explicitly how that service is conducted according to the Bible Explicitly.
Read the Bread of life Discourse below. It explicitly says 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
That is pretty explicit. Do you eat His flesh and Drink His blood?
This is what I am getting at when I keep saying according to one's interpretation. Those that want to take the Bible literally find ways to explain the literal meaning away when it doesn't fit their tradition.
Jesus the Bread of Life
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”I disagree. Christ is the ultimate authority. Such a belief is ultimately unbiblical for the Bible nowhere makes the claim.
The Bible is not a Koran and we should not treat it as such. What do I base that on? The fruits of such a belief. Those that believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority have fractured the Body of Christ, which, as you would put it, is unbiblical.
First they say Scripture is the ultimate authority, then some will say not scripture but a specific version is the ultimate authority, then they say only a certain subset of Jewish scriptures are the ultimate authority, then they translate versions in such a way to support their beliefs and in like manner discount others. Then they come up with new doctrines based on their interpretations. They find proof for a "rapture", they find proof for chiliasm, they find proof for pretrib, post trib, mid trib. Those that believe that Scripture is the ultimate authority have fractured the Body of Christ, which, as you would put it, is unbiblical. Some will say well, that is not essential beliefs. Well if they are opinions, don't fracture the Body of Christ over them.
It's perfectly okay to have opinions, it is sin to fracture the Body of Christ.
But all of them will tell you Scripture is the Ultimate Authority.
The Bible is the word of God.
So you disagree that God's word is the ultimate authority. Jesus is the word made flesh.
You do not believe God the Father, or Jesus the son of God is the ultimate authority?
John 1: 1-14
Isaiah 40:8
Unless we are misunderstanding each other because of the limitations of text.
Last edited:
Earlier I posted a sermon and clearly stated so in a rather lengthy post. This 6 pages is all my own work from the last 3 hours, written without the aid of any books, internet pages, or any other source other than myself and what I have learned over the years. As such I am sure I make some mistakes.
Christ is the Word of God. God the Father acts in this world through God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The 3 act as one in the divine economia. The Davar Yahweh, it means more than just the word of God it also means an act. The Logos of God acts in the world. The Spirit of God acts in the world.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
A famous verse, and a pertinent verse for this discussion. Koine Greek has no indefinite articles.
What keeps someone from inserting an indefinite article?
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a God"
The belief that the Bible is the ultimate authority is a 15th century doctrine. The Bible can be misunderstood, mistranslated, and misinterpreted.
If you were a Christian from the years 33 AD to 100. There was no Bible. The Book of Revelation wasn't written until the 90s. Dating the letters of Paul using the Edict of Claudius shows that he wrote between the years of roughly 50 - 60s AD. That was the reality of 1st century Christianity. The scriptures to the earliest Christian converts was the Septuagint in the Greek speaking world. A Translation into Greek done by Jews of their scriptures. The Septuagint contained those books, including Maccabees, which will later be rejected in the 16th century. There was no New Testament. These Christians were using the Jewish scriptures to prove to the Jews that Christ was the Messiah. This fighting between Jews and Christians continued for centuries. The use of the LXX by the early Christian Church is indisputable. Most of the quotes in the New Testament of the Old are from the LXX.
If you were a Christian in the years 100 -300 AD. You would not have owned a Bible because the Books that belong in the Bible were not yet decided. In fact, when you went to Church on Sunday and the scriptures were read, it is most likely that the Church you attended may have only had 1 or 2 or 3 gospels. They may have had some of the letters of Paul. You may even have heard books read in Church that are no longer in the Bible. The most famous example is that of the Gospel of Peter which a Bishop okayed to be read in Church, but later heard that heresies were sprouting from that book so he forbade his churches from reading the Gospel of Peter. This happened all over. The Didache was read, the Shepherd of Hermas was read. Over time, the Churches began to collect the writings of Paul for example. The earliest collection of Pauls writings, P46, makes an appearance in the 3rd century, 250 ADish. There were disputes over what books belong in the Bible. Hebrews for example, and the Apocalypse, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John. There was no Bible.
If you were are Christian in the 4th Century, you would witness the formation of the Canon by the Church. It was the Church that decided what books would be in the Bible after years of wrestling with what Books were a true witness to the faith revealed once and for all to the Church. So basically, for over 3 centuries Christianity existed without a Bible. It more than existed, it grew. It explosively grew. But it did not grow by Gideons handing out copies of the New Testament. Such a feat couldn't have occurred until after the invention of the printing press. You, as a Christian, would be lucky to have a copy of one book. All the manuscripts were hand copied, and it was expensive to obtain them. It could take a years salary for the average Christian just to obtain a single manuscript. There were manuscripts variations. I can produce 4th century sermons by St. John Chrysostom where he is preaching in the Church and says, basically, if this manuscript is right, it means this, but if this other manuscript is correct it means this. I can also cite where he implores his parishoniers to obtain even one gospel. When Constantine became Emperor, he commissioned 50 copies of the Bible to be made for the Churches. It took the financial backing of the Empire to place the Bible in the Churches to be read.
Furthermore, when Orthodox Missionaries went into other countries, their first goal was to translate the scriptures into the vernacular languges. Sts Cyril and Methodius went to the Slavs and created the Cyrillic alphabet to facilitate the translation of the scriptures into the native language. It was always a priority to put the Bible in the language of the people, but that did not negate the need to understand the Scriptures as the Church had understood it from the beginning.
It is clear that the early Church never envisioned the Bible as 16th century reformers would over a thousand years later. Heresies were springing up and the Church actively fought against them using the Bible as interpreted and understood in the Church. It was the Church that decided what the Bible meant, but it wasn't as rigid as that sounds or is thought of by modern day Protestants. The heretics were using the same Bible to support their views. But they didn't resort to slinging Bible verses back and forth, the criteria was how has the Bible verse been interpreted in the living memory of the Church. As St Vincent of Lerins wrote in the 5th century (early 400s) "Moreover, in the Universal Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." That is a maxim that is often repeated in the Church. It is a test any biblical interpretation must pass.
Christ is the Word of God, the Church through the Holy Spirit, guides Christians on the right path by rightly dividing the word of truth. As heresies arose, the Church through the Seven Ecumenical Councils denounced heresies and declared the right doctrine of the faith to protect the Christian from error.
That is the history of it. Now I am not infallible and I may have a date or 2 wrong, but those are simply facts.
As we go through time, the Jews come up with the Masoretic Text in the 7-9th centuries. Christian Bibles continue with the LXX.
Finally, in the year 1054, the Catholic Church splits from the Orthodox Church over several theological issues, the filioque addition to the Creed, the use of unleavened bread in the eucharist, and Papal claims to universal jurisdiction over the Church. These trends illustrate a test of St Vincent of Lerins, which the Latins would claim over time as justified due to the development of doctrine. Basically the idea that by logic and reasoning new doctrines and dogmas can be proclaimed thus making it where a Christian in 1100 would have to believe something not taught by the Church in the year 100.
A final attempt at reunification began in 1400s at the Council of Florence. The East was threatened with by Muslim invaders and an envoy was sent to the Latins to obtain military aid. The Pope wanted the Orthodox to accept his terms and his jurisdiction over all the Church. All but one Bishop agreed to sign that document. One held out, St Mark of Ephesus. He is the only saint out of the bunch. He was imprisoned, tortured, and still refused to sign it. The agreement was sent back to the East and the people cried out "Better the Turkish Turban than the Papal Tiara" and ran out the robber Bishops. St Mark was hailed as a hero and the East succumbed to Muslim control and years of persecution. Years of not having a Bible, at least openly, yet they still held the faith through the strength of the Church.
In the West, many Popes, with good intentions sought to reform the Church over time, unfortunately, to reform meant to assume more control and when a bad Pope arose that accumulated power fell to the bad Popes also.
The West was mostly a barbaric place at this time also and few had or could afford Bibles. It was under Catholic influence that celibacy of priests was introduced. In Orthodoxy that was never so. This was done to protect Church property since in the West, property was handed down to progeny.
Then came the Cur Deus Homo (Why God Man), by Anselm of Canterbury, and the a satisfactional view of "atonement" was born. Salvation becomes boiled down to a transaction. Humanity has offended God and a penalty or price must be paid. This is born out of the rise of the monarchy. If a peasant stole a chicken from a peasant, the theif could make restitution by repaying a chicken. However lords ranked much higher than a peasant. If a peasant stole a chicken from a lord. The penalty was much higher than just a Chicken. A King even more so. So God? Well the offense of his majesty can never be repaid. No Human being could make restitution to God. Only Jesus, fully human and fully divine, could repay or make restitution to God the Father for the sins of mankind.
Now we can not deny the bible does speak of Christ in such a manner but not with the focus and emphasis that comes into Western Christianity after Cur Deus Homo. These things were discussed in the early Church. St Gregory the Theologian best expresses how the early Church taught about this type of language. I can find the quote if you wish, but basically he is speaking of ransom and asks to whom the ransom is paid? To the Devil? His answer in old English is Fie upon the Outrage, or, colloqually, no way! To God? How could God be pleased with the death of His only Son? Basically St Gregory is saying God is not the Problem, The Devil is not the problem, we are the Problem. We need healed. In the East the focus is always Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. It is through the Resurrection the conquering of death that we are healed that we are saved.
As this view of salvation takes hold in the west the transactional model comes more fully into focus. How is the debt paid? Here logic and reasoning and the development of doctrine take hold of the western Church. In the early Church you were Baptized and Chrismated as a baby. Baptism of infances is the norm still in the West but Chrismation is split off and becomes Confirmation which is based on an age of reason. I am a little fuzzy on dates because this is not my heritage. Then the second major difference between East and West is the idea of the guilt of Adam's sin being upon the entire human race. The seeds of this was introduced by St Augustine in the 4th century, but flowered in medieval Europe. This generates the idea of limbo to answer the question what happens to a baby that dies before being baptized since it is guilty of original sin? Another idea that is foreign to the Orthodox.
Finally the obsession begins to arise, what do I have to DO to be saved. You have this enormous debt to God that Jesus paid, but because God is a just God you must be punished. The way out became merits. The Saints of the Latin Church contributed merits that you can think of like a big bank in the sky. If you asked these saints to save you, you were asking these saints to use their merits to help pay the penalty you must suffer. Then the idea becomes but what if you are a member of the Church but you die without having paid the penalty due for your sins even if you were forgiven? The answer becomes Purgatory. You are still going to heaven but you have to pay the temporal penalty. This idea is also foreign to the Orthodox.
Then it becomes, how can I help those I love pay their penalty and the answer becomes indulgences. Then indulgences become commodities. The concept of indulgences is foreign to the Orthodox. Your eternal destiny is determined when you die.
These and other practices lead to Martin Luther and the Reformation, but by this time, roughly 500 years have passed since the Latin Church separated from the Orthodox Church. The original bibles all had the books that you now reject. the KJV was originally prohibited from being printed without them. Over time, this becomes the norm in the Protestant Churches.
So when most Protestants want to talk faith vs works or how one is saved or prayers to the saints or prayers for the dead, or baptism, whether they know it or not, their language and defintions are those from the 16th century onward. If an Orthodox person has a discussion with most Protestants about these topics. It is often frustrating because we are using the same terms but we define them very differently.
Then as we move through the 17th and 18th century we see the 5 pillars of Protestantism lead to further and further fractionalization of the church. I have not doubt most of them and most readers of this were sincere in their desire for salvation and living a Christian life but the fruits of the experiment are not proving the hypothesis. In the 19th century we see revivalism and rapture spring into being based on a false understanding of Thessalonians, often combined with the words of Jesus about one shall be taken and the other left. Another belief that begins to separate believers and a great example of a doctrine being born by reading into the scriptures something that was not historically there. The historical interpretation of Christ's words was be ready for your own death for you do not know when it was coming but I have heard sermons and heard Christians use that scripture for backup to the rapture interpretations. The problem with the rapture is it means Christ comes 3 times not twice using some mental gymnastics in Thessalonians to support a belief first espressed in the study notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.
Then we enter the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire falls and the Church of the East exits from years of oppression. Then The Russian Revolution and another estimated 20 million Orthodox lose their lives under the communist regimes. The Bibles are smuggled in because they are destroyed.
Yet amazingly in these hundreds of years of suppression without a Bible in every home, Christianity survivied. It survived without the Bible. It survived because of the Church, the faithful clinging to the faith as once delivered to the saints for all.
None of this should be taken to mean that Bible is not important to the Orthodox Christian, but an Orthodox Christian considers it more important to test his own interpretation of the text to the interpretation of the Church. There is a lot of freedom in interpretation, much as the Gospel of St Peter was read as scripture early on, BUT if my interpretation contradicts the interpretation of the Church. I am in heresy and must submit to the authority of the Church in humility. This is often difficult because Protestants believe that means every scripture has a "correct" interpretation. That is not what I am saying. As long as the interpretation is edifying I can explore many different levels of meaning. IF one of my interpretations is it's ok to insert an "a" into the text, that introduces heresy.
It is simply fact that for a hundred years or so, there was not a Bible and definitely not a NT, for hundreds of years, individual Christians did not have Bibles. The Church was the ultimate authority. For millions of Christians in the last two centuries, they had the Church as the ultimate authority. Why was this? Because the Church is the ultimate authority as promised by Jesus the Christ, as spoken by Paul and as guided by the Holy Spirit.
So we take our Bible of today. We know from early manuscripts that the Gospel of John has two separate endings, one added later. We know the story of the adulterous woman was added later. I could add more examples.
But when it was decided that later manuscript editions were scripture and this story or that was scripture it was the Church that made the decision. Or in other words, the Tradition of the Church decided and preserved the scriptures. I have even seen modern translations which bracket off sections of scripture to delineate that they are "additions". For the Orthodox, we don't care. It may be interesting from a scholarly viewpoint but those brackets can seem to say "maybe this isn't original". What makes it scripture is not was it in the original, earliest scriptures or was it added in by a scribe/copyist at at later time, it is simply the Church saying so.
So I will end where I started. is it "The word was God" or "The Word was A God"? If you are a Jehovah's witness you will take the latter. What keeps a translation from inserting an "a". The Tradition of the Church. The word a occurs several times in the Bible to make reading it easier or to clarify meaning but it is not in the original text.
Last edited:
Good write up foszoe.
I learned several things. Will research it more. Thank you.
And I apologize if my earlier posts were uncharitable in tone. They were not meant to be but sometimes things done in haste lack in love.
However, I will say read that sermon I posted earlier as it represents a thorough understanding of how Orthodoxy views Jesus as Savior and how we understand Salvation.
Well it would be easier to do this sitting across a table with coffee or tea.
There has to be some kind of INGO record in here.
I see you have not read the Reformation Day thread or the first incarnation of this thread
Sometimes it's hard being the only Orthodox in the room, or at least vocal one I got a bit of a reputation in those for being verbose. I did a lot more chapter verse posting in those threads than I do now.
I thought Jamil had entered the chat until I realized I was still scrollingI see you have not read the Reformation Day thread or the first incarnation of this thread
and scrolling
and scrolling.
I don’t think I’m smart enough to be Orthodox.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
mom45Momerator -
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- actaeon277
- TheGrumpyGuy
- Dirtebiker
- MikeHoncho
- mike8170
- indyblue
- Flash-hider
- AlienRayGun
- 15kiserc
- Bassat
- brchixwing
- Snapdragon
- Gunguy317
- Tanfodude
- edporch
- Cameramonkey
- KLB
- Firehawk
- buckwacker
- X3r0h0uR
- BeDome
- cdscds
- Plumbous
- Ceeloos94
- Sasquatchhunter
- Herstal
- Judamonster
- 24Carat
- Destro
- snorko
- ridetoslide
- 45sRfun
- Revdev86
- Ed B
- DoubleEagle32
- Wanderer
- Eagle21
- dieselrealtor
- wesleyoliver95
- fullmetaljesus
- ZachJ03
- Bosshoss
- mom45
- jsharmon7
- Godbybe
- d.kaufman
- deadeye
- ftbstrd
- melensdad
- jedi