Baptism - Is the Text of Matt. 28:19 Original?

User avatar
_Royal Oddball 2:9
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Beaumont, TX

Re: Baptism - Is the Text of Matt. 28:19 Original?

Post by _Royal Oddball 2:9 » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:56 pm

Evangelion: The date when the Catholic Church became an official institution is really irrelevant. If you don't believe the Catholic Encyclopedia's claims, all you have to do is say so. Which I believe you did, so that's noted. And you are certainly allowed to disbelieve it if you like. If the church of the second century wanted to change the wording, it certainly didn't need an official organization to do so.

Plus, I think you have me outstudied on the topic of church history, so I think it best for me to argue my point from scripture, where I feel my argument is stronger anyway. :)
Evangelion wrote: I mean the Greek manuscripts from which our Bible was translated.
Well, if the change were made in the second century, as is claimed, it would make sense that many Greek texts would reflect it. Do you know the dating on the earliest Greek text we have? It would make this debate a lot easier if we had one of the early texts to refer to, wouldn't it? :)
Evangelion wrote: People were spoken of as belonging to the "catholic church" because there was only one church, and everyone belonged to it; ergo, it was the "universal" (or "catholic") church.
I'm aware of this . . .
Evangelion wrote: Yes. I simply accept that the Bible often uses a form of shorthand when recording events. It does not always tell us every word that somebody spoke, or every single action that they performed.

Take Acts 2, for example. We are told that Peter preached to the crowd; we are even told many of the things that he said. But we would be wrong to assume that this is all he said, for the later verses of the chapter tell us that "many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

It is the same with the New Testament baptisms. Sometimes we are told exactly what they said, as in Acts 8:37:
  • And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
No mention of being baptised in Jesus' name here, by the way - or even in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Sometimes we are not told what they said, as in Acts 16:33:
  • And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
No mention of any spoken formula whatsoever!
Agreed.
Evangelion wrote: I personally believe that in many cases, the phrase "baptised in the name of Jesus" is merely a short-hand description of the full baptismal formula in Matthew 28.


Agreed, and I respect your right to your personal belief as I have my own, but other than your argument based on the silence of the scriptures or scriptural abbreviation, you have no other support for this belief? It seems to me that basing FSHS baptism based on scriptural abbreviation is kind of a stretch and not the simplest way to interpret the baptism scriptures.

Even if Matt. 28:19 is the original wording and we'd rather not argue that the apostles disobeyed or disregarded Jesus' explicit command, it can be argued that the way the apostles applied His command was to baptize in the name of Jesus.

The bottom line for me is, there are scriptural precedents for baptism using the name of Jesus Christ or the name of the Lord, which is Jesus Christ, while there are no precedents for baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Which is why I prefer to baptize (and be baptized) in the name of Jesus Christ.

(As an aside, it just seems to be that one's argument for one's preferred method of baptism seems to pit Jesus' commands against apostolic practice, and to me, that's an uncomfortable dichotomy. I just liked the theory that Matt. 28:19 isn't an original wording because it causes those scriptures to dovetail.)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. I Peter 2:9

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:25 pm

Royal Oddball 2:9,

We find this instruction in the Didache:

"7. But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water."

Did the writer of this most ancient of Christian documents, other than the scriptures, get his ideas from our Lord's teachings or elswhere?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

User avatar
_Royal Oddball 2:9
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Beaumont, TX

Post by _Royal Oddball 2:9 » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:29 pm

:lol: Admittedly, I'm not terribly well studied on the Didache, its authors, and its origins. But it seems the problem with the Didache is the same "problem" the scriptures have -- both contain varying instructions.

Concerning the Eucharist, the Didache also says, "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."

The question I think could be addressed at this point is, is "baptism in the name of the Lord" equivalent to "baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"

I may sound nitpicky, but I don't think it is. Jesus is the name of the Lord, not the name of the Father and Holy Spirit. Evangelion argued that the latter is the expanded version of the former, and the scriptures only record the "abbreviated" version. Which may be a valid argument, but I'm doubtful. The fact that Christ stated every matter should be founded on the testimony of two or three witnesses should be considered here, since nowhere is Christ's instruction in Matt. 28:19 ever repeated using that phraseology. One would think, considering the necessity of baptism, that wouldn't be the case.

(I don't know if this makes any difference or not, but my Oneness brethren argue that FSHS baptism is an invalid baptism, thus those who are baptized that way aren't saved because "Jesus is the only name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." I argue that I hardly think God's gonna throw someone in hell for repeating verbatim Matt. 28:19 over their baptisms. Perhaps I care too much what my brothers in the Lord think of me, but I just wanted to let you know I'm not legalistic about this.)

Two Questions:
1) Are you guys in agreement that the apostles baptized in the sole authority of Jesus Christ without ever, in any recorded instance, invoking the word(s) "Father" or "Holy Spirit"?

2) If so, what made our church fathers think they could "improve" on that?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. I Peter 2:9

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:26 pm

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote:JC - That's a quite a long article! Give me a chance to read it and then perhaps we can discuss it if you'd like. A cursory examination makes me think that Ploughman's arguments weren't as invalid as Holding would have liked them to be. He makes some absurd counterarguments that don't amount to much more than red herrings and smokescreens, in my opinion, particularly when arguing against Ploughman's tests.
A very perceptive post.

This is exactly what Holding does; he attacks the person rather than the argument, and throws up irrelevant material in an attempt to divert the reader's attention from the real issues. In some cases, he even invents an argument, places it in his opponent's mouth, and proceeds to "refute" it, then claims that he has refuted his opponent.

He is also grossly insulting and very immature.

I have debated him on several occasions myself, and I can assure you that he will use every trick in the book. :roll:
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Re: Baptism - Is the Text of Matt. 28:19 Original?

Post by _Evangelion » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:50 pm

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote:Evangelion: The date when the Catholic Church became an official institution is really irrelevant. If you don't believe the Catholic Encyclopedia's claims, all you have to do is say so. Which I believe you did, so that's noted. And you are certainly allowed to disbelieve it if you like. If the church of the second century wanted to change the wording, it certainly didn't need an official organization to do so.

Plus, I think you have me outstudied on the topic of church history, so I think it best for me to argue my point from scripture, where I feel my argument is stronger anyway. :)
Well, I did study early church history at university, and I have studied it in my own time for quite a few years now, so I do have some confidence in this area. :D
Evangelion wrote:I mean the Greek manuscripts from which our Bible was translated.
Well, if the change were made in the second century, as is claimed, it would make sense that many Greek texts would reflect it. Do you know the dating on the earliest Greek text we have? It would make this debate a lot easier if we had one of the early texts to refer to, wouldn't it? :)
The earliest manuscripts are from the 4th Century. All of them include the phrase; none of them lack it. In fact, there is no manuscript of Matthew 28:19 from any era, which does not include the phrase.

However, we do have references to the phrase in several early church fathers. Ignatius (2nd Century), Irenaeus (1st-2nd Century), Tertullian (3rd Century), Cyprian (3rd Century) and Gregory Thaumaturgus (3rd Century) all quote it with perfect consistency. Cyprian even quotes the entire verse in the precise form that we have it today!

And of course, the formula also appears in the Didache, which we know to be written at some point in the late 1st Century.

So there is really no textual or historical basis for excluding it.
Evangelion wrote: People were spoken of as belonging to the "catholic church" because there was only one church, and everyone belonged to it; ergo, it was the "universal" (or "catholic") church.
I'm aware of this . . .
No worries.
Evangelion wrote: Yes. I simply accept that the Bible often uses a form of shorthand when recording events. It does not always tell us every word that somebody spoke, or every single action that they performed.

[...]

No mention of any spoken formula whatsoever!
Agreed.
:D
Evangelion wrote:I personally believe that in many cases, the phrase "baptised in the name of Jesus" is merely a short-hand description of the full baptismal formula in Matthew 28.


Agreed, and I respect your right to your personal belief as I have my own, but other than your argument based on the silence of the scriptures or scriptural abbreviation, you have no other support for this belief? It seems to me that basing FSHS baptism based on scriptural abbreviation is kind of a stretch and not the simplest way to interpret the baptism scriptures.


Well, in one sense I'm not using an argument on the basis of Scriptural silence, because I have shown that such abbreviations do occur - and to my mind, this offers the best explanation for the difference between the formula of the Great Commission and the wording that we find in Acts. I don't consider this a stretch at all.

To me, the real stretch is trying to deny that it is a legitimate part of Scripture. That's an uphill battle in a snowstorm! :p

Even if Matt. 28:19 is the original wording and we'd rather not argue that the apostles disobeyed or disregarded Jesus' explicit command, it can be argued that the way the apostles applied His command was to baptize in the name of Jesus.


Possibly, but since we know from Scriptural evidence that they did not always baptise in the name of Jesus (see the case of Philip and the eunuch, for example) does this really prove anything about the legitimacy of Matthew 28:19?

The bottom line for me is, there are scriptural precedents for baptism using the name of Jesus Christ or the name of the Lord, which is Jesus Christ, while there are no precedents for baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Which is why I prefer to baptize (and be baptized) in the name of Jesus Christ.


Well, there is no record of it having been done, but there is still the commandment of Christ in Matthew 28:19. I'd say that's a pretty solid basis for the formula.

(As an aside, it just seems to be that one's argument for one's preferred method of baptism seems to pit Jesus' commands against apostolic practice, and to me, that's an uncomfortable dichotomy. I just liked the theory that Matt. 28:19 isn't an original wording because it causes those scriptures to dovetail.)


I understand what you're saying, but I since I see no tension between Jesus' commandment and the apostles' practice, I believe that they dovetail without the need for pitting one against the other. 8)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:08 am

Royal Oddball 2:9,
1) Are you guys in agreement that the apostles baptized in the sole authority of Jesus Christ without ever, in any recorded instance, invoking the word(s) "Father" or "Holy Spirit"?
I do not think this can prove your point for the reason Evangelion cited; the scriptures often present information in abbreviated form or say the same thing in different words.

Consider Peter's sermons in Acts, in particular 2:38 and 3:19 which I believe to have the same meaning conveyed in different words. Repent and be baptized and repent and be converted are saying the same thing, are they not? According to at least one authority on the writings of the early church fathers, baptize and "be converted" were used interchangeably. Then in one sermon we find "the gift of the Holy Spirit" and in the other "times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord". Are these not references to the Holy Spirit in one sermon and the effect of the Spirit in the other? I believe Peter was conveying the same ideas in both sermons, but a cursory reading of each would not reveal this to the mind.

In similar fashion, one can find at least six different things cited in scripture as necessary for salvation, sometimes two mentioned in one place, then in another place something else.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:09 am

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote::lol: Admittedly, I'm not terribly well studied on the Didache, its authors, and its origins. But it seems the problem with the Didache is the same "problem" the scriptures have -- both contain varying instructions.

Concerning the Eucharist, the Didache also says, "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
I see no contradiction here. It's just an abbreviation, of the sort that we already find elsewhere in Scripture.

And you've just made another question for yourself: where did the authors of the Didache get this formula from in the first place, if (as you appear to believe) it did not actually exist in their day?
The question I think could be addressed at this point is, is "baptism in the name of the Lord" equivalent to "baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"
Yes, of course! It's still baptism with divine authority, so why not?

Is this baptism...
  • Acts 8:36-38
    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him
...any less legitimate for not having been performed in the name of Jesus? Philip doesn't seem to have thought so.
I may sound nitpicky, but I don't think it is. Jesus is the name of the Lord, not the name of the Father and Holy Spirit.
That's true, but also irrelevant IMHO.
Evangelion argued that the latter is the expanded version of the former, and the scriptures only record the "abbreviated" version. Which may be a valid argument, but I'm doubtful. The fact that Christ stated every matter should be founded on the testimony of two or three witnesses should be considered here, since nowhere is Christ's instruction in Matt. 28:19 ever repeated using that phraseology. One would think, considering the necessity of baptism, that wouldn't be the case.
What do you do with Philip and the eunuch? I haven't seen you address this yet.
(I don't know if this makes any difference or not, but my Oneness brethren argue that FSHS baptism is an invalid baptism, thus those who are baptized that way aren't saved because "Jesus is the only name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." I argue that I hardly think God's gonna throw someone in hell for repeating verbatim Matt. 28:19 over their baptisms. Perhaps I care too much what my brothers in the Lord think of me, but I just wanted to let you know I'm not legalistic about this.)

Two Questions:
1) Are you guys in agreement that the apostles baptized in the sole authority of Jesus Christ without ever, in any recorded instance, invoking the word(s) "Father" or "Holy Spirit"?
No, I am only in agreement with the statement that the book of Acts never records them as baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I cannnot agree that they never did this, since I have seen no evidence to support such a claim.
2) If so, what made our church fathers think they could "improve" on that?
See above.

The Didache proves that the formula pre-dated the church fathers, and since Ignatius himself uses it, we know it was already being employed within the late 1st- early 2nd Century church.

How do you explain this?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:26 am

I STILL THINK IT IS A MONK ADDING TO THE TEXT, In support over the Arian controversy. It was added very early in the game, as evidenced by it being included in all the critical text. But you realize that there was not a printing press for 1500 years, and all the copies were by dictation or direct copy.
A real good example would be:
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

1 John 5:7-8 (New International Version)
7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Footnotes:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

Miss that did ya?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:28 am

Jesusfollower wrote:I STILL THINK IT IS A MONK ADDING TO THE TEXT, In support over the Arian controversy.
Dude, there is simply no evidence to support this.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

_Jesusfollower
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: NW

Post by _Jesusfollower » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:37 am

Dude, yes there is
Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.

3. Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together make “one God.” This verse refers to three, but never says they are “one.” The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit (We say “holy spirit” instead of “Holy Spirit” because we believe that this verse is referring to God’s gift of holy spirit that is born inside each believer. It is lower case because it refers to the gift of God and not God. The original Greek texts were all written in what scholars call “uncial script,” which uses all capital letters. Thus, although we today make a distinction between “Spirit” and “spirit,” in the originals every use was just “SPIRIT.” Whether or not it should be capitalized is a translator’s decision, based on the context of the verse. For more on the form of the early texts, see the note on Heb. 1:8).

It should be clear that three separate things do not make “one God.” Morgridge writes:

No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject.”

4. It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2).

5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.

A study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.

6. In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier. [For further study on the subject of baptism, read “Two Baptisms: Which Is Which?”]

Morgridge, pp. 13-15, 28, 98-101

Norton, pp. 215-218

Racovian Catechism, pp. 36-39

Snedeker, pp. 109-115
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”