The First Christians

Part 1 

It is well known or not so well known that there is no historical evidence for a man called Jesus Christ; the same Christ that appears in the gospels. But let us suppose that a Jesus may have existed outside of Christianity; that is a Jesus that is not at all like the Jesus in the gospels. It may be true even though as yet not proved that a man called Jesus did exist [there were many people called Jesus back then] and he was a teacher of some sort and possibly a founder of a religion rather like Pythagorus was, for example. I myself dismiss the Jesus of the Gospels as a fiction, a character set up in the tradition of the pagan dieing and resurrecting god-man. Many Christians and biblical scholars are quick to tell us this cannot be the case because the prophets foresaw the coming of Christ. This is not true. Daniel, a prophet, did not forsee any Son of God but the Son of Man which will be born not by a virgin but by a young woman. Where would start to look for a historical Jesus outside of Christianity? I`m not sure but I reckon a good place to start is when Judaism became sectarian and when the sectarians longed for some kind of messiah to save them and restore the Davidic throne. The Jews well before the 1st century had always longed for this messiah and they did actually get them one being King Cyrus of
Persia and another Melchizidek.
In the first century however the eschotology of the Jews varied from sect to sect however most if not all Jews expected that the End of Days would come at a future date. However according to a core belief the Davidic throne would have to be restored first to prepare them for these end of days. In
Palestine many Jews were intensely on the look out for their Messiah; a Messiah that would bring them victory and many believed that the coming of this Messiah was very close at hand.  What did they hope from this Messiah? They hoped that the coming Messiah would bring them righteous rule to the Jewish people just like King Cyrus had done earlier. They hoped he would bring an end to suffering and oppression and most of all to give penalty to evil doers. The Jews as you know where not capable of fighting their Roman oppressors by force and so most Jews accepted the foreign invaders and some Jews actually welcomed it. Some Jews became sectarian, went into the dessert to form a new covenant with God. Presumably they were disatissfied with the old orthodox religion which according to historical accounts was thoroughly Hellenized by that time. Jews were forced to the diaspora where they awaited their messiah to bring them glory and return them to the promised land. (This is how I interpret it and I have just gone over it briefly). Under the guidance of the Messiah these sectarian Jews would approach the day when the Kingdom of
God would be established on earth and with the dead fully resurrected.

 The Jews were on the look-out for their Messiah so they would have had to look for someone who would reveal to them something so spectacular; he would have needed to show them that he was their Messiah and it is he would bring them they wanted. The Messiah could not have been someone elected by popular vote. We know that some Jews didn`t believe that Jesus [of the Gospels] was the Messiah. But why so if Jesus performed miracles? If Jesus performed miracles, healed the sick, risen the dead and walked on water why did Jews not believe he was the man to bring them justice? And why would Jews want him killed? Was he perhaps one of those false prophets mentioned in Josephus? 

The eschatological beliefs and expectations of these sectarian Jews are made known to us by the considerable weight of information found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were found in 1947 in some caves very close to
Qumran, which according to historians was the place of an Essenian camp. The equation is thus made that the Essenes may have been writers of the Scrolls and thus marks the Essenes as a proto-Christian cult. Bare in mind that there were many sectarian cults with varied eschatological beliefs however all of them did await a Messiah or saviour in some form or other. The Scrolls give us invaluable information about what the sectarians were expecting. Firstly, they expected that the Messiah would be from the house of Aaron. This means he would have to be some kind of priest. Other sectarians expected a Messiah from a royal house, that of King David. As well as this they expected that some kind of teacher to be sent to them to teach them the Law before the coming of the Messiah. Perhaps this teacher would echo the Moses figure of Judaism?.

 According to the Dead Sea Scrolls the teacher was called “The Teacher of Righteousness” and his role would have been to teach the Jews about the law rather like Moses once did in the old story. If they really mean Moses then the teacher of Righteousness would have to be resurrected since Moses was long dead. Was the Jesus of the Gospels to be the Teacher of Righteousness? I don`t know. According to the saying Jesus Christ came “to fulfill the law”, but did he mean ‘teach the Law’ or carry it out after it had been fully taught? If Jesus really did come to fulfill the Law why then were many Jews still oppressed long after the death of Christ? Of course Christian scribes would have needed to make a theological excuse for this by stating that the death of Christ [the crucifixtion] was the fulfillment of the Law. Whoever fabricated the character of Paul was ingenious in ascribing such a theory to their murdered Messiah? Was it perhaps guilt or shame or both that lead the scribes to interpret the death of Christ this way? I mean that if Christ was to be the one and only true Messiah and yet he was killed and they were still not saved…..think about that one! In the Scrolls themselves it mentions two Messiahs one from the hosuse of Aaron and one from the house of the royal David, a king of Jews. The Christians called Jesus King of the Jews so if we are to take Jesus [of the Gospels] as the Messiah he would have been born from the house of David and not the house of Aaron. Some scholars are trying to wrestle with the idea that the two Messiahs are aspects of one Messiah. Some scholars have a theory that the Teacher of Righteousness is also an aspect of the one Messiah. We know that the Jesus of the Gospels was the Messiah and we know he was King to the Jews and often he is referred to directly or indirectly as a righteous teacher. I can see why scholars believe that the two Messiahs and the Teacher of Righteousness is just the one Messiah that they all awaited for.Also I can see that the Jesus of the Gospels is quite different to the Messiahs of the sectarians mentioned in the scrolls and this would be enough to conclude that there was no connection there. But not that much different; the Jesus of the Gospels was indeed of David descent, he was a Rabbi and he taught wisdom which would all make him a teacher and a Messiah. My conclusion here is that the Jesus of the Gospels fits perfectly in with the long awaited Messiah of the sectarians of the Scrolls. 

According to historical records and some scholars the Teacher of Rightoeusness of the Essenes was a real person who existed. And some scholars believe that the Christians much later would have identified the teacher with their very own idea of Jesus Christ. This makes the Jesus of the Gospels a character set up from a real figure that existed many years ago and was called the Teacher of Righteousness. The Catholic Church upon hearing this condemned the scholars who made this connection and the Scrolls were declared heretical. The Catholic Church of course as had a history of calling works and theories heretical without actually having the authority to do so. As we all know the Catholic Church has been covering things up for centuries and they don`t want us to know certain things so they declare any new inteligence or information as heretical.  part 2 

To me the Jesus of the Gospels is a fiction and a rework on a real figure called the Teacher of Righteousness of the eschatological sectarian Jews of which the ideas, beliefs and words are presented to us in the Dead Sea Scrolls found in caves close to
Qumran.
 Now lets find out which sectarian camp this Teacher of Righteousness belonged to. Many scholars point to the Essenes and that point is widespread and possibly most likely to be the case. To find out what where the sectarian camps of the early first century we must look to historical accounts and the only historian we can use for this is Josephus.Josephus mentions that in the early first century there were three Judaic sectarian camps one Saduccee, one Pharisee and another the Essenes. Josephus calls them “Essenes” too.Josephus writes much about the Essenes more than the other two camps. This is rather odd because orthodox Jews disregard the Essenes as having no relevance to Judaism and Josephus was indeed an orthodox Jew. Now the Gospel Jesus was most certainly not Pharisee and not Saducee as his position on them are obvious to any biblical reader. That only leaves the Essene sectarian camp to belong to. Was there anyother sectarian camp at that time? Not according to Jospehus and no other historian mentions any other sectarians. The Jesus of the Gospels would have been an Essenian rabbi, teacher or Messiah. 

To confirm Josephus on this we have the Cairo Documents which were found in 1896 by Solomon Schechter; these documents prove that Josephus was right; there existed only three sectarian camps in the first century. The Scrolls themselves also agree with Josephus and together the Scrolls and the Cairo Documents are considered a part of the sectarian Scroll materials. From these documents we can see that the Essenes began when a group of people from the house of Zadokite withdrew from Judaism because they saw corruption in it. According to the Scrolls a few years later a Teacher of Righteousness joined them and thus making a new covenant with God.. The Zadokites fled to the dessert, according to the scrolls this would be the dessert land near
Damascus. The New Covenant was an agreement for ensuring the obeservance of the Mosaic Law and we know this today as the New Testament.
 The word Essene it must be pointed out does not occur in any of the Scroll texts and it does not appear in the New Testament. In the NT an alternate name is used for the sectarians. Only in Josephus and a few others does the word Essene appear. In the scrolls the sectarians are refered to as the ‘Way’, [also the ‘poor’ and ‘The Church of God’].The term ‘Way’ is used in Acts 9:2 of the New Testament and that is how we are led to believe the first Christians were people of the ‘Way’. Even in Christianity today we hear the words “Jesus is the way…” and “way of the Lord.” and many other like sayings.The other term used in the Scrolls is the ‘poor’. The word in Hebrew is Ebionim. According to the letters of Paul in the New Testament he [Paul] writes that he was enjoined by the apostles James and Cephas and John, “to remember the poor” that means to remember the Ebionim or the Ebionites as they were known as. Now the Ebionim falls in with much of what Jesus of the Gospels instructed all his followers to do: give up everything, sell all they have and give to the poor. Does this mean give to the Ebionim? Some would say it depends upon what context the word ‘poor’ was used or refered to. Did it refer to the poor or to the Ebionim who were called the ‘poor’ [by way of translation]? Even so the Ebionites were a community, and possessions was given to the community by Jewish ancestors, so, many Jews would have learned about this tradition by their grandparents. 

The last name given to the Essenes was ‘the Church of
God‘ some say ‘Congregation of God’. It is a popular term used by Christian writers in the 2nd century and it is a term used for sectarians.
 Now one name is not used in the Scrolls but is used in the New Testament.  The name was not in use at the time that the scrolls were written, but came about naturally as Christianity prepared itself. In Acts Paul was accused by Tertullus of being a leader of the sect of the Nazoreans. If we are to take the example that the Roman officer Saul of Tarsus went around persecuting people of the ‘Way’ but then converted to their cult under the name Paul we can assume that the Nazoreans had some connection with the ‘Way’ cult. Either the Nazoreans were the ‘Way’ cult under a different name or that the Nazoreans were a separate cult but still had a connection with the ‘Way’ cult. This is probably the reason why myself I think Saul of Tarsus is not the Paul of the Christians especially so if the Nazoreans have no connection whatsoever with the ‘Way’ cult. Remember that Saul converted to the ‘Way’ cult according to Christian texts but in historical texts like Josephus Saul is not given any such conversion. My mind can`t help here but think of that Church propagandist Eusebius who said he will make use of the works of Josephus – what did he mean by that exactly? It is most likely the case that Eusebius made Saul [a real person in Josephus] a work for their make-believe character Paul. Eusebius let us not forget was one of a long line of up-coming Church propagandists on the look out for any material to squander and plunder to make the Church more powerful. I can`t help it but my feeling is that Saul of Tarsus is not the Paul of Christianity. The word ‘Nazaroi’ in which it appears in the New Testament is Greek and is used to mean a member of a sectarian group, rather than a citizen of a place called ‘Nazar-‘ something or other as most people have translated it. Nazareth comes to mind here but
Nazareth does not exist anywhere on any map. I believe it is a confusion and misintrepretation of the word Nazaroi which means a ‘member of…a group, a cult’ rather than a citizen of…a place, a town’.
There are many such instances in the New Testament where this misinterpretation has taken place. There are words that have a meaning that elsewhere has a different meaning.  Paul, if we are to believe he existed at all and if we are to believe Tertullus`s accusation of him being a ‘leader of the Nazoreans’ there is no doubt he was proto-Christian. Christianity describes Paul as a convert to the cult he was persecuting; that would have been the people of the ‘Way’ as Josephus no doubt informs us. Josephus is silent about Saul and his conversion to the cult. The claim that Paul is Saul of Tarsus is not based upon any historical proofs and it is most likely the case that whoever dreamt up the character Paul as appears in the New Testament had a copy of Josephus on hand at the time. My finger points to Eusebius and other propagandists. 

part 3 The stories about Jesus Christ only came about at the end of the first century that is almost 40 years after the supposed time they describe. I always urge Christians and other biblical scholars to be cautious when it comes to the Gospels because in the that time period of 40 years anything can happen not only to written texts, but to words, teachings and events. There are no examples of pre-Gospel writings where Jesus Christ is known by the author; the only one we have comes 40 years or so after the events they describe. 

To early writers the Messiah as a resurrected being, who becomes divine through the resurrection, and whose coming marks the long awaited End of Days. But the Jesus of the Gospels is different. Jesus is a human being portrayed as the Messiah, becomes divine not through resurrection but through the Holy Spirit, refered to in Baptism. But why this stark contrast? It is clear that the information given to us in the Gospels concerning Jesus Christ and everything that it entails about him was not known by early writers. The virgin birth, for example, is not marked by an early writer. The pre-Gospel writers tell us that following his earthly existencethe Lord was resurrected and that he was indeed the long awaited Messiah. Paul in his letters tell us that upon the resurrection Jesus was ‘appointed’ as the son of God, and that he appeared in visions to some members of a brotherhood and that everything that he knew about Jesus he learned from his vision of Christ as the resurrected Messiah. Now Paul never met Jesus at all; he says so himself. He sees only a vision of him. This was the guy according to Christians Saul of
Tarsus who was once a member of many pagan cults and who desired to form his own cult!
 The kind of picture painted by Paul and other early writers about Christianity never mention the amount of information they they must have known about concerning the sectarian process of their origins. Why are they silent? We hear only about Christianity in the Gospels. The early writers obviously didn`t want us to know what they knew about the sectarian process that brought forth Christianity. My conclusion is that the writers are not who they say they are and that the gospels are indeed a work of fiction. 

Paul and other evangelists undoubtedly were involved with the sectarianism that became Christianity and they must have shared some knowledge about the whole process that lead to it. Some say that the evangelists knew nothing about what Paul knew or had believed in and so were silent but that cannot be the case since it would have been very possible that the beliefs of Paul would have been known through his epistles by at least one of them. But the evangels from what we can gather knew nothing about what Paul believed. Some of the teachings of Paul curriously run counter to those teachings of Jesus in the Gospels but this goes unnoticed by many Christians. Paul`s early Messiah and the Jesus of the Gospels written much later are only similar to each other in a broad sense. The early writers that separate their times from Paul`s time is by half a century (40-50 years) and this give us the idea that the flesh and blood Jesus, his life story, and teachings are almost unknown by the early writers. Whoever the Jesus Messiah was of the early writers it is possible that his words were actually known by Paul and the evangelists. Different communities had differing quantities of sayings and teachings at their disposal. The Gospel of Matthew and Mark contains many sayings of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hamadi contains a rich source of sayings and teachings also. Paul may have known something of these sayings. According to Paul in one of his Epistles he advocates a teaching of the Essenes about the prohibition of divorce. It is not certain whether Paul believed this came to him through the words of God or wether he had learned of them through the Essenes themselves. But whatever the case may be Paul is advocating a teaching that was impossible for women to do: divorce her husband. A married woman could not divorce her husband in those days. The same blunder appears in the Gospel of Matthew and this could be proof that the evangelists used Pauline information and inserted it wherever they saw fit. Christian apologists make the claim that the gospels were written in a tradition known as synopsis but if that was the case the blunder appearing in Matthew and Paul`s Epistle could never had been permissible. One has to remember that the gospel story was enacted in Palestine, by Jews, it is unlikely that a blunder such as the one about women divorcing her husband would be presented in the tradition of synoptic writing founded by them. 

Apologists like to use the synoptic tradition clause as a way of ruling out the possibility that the gospel writers had not known of any early teachings concerning Jesus Christ. However the apologetics lose their credibility when confronted with the words of Paul in the recital of the Eucharist. Here Paul says that he learnt the words first hand from his vision. This rules out any possibility of a synoptic tradition in the context of how the gospels were written. Curiously, his closest John, Cephas and James did not discuss this vision and the words of the Eucharist. But the words of Paul in the Eucharist were written years after the said vision took place. In all possibility Paul`s words in the Eucharist might have been original because it does fall in with the idea that the End of Days were near and that the Messiah was about to establish himself on David`s throne. Paul thought that the end of Days would happen in his life time. Embarrasingly the throne was empty and Paul could not cope with that. Something had to be done. Paul is silent about all the facts and issues about which the New Testament concerns itself with. This is a mystery and it is an embarrasment for many Christians as they search around for apologetic explanations. It has even baffled Christian theologians and critics for centuries. To many Christians though the mystery surrounding Paul is prefered to any explanation of the mystery. If it is supposed that Paul knew nothing of the Gospel story then that supposition alone would discredit the whole of the Gospels altogether as mere works of fiction. Of course, Paul knows nothing of an earthly Jesus Christ and knew nothing about the drama and micro-dramas that unfolded to which the other Gospels tell of and which would lead us to conclude that the Gospels are indeed a work of fiction. 

Part 4 Josephus writes that in 70AD Essenes lived in every town but some Essenes [about 4,000] did live a communal existence, each selling his property and giving the proceeds to “stewards” to provide for the community. Now in Acts of the Apostles it tells us that after the resurrection the believers lived a communal existence of several thousands, each selling property and giving the proceeds to the community. This parellel is most unsettling for Christians and for good reason. The Essenes had disappeared as a major organised sect at the time that Josephus was writing. Josephus reports that the Essenes were tortured and persecuted by Romans and it may be the case that the Essenes played a big part in the Jewish revolt. Josephus mentions John the Essene as one such leader in command of the revolt. A Scroll found at Masada relates that the revolt was lead by Essenic Zealots and has not gone unnoticed by many scholars however such a relation is no proof that it was at all lead by Essenic Zealots. Though it is possible that they took part. The only reason for believing that the revolt was lead by the Essenes is because it would tie in with the arrival of their Messiah and so they would have had to lead the way and thus bring them to victory and likewise to restore the Davidic throne. Of course, Josephus records what happened after the Jewish revolt and no such Messianic victory took place and the throne of David was empty. The Messiah did not come to their rescue as they prophesed. 

The earliest of the Gospels is Mark. The Gospel of Mark shows portrays a human Jesus becoming divine with him becoming the son of God only at the Baptism scene. The other gospels make it at the resurrection. But why? Was he the son of God at the beginning or the end? The only possible explanation for Jesus to become divine at the start of his ministry [at the Baptism] rather then the end is because of the missing years of Jesus` early life. In order to introduce an early life for Jesus into the story they would have had to insert his divinity in at the beginning rather than the end. For Paul the Jesus story [his version] began with a vision after the others had their vision. Let me write that again: Paul had his vision last and the others [the avengels close to him] had theirs first.  So why then does Paul not know about the Jesus story of the Gospels? Surely, they would have discussed their visions! The others speak of a physical Jesus Christ and a resurrection and then a vision afterwards whilst Paul mentions no physical Jesus Christ and sees the resurrection in a vision like they do. Something is not quite right with this story. Either Paul was kept in the dark or that there was no physical Jesus Christ known to any of the evangels who recorded the sayings and teachings of Jesus and a physical Jesus was inserted much later by Christian scribes. Now prior to these visions of Paul and the visions of his evangelical brothers we cannot speak about Christianity in any meaningful way especially where Paul describes it because then we find ourselves in the presence of a heresy on its way to becoming Christianity. 

In the Epistles of Paul we can tell that the vision he had were experienced in his mid-30`s. According to Acts, before he had these visions he was involved in the persecution of the followers of the ‘way’. In the works of Josephus, a Jewish officer called Saul goes around persecuting followers of the ‘way’ and so the connection is thus made that Saul was Paul before his conversion to Christianity. Christians have the knowledge that Paul converted to Christianity but they do not take caution before the supposition that the cult he did convert to was indeed the ‘way’ cult as is told in Acts. In the works of Josephus there is no mention of any conversion too. The Mandaeans 

In Palestine`s history there is a well-known exodus of a number of ‘Nazorean’ fugitives who settled in the Mesopotamia to form a community or sect. This sect is known as the Mandaeans. The Mandaeans were Gnostics and they written a document called Haran Gawaita in which they recorded this event and gave the number of migrants at 60, 000 in the exodus. The Mandaeans of course revered John The Baptist and they denounced Jesus Christ as an imposter or most likely to be a fiction. Now John the Baptist was a real person who is recorded in the works of Josephus and it is likely that John the Baptist took a role at first greater then Jesus but then later downplayed as the Jesus story unfolded. Remember that we said that the first Gospel is Marks and is dated 70-80AD and the other Gospels came much later. We find then that the words used in Mark was used as a foundation for the other Gospels accounts. The Essenes afterall did learn gnosis and the earliest Christian belief was gnosticism. Many Christians will deny this but they are simply taking up a popular prejudice of the Catholic Church who have declared all gnostic texts as heretical.  The Mandaeans were fugitives of the dispersion and they never merged with the Gospel Groups. The Mandaeans developed their own distinct religion. The Gospels then mark the beginning of the Christian religion as we have understood it and have been taught by the Catholic Church. The gospel communities of Paul most certainly had a gnostic component to them. And this component made an impact upon the development of the first gospel. 

The Divinity of Jesus Christ When does Jesus become divine? At first Jesus[ according to Paul and his vision] becomes divine at the resurrection, but not in the first Gospel. The first Gospel of Mark has Jesus divine at the point of the baptism – why did Paul not know this?. The next gospel has Jesus become divine at birth and to the conception. And then in the last gospel Jesus doesn`t become divine; he always was divine everlastingly. This is one of the many strange inconsistencies of the Christology of the Jesus story. How is it that Jesus was made divine at Baptism according to Mark and yet a much later Gospel has Jesus divine at birth? And much later than that Jesus was divine before any conception? It shows a theological progression. It shows a story in ferment. The story of the divinity of Jesus Christ moves backward from resurrection to the birth and backfurther still as an eternal divinity in the unborn Jesus Christ. 

But why this moving backward in the divinity divination? The only reason for it is that the Christian scribes of the second century found the first Gospel uneasy because of the role of the John the Baptist amongst other such embarrasments. And likewise they must have regretted the accounts made in the synoptics which reflected local interpretations and inconsistent beliefs. With the changing Christology multiple layers of redaction at the hands of Christian scribes was employed to swing scripture into line and thus deny as much as possible the inconsistences inherent in the early works. Celsus writes that many Christians were onto the inconsistencies and pen in hand ready to alter what they could so as to deny them in the face of criticism. This is the one main reason why the gospels are not divinely inspired but are a work of fiction that had to change in time with the Christology of those that were trying to drive Christianity forward. And as they redacted and altered and changed things around to fit popular belief it left a mark of what was believed before and this “before” a residual trace of what was believed in the beginning was the gnostic component which is why many gnostics were able to find references and hang around for centuries to come. So the Gnostics were the true original belief of the first Christians and the Catholic Church has declared all gnosticism as heretical and has a long history of trying to stamp out and silence their gnostic critics. The reason that it could not so easily stamp gnosticism out is because the origins of Christianity are indeed gnostic. Mark knows of no virgin birth and has the divinity of Jesus at the Baptism. Paul knows no virgin birth and makes the divinity of Jesus at the resurrection. The later Gospels have the divinity either at birth or before any birth ever occured. This shows without a shadow of a doubt that the story of Jesus Christ is a fiction that was later inserted as the Christology changed its course, or rather as it had to be driven forward into the coming times and deny any connection with their gnostic origins. The last gospel seems to me to be a mere up-date of the Christology that was changing but there efforts to present this gospel as a definitive Christian text became undone because the Catholic church spent its future in contradiction managment and was for many centuries unable to deny the criticisms as Celsus and many other pagan critics will no doubt inform us. 

Why does Matthew come before Mark in the cannon? The Christian Church for centuries have tried to stamp out any signs of gnosticism and have tried to cut any ties with the Nazoreans. But since the Acts in the New Testament mention Jesus Christ as “Iesous Nazaroi” this could not be changed. Instead the translators have used clever techniques of placing the required definition of the words used before all other references. That is why Matthew appears before Mark in the Cannons. The example and definition of ‘Nazorean’ in Matthew 2:33 will be seen before the example and definition of Nazorean in Mark thus eliminating the embarrasing true definition from rising to the top. 

To be continued….

  

Published on January 28, 2007 at 2:03 pm  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://atheistempire.wordpress.com/the-first-christians/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. cute, but doesn’t hold much water. jesus is the center of the christian religion. the bible is the christian religion’s holy book. if you throw out the holy book as rubbish before trying to prove the holy man existed, you’re bound to run into trouble. I could just as easily claim Mohammed never existed–and you can’t use the Koran or any of the Islamic holy books to back up your claims that he did. Or I could claim that you can’t prove Abraham existed without the Torah. It’s a self containing argument because if the stuff the guy did is Canonized and you say “throw out canonized” then, duh, there might not be much left.
    I also looked up “secular references to jesus christ” and found several (including josephus)

  2. Have you heard of the Mandaeans? They speak also of Nazaroi within their group.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: