Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #471  
Old 05-26-2009, 09:37 AM
TK Burk's Avatar
TK Burk TK Burk is offline
Lamb Saved & Shepherd Led


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,729
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Elder Burk we have had head buttings for years and discussed this subject. I have enjoyed it but since you have decided to make this personal I have no more to say to you. I have attacked your stance-arguments-positions and yes been pointed. However YOU have decided to make it personal so it is over between us.
I will discuss this subject with others but not with you.
I will allow the readers to judge whether I have answered you or not.
Eld. Epley, this is not personal. I am not against you as a person. This is about doctrine. Elder, you’re not upset today because it is personal. No, I believe you are upset because you are—once again—against the ropes and have no place else to go. My questions simply brought this to light, and because so, you are angry.

Elder, YOU are the one how claimed the word "GENERATION" in Matthew 24:34 means "RACE." You are angry now because you were repeatedly asked to prove that. You claimed you did answer several times. However, when asked where these posts are found, you could not produce even one. After this became apparent I told you that if you would prove “RACE” is found in Matthew 24:34 that I would NEVER mention AFP again. Any preacher worth his salt and who believes as you claim would have jumped on that. But what did you do? You again gave no scripture or evidence and instead retreated to saying that the reader would decide whether you answered or not. Elder, that is so pathetic.

The same thing happened with your claim that there were no baptisms in water in the OT. I proved you wrong; you claimed you proved you were correct. I asked you to give the posts where you did this and what did you do? You retreated to saying the reader would decide. How can they see what you’re claiming is biblical Truth if you cannot verify your arguments with Scripture?

Eld. Epley, of course the reader decides. That is what happens as people read these threads. But the issue still is that you are unable to support the very arguments that you use in effort to disprove the validity of AFP. In consequence, instead of disproving AFP, you have instead proven that you have no evidence against it.

As you said, we've been going around about this subject for years. That is why I am not surprised at your current inability to support your arguments, or at your unwillingness to admit as much. Elder, this is not personal. You made the disparaging accusations against what I believe. All I did was prove you wrong. Any preacher worth his salt would have done the same as I. If you take offense to that then you shouldn’t make such remarks.

Elder, you’ve been around for a long time. If you’ll remember, I asked you to please stop talking about eschatology. It has always been very clear to me that you are unable to prove your own beliefs, let alone disprove those of others. Because of this you were making remarks that I knew could hurt you with some Futurist brethren, and tried to warn you as much. Now we are where we are today because you would not heed that advice.

Elder, your own words proved your arguments against AFP to be untrue. This means that your slandering remarks against the men and women who believe AFP are groundless. It also means that the Futurists you belittled for agreeing with my conclusion on the True Israel of God was just as groundless. Elder, I did not need to disprove your arguments. You disproved them all by yourself. All I did was point out that you had no Bible for your statements, and because of that they were merely your opinions.

So now that this has been made known about you, you are angry at me? Elder, anger is a defense emotion that often accompanies guilt. That is why you are angry today. Not because of what I said or did, but because you were caught making accusations and arguments for which you could not provide evidence.

Like I said, this is not personal. I do hope for Jesus’ best for you and your wife.
__________________
The Bible is open to those that want Truth, and if they want Truth, they find Truth. They watch individuals squabble over Bible symbolism on the Internet, and leave the Message boards to enter into the real world where live people dwell, and they find Truth. The World Wide Web is full of Internet Ayatollahs who speak their mind. There is only one Truth, and it is not hidden. No matter what anyone says, Truth still converts the sincere.
 -DD Benincasa, 12/06/03

www.tkburk.com
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 05-26-2009, 06:36 PM
Jason B Jason B is offline
Saved by Grace


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Gentlemen, please focus on the issue, which is your proof that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled. Are there only 3 chapters in FP escahtology? If needed to cause the discussion to go on, I will concede those chapters for now. Do you have any thing else to base your BELIEF that Jesus has already returned? How about explaining some things from the book of Revelation, like the Eurphrates rived drying up and a 200 million man army, a false prophet calling fire down from heaven, and a mark of the beast. And how Satan is bound, and we are all living gloriously in the millenial reign of Jesus Christ right now, or why the Bible tells us there will be no war on this earth-when in fact that has never been, and doesn't look to ever be the case? There are plenty more explanations needed if you guys are going to want legitimacy.
ok, since you ignored basically the whole post. How about this paragraph?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards

"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship

"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 05-26-2009, 07:04 PM
Jason B Jason B is offline
Saved by Grace


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
you need to apologize.
For?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards

"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship

"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:50 AM
afp1996 afp1996 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 344
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
ok, since you ignored basically the whole post. How about this paragraph?
Brother, you have a belief that he didn't. Your point is lost in your reasoning. Your have been asked over and over again where the gap is in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. You finally said it is 24:15. So how do you come to the conclusion that there is an "x" number of years gap between Matthew 24:14 and 24:15? Might I remind you that I asked you this in our debate. It was one of only two questions that I did ask you.

Now that the debate is over. I will address those questions you asked. So there should be no reason for you to balk at the questions asked of you.
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 05-27-2009, 11:55 AM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,161
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

For the record, Bro Burk, let me answer your questions. My words related the answers, anyway, if you look more carefully. I said that I read some of your posts and did not read others. I said I set you on ignore. Both were true. IGNORE allows a VIEW of each individual post that is initially not visible, if one so chooses.

Anyway, let me answer you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK Burk View Post

If you'll notice you did not answer what I actually asked which includes...

(1) Were Bro. Benincasa and I really on ignore like you claimed?
Yes.

Quote:
(2) Were you really not reading our posts like you claimed?
Some posts I read and some posts I did not read. I never said I could not read any of them. I chose what to read and what not to read. The ignore function allows you to select which posts to read by clicking a little button on the post that says VIEW, or something similar. All of the posts are unreadable until you press the VIEW button related to that post. At first I read none of your posts. After a few days I read one or two. then I read a few more. But never all of them. I read enough that showed me you were continuing to talk to me.

Quote:
(3) If we were on ignore, and if you were not reading our posts, how did you answer things that we mentioned without knowing we posted them?
Already noted.

Quote:
(4) If you maintain that we were on ignore and that you did not read our posts, then did you later read all Bro. Benincasa and I wrote in our many posts during that time BEFORE claiming we did not answer you?
After I removed the ignore function, I could read everything. I checked over for answers to my questions and found none.

You and Bro Benincasa are doing an awesome job of showing baptisms in the old testament. Bro Benincassa satted awesome awesome points about Jews asking why did JOhn BAPTIZE.

But I think Bro Epley is still not getting your point that "baptism" merely means immersing in water, and if there were water immersions in the OT then there were water baptisms. He is limiting water baptisms to NT salvation baptisms, so he says there were none in the OT. It seems you are only trying to get him to admit he is wrong. He's too stubborn for that, though, as I think you are as well with other issues. I probably am, too. We need some stubbornness as God told Ezekiel He would make his forehead harder than the others in order to maintain his preaching, but I think we all cross the line a little. You're a bit like Bro Epley, too. you KNOW he believes there were immersions, since he said so. You just want him to say there were "BAPTISMS" to prove him wrong and he won't do that, but you already know he technically believes there were.

At any rate, you had lots of time to respond to my questions and never did. Will you answer my questions? I am genuinely interested in full pret answers to them.

Now, I believe all this entire BAPTISM war started because it was accused by fp's that the New testament preachers would not preach something unless it was also related in the Old Testament, whether by type of unknown understanding to those in the OT how wrote about it.

Bro Epley said Baptism is not in the old, and that started this baptism war going on for days now. But the original issue was if something like rapture could be in the New Testament without having to be in the Old somewhere first.

I made the signature of another FP. with my words! Hooray! First Bro. Benincasa quoted some of my words in his signature, and now afp1996 is. And the intention is to make me look bad, I think. lol

Anyway, so I asked why anyone would think a truth revealed in the NT has to be found in the Law somewhere. I agree with Bro Epley that some truths revealed in the New had no reference at all in the Law. I claim that is what Paul meant by saying he showed them a mystery in 1 Cor1 5 about the change of the flesh and the rapture in 1 Thess 4. Some mysteries are noted in the Law but no one at that time could understand them. Some were in type form. I DO BELIEVE there are types and shadows of rapture in the Law, though. I can provide them, if that solves your problem. But who said something preached in the New has to be contained in the Law or Old Testament as well even in type or not?

So, I answered your questions, and ask you to answer mine.
1) Why the personal plural pronouns in Phil 3:20 are limited to the church, showing that the same must be held for that used in verse 21.
Regarding No. 1, I asked how you could insist OUR VILE BODY refers to those of the church AND other people to whom Paul formerly belonged, namely unsaved Israel when verse 20 limits the personal plural pronouns in context of verses 20 and 21 to the saved people? The reason I referred to the limitation of verse 20 pronouns to saved people is that this shows who is referred to as "OUR" in verse 21 -- ONLY saved people. This disproves your thought, I believe. And since they are saved people whom Paul speaks of in verse 21, and nothing referred to as a body concerning saved people was "vile" except their mortal physical bodies, OUR VILE BODY cannot refer to anything but the physical body.

Yes, you responded generally about phil 3:21 but not to the particular argument about the personal plural pronouns used in verse 20 and 21 in response to your arguments. The argument stopped with me making this particular point. We discussed Phil 3:21 until I asled you about the personal plural pronouns continuity in verse 20 to 21 and it stopped there with no more respones from you.
2) How the BODY is a container in 2 Cor 5, and that saying the spiritual body is not physical and thereby lose its containing function.

3) Why can we be absent from the body with the Lord if when we physically die we HAVE A SPIRITUAL BODY

3) What Romans 8 means about the creation groans waiting for the redemption of our bodies when sons of God are manifested.

4) Why Jesus "dieth no more, death has no more dominion over Him," in Romans 6 if He has no physical body that can die.

5) Why Romans 6 answers the issue of death in Romans 5 that Adam brought into the world by His sin by having Jesus physically die.
If you already answered them, then please provide the link to the answers.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:47 PM
afp1996 afp1996 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 344
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
I made the signature of another FP. with my words! Hooray! First Bro. Benincasa quoted some of my words in his signature, and now afp1996 is. And the intention is to make me look bad, I think. lol
My intention was not to make you bad. It was to aide in disproving Rapture Doctrine. There is nothing personal about this at all Brother.
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:23 PM
Jason B Jason B is offline
Saved by Grace


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Decatur, TX
Posts: 5,247
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by afp1996 View Post
Brother, you have a belief that he didn't. Your point is lost in your reasoning. Your have been asked over and over again where the gap is in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. You finally said it is 24:15. So how do you come to the conclusion that there is an "x" number of years gap between Matthew 24:14 and 24:15? Might I remind you that I asked you this in our debate. It was one of only two questions that I did ask you.

Now that the debate is over. I will address those questions you asked. So there should be no reason for you to balk at the questions asked of you.
Please find the quote where I said there is a gap between verse 14 and 15, that is ridicuous and grasping at straws. Not that I'm suprised.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards

"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship

"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill

Last edited by Jason B; 05-27-2009 at 06:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:37 PM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,161
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by afp1996 View Post
My intention was not to make you bad. It was to aide in disproving Rapture Doctrine. There is nothing personal about this at all Brother.
I will take your word for it. However, the same can be accomplished by simply saying 'What is in the New Testament must also be in the Old, such as the rapture."

But I still ask why you feel something must be in the Old Testament in order for it to be understood as being in the New.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:24 PM
TK Burk's Avatar
TK Burk TK Burk is offline
Lamb Saved & Shepherd Led


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,729
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
For the record, Bro Burk, let me answer your questions. My words related the answers, anyway, if you look more carefully. I said that I read some of your posts and did not read others. I said I set you on ignore. Both were true. IGNORE allows a VIEW of each individual post that is initially not visible, if one so chooses.
Uhm, Bro. Blume, this is not what you were saying during that time. Here is what you did say....

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Like I said, I am out of the situation, bro. I have placed the two other B's on ignore for weeks now and cannot read their posts. So critique of my posts by them will be missed, since I am not reading their posts.

The IGNORE function blocks out their posts so that I cannot read them.
It has proved useless for me to speak to them.

How's that for looking "more carefully"?

So, again Bro. Blume, were you telling the truth here or not? If you were, how did you post what we posted without reading what we wrote?
__________________
The Bible is open to those that want Truth, and if they want Truth, they find Truth. They watch individuals squabble over Bible symbolism on the Internet, and leave the Message boards to enter into the real world where live people dwell, and they find Truth. The World Wide Web is full of Internet Ayatollahs who speak their mind. There is only one Truth, and it is not hidden. No matter what anyone says, Truth still converts the sincere.
 -DD Benincasa, 12/06/03

www.tkburk.com
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:26 PM
afp1996 afp1996 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 344
Re: You Be The Judge: Afp1996 vs Jason

Quote:
Secondly, Jerusalem isn't being spoken of in Rev.18 In order for this to be one has to 1)change the dating of Revelation 2)put the blood of all prophets, SAINTS, and ALL slain on the earth. and 3)reconcile the fact that the prophecy says the city shall be "found no more at all" with the fact that Jerusalem exists as a major city in our world. This isn't the case with Sodom or Babylon.
You have only one extremely vague pre-Catholic source for a late date of the Book of Revelation. The translation of the term “it” in that single source could easily be also rendered “he” making what was seen was John rather than the vision. What is more important is the internal evidence within the Book itself. That should be the final source for it's dating. Let me expound on this for a moment.

(Rev 1:9) I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Notice that John states that he was in tribulation with the church. This is interesting because according to you, the tribulation has not started yet. Also notice that it is during this tribulation that he is sent to the Patmos Island, because of his preaching the Word of God and for testifying of Jesus Christ.

Then notice here:

(Rev 11:1) And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

If the dating of the Book of Revelation was later than AD70 then John wrote a book to seven churches that made no since to them because there would be no temple in Jerusalem to reference this scripture to.

(Rev 11:8) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

This city termed “the great city” is Jerusalem where Jesus was crusified. Jerusalem is call Sodom and is called Egypt by John. This becomes important when we get to chapter 17 and 18.

(Rev 17:5) And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
(Rev 17:18) And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Within the Book of Revelation, there are two cities referenced. Jerusalem and New Jerusalem. This is the theme throughout the New Testament. Which can be seen here:

(Heb 12:18) For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
(Heb 12:19) And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
(Heb 12:20) (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
(Heb 12:21) And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake
(Heb 12:22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
(Heb 12:23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
(Heb 12:24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
(Heb 12:25) See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
(Heb 12:26) Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
(Heb 12:27) And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
(Heb 12:28) Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
(Heb 12:29) For our God is a consuming fire.

(Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
(Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
(Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
(Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
(Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Next to this is the fact that John gives us an indication of the date he saw the vision.

(Rev 17:10) And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Five Kings who were fallen: 1) Julius Caesar, 2) Caesar Augustus, 3) Tiberius Caesar, 4) Gaius Caligula Caesar, 5) Claudius Caesar.

One is: Nero Caesar- Nero banished John to the Isle of Patmos.

One is to come, but will only continue a short space, and will be of the seven: Galba Caesar who was not of the line of Julius, so was not a direct decendant of him.

The dating the Book of Revelation should really be viewed by the internal evidence. This is not all of the evidence in the Book.

Second, I don't have to put the blood of all slain on the earth on Jerusalem. Jesus did a fine job of doing that right here:

(Mat 23:29) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
(Mat 23:30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
(Mat 23:31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
(Mat 23:32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
(Mat 23:33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(Mat 23:34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
(Mat 23:35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(Mat 23:36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(Mat 23:37) O 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!
(Mat 23:38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
(Mat 23:39) For 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.

The Jerusalem of today is by no means the Jerusalem of the pre-AD70 period. For you to say that it is is not only bad science but irresponsible. Also, Babylon is here today as modern Iraq and all the countries which Babylon controlled. Jerusalem is the same. The geographical location is not what is being spoken about here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Gently Sister Alvear Fellowship Hall 10 01-02-2009 07:31 PM
Jason Upton? Dedicated Mind Fellowship Hall 12 12-01-2008 12:01 AM
Jason crabb pittsgirl The Music Room 1 11-27-2008 12:56 AM
Judge Not Sister Alvear Fellowship Hall 53 05-26-2008 10:48 PM
Permission to Judge? Kutless Fellowship Hall 4 05-03-2007 12:27 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.