Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: 4 Big Myths Of Book Of Revelation
Source:
CNN
URL Source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/ ... -book-of-revelation/?hpt=hp_c3
Published: Apr 1, 2012
Author: John Blake
Post Date: 2012-04-01 18:45:57 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 7369
Comments: 23
By John Blake, CNN (CNN) – The anti-Christ. The Battle of Armageddon. The dreaded Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. You don’t have to be a student of religion to recognize references from the Book of Revelation. The last book in the Bible has fascinated readers for centuries. People who don’t even follow religion are nonetheless familiar with figures and images from Revelation. And why not? No other New Testament book reads like Revelation. The book virtually drips with blood and reeks of sulfur. At the center of this final battle between good and evil is an action-hero-like Jesus, who is in no mood to turn the other cheek. Elaine Pagels, one of the world’s leading biblical scholars, first read Revelation as a teenager. She read it again in writing her latest book, “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation.” Pagels’ book is built around a simple question: What does Revelation mean? Her answers may disturb people who see the book as a prophecy about the end of the world. But people have clashed over the meaning of Revelation ever since it was virtually forced into the New Testament canon over the protests of some early church leaders, Pagels says. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories “There were always debates about it,” she says. “Some people said a heretic wrote it. Some said a disciple. There were always people who loved and championed it.” The debate persists. Pagels adds to it by challenging some of the common assumptions about Revelation. Here are what she says are four big myths about Revelation:: 1. It’s about the end of the world Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end. Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended. She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos in present-day Turkey. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter “He would have been a very simple man in his clothes and dress,” Pagels says. “He may have gone from church to church preaching his message. He seems more like a traveling preacher or a prophet.” The author of Revelation had experienced a catastrophe. He wrote his book not long after 60,000 Roman soldiers had stormed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., burned down its great temple and left the city in ruins after putting down an armed Jewish revolt. For some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was incomprehensible. They had expected Jesus to return “with power” and conquer Rome before inaugurating a new age. But Rome had conquered Jesus’ homeland instead. The author of Revelation was trying to encourage the followers of Jesus at a time when their world seemed doomed. Think of the Winston Churchill radio broadcasts delivered to the British during the darkest days of World War II. Revelation was an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem. “His primary target is Rome,” Pagels says of the book’s author. “He really is deeply angry and grieved at the Jewish war and what happened to his people.” 2. The numerals 666 stand for the devil The 1976 horror film “The Omen” scared a lot of folks. It may have scared some theologians, too, who began encountering people whose view of Revelation comes from a Hollywood movie. “The Omen” depicted the birth and rise of the “anti-Christ,” the cunning son of Satan who would be known by “the mark of the beast,” 666, on his body. Here’s the passage from Revelation that “The Omen” alluded to: “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.” Good movies, though, don’t always make good theology. Most people think 666 stands for an anti-Christ-like figure that will deceive humanity and trigger a final battle between good and evil. Some people think he’s already here. Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation didn’t really intend 666 as the devil’s digits. He was describing another incarnation of evil: The Roman emperor, Nero. The arrogant and demented Nero was particularly despised by the earliest followers of Jesus, including the writer of Revelation. Nero was said to have burned followers of Jesus alive to illuminate his garden. But the author of Revelation couldn’t safely name Nero, so he used the Jewish numerology system to spell out Nero’s imperial name, Pagels says. Pagels says that John may have had in mind other meanings for the mark of the beast: the imperial stamp Romans used on official documents, tattoos authorizing people to engage in Roman business, or the images of Roman emperors on stamps and coins. Since Revelation’s author writes in “the language of dreams and nightmares,” Pagels says it’s easy for outsiders to misconstrue the book’s original meaning. Still, they take heart from Revelation’s larger message, she writes: “…Countless people for thousands of years have been able to see their own conflicts, fears, and hopes reflected in his prophecies. And because he speaks from his convictions about divine justice, many readers have found reassurance in his conviction that there is meaning in history – even when he does not say exactly what that meaning is – and that there is hope.” 3. The writer of Revelation was a Christian The author of Revelation hated Rome, but he also scorned another group – a group of people we would call Christians today, Pagels says. There’s a common perception that there was a golden age of Christianity, when most Christians agreed on an uncontaminated version of the faith. Yet there was never one agreed-upon Christianity. There were always clashing visions. Revelation reflects some of those early clashes in the church, Pagels says. That idea isn’t new territory for Pagels. She won the National Book Award for “The Gnostic Gospels,” a 1979 book that examined a cache of newly discovered “secret” gospels of Jesus. The book, along with other work from Pagels, argues that there were other accounts of Jesus’ life that were suppressed by early church leaders because it didn’t fit with their agenda. The author of Revelation was like an activist crusading for traditional values. In his case, he was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the messiah. But he didn’t like the message that the apostle Paul and other followers of Jesus were preaching. This new message insisted that gentiles could become followers of Jesus without adopting the requirements of the Torah. It accepted women leaders, and intermarriage with gentiles, Pagels says. The new message was a lot like what we call Christianity today. That was too much for the author of Revelation. At one point, he calls a woman leader in an early church community a “Jezebel.” He calls one of those gentile-accepting churches a “synagogue of Satan.” John was defending a form of Christianity that would be eclipsed by the Christians he attacked, Pagels says. “What John of Patmos preached would have looked old-fashioned – and simply wrong to Paul’s converts…,” she writes. The author of Revelation was a follower of Jesus, but he wasn’t what some people would call a Christian today, Pagels says. “There’s no indication that he read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or that he read the gospels or Paul’s letters,” she says. “….He doesn’t even say Jesus died for your sins.” There is only one Book of Revelation There’s no other book in the Bible quite like Revelation, but there are plenty of books like Revelation that didn’t make it into the Bible, Pagels says. Early church leaders suppressed an “astonishing” range of books that claimed to be revelations from apostles such as Peter and James. Many of these books were read and treasured by Christians throughout the Roman Empire, she says. There was even another “Secret Revelation of John.” In this one, Jesus wasn’t a divine warrior, but someone who first appeared to the apostle Paul as a blazing light, then as a child, an old man and, some scholars say, a woman. So why did the revelation from John of Patmos make it into the Bible, but not the others? Pagels traces that decision largely to Bishop Athanasius, a pugnacious church leader who championed Revelation about 360 years after the death of Jesus. Athanasius was so fiery that during his 46 years as bishop he was deposed and exiled five times. He was primarily responsible for shaping the New Testament while excluding books he labeled as hearsay, Pagels says. Many church leaders opposed including Revelation in the New Testament. Athanasius’s predecessor said the book was “unintelligible, irrational and false.” Athanasius, though, saw Revelation as a useful political tool. He transformed it into an attack ad against Christians who questioned him. Rome was no longer the enemy; those who questioned church authority were the anti-Christs in Athanasius’s reading of Revelation, Pagels says. “Athanasius interprets Revelation’s cosmic war as a vivid picture of his own crusade against heretics and reads John’s visions as a sharp warning to Christian dissidents,” she writes. “God is about to divide the saved from the damned – which now means dividing the ‘orthodox’ from ‘heretics.’ ’’ Centuries later, Revelation still divides people. Pagels calls it the strangest and most controversial book in the Bible. Even after writing a book about it, Pagels has hardly mastered its meaning. “The book is the hardest one in the Bible to understand,” Pagels says. “I don’t think anyone completely understands it.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Meh. She's lifting this from other scholars. Nothing new. Pagels makes a few weak stabs to tie together her previous writing on the gnostic texts, probably just to plug her old books. Much of this reads like an article designed to introduce these old topics to the young postmodern post-Christian reader. A good example is how Athanasius is described. Athanasius played a key role in suppressing the major Arian heresy and in issuing the first list of the N.T. canon, then helping to resolve the conflicts between the East (Orthodox) and West (Rome). The East was the great Christian empire, Byzantium. We see this as skewed due to how successive bishops of Rome (popes) represent their own history and authority. I'm surprised you would post an article quite this corny. It actually conveys more false information than truth. One assumes that was the writer's objective. The question remaining is whether you are that ignorant or whether you think the rest of us are.
I thank you for not trying to hide the fact that someone who hates Christians was the source of this piece. Using Pagels as an "authority" on Scriptures is like saying Rosanne Arnold is an accomplished singer. Pagels completely ignores the early church fathers (ECF) and their discussions on Revelation. So forgive me if I take the word of Irenaeus over a person who has it in her "best" interests to find fringe claims against the Bible. Below you will see from Irenaeus' in Book V of Against Heresies, that he indeed attributes Revelation to John the Apostle. Chapter XXX.—Although certain as to the number of the name of Antichrist, yet we should come to no rash conclusions as to the name itself, because this number is capable of being fitted to many names. Reasons for this point being reserved by the Holy Spirit. Antichrist’s reign and death. 1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end),—I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.]Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture,47024702 Rev. xxii. 19. under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against. 2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them.”47034703 1 Thess. v. 3. And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fulness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein.”47044704 Jer. viii. 16. This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved.47054705 Rev. vii. 5–7. [The Danites (though not all) corrupted the Hebrew church and the Levitical priesthood, by image-worship, (Judg. xviii.), and forfeited the blessings of the old covenant.] 3. It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this number, it will be asked which among them shall the coming man bear. It is not through a want of names containing the number of that name that I say this, but on account of the fear of God, and zeal for the truth: for the name Evanthas (•¥‘˜‘£) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (›‘¤•™Ÿ£) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule:47064706 [A very pregnant passage, as has often been noted. But let us imitate the pious reticence with which this section concludes.] I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (¤•™¤‘, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels µ and ¹, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed “Titan” by those who do now possess [the rule]. This word, too, contains a certain outward appearance of vengeance, and of one inflicting merited punishment because he (Antichrist) pretends that he vindicates the oppressed.47074707 Massuet here quotes Cicero and Ovid in proof of the sun being termed Titan. The Titans waged war against the gods, to avenge themselves upon Saturn. And besides this, it is an ancient name, one worthy of credit, of royal dignity, and still further, a name belonging to a tyrant. Inasmuch, then, as this name “Titan” has so much to recommend it, there is a strong degree of probability, that from among the many [names suggested], we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called “Titan.” We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time 560 since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign. 4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as “he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition,”47084708 Rev. xvii. 8. as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxi.html
Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14
Yes, classic Brian S. (I now know what "s" stands for). He posts garbage like this, just like someone who walks a dog, they poop on your lawn and then don't pick it up and high tail it out of the neighborhood.
Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14
I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. Thanks for playing.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'! GarySpFc would love to get into those Irenaeus quotes further.
Apparently you didn't realize how mediocre and tired it really is. But if you want to toss the clay pigeons for us, we'll shoot them down cheerfully enough.
I prefer the 'junebug in the henhouse' analogy myself... ;)
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'! Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. You post threads that you don't even read, just to piss religious people off because it amuses you? Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that.
I know, that is why I pinged Dr. Gary, but he has better things to do than to respond to BS's posts. I found it interesting that Irenaeus used an admonishing tone with regards to the element trying to "fix" a name and potentially a date. He shows good character and judgment by stating no one should speculate, and have faith in God. I have an indication you have some comments on the Irenaeus post. Go ahead fire away, I am interested to hear them.
Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14
Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that. Actually it's generally the more unhealthy types who DON'T do that. He posts all kinds of articles from a wide array of view poinhts mostly for others to debate. Is one only allowed to post articles here that they agree with?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
No. That is totally wrong. You are only allowed to post articles that I agree with (unless AKA Stone overrules me).
I have a lot of ambivalence toward the ancient church fathers, like any Prot type would. But I'm too lazy to type all that out. I'd just end up arguing with myself, a habit I'm trying to quit.
I understand and share the concerns. I approach the ECFs more on the historical aspects. We have postmodern "theologians" making claims that the Book of Revelation was not written by John or that the ECFs of the 2nd century did not consider it as inspired Scriptures. Then we have Irenaeus not far removed from the time of John, commenting on Revelation and mentioning John as penning it. Totally shoots the postmodernist's argument out of the water. Irenaeus does not just state it is Scripture but comments on it. It also debunks the modern and postmodern claim that the ECFs were not interested in end times prophecy and that all of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD.
Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14
Sure... and black is white and up is down. He posts all kinds of articles from a wide array of view poinhts mostly for others to debate. He has disclosed that intent to you? Or are you making that up? He posted above, in plain English, why he posted the article and posts others like it. You must have missed that. Is one only allowed to post articles here that they agree with? You'll have to ask Stone about that, I don't own the forum. But if I did... I'd boot the emotionally troubled young man, and you along with him.
He has disclosed that intent to you? Or are you making that up? He posted above, in plain English, why he posted the article and posts others like it. You must have missed that. You'll have to ask Stone about that, I don't own the forum. But if I did... I'd boot the emotionally troubled young man, and you along with him. So it's okay for you to make a decision on his intent based on his posting of this one article, but not okay for me to ascertain his intent from the hundreds of other articles he posts? You sure are getting real creepy. Just use the Bozo.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
No, it's OK for me to make a decision on his intent, based on HIS OWN ADMISSION in post #4. I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. Thanks for playing. Brian S posted on 2012-04-02 18:32:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply You sure are getting real creepy. And you sure are just as loony as ever.
Thankfully I think the dolt took your advice. My count is now up to 5 which is hilarious considering that it is just about every mouthbreathing, knuckledragger on this forum. At least they get to 'enjoy' all the educational and informative articles I put forth for discussion. ;)
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'! Here's your post. You post threads that you don't even read, just to piss religious people off because it amuses you? Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that. So does that mean he is baiting people with every article he posts like you insinuated?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Having a high bozo count says something. I won't put you there because snakes in the grass need to be monitored. So instead, I leave you with this video:
Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14
Geeeeze. Are you serious? I didn't insinuate anything. The dumbass himself stated, and I quote, "I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun." Then I stated, and you'll note that I stated this as a matter of fact, not an insinuation, "Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that." Now, did Brian S post this thread to piss off Christians? The answer is YES! He's "Tweating the snake-handling, tongue-talkers", what ever the fuck tweating means. Does he do that with every thread he posts? I have no idea, I don't read most of his threads and I never stated anything like that. I hope this explains things in a way that you can understand. Because if you still don't understand, I really don't care enough to explain it to you further.
My count is now up to 5 Wow, wrong again. What are the odds? LOL! Dumbass.
Do you ever do anything other than come over here to whine and complain?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
LOL! Do you ever do anything, other than make the absolute most stupid remarks ever to land on the internet?
Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended.
Athanasius was so fiery that during his 46 years as bishop he was deposed and exiled five times. He was primarily responsible for shaping the New Testament while excluding books he labeled as hearsay, Pagels says. Many church leaders opposed including Revelation in the New Testament. Athanasius’s predecessor said the book was “unintelligible, irrational and false.”
#2. To: Brian S, GarySpFc (#0)
Elaine Pagels
#3. To: TooConservative (#1)
I'm surprised you would post an article quite this corny. It actually conveys more false information than truth. One assumes that was the writer's objective. The question remaining is whether you are that ignorant or whether you think the rest of us are.
#4. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#1)
I'm surprised you would post an article quite this corny.
#5. To: redleghunter (#2)
#6. To: Brian S, redleghunter (#4)
Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun.
#7. To: TooConservative (#6)
But if you want to toss the clay pigeons for us, we'll shoot them down cheerfully enough.
#8. To: Brian S (#4)
I did even read the goddamned thing
#9. To: TooConservative (#5)
GarySpFc would love to get into those Irenaeus quotes further.
#10. To: We The People (#8)
You post threads that you don't even read, just to piss religious people off because it amuses you?
#11. To: mininggold (#10)
Is one only allowed to post articles here that they agree with?
#12. To: redleghunter (#9)
I have an indication you have some comments on the Irenaeus post.
#13. To: TooConservative (#12)
I have a lot of ambivalence toward the ancient church fathers, like any Prot type would. But I'm too lazy to type all that out. I'd just end up arguing with myself, a habit I'm trying to quit.
#14. To: mininggold (#10)
Actually it's generally the more unhealthy types who DON'T do that.
#15. To: We The People (#14)
(Edited)
#16. To: mininggold (#15)
So it's okay for you to make a decision on his intent based on his posting of this one article
#17. To: mininggold (#15)
Just use the Bozo.
#18. To: We The People (#16)
(Edited)
#19. To: Brian S, TooConservative, A K A Stone (#17)
My count is now up to 5 which is hilarious
#20. To: mininggold (#18)
(Edited)
So does that mean he is baiting people with every article he posts like you insinuated?
#21. To: Brian S (#17)
Thankfully I think the dolt took your advice.
#22. To: We The People (#20)
I hope this explains things in a way that you can understand. Because if you still don't understand, I really don't care enough to explain it to you further.
#23. To: mininggold (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]