Jump to content
Melvind

Trinity vs Unitarian Discussion - Is Jesus God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ali_Hussain said:

I thought that arians just believed that the father was superior to the son?

Not that the son wasn't some kind of god.

There were several kinds. Would have set up a sort of polytheism, which "Nicene"Christians rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeftCoastMom said:

There were several kinds. Would have set up a sort of polytheism, which "Nicene"Christians rejected.

I think the issue is that my definition of a unitarian would be someone who believes that the father is God, and the son is a prophet of God.

But Arianus believed that the father was the uncreated master of all things,  and the son was a creation ?  So basically no matter how great a creation he was, it is far from the concept of the trinity - which is why he is sometimes thought of as a unitarian?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, baqar said:

True but Nicea saw the entrenchment of the Trinity concept for posterity and the collapse of the rival view.

It actually did not, at least as far as the Empire was concerned.  As I stated, there were Arian emperors ( and a pagan one) after Constantine,including his own family. Constantine himself exiled Athanasius and was going to let Arius come back from exile so long as people behaved.  Julian ( the pagan) pretty much  let them all come back. There were rival Arian councils. Many  of the Germanic tribes were Arian for centuries after Nicea. I don't think things were settled for most of the empire until Theodosius. However, Nicea formed the creedal explanation of orthodox Christian theology, which obviously existed well before it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

I think the issue is that my definition of a unitarian would be someone who believes that the father is God, and the son is a prophet of God.

But Arianus believed that the father was the uncreated master of all things,  and the son was a creation ?  So basically no matter how great a creation he was, it is far from the concept of the trinity - which is why he is sometimes thought of as a unitarian?

 

If one thinks of the Son as only a Prophet ( usually thought of as only a human), that would be closer to Soccianism. Ancient Unitarians usually thought of him as far more than that. But you are right they are not Trinitarians.

(What we call " Unitarians" in the US today are different again.)

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

I think the issue is that my definition of a unitarian would be someone who believes that the father is God, and the son is a prophet of God.

But Arianus believed that the father was the uncreated master of all things,  and the son was a creation ?  So basically no matter how great a creation he was, it is far from the concept of the trinity - which is why he is sometimes thought of as a unitarian?

 

Arius believed that "The son" was of the same "essence" as God, created by God, and subordinate to the Father, God.

It is also believed he was influenced by the writings of Origen but not totally convinced the "Son" could be without beginning. 

This is the big wahoo about Father/Son.

Arius understood the Son to be "Logos", aka "The Word" which took on and indwelled the person of Jesus as described in the Gospel according to John. The Bible says Jesus would be called the son of God, and He was, but only by those who saw past the person of Jesus. Those who heard about but did not see could only assume.

This is why I can agree when the Qur'an says "Far be it for God to have a son". In reference to Jesus, it's impossible. Of course, when the Qur'an was compiled, Christianity was predominantly trinitarian, and running around preaching the person Jesus was God. Seeing Muhammad spent so much time getting rid of idolatry, and hearing people preach what sounds like more than one god, what else would he think?

Simple points Arius may have studied to bring him to this understanding could have been found in John 1 where it also describes John the Baptist as not being the "light" but to bear witness of it. Two words used to describe what indwelled Jesus was the Word, and the Light.

Quote

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Notably God was before the beginning and created the beginning.

Quote

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The Spirit of God would seem to be as eternal as God Himself. The fact it says "spirit of God" and not just God tells me there is more than just the "essence" of God, because I can't see God as a simple spirit

Quote

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Creation of light came before the creation of the sun. Let it be and it was. If this is the light John was referring to, then we have the birth of Logos, aka the light recorded in the first three verses of the Bible. You have to admit, it makes more sense than a trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, theologians don't conflate the created light of Genesis with the Logos. The operative concepts in John are present in the first verse:

 
 
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 
(John 1:1 )In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2017 at 5:32 PM, Son of Placid said:

 

Arius was not the founder of Unitarianism. Unitarianism happened with the Protestant reformation. They may have contemplated his initial concept but I doubt Arius would accept what they did with it.

 

When speaking about 'Unitarianism' it is important to differentiate between the relatively modern Unitarian movement and the ancient Unitarian movement.

I would agree that Arius didn't found Unitarianism . The movement predated him. Muslims would argue that a form of Unitarianism was the original Christianity since it discusses Jesus as a created being. 

In addition to that as I said before the council of Nicea did not regognise or endorse a 'trinity' concept rather it excluded the Unity concept and endorsed a di-ity concept.

The Trinity wasnt recognised till 60 years later.

My challenge would be if the majority of the great and the good in Nicea already agreed to a trinity concept why wasnt it accepted at Nicea.

Its commonly misquoted as being a Nicean creed however this a false assertian and maybe an attempt at a cover up of the Trinity origin

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the wrong questions are being asked here. Questions of which came first, trinitarianism, Unitarianism or anything in between. 

The topic is very subjective in nature, and has been since people have been in discussion of it. And with that, I don't see why it has to be a question of which came first. Rather I would say, they may have come about at the same time.

people will naturally diverge in thought on subjective matters and that's what we have.

the only people who might have been exempt from this subjection would be people who walked with Christ. But given that this would have occurred 2 thousand years ago, I'm not sure that people at large knew how to differentiate between someone who was divine vs simply being a pious person.

so it's nice to discuss these things, but I don't think anyone is really in a position to either confirm or reject trinitarianism or establish which came first. Not on any historical grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

so it's nice to discuss these things, but I don't think anyone is really in a position to either confirm or reject trinitarianism or establish which came first. Not on any historical grounds.

However it is important to recognise when these became codified into the Christian religion.

It is commonly held that the trnity concept became codified into the Christian religion at the Council of Nicea, this is however a false assertion.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' father and son.

The tri-nity came about 60 years later 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

However it is important to recognise when these became codified into the Christian religion.

It is commonly held that the trnity concept became codified into the Christian religion at the Council of Nicea, this is however a false assertion.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' father and son.

The tri-nity came about 60 years later 

Even at the first council of Constantinople it is not declared as such. It gathers the three personas into a tight configuration, but still uses words like, "begotten, not made" and "proceedeth from" . I can accept the words as they are but begotten still has a beginning. "Begat" is a word used in the New Testament. It's used in genealogy and both times used to show the human lineage of Jesus. 

The interesting thing about Matthew is, as a previous tax collector, he had more interest in the legal genealogical records of the time. As proper in those days, he followed the line of the father. After doing such a great job with the research, he ends it with...Who was the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus. Considering the virgin birth, (which John neither confirms nor denies in this topic) it means Jesus shared no DNA with all those people in the begat list. Not confusing at all.

9 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

However, theologians don't conflate the created light of Genesis with the Logos. The operative concepts in John are present in the first verse:

 
 
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 
(John 1:1 )In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

Theologians could never consider anything created as God, so no, they wouldn't go there. "Let there be..." is kind of vague. It gives no hints to the actual process nor the events, timeline, just a "Be and it is"  We know the light was not the sun. We don't know what else this light was or capable of.

This goes back to what iCambrian said, people will naturally diverge in thought on subjective matters.

I still haven't learned any Greek. I have trouble with θεόν and θεὸς, especially when Strongs' interpretation of both are 

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 
4a) God's representative or viceregent 
5) of magistrates and judges

Looks a lot like the description of Elohim from the Hebrew.

Somewhere in the middle of all this the JW's added an "a" to 1:1, as in λόγος  was a God. I used to use that against them as in..."How is it you have two Gods?" First response is, what are you talking about? Once explained, the next response is, I'll get back to you. That was the end of the weekly visits.

Not going to convince anyone, and not saying I'm any closer to the truth, just the more I study without the preconceived doctrines the less of a trinity I see. I still see a "Godhead" but I'm more convinced that every time you see an assumed reference to God in the Bible, it doesn't always mean God Almighty. 

In the same sense, the Jews would say the "word" is either written or spoken, but that doesn't explain how, "The word came to him..." statements all over Genesis where the "word" seemed to play a rather active role. The Jews also consider, "I am that I am" to mean "I am what I am", but such a statement made by Jesus could never end in a blasphemy case if context matters.

Just some of the reasons I looked beyond trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

It gathers the three personas into a tight configuration, but still uses words like, "begotten, not made" and "proceedeth from" .

Hi SoP

My understanding is that the word "begotten" is a mis-translation of the Greek. And that a better translation should be "unique".

"Begotten" does not make sense anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

However it is important to recognise when these became codified into the Christian religion.

It is commonly held that the trnity concept became codified into the Christian religion at the Council of Nicea, this is however a false assertion.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' father and son.

The tri-nity came about 60 years later 

I would imagine belief in the trinity existed prior to the counsel of nicea. What does it matter when it was codified?

(aside from simply being an interesting topic)

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It certainly did or there obviously wouldn't have been such a dust-up. but ,as I said at the start, there were differing ideas. The Church believes the correct one, by which all mainstream Christians adhere today, won out.

Theophilus ( second century)
It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

Others...

Ignatius  the Bishop of Antioch

, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and later Bishop of Lyons

Didache, Origen, etc. articulated the concept .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I would imagine belief in the trinity existed prior to the counsel of nicea. What does it matter when it was codified?

(aside from simply being an interesting topic)

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

 

I suppose I'm indifferent to the point being proposed. 

I am trying to think of comparable topics. The theory of evolution comes to mind.

A school council may teach the theory of evolution, excluding the evolution of man (as is done in some areas of Iran) for example.

but what a school council establishes 

A. May not be the whole truth, but rather just an initial step toward truth. 

B. May be the whole truth.

And

C. May be on the hearts and minds of a portion.

D. May be on the hearts and minds of a majority.

The council ultimately isn't the end all be all of establishment of truth. It is a gathering to hammer out details to work toward truth.

trinitarianism may have been present throughout the minds and hearts of the majority, though it may have been a step by step process, establishing ideas amongst a community.

trinitarianism may have been of the hearts and minds of a minority, regardless, the council isn't necessarily designed to establish a final truth.

regardless, there hasn't been enough said in this topic to establish that trinitarian views were not in the hearts and minds of people of the council. On the contrary, people appear to agree that it was. So the topic turns to a question of "how many?" 50%, 25%, 75%? 

Im not sure that anyone could know. 

But beyond that further, I kind of am in line with andres yet again, that I don't really think it matters. I think it would matter more to a Muslim trying to establish his own faith by discrediting some forms of Christianity. Though to many Christians, following Christ can be done independently of if you belief he is fully God or not. When He preaches grace and love, whether He was God or not, becomes irrelevant to the truth of His words.

anyway, good topic though, thanks for sharing.

if this topic were to go any further, the next step would be to describe who all was at the council, and what their specific beliefs were, to establish the prominence or lack thereof  of trinitarianism.

in an election we can name the number of democrats, republicans, independents, Green Party figures, facists, socialists etc. Can the same be done with the council of nicea? And beyond that, is there documentation on each of their beliefs regarding trinitarianism? This is the information necessary to establish if they were a minority or majority.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity.

Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine.

However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was 

Di-ity vs Unity

My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was  

The first generation Christians did not agree on everything and the Bible does not explain everything either. Different views on the relation Jesus-God inevitabke had to occure. The trinity formula was a descicion that was reached by voting. Not all agreed, those that differed were tolerated as long as they kept quiet. The dogma was necessary in trying to keep the unity within the Church. In 1153 (or so) the Church was split. Orthodox and Catholics do not havr exactly the same view on trinity. If you are interested in the history, there are many books to chose among.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicea was primarily a discussion on the nature of Christ ,not the Trinity...but that does not mean the Trinity was not a major concept  already extant in the Church. It doesn't surprise me the Alexandrines were so active in this. The Alexandrine Jews were discussing even the  λόγος concepts in their own way well before Jesus. Was quite beautiful.

There were around 300 bishops there ....Since all the bishops but two signed the Creed , I think the dominant idea prevailed. ( Athanasius,though still just a deacon, was there ).The Creed itself also reflects Trinitarian concepts and is based on far older writings...and likely baptismal formulas in use from very early times.

sorry, a bit short in time today...it is Sunday after all.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

 Not all agreed, those that differed were tolerated as long as they kept quiet. The dogma was necessary in trying to keep the unity within the Church. In 1153 (or so) the Church was split. 

We are in agreement. The dogma was chosen to preserve unity but that doesnt mean it was the correct dogma. As I was pointing out I can find no evidence anyone proposing a trinitarian concept before the Council of Nicea and even then it was codified till much much later.

The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' not a trinity

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 

I suppose I'm indifferent to the point being proposed. 

I am trying to think of comparable topics. The theory of evolution comes to mind.

A school council may teach the theory of evolution, excluding the evolution of man (as is done in some areas of Iran) for example.

but what a school council establishes 

A. May not be the whole truth, but rather just an initial step toward truth. 

B. May be the whole truth.

And

C. May be on the hearts and minds of a portion.

D. May be on the hearts and minds of a majority.

The council ultimately isn't the end all be all of establishment of truth. It is a gathering to hammer out details to work toward truth.

trinitarianism may have been present throughout the minds and hearts of the majority, though it may have been a step by step process, establishing ideas amongst a community.

trinitarianism may have been of the hearts and minds of a minority, regardless, the council isn't necessarily designed to establish a final truth.

regardless, there hasn't been enough said in this topic to establish that trinitarian views were not in the hearts and minds of people of the council. On the contrary, people appear to agree that it was. So the topic turns to a question of "how many?" 50%, 25%, 75%? 

Im not sure that anyone could know. 

But beyond that further, I kind of am in line with andres yet again, that I don't really think it matters. I think it would matter more to a Muslim trying to establish his own faith by discrediting some forms of Christianity. Though to many Christians, following Christ can be done independently of if you belief he is fully God or not. When He preaches grace and love, whether He was God or not, becomes irrelevant to the truth of His words.

anyway, good topic though, thanks for sharing.

if this topic were to go any further, the next step would be to describe who all was at the council, and what their specific beliefs were, to establish the prominence or lack thereof  of trinitarianism.

in an election we can name the number of democrats, republicans, independents, Green Party figures, facists, socialists etc. Can the same be done with the council of nicea? And beyond that, is there documentation on each of their beliefs regarding trinitarianism? This is the information necessary to establish if they were a minority or majority.

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Nicea was primarily a discussion on the nature of Christ ,not the Trinity...but that does not mean the Trinity was not a major concept  already extant in the Church. It doesn't surprise me the Alexandrines were so active in this. The Alexandrine Jews were discussing even the  λόγος concepts in their own way well before Jesus. Was quite beautiful.

There were around 300 bishops there ....Since all the bishops but two signed the Creed , I think the dominant idea prevailed. ( Athanasius,though still just a deacon, was there ).The Creed itself also reflects Trinitarian concepts and is based on far older writings...and likely baptismal formulas in use from very early times.

sorry, a bit short in time today...it is Sunday after all.

See again you miss the point if the Trinity doctrine had been extant in the church as you are implying then the Council of Nicea would have been discussing Un-ity vs Di-Ity vs Trin-Ity

Instead Trinity was not discussed as a concept or doctrine at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

I'm not making nor rejecting a claim. For you to propose that the trinity was not in the hearts and minds of people at the council, you would have to show that. 

As far as I am aware though, everyone here is in agreement that trinitarian belief predates the council. So the question becomes, what number of attendants may or may not have had this view. So if you're trying to determine the number of trinitarian vs non trinitarian figures, then just as I mentioned before, you would have to have an idea of who all was there and what their individual beliefs were.

 

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed.

Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading.

You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam.

As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity) 

And if the original Christians were not Unitarian, what would it mean to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

I'm not making nor rejecting a claim. For you to propose that the trinity was not in the hearts and minds of people at the council, you would have to show that. 

As far as I am aware though, everyone here is in agreement that trinitarian belief predates the council. So the question becomes, what number of attendants may or may not have had this view. So if you're trying to determine the number of trinitarian vs non trinitarian figures, then just as I mentioned before, you would have to have an idea of who all was there and what their individual beliefs were.

 

 

No offence meant to anyone but it beggars belief that all these bishops kept 'trinity' hidden in their hearts and minds at the council of Nicea and added their names to a di-ity model.

Since only God can truly tell us what is in the hearts & mind of men we have to judge them on their written record.

Their written record shows no evidence of belief in the trinity. In fact I would ask you to prove that trinity was in their hearts and minds even as they signed up to a di-ity model.

You are doing a disservice to your bishops of old to suggest they would mislead the masses by signing up to di-ity whilst believing in trinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

And if the original Christians were not Unitarian, what would it mean to you?

More importantly if the original Christians were Unitarian what difference would it make to you.

I am comfortable with the belief that they were Unitarian because there is no indication there was trinity till well after Nicea. Despite all your protestations to the contrary you cannot submit any proof because the main argument at Nicea was Un-ity vs Di-ity and the majority of the Bishops signed up to Di-ity .

Trinity wasn't even discussed  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

No offence meant to anyone but it beggars belief that all these bishops kept 'trinity' hidden in their hearts and minds at the council of Nicea and added their names to a di-ity model.

Since only God can truly tell us what is in the hearts & mind of men we have to judge them on their written record.

Their written record shows no evidence of belief in the trinity. In fact I would ask you to prove that trinity was in their hearts and minds even as they signed up to a di-ity model.

You are doing a disservice to your bishops of old to suggest they would mislead the masses by signing up to di-ity whilst believing in trinity

It sounds to me like the counsel didn't have the objective of affirming the trinity. Beyond that, for me is just speculation. And this is no disservice to anyone, it's just an observation.

perhaps those who believed, were not in a position to support it or hadn't formulated a scriptural based set of arguments. Perhaps they first needed to demonstrate divinity of Jesus before they could argue for the Holy Spirit and trinity. Perhaps communities were not ready. Ultimately i really couldn't say, as I'm not well versed on the interests of those historic figures. 

As far as I can tell, and people like son of placid and LCM and andres would likely know more than I do, but based on what I've read online and in this discussion, trinitarian ideas pre existed the counsel of nicea. And beyond that, within 50-60 years, which isn't that long, it's within a single lifetime, trinitarian ideas appeared to dominate in certain Christian groups...

this implies that, there is good likelyhood that trinitarian beliefs, even if just in a minority, likely existed amongst early bishops and Christian communities.

but I'm not the one proposing that they simply didn't exist, as you seem to be, for which you have no proof. Your proposal thus far has been baseless.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×