The Invalidity of the Crucifixion of Jesus As An Atonement of Sin: A Study of the Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament)
Dr. JosephG
Below is a reproduction of a posting from Dr. JosephG, a retired physicist and practising Jew residing in America, explaining why Jesus' death on the cross could not have been a valid sacrifice from the Jewish point of view.*
Here is a partial list of reasons for why the death of Jesus on the cross couldn't possibly have served as a valid sacrifice - any one of these would render a sacrifice as unacceptable for the purpose of expiation of sins.
GIVEN that, at the time of Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem and the Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force, here are some of the reasons why the death of Jesus on the cross cannot be a valid sacrificial offering:
FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).
SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.
THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar (“sign of the covenant”). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12).
FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).
FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removal of sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under “Fourth” above and “Sixth” below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).
SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exod 12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).
SEVENTH, the Hebrew Bible states that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for unintentional sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Lev 5:1-6, 20-26 [Lev 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles] (e.g., Num 15:27-31).
EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for the sins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people who were born after he died.
NINTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly forbids (human) vicarious atonement (e.g., Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; II Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:29 [30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7).
TENTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g., Lev 18:21, 24-25; Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39).
It is simply astonishing that so many people believe what their preachers “feed” them, as well as how the New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
I'm sure you have met very nice Chrsitans, and I have as well, but I find that on most forums, the bad drown out the good and you just have to defend Islam against lies in almost every thread.
I'm glad you have found a forum that is not like that. That must be a very nice forum.
But since they need to somehow explain that a priest made the sacrifice they grasp at the Melchitzedek straw.
The story of Melchitzedek is not a Christian invention. In Scripture it is the greater who blesses the lesser. We find that it is the King-Priest Melchitzedek who blesses Abraham, who carried the seed of the Levitt priesthood and it is Melchitzedek who accepts Abrahams offerings. Melchitzedek is also called priest of The Most High. If this is a "straw" to expain Christ priesthood, a finer one could not have been created by the human mind. It is just one more example of how things in the Old Testament foreshadow those in the New.
The pain of the Jewish people rarely cause others to repent. Hitler is a good case in point. He and his thugs LOVED the suffering of Jews, as do certain terrrorist today.
Well, I must be one of those 'rarities' you mention.....
It's definately not as rare as you think.....We Noachides are an ever expanding bunch.....
The point is that Al Nabi Al Masiih 'Iisa Ibn Al Maryam AS did not get scared from being crucified . If you know , getting a person to be crucified is never an atonement of sin for someone else , it is a form of Al Adzab which Aallah SWT sent to people who wage war against Aallah SWT instead .
The Invalidity of the Crucifixion of Jesus As An Atonement of Sin: A Study of the Hebrew Tanakh (Old Testament)
Dr. JosephG .................................New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.
Hi Ansar Al-'Adl
I know this is an old post of yours, however I trust you will find my thoughts some additional value to what sinner has already mentioned. Jesus as the High Priest.
Dose Jesus Christ fulfil the legal requirement to be our High Priest? A Christian would say absolutely while a Muslim would argue no. Not been a Muslim and understanding the dynamics of one’s personal bias to their faith I would like to bring to your attention some important points in seeking the truth with regards to the topic.
Firstly there can be only one High Priest, it would be ludicrous to claim there was atonement for the Jews via Caiaphas the Temple High priest and Jesus Christ atonement for man’s sins. Mathew 26:62-65 tells us that Caiaphas put Jesus under oath and asked Him “Tell us you are the Christ (Messiah), Son of God. Jesus reply “It is as you say” and Caiaphas tears his cloths, say He has blasphemed.
The tear of ones cloths in the Jewish tradition is associated with mourning, grief, and loss. Here Caiaphas shows his grief from his view of a mere man claim to be God. Two examples of this are seen in Genesis 37:29. “When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes” A short time later in Genesis 37:34, “Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days” when he thought that Joseph had been killed.
It is interesting that the high priest was not allowed to tear his clothes: Leviticus 21:10 “The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not . . . tear his clothes”. The special nature of the high priestly office dictated a separation from some of the common customs, including that of mourning. Thus Caiaphas defiled himself and removed himself as the High Priest for the Jews. The concertation of High Priest took seven day see Leviticus 8:33 and thus with few days before Passover it would be impossible for a new high Priest to be Consecrated as per the law.
Secondly as with a number of covenants in the bible there is the sheading of blood. The most important of these is the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the most detailed in the bible as seen in Genesis 17. Here again in the consecration of the High Priest life blood of an animal is shed as an indication of the seriousness of the promises.
Thirdly The New Covenant (or New Testament) is the promise that God makes with humanity that He will forgive sin and restore fellowship with those whose hearts are turned toward Him. Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, and His death on the cross is the basis of the promise Luke 22:20 “This cup that is poured out for you isthe newcovenant in my blood. Take note this fulfils prophesies of the New Covenant predicted while the Old Covenant was still in effect—the prophets Moses, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all allude to the New Covenant.
Fourthly Jesus came to fulfil the law see Matthew 5:17-18. This is the fulfilling of the sacrificial laws as well as what I view as the Jewish leaders biggest sin, that they did not promote their faith with the world they kept it to themselves. See Genesis 9:12-17
Fifthly how does Jesus become High Priest and does he fulfil the legal requirements? Let us look at the law.
Leviticus 8 - The Consecration of Priests
Exodus 29 records the command God gave to Moses to carry out this consecration ceremony. The stated the purpose for the ceremony: To hallow them for ministering to Me as priests. That is, it was to set the priests aside for God’s purpose and will.
Already the Israelites through the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision have been set aside for Gods purpose and will. Moses as an Adult male of 80 years old was circumcised when he began his ministry. No doubt Jesus was also circumcised under Jewish law after birth. Thus Jesus fulfils the Abrahamic covenant and is separated to do God purpose and will.
The washing of the priests Leviticus 8:6
The process of consecration began with cleansing. All priestly ministries began with cleansing, and a cleansing that was received. Moses washed Aaron and his sons and was done publicly. Some Jewish interpreters have maintained that the washing of Aaron and his sons was by immersion, as was required of the high priest on the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:4).
The fulfilment of this can be seen in John 1:19:28 when John the Baptist baptises Jesus at the beginning of His ministry.
Six days before the crucifixion Jesus feet are washed by Marth’s sister Marry, John 12:1-3
Note the significance of this:- Leviticus 8:33 tells us the priestly consecration takes seven day. Thus the Passover was on the seventh day, which in turn Jesus fulfilling the Passover sacrifice as recorded in Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53:5-12.
For Christians the significance is seen in Revelation 1:5 by the cleansing work accomplished by the death of Jesus for our sins.
The clothing of the priests in priestly garments. Leviticus 8:7-9
I draw your attention to two items, robe and the turban. Referencing Mathew 27:27-31 the Roman soldiers mock Jesus by stripping him of his cloths, put a scarlet robe on Him and a crown of thorns (turban), place a read in his hand and kneel before Him mocking say King of the Jews. Take note scarlet was highly prised and a symbol of wealth and position. 2 Samuel 1:24
Thus Jesus fulfils the second requirement of a High Priest consecration.
The anointing of the priests. Leviticus 8:10-13
Moses took the anointing oil and poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron's head and anointed him, to consecrate him. Priests also had to be anointed. The oil was poured over their heads, indicating that it was given in great measure, not in small measure see Psalm 133:2 Things were sprinkled, but upon people the oil was out-poured. Jesus is anointed on the head with a flask of costly oil of spikenard two day before Passover see Mark 14:1-9
The sacrifice and the blood. Leviticus 8:22-24
To express the idea of consecration, blood from the ram was placed on the ear, thumb, and toe of the priest. It was blood from the ram - not the wool, not the fat. God wanted the life of the sacrificial victim to mark His consecrated priests. Leviticus 17:11 is one of many passages that expresses this principle: For the life of the flesh is in the blood. God wanted the life of the sacrificial victim to be evident in the body of the priest.
After the beating Jesus incurred by the Roman solders is would be prudent for anyone to deny that the blood of the sacrificial victim, Jesus was not present.
Blood is sprinkled on the priestly garments. Leviticus 8:30
Then Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar, and sprinkled it on Aaron, on his garments, on his sons, and on the garments of his sons with him; and he consecrated Aaron, his garments, his sons, and the garments of his sons with him. See John 19
After Christ beating by the Roman soldiers they place a scarlet robe on him, in doing this fulfilled the above law, sprinkling of blood on the priestly garments. See Mathew 15:16-20
A fellowship meal with God. Leviticus 8:31-32
The remaining meat portions of this ram were given to Aaron and the other priests, after those portions were presented to God as a wave offering. It was then cooked and eaten by the priests during the days of their consecration ceremony.
The eating speaks of the continuing relationship of the priest with God.
In this way, eating is a good picture of a healthy, continuing relationship with Jesus. Fellowship over a meal is a worldwide practice, Jesus did this with his disciples in the upper room known as the last supper. See Mathew 26:17-30. I must also draw your attention to Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
Tearing of the Holy of Holies Veil. Mathew 27:51
As Jesus died on the cross the veil of the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple was torn from top to bottom. The holy temple in Jerusalem was the centre of Jewish religious life. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin, Isaiah 59:1-2. Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year, Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7, to enter into God's presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins Leviticus 16.
What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus' death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile.
Please note Solomon's temple was 30 cubits high, 1 Kings 6:2, but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits, according to the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. There is uncertainty as to the exact measurement of a cubit, but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60ft (18m) high. An early Jewish tradition says that the veil was about four inches thick (100mm), but the Bible does not confirm that measurement. The book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen. Not an average veil to tear.
The sacrifice of the sin offering. Leviticus 8:14-17
Thus in the crucifixion becomes the new covenant with God for all His people through the offering of Jesus Christ as our King and High priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Thus the scapegoat is seen in Jesus as a person who has taken the blame for our sins. The fulfilment of the Day of Atonement, were a priest would confess all the sins of the Israelites over the head of a goat and then drive it into the wilderness, symbolically bearing their sins away.
Dealing with the forbidden rule of human sacrifice.
The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God declared that such “worship” was detestable to Him and that He hates it, Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10. Furthermore, human sacrifice is associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery and divination, which are also detestable to God 2 Kings 21:6.
So, if God hates human sacrifice, why did He sacrifice Christ on the cross and how could that sacrifice be the payment for our sins?
There is no doubt that a sacrifice for sin was necessary if people are to have any hope of eternal life. God established the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sin. In fact, God Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover, temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses upon the first couple, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it a covering for Adam and Eve Genesis 3:21, thereby instituting the principle of animal sacrifice for sin. This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary.
There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice.
Firstly, Jesus wasn’t merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is why God had to become a Man and dwell among men, John 1:14. No other sacrifice would suffice.
Secondly, God didn’t sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” John 10:18.
God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus’ once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him John 6:37–40.
Dealing with a sacrifice without blemishes.
The concept of the unblemished sacrifice is be free from imperfections. The sacrifice is for human sin, thus for a Jesus to be the unblemished sacrifice should be free from sin, in other words a pure and clean heart.
Thus the question is not about defect but rather is Jesus without sin. Mathew 4 tell us how Satan tempted Jesus in three way, “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. 1ohn 2:16 says, For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.
Further the bible is clear that Jesus was free from sin see, Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22.
The Resurrection account is...I apologise if it sounds funny...but hilarious at times. I say this because the various gospels contradict each other in regards to everything from when it occurred, to who was there, to who buried him, to who saw him again and whether or not he was recognised. In the span of a few pages, these contradictions all occur. So how does a rational human being, read the Bible and go, "Oh well, Jesus was definitely crucified, no doubt in my mind".
TENTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g., Lev 18:21, 24-25; Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39).
God was not interested in the human sacrifices of the pagans, although even they may have expressed a true, though very distorted, principle. But God, rather, demands something more. Each of us must become a human sacrifice, if you catch my drift.
...and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
Judging by my Hebrew books, it appears that this is not the only possible translation of Isaiah 53:6, but it is a moving translation all the same. When I read it, I immediately associated it with the Messiah's prayer from the cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
The Resurrection account is...I apologise if it sounds funny...but hilarious at times. I say this because the various gospels contradict each other in regards to everything from when it occurred, to who was there, to who buried him, to who saw him again and whether or not he was recognised. In the span of a few pages, these contradictions all occur. So how does a rational human being, read the Bible and go, "Oh well, Jesus was definitely crucified, no doubt in my mind".
Could you give a specific example of a "hilarious" and irreconcilable contradiction? Also, how would you as a Muslim prove to our Jewish friends that Jesus was the Messiah?
Could you give a specific example of a "hilarious" and irreconcilable contradiction? Also, how would you as a Muslim prove to our Jewish friends that Jesus was the Messiah?
I'm sure many have already pointed out the same contradictions I would point out. The Bible can't even explain how many days he was "dead" before resurrection.
In terms of proving Jesus is the Messiah, I don't believe he was. The messiah is Prophet Muhammad PBUH, saviour for all mankind, for all time. Jesus was one of our beloved messengers. But I would have no interest in proving that to any Jew or anyone for that matter. Your salvation comes through acceptance of Allah and Allah's final message through Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Whether you or the Jews want to believe it is of no concern to me. Enough evidence has been provided to you. Make your choice before it's too late and Jesus does return and when you go to, claiming "Lord, Lord", he will turn away from you. The Quran speaks of this as does your own Bible.
I'm sure many have already pointed out the same contradictions I would point out. The Bible can't even explain how many days he was "dead" before resurrection.
In terms of proving Jesus is the Messiah, I don't believe he was. The messiah is Prophet Muhammad PBUH, saviour for all mankind, for all time. Jesus was one of our beloved messengers. But I would have no interest in proving that to any Jew or anyone for that matter. Your salvation comes through acceptance of Allah and Allah's final message through Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Whether you or the Jews want to believe it is of no concern to me. Enough evidence has been provided to you. Make your choice before it's too late and Jesus does return and when you go to, claiming "Lord, Lord", he will turn away from you. The Quran speaks of this as does your own Bible.
Salam bro. I think you have a misconception. Isa a.s. was titled as the Massiah. He was the Messiah of the sons of Israel. Muhammed a.s. doesnt have this title.
Could you give a specific example of a "hilarious" and irreconcilable contradiction? Also, how would you as a Muslim prove to our Jewish friends that Jesus was the Messiah?
If the sons of Israel accepted him as their Messiah He was going to become their King and give them salvation both in this world and hereafter. Actually there is no way for me to "prove" this to them right now. It has been 2 thousand years...
I'm sure many have already pointed out the same contradictions I would point out. The Bible can't even explain how many days he was "dead" before resurrection.
In terms of proving Jesus is the Messiah, I don't believe he was. The messiah is Prophet Muhammad PBUH, saviour for all mankind, for all time. Jesus was one of our beloved messengers. But I would have no interest in proving that to any Jew or anyone for that matter. Your salvation comes through acceptance of Allah and Allah's final message through Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
Whether you or the Jews want to believe it is of no concern to me. Enough evidence has been provided to you. Make your choice before it's too late and Jesus does return and when you go to, claiming "Lord, Lord", he will turn away from you. The Quran speaks of this as does your own Bible.
The Bible is clear that Jesus the Messiah rose from the dead on the third day. But few probably have heard that there were two different calendars in use in 1st century A.D. Palestine—a Galilean calendar, which reckoned days from sunrise to sunrise, and a Judean calendar, which reckoned days from sunset to sunset. I can suggest a couple of links to articles if you wish to explore the matter further.
Anyway, if there are contradictions in the Bible, then that it is problem for you too, since the Quran repeatedly confirms the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. See, e.g., the discussion of sura 5:47 in the thread, Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?
The Bible is clear that Jesus the Messiah rose from the dead on the third day. But few probably have heard that there were two different calendars in use in 1st century A.D. Palestine—a Galilean calendar, which reckoned days from sunrise to sunrise, and a Judean calendar, which reckoned days from sunset to sunset. I can suggest a couple of links to articles if you wish to explore the matter further.
Anyway, if there are contradictions in the Bible, then that it is problem for you too, since the Quran repeatedly confirms the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. See, e.g., the discussion of sura 5:47 in the thread, Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?
The Quran confirms what was revealed to the Prophets of old, so that includes Jesus and the injeel (what may be labeled as the Bible) and the books revealed to other Prophets to, i.e. Moses and David. A lot of Christians bring this up but what you ALL fail to mention is that the Quran also labels these books having been corrupted, with additions and deletions and so on having occurred. So we believe in the Prophets and the books they ONCE brought, but sadly are no longer in their correct, divine form.
I don't think there is a single Christian, who has any comprehension of history, who would argue that the Bible is truly the word of God, considering it has been changed almost periodically in every century.
Hmmm this wont go down well with the "Hammer Christians", who believe Jesus was a seven foot Viking that died for their sins so they can carry on with the glory of eternal slaughtering war.
The Quran confirms what was revealed to the Prophets of old, so that includes Jesus and the injeel (what may be labeled as the Bible) and the books revealed to other Prophets to, i.e. Moses and David. A lot of Christians bring this up but what you ALL fail to mention is that the Quran also labels these books having been corrupted, with additions and deletions and so on having occurred. So we believe in the Prophets and the books they ONCE brought, but sadly are no longer in their correct, divine form.
I don't think there is a single Christian, who has any comprehension of history, who would argue that the Bible is truly the word of God, considering it has been changed almost periodically in every century.
Please cite the exact Quran verse or verses that label the Bible as corrupted and therefore no longer a reliable source of light and guidance or a resource by which to make valid judgments.
Please provide a few examples of the changes that have been made to the Bible “in every century.” Since you claim a “comprehension of history,” please also provide the history surrounding alleged changes to the Bible, that is, the specific names, places, and dates involved, along with specific changes made by the person or persons involved. Please also provide the original uncorrupted text with the later altered text, so that we can compare the two texts and see whether or not any substantive changes have been made.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks