Be it unto Me According to Thy Word


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

And according to my current hypothesis, it is totally valid for God, angels, and witnesses to proclaim Jesus and the Son of David.  Jesus was the adoptive son of Joseph (if not of Mary as well).  The law of adoption itself allows the title.  

This is not correct.  By Jewish Tradition, an adopted son follows the bloodline of the mother and not the father.  For example, to be a Jew (Tribe of Judah or Son of Judah), you must be born to a Jewish mother.  If your mother is Gentile (not a Son of Judah), then the son is Gentile regardless of whether the father is a Jew and the son will have to go through conversion to become a Jew.

This would be the same in the claim to the House of David.  Jesus cannot claim the title Son of David through his adoptive Father.  And if you posit that Mary is not his blood relative either, but somebody who does not possess the bloodline of David, or even Judah, then that would make Jesus a Gentile and would have to become a Jew by conversion - which disqualifies him from the prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not correct.  By Jewish Tradition, an adopted son follows the bloodline of the mother and not the father.  For example, to be a Jew (Tribe of Judah or Son of Judah), you must be born to a Jewish mother.  If your mother is Gentile (not a Son of Judah), then the son is Gentile regardless of whether the father is a Jew and the son will have to go through conversion to become a Jew.

This would be the same in the claim to the House of David.  Jesus cannot claim the title Son of David through his adoptive Father.  And if you posit that Mary is not his blood relative either, but somebody who does not possess the bloodline of David, or even Judah, then that would make Jesus a Gentile and would have to become a Jew by conversion - which disqualifies him from the prophecy.

If Jesus’s parents are Heavenly Father and Mother that makes him a gentile?

Pretty sure that the Jews did not consider Elohim a gentile...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mikbone said:

If Jesus’s parents are Heavenly Father and Mother that makes him a gentile?

Pretty sure that the Jews did not consider Elohim a gentile...

Heavenly Father and Mother are neither Gentile nor Jew because they are not mortal and they are not Sons or Daughters of a particular Tribe of Israel, rather they are the Heavenly Parents of the Tribes of Israel.  This does not change the FACT that Jesus IS mortal with the blood of his mortal mother and therefore would either belong to the Tribe of Judah and the House of David or not.  The only time that would not apply is if you're going to claim that Jesus is not mortal and, therefore, wouldn't belong to a Tribe or he is mortal before Israel's sons formed their tribes.  For example, Adam and Eve and Enoch and Noah and Abraham, etc. etc. are neither Gentile nor Jew because there were no "Tribes of Israel" then!

P.S.  Just for accuracy's sake, the Tribe of Judah is not the only tribe that survived through the time of Jesus.  The Levites also survived (and still exists today - there are only 10 Lost Tribes as per LDS gospel teaching).  A Levite, by the time of Jesus, is considered a Jew, so technically, Levites are Jews that are not a Son of Judah.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I would like to thank you for our discussions though.  I have been trying to write a book about my understanding and love of our Savior, and some of your questions and perspectives have helped me to refine my presentation style.

I have enjoyed and grown from the discussion as well. Good luck with your book

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not correct.  By Jewish Tradition, an adopted son follows the bloodline of the mother and not the father.  For example, to be a Jew (Tribe of Judah or Son of Judah), you must be born to a Jewish mother.  If your mother is Gentile (not a Son of Judah), then the son is Gentile regardless of whether the father is a Jew and the son will have to go through conversion to become a Jew.

This would be the same in the claim to the House of David.  Jesus cannot claim the title Son of David through his adoptive Father.  And if you posit that Mary is not his blood relative either, but somebody who does not possess the bloodline of David, or even Judah, then that would make Jesus a Gentile and would have to become a Jew by conversion - which disqualifies him from the prophecy.

I am interested in this.

I didn't do to much research.  I found a few sites with superficial info. 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adoption-in-judaism

if you have a link to a more substantial discussion, I'd appreciate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

I am interested in this.

I didn't do to much research.  I found a few sites with superficial info. 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adoption-in-judaism

if you have a link to a more substantial discussion, I'd appreciate it. 

I linked it above in my discussion with Carborendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I linked it above in my discussion with Carborendum.

I found this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thejesusquestion.org/2015/12/21/the-two-genealogies-of-jesus-the-curse-of-jeconiah-and-the-royal-line-of-david/amp/

and this

“Tribal lineage passes only through the father,(Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59) while being Jewish passes through the mother. So one cannot claim to be of a certain tribe if there is no earthly father. As someone else stated Jesus claims descent through the mother. Inheritance does go through the male line first, but if there is none then bloodline and inheritance can pass through other relatives. (Numbers 27:6-11). However with king David having so many kids it's very likely the paternal line was established and carried on, which would more than likely leave Jesus with no inheritance, or claim of kingship.”

So Inheritance could be argued for (possibly) but tribal affiliation can't be in his case. Historical records of descent of king David were destroyed a long time ago.”

 

Most of the material I found was Christian / Catholic commentary of Jewish law likely because Catholics want to prove Jesus legal rights.  The Jews who are still awaiting the arrival of the Messiah have no intention of proving Christ’s legal rights to the throne.

Its pretty complicated.  And I’m no jewish legal scholar.  My wife took jewish law @ BYU but wasn’t interested in the conversation.

This is a Jewish take on Jesus’ claim to king

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-jewish-concept-of-messiah-and-the-jewish-response-to-christian-claims/

And then there is this

http://www.schechter.edu/what-does-jewish-law-have-to-say-about-surrogacy/

 

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

I found this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thejesusquestion.org/2015/12/21/the-two-genealogies-of-jesus-the-curse-of-jeconiah-and-the-royal-line-of-david/amp/

and this

“Tribal lineage passes only through the father,(Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59) while being Jewish passes through the mother. So one cannot claim to be of a certain tribe if there is no earthly father. As someone else stated Jesus claims descent through the mother. Inheritance does go through the male line first, but if there is none then bloodline and inheritance can pass through other relatives. (Numbers 27:6-11). However with king David having so many kids it's very likely the paternal line was established and carried on, which would more than likely leave Jesus with no inheritance, or claim of kingship.”

So Inheritance could be argued for (possibly) but tribal affiliation can't be in his case. Historical records of descent of king David were destroyed a long time ago.”

 

Most of the material I found was Christian / Catholic commentary of Jewish law likely because Catholics want to prove Jesus legal rights.  The Jews who are still awaiting the arrival of the Messiah have no intention of proving Christ’s legal rights to the throne.

Its pretty complicated.  And I’m no jewish legal scholar.  My wife took jewish law @ BYU but wasn’t interested in the conversation.

This is a Jewish take on Jesus’ claim to king

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-jewish-concept-of-messiah-and-the-jewish-response-to-christian-claims/

And then there is this

http://www.schechter.edu/what-does-jewish-law-have-to-say-about-surrogacy/

 

 

The genealogical account in Luke shows Jesus lineage through Mary as a Son of David.  There's no need to look up secular historical records on the matter because we believe the Holy Bible to be true as interpreted in the light of the restored gospel.

All my knowledge about this matter I learned as a devout Roman Catholic attending Catholic Schools from kindergarten through college graduation.  In my conversion, I studied the matter in the light of LDS teaching and nothing in LDS teaching contradicted the Catholic interpretation on the matter of Jesus' claim to the title Son of David, King of the Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The genealogical account in Luke shows Jesus lineage through Mary as a Son of David.  There's no need to look up secular historical records on the matter because we believe the Holy Bible to be true as interpreted in the light of the restored gospel.

All my knowledge about this matter I learned as a devout Roman Catholic attending Catholic Schools from kindergarten through college graduation.  In my conversion, I studied the matter in the light of LDS teaching and nothing in LDS teaching contradicted the Catholic interpretation on the matter of Jesus' claim to the title Son of David, King of the Jews.

But the Catholics don’t annoint or crown the Jewish King.  

It might be nice to have the input of an LDS member that has a Jewish background.

Reguardless, David himself wasn’t in-line for the throne until annointed by Samuel.  He was a shepherd.  

The legalities of King appointment has always been the same throughout time.  Whoever has the power makes the laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

But the Catholics don’t annoint or crown the Jewish King.  

It might be nice to have the input of an LDS member that has a Jewish background.

What are you talking about?   Are you thinking they are crowning Jewish Kings today?  Peter established the Christian Church (the root of Catholicism) AFTER Jesus' atoning sacrifice.  Jesus is, of course, the last King of the Jews so Christians wouldn't be crowning Kings.  But just because they don't crown kings does not mean that they forgot the important knowledge of how Jesus became King of the Jews.

 

Quote

Reguardless, David himself wasn’t in-line for the throne until annointed by Samuel.  He was a shepherd.  

And David is not just some nobody from nowhere.  He is a Son of Judah. 

 

Quote

The legalities of King appointment has always been the same throughout time.  Whoever has the power makes the laws.

 

This is incorrect when it comes to the covenant people.  God makes the laws.  The legalities of King appointment is by the power of God, which at the time, followed the law of Moses.

The Jews in Jesus' time has not had a King for a long, long, long time.  That's why Joseph, who is an heir to the throne, is a carpenter and not a King.  They have been waiting for the promised Messiah who will ascend to the throne as the King of the Jews and save them all since Jeconiah got cursed.  This is all talked about in the Old Testament.

The Jews of today are STILL waiting for that promised Messiah because they don't believe Jesus is the King of the Jews.

This is really making me confused.  Do you not believe Jesus is the King of the Jews?  I'm not really sure where your conundrum is rooted in.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The genealogical account in Luke shows Jesus lineage through Mary as a Son of David. 

As intimated several time earlier in this thread, there is also the angelic attestation of Christ's Davidic ancestry (Lk 1:26-33, particularly v 32) as well as at least two New Testament Apostles and multiple disciples (see HERE), as well as latter-day church leaders and church material (see HERE)

Nowhere in any of this is there the least hint of adoption. Rather, the literal ancestral lineage  is strongly implied if not explicitly stated in several places (including the citation I provided earlier from Talmage in Jesus the Christ).

This, of course, has to all be either dismissed as "error," downplayed, ignored, or wrested in order for @mikbone to logically hold fast to his non-scriptural hypothesis. And, from what I saw over several pages of civil exchanges, he is cemented to that view. So, I wish you well in your continued discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wenglund said:

As intimated several time earlier in this thread, there is also the angelic attestation of Christ's Davidic ancestry (Lk 1:26-33, particularly v 32) as well as at least two New Testament Apostles and multiple disciples (see HERE), as well as latter-day church leaders and church material (see HERE)

Nowhere in any of this is there the least hint of adoption. Rather, the literal ancestral lineage  is strongly implied if not explicitly stated in several places (including the citation I provided earlier from Talmage in Jesus the Christ).

This, of course, has to all be either dismissed as "error," downplayed, ignored, or wrested in order for @mikbone to logically hold fast to his non-scriptural hypothesis. And, from what I saw over several pages of civil exchanges, he is cemented to that view. So, I wish you well in your continued discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is why I'm confused as to @mikbone's point.   I'm not sure if he thinks Jesus is not a Son of David or he thinks you can be a Son of David without being in his bloodline (which doesn't make sense).

Anyway, I think he just completely believes Jesus' blood is not of Mary.  Which doesn't make sense too because if not Mary's then who?  Adam and Eve's blood was a condition of the Fall, it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to gain his mortal blood through a Fall.  It has to come from somebody and it wouldn't be Heavenly Father nor Mother because they're not Fallen Beings.

I don't know.  I think he's just making it unnecessarily complicated.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is why I'm confused as to @mikbone's point.   I'm not sure if he thinks Jesus is not a Son of David or he thinks you can be a Son of David without being in his bloodline (which doesn't make sense).

If I understand him correctly, he believes that the genesis of Jesus' physical body was conceived by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, placed into Mary's womb, and Jesus became mortal through the blood of Mary conveyed through the placenta. This means that Jesus literally had only heavenly ancestry and no earthly ancestry, except by way of adoption.

In other words,  mikbone purports Mary to be a surrogate mother of Jesus, and she and Joseph are but adopted parents.

Hence, the New Testament genealogies of Jesus are by adoption only rather than literal, even in Mary's case.

Were Jesus' genealogy literal in Mary's case, and were all  the scriptural pronouncements and declarations by modern church leader literal, that Jesus was the Son of David, this would logically negate mikbone's belief. So, he has to find a way around all of it.

From what I have observed, it takes some radical mental gymnastic to accomplish this feat,  but he seems comfortable and surprisingly confident in doing so.

That is why I wished him well and to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I understand him correctly, he believes that the genesis of Jesus' physical body was conceived by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, placed into Mary's womb, and Jesus became mortal through the blood of Mary conveyed through the placenta. This means that Jesus literally had only heavenly ancestry and no earthly ancestry, except by way of adoption.

In other words,  mikbone purports Mary to be a surrogate mother of Jesus, and she and Joseph are but adopted parents.

Hence, the New Testament genealogies of Jesus are by adoption only rather than literal, even in Mary's case.

Were Jesus' genealogy literal in Mary's case, and were all  the scriptural pronouncements and declarations by modern church leader literal, that Jesus was the Son of David, this would logically negate mikbone's belief. So, he has to find a way around all of it.

From what I have observed, it takes some radical mental gymnastic to accomplish this feat,  but he seems comfortable and surprisingly confident in doing so.

That is why I wished him well and to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The real question that comes to mind for me when people come up with some random requires-mental-gymnastics type idea like this is......why? Why on earth would someone come up with a theory like this? To what end? What's the point? What's the objective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I understand him correctly, he believes that the genesis of Jesus' physical body was conceived by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, placed into Mary's womb, and Jesus became mortal through the blood of Mary conveyed through the placenta. This means that Jesus literally had only heavenly ancestry and no earthly ancestry, except by way of adoption.

This doesn't compute.  If Jesus has the blood of Mary then his mortal ancestry is Mary.  It's called a "bloodline" for a reason.

 

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In other words,  mikbone purports Mary to be a surrogate mother of Jesus, and she and Joseph are but adopted parents.

Not if Jesus has the blood of Mary.

 

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Hence, the New Testament genealogies of Jesus are by adoption only rather than literal, even in Mary's case.

Also not if Jesus has the blood of Mary.  That makes Jesus fall in Mary's bloodline.

 

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Were Jesus' genealogy literal in Mary's case, and were all  the scriptural pronouncements and declarations by modern church leader and material literal, that Jesus was the Son of David l, this would logically negate mikbone's belief. So, he has to find a way around all of it.

From what I have observed, it take some radical mental gymnastic to accomplish this feat, , but he seems comfortable and surprisingly confident in doing so.

That is why I wished him well and to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The real question that comes to mind for me when people come up with some random requires-mental-gymnastics type idea like this is......why? Why on earth would someone come up with a theory like this? To what end? What's the point? What's the objective?

Sometimes it's just a matter of how our brain takes the data and arranges it into information.  Sometimes you put the puzzle piece in wrong but you manage to not notice that it is wedged in at a cockeyed angle until somebody points it out.  But before you can accept that it's wedged in wrong, you have to undo the puzzle and start over because you have to find that piece that is supposed to fit where the other was wedged in cockeyed.  So you go through a period of going through every single piece again thinking you already knew where it went until it finally clicks that yep... these pieces actually didn't quite fit.  But imagine having to do an entire puzzle again just so you can find 2 swapped pieces... 

No biggie.  Just needs patience.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This doesn't compute.  If Jesus has the blood of Mary then his mortal ancestry is Mary.  It's called a "bloodline" for a reason.

 

Not if Jesus has the blood of Mary.

 

Also not if Jesus has the blood of Mary.  That makes Jesus fall in Mary's bloodline.

 

Yeah, it doesn't make sense.

I suspect that he is differentiating between blood and DNA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sometimes it's just a matter of how our brain takes the data and arranges it into information.  Sometimes you put the puzzle piece in wrong but you manage to not notice that it is wedged in at a cockeyed angle until somebody points it out.  But before you can accept that it's wedged in wrong, you have to undo the puzzle and start over because you have to find that piece that is supposed to fit where the other was wedged in cockeyed.  So you go through a period of going through every single piece again thinking you already knew where it went until it finally clicks that yep... these pieces actually didn't quite fit.  But imagine having to do an entire puzzle again just so you can find 2 swapped pieces... 

No biggie.  Just needs patience.

I haven't read the thread really...so maybe that's why...but I still don't understand.

Certain information is practically spoon fed to us by the prophets and apostles.

It's like a parent standing over a child and saying..."the piece goes right there honey..." and the child giving the parent the finger and cramming it somewhere else. Of course you'd sometimes expect that sort of thing from a child. But I would think that most here are over the age of...you know...4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I suspect that he is differentiating between blood and DNA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm finding myself in a bit of a predicament. 

I usually disagree with Mikbone.  But I find myself agreeing with him. That's bad.

But I'm disagreeing with Anatess.  That's good.

But you agree with Anatess.  That's not quite right.

So, I'm wondering...

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I suspect that he is differentiating between blood and DNA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Say what?  That doesn't make sense either.  Are we now having to debate whether DNA is Divine Matter?  Ugh, why why why complicate something so simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the legal gymnastics are probably not important.  Jesus is the Son of David.  He proclaimed it himself.  I don't care if it was direct, adoptive, or implied.  He is the Son of God.  

Jesus did not use the title, Son of David, to as a means to claim the Jewish Throne.  He lived a modest life and didn't have many possessions.  He allowed others to use the title (See Matthew 21:15) to give the Jewish leadership cause to crucify him.  When Jesus Christ returns to the Earth to set up His kingdom, He will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and there will be no legal disputations.  His authority is absolute via his power and authority that came from his Heavenly Father.   He is our God, our Savior, and our Father.  

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

Revelations 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

Because Jehovah created Adam, The bloodline that is David is from Jehovah.  

 

The conception of Christ is complicated.  WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED.

There are all kinds of beliefs inside and outside of the LDS church that have attempted to explain how it happened.  

1) Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with the Virgin Mary -  And an immortal celestial sperm fertilized Mary's Mortal egg.

2) The Holy Ghost artificially inseminated the Virgin Mary with Heavenly Father's immortal celestial sperm.

There are many more possibilities...

I have no idea if celestial beings have sperm and eggs?  How were Adam & Eve created?  

 

What makes sense to me is that Heavenly Father for this specific purpose temporarily became mortal in order to produce a mortal God.  And if this is possible, then I don't see why the egg that became Jesus couldn't have been supplied by Heavenly Mother.  And then the Virgin Mary would have simply been a surrogate mother.  Because the Virgin Mary nurtured the Embryo that was Jesus with her womb - Jesus is the Seed of David according to the flesh.   

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't read the thread really...so maybe that's why...but I still don't understand.

Certain information is practically spoon fed to us by the prophets and apostles.

It's like a parent standing over a child and saying..."the piece goes right there honey..." and the child giving the parent the finger and cramming it somewhere else. Of course you'd sometimes expect that sort of thing from a child. But I would think that most here are over the age of...you know...4.

This is where I'm confused.  I think it's just that he tried to go into minutia.  Mama said... this entire set goes here honey... and he decided to break the set into pieces and put them into the puzzle minute piece by minute piece and got all twisted up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

My point is that the legal gymnastics are probably not important.  Jesus is the Son of David.  He proclaimed it himself.  I don't care if it was direct, adoptive, or implied.  He is the Son of God.  

In an overall view of things, yes.  It doesn't matter.  By faith we accept that Jesus is the promised Messiah and that's that.  No need to go into detail really.

But to the Jews, it would matter because to declare Jesus the promised Messiah, he had to fulfill specific prophecies, one of which is being the Son of David.  This has a specific meaning to the Jews.  And this is why Jews today still do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, because they don't believe Jesus fulfills prophecy.

By the way, one of the prophecies the Jews believe has not been fulfilled is Jesus being the King of the Jews.  They expect a King to rule on a throne with a crown on his head in all his glory and splendor and wipe out the enemy and bring Jews to glory and prosperity.  So Jesus being born in a manger and dying on a cross at the hands of the Romans... can't possibly be a King.  But we believe in the truth of Jesus' teaching that a King is not just the big guy on the throne but the humble servant.  He is the person who changes the hearts of the people to righteousness and not just the guy calling them up to battle with their swords.

And there's the small matter of... Jesus claiming himself to be the Son of David if he is not according to the law he set... kinda makes him a liar...

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mikbone said:

My point is that the legal gymnastics are probably not important.  Jesus is the Son of David.  He proclaimed it himself.  I don't care if it was direct, adoptive, or implied.  He is the Son of God.  

It only matters whether it was direct, adoptive, or implied in terms of your speculative belief about who was the literal mother of the physical Christ. If it was direct, then your speculative belief is negated and your accusation that Talmage was  in error is, itself, ironically in error.

It strikes at the very heart of our disagreement.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the way these sorts of things sound to me:

"I believe angels have wings. It clearly says so in Isaiah's visions as well as Ezekiel and other places. Joseph Smith obviously didn't notice the wings on the angels he saw, or the angels were hiding their wings from his sight to not distract him. The fact that they are called "symbolic" in the D&C doesn't mean they aren't physical realities that are symbolic of the power to move and to act. And Bruce R. McKonkie, as is typical for him, was just speculating to try and uphold the pre-held belief at large about Joseph's explanations. But the scriptures are clear. (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/16.2-3?lang=eng#p1)"

Credible, eh?

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share