Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why did the High Priest tear his garment?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Why don't you try a non muslim source. I also showed you evidence of Tacticus reliability that was not answered.

Richard Carrier.

He thoroughly debunks the reference to Tacitus in light of what is explained there and which none of your posts answer. 

Here is a summary of the points

- Tacitus writes 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic.

- He does not mention crucifixion

- None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works

- Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources.

- There is only 1 surviving copy of this writing, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands who wrote history, meaning it was most probably another forgery, very similar to the Josephus insertion.

- Sulpicius Severus a 5th century Christian writer quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words, but without any reference to Jesus

- There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate and here we have the most renouned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the  is absent from

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

It doesn' t matter If it was 150 years after. Lucian shows the knowledge of the time

Prove that he was not mockingly repeating what Christians themselves believed 150 years after Jesus.

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

You don't want me to trust someone 150 years after yet you expect me to believe what an illiterate man who says Yeshua never died more than 500+ years after the facts without any collaboration or non quranic sources.

The Quran does not give any evidence. It merely points to the confusion of the matter as proof of it being fiction.

As has been established in this thread, the inconsistencies of the Gospels as to Iesous' supposed death, the untenable claims in light of known history, the lack of corroborating evidence to the extraordinary events allegedly occuring the day he was crucified, all point to Iesous' depiction in the NT as fabrication.

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Where is the evidence that Yeshua did some houdini act, disobeyed God by not following his will and had someone else take his place on the cross.

Not what the Quran says. See this https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/islam-critiqued-questions-quranic.html?m=1

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

where is the collaborating evidence in history about this man splitting the moon in half?

Irrelevant to the topic. The attempted parallel is weak as we do not have contemporary records of Arabian astronomers like we do have Roman records of seismic activities in Jesus' days, with none corroborating the NT tale. The moon splitting miracle in addition opens more cans of worms to the Christian apologists. 

Open another thread if you wish to debate this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Yeshu was killed on the eve of passover

Iesous was killed on the eve of passover or on passover itself?

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

who also created miracles and his enemies believed he enticed Israel to Apostacy

There were many miracle workers in Jesus' day and before.

The most these multiple Yeshus of the Talmud that only conform to the NT in minor points prove, is that this Iesous character is inspired from stories of the Talmud that predate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

It was not irrelevant to Romans

That is not the point. How is rebellion against the pagan state relevant to Jewish law?

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

The reason for the jewish trial was to find a reason to put Yeshua to death

Which motive did they find that would constitute guilt under Jewish law and why would a religious charge matter to the Romans?

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

but since they could not execute the order they manipulated the governor Pontius Pilate and the Romans to do their dirty work for them.

Why did they not simply go to Pilate directly without the irrelevant Jewish trial then?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Really Isaiah 53 says hi and so does the prophecies of Daniel and others.

None of that speaks of Iesous. And where do either passages show that the messiah must die, resurrect and then return to accomplish his purpose?

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Messiah ben Joseph already appeared

Ben Yoseph and ben David are 2 different individuals that will appear together. If Jews repent only ben David will show up.

Nothing to do with Iesous.

11 hours ago, tek91 said:

You know that after the death of Mendel Schneerson's his followers expected him to rise from the grave....they were outside. Beth Israel Hospital expecting their Rebbe would miracously return to them.

Don't you find that interesting.

Sure, but nothing to do with the unscriptural idea of a messiah dying for people's sins then resurrecting to accomplish his task.

Some among his followers still believe he could be the messiah due to his accomplishments (none of which Iesous even comes close). The logic behind the idea of him resurrecting is because in the age of the messiah, in which they firmly believe they were, righteous people will be resurected and since that includes him, why couldn't he then be the messiah even of all HB requirements werent fulfilled in his life? 

 

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Richard Carrier.

He thoroughly debunks the reference to Tacitus in light of what is explained there and which none of your posts answer. 

Here is a summary of the points

- Tacitus writes 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic.

- He does not mention crucifixion

- None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works

- Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources.

- There is only 1 surviving copy of this writing, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands who wrote history, meaning it was most probably another forgery, very similar to the Josephus insertion.

- Sulpicius Severus a 5th century Christian writer quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words, but without any reference to Jesus

- There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate and here we have the most renouned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the  is absent from

Hello Nad_M hope your weekend is going well. 

It's very cold outside today.

Yes, Cornelius Tacticus writes 80 years after the events and is not a witness yet he validates the witnesses in the gospels. He validates the fact that at the time it was widely known fact that Yeshua died under the hands of Pontius Pilate. Tacticus wrote that context because he was discussing the fire in Rome and how Nero was blaming the Christians for the fire.

You say he never mentions crucifixion.. What is it with muslims and finding one word for everything?

What is it about suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate that you do not understand? the extreme penalty means he was 100% Killed. The method of executions that Romans used during that time were crucifixions. I don't think you need to be a Harvard Professor to do the math.

The Romans were very devout and absolutely sure when ever they performed a crucifixion they made sure the body was dead if not they would be killed themselves. There was no margin for error.

The rest of what you write is just suspicion hubdla without proof I wont bother to answer. "well it was probably christians who forged it those devils because they are Christians" He basically writes probably this and probably that without any backup just his opinion.

I don't deal with probability if you have evidence bring it if not I don't care to hear it.

The text shows that it was a well known fact that the Romans killed Yeshua during that time and was widely acknowledged by the people. 

Where is evidence that someone else took his place where is the backup to the claims your prophet made 500 years after the event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Cornelius Tacticus writes 80 years after the events and is not a witness yet he validates the witnesses in the gospels

Nobody can ascertain whether he is merely repeating what Christians believe or representing independant Roman testimony. The latter would be extraordinary as the Romans in those days executed people by the 100s daily and did not bother archiving each case.

7 minutes ago, tek91 said:

The rest of what you write is just suspicion

These are valid points revealing a high probability of forgery

8 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Where is evidence that someone else took his place where is the backup to the claims your prophet made 500 years after the event?

That is not what the Quran says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Prove that he was not mockingly repeating what Christians themselves believed 150 years after Jesus.

Why would he? Tacticus was a Roman historian and a politician who did not care for Christians. Why would be repeating what Christians believed to lie for them that makes absolutely no sense at all. Tacticus was making a historical acclamation of Christians who were blamed for the fire in Rome and telling what happened to their leader under Pontius Pilate. He had no reason to want to spread Christian propaganda if it wasn't true.

Where in what he says is there any hint of mockerism? He was a roman historian not a the Joker.

 

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Why would he? Tacticus was a Roman historian and a politician who did not care for Christians. Why would be repeating what Christians believed to lie for them that makes absolutely no sense at all. Tacticus was making a historical acclamation of Christians who were blamed for the fire in Rome and telling what happened to their leader under Pontius Pilate. He had no reason to want to spread Christian propaganda if it wasn't true.

 

Because the same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to thes mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Iesous' crucifixion. If what they preached was "widely known at the time" they would not have been met with ridicule.

It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The Quran does not give any evidence. It merely points to the confusion of the matter as proof of it being fiction.

As has been established in this thread, the inconsistencies of the Gospels as to Iesous' supposed death, the untenable claims in light of known history, the lack of corroborating evidence to the extraordinary events allegedly occuring the day he was crucified, all point to Iesous' depiction in the NT as fabrication.

There was no confusion. As you yourself cannot find any historical text showing that Yeshua never died. All text are adament to the fact that he was 100% killed by the Romans.

The only confusion came from the quran 500 years after the events.

Now that you have been debunked about the death of Jesus being in historical documents you are going back to the Earthquake even though I showed you Luke backs up Matthew and says the Veil was torn in half which was as a result of the Earthquake.

You also show your hypocricy because you can't find any outside evidence of the moon splitting in half by Mohammad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

There was no confusion.

Sure there is. The inconsistencies of the Gospels are testimony to the whole thing being a fabrication. Let alone the lack of corroborating evidence for events no contemporary historian could have missed.

11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

As you yourself cannot find any historical text showing that Yeshua never died

Nobody can prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon Christians due to the magnitude of their claim that must have been witnessed by the thousands, to provide evidence for the truthfulness of the Gospel narrative. 

11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

you are going back to the Earthquake even though I showed you Luke backs up Matthew

He says nothing of the earthquake, although he had every reason to do so. Neither do any contemporary historians that recorded the seismic activity of the region speak of it

11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

the Veil was torn in half which was as a result of the Earthquake.

Curtains tear in 2 due to earthquakes?

 

11 minutes ago, tek91 said:

You also show your hypocricy because you can't find any outside evidence of the moon splitting in half by Mohammad.

Irrelevant to the topic and inapplicable as a counter argument for the reasons mentionned prior.

Open another thread on this subject and ask your question.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

All he brings is garbage. Why don't you try dialoguing about it instead of throwing websites at me to read.

I don't see any evidence in that site just what the quran says and what pagan believes and Mithraism and about Zeus

Ignoring the fact that it was a prophecy in the OT.

All that can be debunked

Anyway I will answer the rest later as I have to go somewhere.

Hope you continue to have a good day :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
56 minutes ago, tek91 said:

Why don't you try dialoguing about it instead of throwing websites at me to read

When tangents irrelevant to the topic are raised, as is the case here regarding the Quran's version of happened to Isa's, a link will be provided with a detailed answer, so as to not deviate the focus from the many problems you are unable to deal with in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Irrelevant to the topic. The attempted parallel is weak as we do not have contemporary records of Arabian astronomers like we do have Roman records of seismic activities in Jesus' days, with none corroborating the NT tale. The moon splitting miracle in addition opens more cans of worms to the Christian apologists. 

Open another thread if you wish to debate this.

This is my topic and you already hijacked it and went off topic long ago on purpose. 

Don't try to hide under your bed from the subject.

You said that a cataclysmic event that no historian records must be fable.

Your book states that Mohammad split the moon in two to show the meccans that he is a prophet. That is a cataclysmic event that would have been witnessed all over the World.

There must have been historians who recorded this event, where are they? This event is only around 1500 years old and would have been recorded by many Nations as such an event would have not onle been witnessed but felt throughout the World.

Where are the historic records and where are documents by NASA of a moon being split in half in any time in history?

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

There were many miracle workers in Jesus' day and before.

The most these multiple Yeshus of the Talmud that only conform to the NT in minor points prove, is that this Iesous character is inspired from stories of the Talmud that predate him.

Who show me evidence of another Yeshu performing miracles who was famous at that same time. Don't try to change the subject.

Where are the evidence of them and their names.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

is not the point. How is rebellion against the pagan state relevant to Jewish law?

Did you read and understand what I told you? Rebellion was used by the Jews to manipulate Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus.

I never said it was revelant to Jewish laws :ko:

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

motive did they find that would constitute guilt under Jewish law and why would a religious charge matter to the Romans?

Not understanding what you are saying.

A religious matter did not matter to the Romans. That's why they told Pilate Yeshua was a threat by rebellion and by claimage of being a king.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:
23 hours ago, tek91 said:

work for them.

Why did they not simply go to Pilate directly without the irrelevant Jewish trial then?

That is obvious they had to find a reason by their law to find him guilty and worthy of death. :brucelee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

None of that speaks of Iesous. And where do either passages show that the messiah must die, resurrect and then return to accomplish his purpose?

It's kinda a lengthy subject but here is a video that speaks about how the suffering servant who dies for sin is Yeshua

There is also evidence of the Daniel Prophecy which had to happen before the destruction of the second temple.

https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-messianic-time-table-according-to-daniel-the-prophet/

The decree of the 70 sevens

 

Daniel 9:24 Gabriel's prophecy to Daniel began with the words, "Seventy sevens are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city…"Many English versions have translated the phrase to read "seventy weeks." But this translation is not totally accurate and has caused some confusion about the meaning of the passage. Most Jews know the Hebrew for "weeks" because of the observance of the Feast of Weeks, and that Hebrew word is shavuot. However, the word that appears in the Hebrew text is shavuim, which means "sevens." The word refers to a "seven" of anything, and the context determines the content of the seven.

Here it is obvious Daniel had been thinking in terms of years—specifically the 70 years of captivity. Daniel had assumed that the captivity would end after 70 years and that the kingdom would be established after 70 years. But here Gabriel was using a play upon words in the Hebrew text, pointing out that insofar as Messiah's kingdom was concerned, it was not "70 years," but "70 sevens of years," a total of 490 years (70 times seven). Daniel was next told by Gabriel that the 70 sevens are to accomplish six purposes. The first is to finish transgression. The Hebrew word translated "to finish" means "to restrain firmly," "to restrain completely" or "to bring to completion." The Hebrew word translated "transgression" is a very strong word for sin and more literally means "to rebel." The Hebrew text has this word with the definite article, so literally it means "the transgression," or "the rebellion." The point is that some specific act of rebellion is finally going to be completely restrained and brought to an end. This act of rebellion or transgression is to come under complete control so that it will no longer flourish. Israel's apostasy is now to be firmly restrained, in keeping with a similar prediction in Isaiah 59:20.

The second purpose of the 70 sevens is to make an end of sins. The Hebrew word translated "to make an end" literally means "to seal up" or "to shut up in prison." It means to be securely kept, locked up, not allowed to roam at random. The Hebrew word translated as "sins" literally means "to miss the mark." It refers to sins of daily life, rather than to one specific sin. Even these sins are to be put to an end and taken away. This, too, is quite in keeping with predictions by the prophets that proclaim that in the messianic kingdom, sinning would cease from Israel (Isaiah 27:9, Ezekiel 36:25-27, 37:23, Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The third purpose is to make reconciliation for iniquity. The Hebrew word translated "to make reconciliation" is "kaphar," which has the same root meaning as the word "kippur," as in Yom Kippur. The word "kaphar" literally means "to make atonement." The third purpose, then, is to make atonement in some way for iniquity. In fact, it is by means of this atonement that the first two purposes will also be accomplished, that of finishing the transgression and making an end of sins. The word translated "iniquity" refers to inward sin. This has sometimes been referred to as the sin nature, or perhaps a more common term among Jewish people would be yetzer hara," the evil inclination."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Ben Yoseph and ben David are 2 different individuals that will appear together. If Jews repent only ben David will show up.

Nothing to do with Iesous.

Where does scripture show that all the prophecies of the Messiah had to happen in one turn? Read what I posted on the suffering servant.

or that Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David would be two different individuals appearing together?

Jews don't believe that, they believe in one individual to accomplish all those tasks.

Messianic Jews debate with them that it's one individual who has accomplished half of the prophecies (suffering servant atoning sin) and will accomplish the other half in the second coming.

No jew believes the references in the OT refer to 2 different individuals.

https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/messianic-prophecies-first-things-first

Here is a great link on the prophecies Yeshua accomplished

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

obody can ascertain whether he is merely repeating what Christians believe or representing independant Roman testimony. The latter would be extraordinary as the Romans in those days executed people by the 100s daily and did not bother archiving each case.

He is not a christian he's a Roman historian he would not lie to promote a belief by christians :dry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure there is. The inconsistencies of the Gospels are testimony to the whole thing being a fabrication. Let alone the lack of corroborating evidence for events no contemporary historian could have missed.

The only thing inconsistent is islam, which contradict both torah/tanach and NT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure there is. The inconsistencies of the Gospels are testimony to the whole thing being a fabrication. Let alone the lack of corroborating evidence for events no contemporary historian could have missed.

The only confusion came from Islam. Before Islam everyone knew Yeshua was killed by Pontius Pilate as I have proven to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Nobody can prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon Christians due to the magnitude of their claim that must have been witnessed by the thousands, to provide evidence for the truthfulness of the Gospel narrative. 

No you are the one that made a claim that Yeshua never died. I have showed plenty of evidence from the nT and outside that the crucifixion happen. You have provided 0 evidence that your isa did some houdini act and someone else took his place on the cross.

Please show me an ounce of evidence for what you say

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

e says nothing of the earthquake, although he had every reason to do so. Neither do any contemporary historians that recorded the seismic activity of the region speak of it

9 hours ago, tek91 said:

the Veil was torn in half which was as a result of the Earthquake.

Curtains tear in 2 due to earthquakes?

Read the account the veil was not just some curtain. The Veil was in the temple and seperated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. 

Matthew says that when the Earthquake occured that same veil was rent in two from top to bottom and Luke validates Matthews account by saying the sun was darkened and the veil of the temple was torn in two and so does mark which says the veil was rent in two from top to bottom.

Now who verifies the claims of Muhammad about the moon being split in half to prove to some point to some meccans.

He didn't even made the point because afterwards he converted them through the sword meaning it was probably a false miracle and he had to force them to change to Islam.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

rrelevant to the topic and inapplicable as a counter argument for the reasons mentionned prior.

Open another thread on this subject and ask your question.

Don't try to hide. Is your quran a fable or truth? If truth why would it say that Mohammad split the moon and there is NO HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OR VERIFICATION.

I wont let you hide from the subject I know it's a tough subject but this moon splitting must be verified.

You claimed that if an event is not historically verified it's a fable.

SO show me historical verification of the famous moon splitting fable of the quran.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

You said that a cataclysmic event that no historian records must be fable.

Sure. Romans contemporaries of Jesus recorded the region's seismic activities. Nothing corroborates the NT tale.

9 hours ago, tek91 said:

Your book states that Mohammad split the moon in two to show the meccans that he is a prophet.

Quote the book in question

9 hours ago, tek91 said:

That is a cataclysmic event that would have been witnessed all over the World.

The earth is flat? According to the bible it is, since we read it has "corners", "boundaries" or "ends" Job38:13,Ps74:17 just like the heaven above it has four corners Zech2:10, and is established upon water Ps24:2, held afloat by pillars. 

That may be the reason for the above assumption that in nighttime, the whole world is in darkness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

show me evidence of another Yeshu performing miracles

The Yeshus of the Babylonian talmud who lived at different times that Iesous and who inspired the NT tale.

They were sorcerers and healers.

So was Iesous crucified on the eve of passover or on passover itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

Rebellion was used by the Jews

That is not the point. Once more:

How is rebellion against the pagan oppressor a Jewish transgression relevant to Jewish courts? You admot yourself ot is irrelevant to Jewish law.

If that is the case, Why did they not directly hand him to Pilate with that accusation and instead went on breaking every possible halakha ruling to set up their irrelevant Sanhedrin?

 

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

That's why they told Pilate Yeshua was a threat by rebellion and by claimage of being a king.

Sure. Why then the need for the irrelevant Sanhedrin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, tek91 said:

That is obvious they had to find a reason by their law to find him guilty and worthy of death

Was this "reason" they found relevant to Roman courts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

It's kinda a lengthy subject

Sure. Because one needs to resort to "make believe" through out of context cut and paste, as well as mistranslations.

Nothing about Iesous in Isaiah 53.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

Where does scripture show that all the prophecies of the Messiah had to happen in one turn?

Because it lists them as criteria by which an individual is to be identified. Scripture isnt required to state whether that individual gets 3 or 10 chances at it through successive deaths and resurrections until he checks all the boxes. Onus is upon Christians, who needed to restrospectively paint the failure of their messiah as purposeful, to show where does it say the messiah must die, resurrect then return to accomplish his task.

Obviously, and as no Christian disagrees, none of the HB messianic criteria ever occured anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. That is why Paul was met with fierce resistence when he preached to Jews and instead turned to the pagans who had no clue of what the Hebrew bible taught. He could now distort and reinterpret every aspect of it, as well as Jesus' teachings so as to fit the paradigms of the pagans he was preaching to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...