In Judaism, there is definite and necessary references to the feminine. It is found in reference to holy spirit. It is recognized every sabbath as the sabbath bride is welcomed in, it is most definitely recognized within the Jewish kaballah, which teaches of both the masculine and femine sides of God.
Now, some scholars would say that those references simply indicate that paganism and the worship of a goddess or multiple gods made its way into Judaism. But, those who focus on the religious aspect (as opposed to merely a scholarly one) would say that is not so. In order for God to be complete, in order for man and woman to have been made in God's image, there has to be characteristics of both the masculine and feminine.
In Judaism, there is definite and necessary references to the feminine. It is found in reference to holy spirit. It is recognized every sabbath as the sabbath bride is welcomed in, it is most definitely recognized within the Jewish kaballah, which teaches of both the masculine and femine sides of God.
Now, some scholars would say that those references simply indicate that paganism and the worship of a goddess or multiple gods made its way into Judaism. But, those who focus on the religious aspect (as opposed to merely a scholarly one) would say that is not so. In order for God to be complete, in order for man and woman to have been made in God's image, there has to be characteristics of both the masculine and feminine.
Thanks Abigail - may I call you Abi, friend?
I've been waiting for some of the Aramaic scholars to respond with something directly biblical - maybe they don't know (which is fine), but your answer was very real and satisfying. Thank you!
ive written enough about this around here over the years...
who holds us within them during our most radical moments of transformation?
who supplies milk to newborn?
who comforts the babes?
dad?!?
i agree with jesus...mere scholarship can really lead to missing the obvious.
the feminine aspect of God was not just a part of jewish wisdom...but a vital part, without which, the whole is lost.
perhaps "blasphemy against holy spirit" has something to do with rejection/exploitation of the feminine aspect of God...in doctrine and practice.
how can one experience rebirth if we have institutionalized the demonization of God's uterus?
imho, the absence of feminine principles in doctrine and practice was/is perhaps one of the most fatal flaws of twi and pfal and the majority of modern christianity....resulting in all the very real dangers we are warned about in purely masculine-with-masculine doctrines and practices.
rejecting over 3000 years of jewish and christian thought and experience on the matter did not help modern christianity either...and mere concordances and lexicons are not enough to repair the vast gap.
with Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
I appreciate the things you have said about the limitations of scholarly input (although I must say I've laboring under the belief that anything truly scholarly didn't necessitate any limitations - as a matter of fact, I would think that to be truly scholarly, would require that there were no limitations). Perhaps I'll have to narrow my understanding of the meaning of "scholarship." I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of response from the Aramaic scholars in the discussion. Perhaps they have no answer. Perhaps they are just otherwise engaged.
I VERY much appreciate the added input and insight from both of you, and from Abigail, as to the feminine and masculine nature of God, Who created man in His/Her image. It is so wonderfully human of Him...Her. I suspect God is literally neither masculine nor feminine, and that these gender characteristics are figurative and (excuse the play on words) engendered by his desire to relate to us in every way. However, again, being figurative, they emphasize the truth of the completeness of God's relationship with us in a manner that the literal truth cannot express.
I am fine with that. No, I am more than fine with that. All three of you have added immensely to my appreciation of my God - in a manner that will be with me forever.
I still would like to know if the grammatical use of gender in the Aramaic bears on this at all, or is totally arbitrary (except for grammatical purposes).
However, again, being figurative, they emphasize the truth of the completeness of God's relationship with us in a manner that the literal truth cannot express.
Tom, of course you can call me Abi, just don't call me late to dinner!!!
Scholarly input is most definitely valid! When I made reference to the scholars who think the feminine references indicate that goddess worship made it's way into Judaism, I guess I was just trying to present all the possibilities, not downgrade the validity of scholars. Contextually I was thinking more of those who simply see the Bible as something of a historical document and not so much the story of humanity and our relationship with God. In the end, it comes down to deciding which scholars make sense to you and which ones do not.
Personally, I think there is validity to "goddess worship" in the sense that we recognize the feminine characteristics of God, although I am monotheistic. (I find it difficult enough to comprehend one God, trying to sort out multiple ones is just too confusing for me.) :D And I agree with you, God is probably neither male nor female but something that transcends gender.
I too would be interested in what our Aramaic scholars have to say on the subject. I would guess that James Trimm is not hanging out here much anymore and that Robert has simply been busy with other things. But, that is just speculation on my part.
I still would like to know if the grammatical use of gender in the Aramaic bears on this at all, or is totally arbitrary (except for grammatical purposes).
While I may have studied languages and how they have evolved.. I don't think I can really answer, and honestly have never heard anything outside of conjecture on the subject.
There is definite proof to early languages(Prior to Aramaic) having much figurative purpose in the use of gender, but the more they developed and evolved, the more some of that became a lost art and meanings eroded. Just as the meanings of cunieform that led to hieroglyphs that led to the letters we have today (Which many have still survived in their same form from the beginning).. Who'd know that our 'D' represented a doorway and most words that had the letter represent attributes of it.. But ages go by, and languages have for the most part been simplified for the sake of writing/speaking. But the innate meanings they used to have are massive when they were first developed. Now, after millenniums, just too many ?? to be answered in all that. And with those civilizations gone, it's mostly conjecture.
And my days of research are pretty much over anyways... Too much looking at the leaves, that I now care to just take in the beautiful scenery around.
While I may have studied languages and how they have evolved.. I don't think I can really answer, and honestly have never heard anything outside of conjecture on the subject.
There is definite proof to early languages(Prior to Aramaic) having much figurative purpose in the use of gender, but the more they developed and evolved, the more some of that became a lost art and meanings eroded. Just as the meanings of cunieform that led to hieroglyphs that led to the letters we have today (Which many have still survived in their same form from the beginning).. Who'd know that our 'D' represented a doorway and most words that had the letter represent attributes of it.. But ages go by, and languages have for the most part been simplified for the sake of writing/speaking. But the innate meanings they used to have are massive when they were first developed. Now, after millenniums, just too many ?? to be answered in all that. And with those civilizations gone, it's mostly conjecture.
And my days of research are pretty much over anyways... Too much looking at the leaves, that I now care to just take in the beautiful scenery around.
Very well put. I had a loose hunch it was something like that. I guess I was hoping that Aramaic was early enough to be reliable in its grammatical use of gender. Oh, well - at least, in conjunction with Is. 66:13, the feminine grammatical uses of Spirit and Conforter were key to opening my understanding of the feminine side of God.
Anyway, thanks, TrustAndObey - that was the answer I was looking for. Enjoy the beautiful scenery!
In the end, this was a very rewarding discussion for me.
Abi, thanks much.
Year, thanks for your godly contribution.
cman, you said, "it is expressed though if we can just turn enough to look" Also well said - I'm turning now.
Everyone else - thank you.
Psalms 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Very well put. I had a loose hunch it was something like that. I guess I was hoping that Aramaic was early enough to be reliable in its grammatical use of gender. Oh, well - at least, in conjunction with Is. 66:13, the feminine grammatical uses of Spirit and Conforter were key to opening my understanding of the feminine side of God.
Anyway, thanks, TrustAndObey - that was the answer I was looking for. Enjoy the beautiful scenery!
In the end, this was a very rewarding discussion for me.
Abi, thanks much.
Year, thanks for your godly contribution.
cman, you said, "it is expressed though if we can just turn enough to look" Also well said - I'm turning now.
Everyone else - thank you.
Psalms 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Tom
Tom,
Been away and finally caught up here. I'll agree with Trust and Obey on this one. Further, I'll say that the genders and even moods in Greek can wrap up some textually tied fanatics in knots. Context is always king and greater (remoter) context will most always govern the local. For instance, my dispensational leanings being what they are, I'd rather comment on the "comforter" from a theological perspective. The comforting you quote in Isaiah 66 is chronologically after the comforter that Jesus forcasts. Beyond that, the comforter that Jesus speaks about is expected in the period of "great tribulation" and really has less to do with what Christians get (or got) on Pentecost than one might think at first glance.
Christians, Paul says, got the "first fruits" of the spirit, with that fuller, more comforting giving coming, as Joel mentions.
I am by no means a scholar in Aramaic, but James would be correct. From the Jewish perspective the holy spirit is referenced as a she.
I'm not a language scholar either but I've seen the word "moved" in - "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - translated as "brooded" - like a mother hen brooding over her eggs.
If in fact that is a correct translation then the first reference to God as spirit is feminine.
I'd rather comment on the "comforter" from a theological perspective. ...the comforter that Jesus speaks about is expected in the period of "great tribulation" and really has less to do with what Christians get (or got) on Pentecost than one might think at first glance.
Christians, Paul says, got the "first fruits" of the spirit, with that fuller, more comforting giving coming, as Joel mentions.
RE
Hmm, so when Jesus told Philip "he [the father] shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you," Philip really wasn't going to see that comforter? Neither were we "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."
Does context nullify the promise to Philip and those of us who believe?
Tom
I'm not a language scholar either but I've seen the word "moved" in - "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - translated as "brooded" - like a mother hen brooding over her eggs.
If in fact that is a correct translation then the first reference to God as spirit is feminine.
Us Unitarians (biblical that is) have a rough row to hoe. On the one hand, the things related to the "secret of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1 "musterion" instead of marturion ("testimony")) were "hid in God", "hid from ages and generations", "kept secret since the ages began" and "not made known unto the sons of man". On the other, Christendom has in its two bit brain that Jesus knew everything. He did not. He also was a man; nay "the son of man" (that Hebraic expression epitomizing humanness).
Progressive revelation shows us that what came on the day of Pentecost was not what was expected in prophecy, but prophecy will be fulfilled. Jesus could only speak of what he knew and he knew of the "last days", the "great tribulation", the "day of the Lord", etc, but he did not know what was coming as the intercalation (large theological BS meaning "commercial interruption" for TV lovers) of events. A secret made known unto the Christian prophets, Paul being tapped to write it all down. Peter referring to Paul's writings as kinda "hard to understand". Jews had a hard time with Pauline theology.
Anyway, not knowing something is not a sin (think Jesus here) and prophecy will come to pass (think Joel's prophecy about the spirit that Peter referred to on Pentecost...and he wasn't the Pope yet so he couldn't have been speaking Ex Cathedra...a little humor for my Roman Catholic compatriots).
On the one hand, the things related to the "secret of God" ...were "hid in God", ... On the other, Christendom has in its two bit brain that Jesus knew everything. He did not.
Jesus could only speak of what he knew and he knew of the "last days", the "great tribulation", the "day of the Lord", etc, but he did not know what was coming as the intercalation (large theological BS meaning "commercial interruption" for TV lovers) of events. A secret made known unto the Christian prophets, Paul being tapped to write it all down. Peter referring to Paul's writings as kinda "hard to understand". Jews had a hard time with Pauline theology.
Anyway, not knowing something is not a sin (think Jesus here) and prophecy will come to pass (think Joel's prophecy about the spirit that Peter referred to on Pentecost...and he wasn't the Pope yet so he couldn't have been speaking Ex Cathedra...a little humor for my Roman Catholic compatriots).
Lots of stuff to sort out
RE
I have no problem with Jesus not knowing everything. I do have a problem concluding, therefore, that he spoke wrongly. Jesus was excellent at speaking without speaking wrongly - even when he was refering to OT prophecies as they pertained to the future or to his present - as was Paul. It is part of the job description so to speak. They both would utilize only that part of the prophecy that pertained to what they were saying.
Jesus didn't know everything, but he knew what he knew, and he knew what he didn't know. And he had a good track record of not confusing the two - not wrongly applying the scriptures. He was the Word in the flesh. It doesn't fit that he wouldn't know what he was talking about, especially when he was speaking the Word - his last words to his followers. Can't swallow that one.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
49
Popular Days
May 29
23
May 25
19
May 30
16
Jun 13
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 15 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 17 posts
roberterasmus 16 posts
James Trimm 49 posts
Popular Days
May 29 2010
23 posts
May 25 2010
19 posts
May 30 2010
16 posts
Jun 13 2010
15 posts
Popular Posts
Abigail
Okay, well forwarned is forearmed, etc. Nevermind that he calls himself Rabbi. Nevermind that he is another huckster with a "doctorate" from a non-accredited college. Nevermind that he calls his "a
Twinky
This and some other of James Trimm's topics are very interesting - but need to be in Doctrinal, surely, not in About The Way?
Tom
Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not
Abigail
In Judaism, there is definite and necessary references to the feminine. It is found in reference to holy spirit. It is recognized every sabbath as the sabbath bride is welcomed in, it is most definitely recognized within the Jewish kaballah, which teaches of both the masculine and femine sides of God.
Now, some scholars would say that those references simply indicate that paganism and the worship of a goddess or multiple gods made its way into Judaism. But, those who focus on the religious aspect (as opposed to merely a scholarly one) would say that is not so. In order for God to be complete, in order for man and woman to have been made in God's image, there has to be characteristics of both the masculine and feminine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yes, Abigail, funny we all have to be characteristics of both the masculine and feminine.
Gives an interesting light to some scriptures.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=Ruach+HaKodesh&c=&t=all&ps=10&s=Bibles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Thanks Abigail - may I call you Abi, friend?
I've been waiting for some of the Aramaic scholars to respond with something directly biblical - maybe they don't know (which is fine), but your answer was very real and satisfying. Thank you!
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ive written enough about this around here over the years...
who holds us within them during our most radical moments of transformation?
who supplies milk to newborn?
who comforts the babes?
dad?!?
i agree with jesus...mere scholarship can really lead to missing the obvious.
the feminine aspect of God was not just a part of jewish wisdom...but a vital part, without which, the whole is lost.
perhaps "blasphemy against holy spirit" has something to do with rejection/exploitation of the feminine aspect of God...in doctrine and practice.
how can one experience rebirth if we have institutionalized the demonization of God's uterus?
imho, the absence of feminine principles in doctrine and practice was/is perhaps one of the most fatal flaws of twi and pfal and the majority of modern christianity....resulting in all the very real dangers we are warned about in purely masculine-with-masculine doctrines and practices.
rejecting over 3000 years of jewish and christian thought and experience on the matter did not help modern christianity either...and mere concordances and lexicons are not enough to repair the vast gap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Todd
yes everybody the simple point Christ made
with Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Is a hen a father chicken or a mother?
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Thanks Todd & Roy,
I appreciate the things you have said about the limitations of scholarly input (although I must say I've laboring under the belief that anything truly scholarly didn't necessitate any limitations - as a matter of fact, I would think that to be truly scholarly, would require that there were no limitations). Perhaps I'll have to narrow my understanding of the meaning of "scholarship." I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of response from the Aramaic scholars in the discussion. Perhaps they have no answer. Perhaps they are just otherwise engaged.
I VERY much appreciate the added input and insight from both of you, and from Abigail, as to the feminine and masculine nature of God, Who created man in His/Her image. It is so wonderfully human of Him...Her. I suspect God is literally neither masculine nor feminine, and that these gender characteristics are figurative and (excuse the play on words) engendered by his desire to relate to us in every way. However, again, being figurative, they emphasize the truth of the completeness of God's relationship with us in a manner that the literal truth cannot express.
I am fine with that. No, I am more than fine with that. All three of you have added immensely to my appreciation of my God - in a manner that will be with me forever.
I still would like to know if the grammatical use of gender in the Aramaic bears on this at all, or is totally arbitrary (except for grammatical purposes).
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
This is what you are not getting Tom.
It's not figurative.
Neither is the relationship.
The literal truth cannot be bound by figures.
But seen in it's infinite completeness,
being discovered over and over again,
more and more relationships,
in absolute newness of never ending,
unlimited life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Tom, of course you can call me Abi, just don't call me late to dinner!!!
Scholarly input is most definitely valid! When I made reference to the scholars who think the feminine references indicate that goddess worship made it's way into Judaism, I guess I was just trying to present all the possibilities, not downgrade the validity of scholars. Contextually I was thinking more of those who simply see the Bible as something of a historical document and not so much the story of humanity and our relationship with God. In the end, it comes down to deciding which scholars make sense to you and which ones do not.
Personally, I think there is validity to "goddess worship" in the sense that we recognize the feminine characteristics of God, although I am monotheistic. (I find it difficult enough to comprehend one God, trying to sort out multiple ones is just too confusing for me.) :D And I agree with you, God is probably neither male nor female but something that transcends gender.
I too would be interested in what our Aramaic scholars have to say on the subject. I would guess that James Trimm is not hanging out here much anymore and that Robert has simply been busy with other things. But, that is just speculation on my part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Tom, cman and Abi
I bless see all of adding some points to things
I personality think God is not feminine or unfeminine or Masculine or un-masculine or it or un-it
God has All has all these characteristics and more
I know how confusing things can get when we see many God can show us things it fun to me right now
i read one place that teaches me one things and many vain and void things
but the one thing blesses enough so i read more things
will i going to end now
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I don't know....
literal, figurative
both sound distant
so while I don't want to sound like I know more then anyone
I can see beyond these limits
as you stated Tom
"the literal truth cannot express"
it is expressed though
if we can just turn enough to look
no man can see God and live
what does that mean....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
While I may have studied languages and how they have evolved.. I don't think I can really answer, and honestly have never heard anything outside of conjecture on the subject.
There is definite proof to early languages(Prior to Aramaic) having much figurative purpose in the use of gender, but the more they developed and evolved, the more some of that became a lost art and meanings eroded. Just as the meanings of cunieform that led to hieroglyphs that led to the letters we have today (Which many have still survived in their same form from the beginning).. Who'd know that our 'D' represented a doorway and most words that had the letter represent attributes of it.. But ages go by, and languages have for the most part been simplified for the sake of writing/speaking. But the innate meanings they used to have are massive when they were first developed. Now, after millenniums, just too many ?? to be answered in all that. And with those civilizations gone, it's mostly conjecture.
And my days of research are pretty much over anyways... Too much looking at the leaves, that I now care to just take in the beautiful scenery around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Very well put. I had a loose hunch it was something like that. I guess I was hoping that Aramaic was early enough to be reliable in its grammatical use of gender. Oh, well - at least, in conjunction with Is. 66:13, the feminine grammatical uses of Spirit and Conforter were key to opening my understanding of the feminine side of God.
Anyway, thanks, TrustAndObey - that was the answer I was looking for. Enjoy the beautiful scenery!
In the end, this was a very rewarding discussion for me.
Abi, thanks much.
Year, thanks for your godly contribution.
cman, you said, "it is expressed though if we can just turn enough to look" Also well said - I'm turning now.
Everyone else - thank you.
Psalms 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Tom
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Not to leave scholarly finds out of the picture.
I mean those to me are for side notes as a possible help.
Knowing what scriptures say certainly doesn't hurt.
More along the focus of the line of sight.
Like looking at a house.
A carpenter might think of the blue prints.
While another may just enjoy the structure.
Either person could see both and the relationship,
which could add to it's enrichment.
Speaking of scriptures though...
I think the meaning of one word would not be the entire house.
But add to it's very nature, overall, and a piece of the riddle we find in ourselves.
Cause if you can't see the feminine, you can't see the masculine either,
or the other way around, but the masculine remains dominate.
Resulting in the masculine blind-siding us, in our expressed image of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Tom,
Been away and finally caught up here. I'll agree with Trust and Obey on this one. Further, I'll say that the genders and even moods in Greek can wrap up some textually tied fanatics in knots. Context is always king and greater (remoter) context will most always govern the local. For instance, my dispensational leanings being what they are, I'd rather comment on the "comforter" from a theological perspective. The comforting you quote in Isaiah 66 is chronologically after the comforter that Jesus forcasts. Beyond that, the comforter that Jesus speaks about is expected in the period of "great tribulation" and really has less to do with what Christians get (or got) on Pentecost than one might think at first glance.
Christians, Paul says, got the "first fruits" of the spirit, with that fuller, more comforting giving coming, as Joel mentions.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I'm not a language scholar either but I've seen the word "moved" in - "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - translated as "brooded" - like a mother hen brooding over her eggs.
If in fact that is a correct translation then the first reference to God as spirit is feminine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Hmm, so when Jesus told Philip "he [the father] shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you," Philip really wasn't going to see that comforter? Neither were we "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."
Does context nullify the promise to Philip and those of us who believe?
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hey Tom,
Us Unitarians (biblical that is) have a rough row to hoe. On the one hand, the things related to the "secret of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1 "musterion" instead of marturion ("testimony")) were "hid in God", "hid from ages and generations", "kept secret since the ages began" and "not made known unto the sons of man". On the other, Christendom has in its two bit brain that Jesus knew everything. He did not. He also was a man; nay "the son of man" (that Hebraic expression epitomizing humanness).
Progressive revelation shows us that what came on the day of Pentecost was not what was expected in prophecy, but prophecy will be fulfilled. Jesus could only speak of what he knew and he knew of the "last days", the "great tribulation", the "day of the Lord", etc, but he did not know what was coming as the intercalation (large theological BS meaning "commercial interruption" for TV lovers) of events. A secret made known unto the Christian prophets, Paul being tapped to write it all down. Peter referring to Paul's writings as kinda "hard to understand". Jews had a hard time with Pauline theology.
Anyway, not knowing something is not a sin (think Jesus here) and prophecy will come to pass (think Joel's prophecy about the spirit that Peter referred to on Pentecost...and he wasn't the Pope yet so he couldn't have been speaking Ex Cathedra...a little humor for my Roman Catholic compatriots).
Lots of stuff to sort out
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I have no problem with Jesus not knowing everything. I do have a problem concluding, therefore, that he spoke wrongly. Jesus was excellent at speaking without speaking wrongly - even when he was refering to OT prophecies as they pertained to the future or to his present - as was Paul. It is part of the job description so to speak. They both would utilize only that part of the prophecy that pertained to what they were saying.
Jesus didn't know everything, but he knew what he knew, and he knew what he didn't know. And he had a good track record of not confusing the two - not wrongly applying the scriptures. He was the Word in the flesh. It doesn't fit that he wouldn't know what he was talking about, especially when he was speaking the Word - his last words to his followers. Can't swallow that one.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.