The first post in this series can be found here.
In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, we aren’t told how or why Joseph and Mary are in Bethlehem. We also aren’t told exactly how old Jesus was by the time the wise men came, but it’s possible that he was already a year or two old. And by the time they do arrive, Joseph and Mary are staying in a house (Matt 2:11). In 2:13-15, an angel tells Joseph to take Mary and Jesus into Egypt because of Herod. Then, once the threat was over, we’re told in verses 19-23 that they moved from Egypt to Nazareth, as though it was the first time they had ever been there. In fact, verse 22 says that Joseph wanted to go back to Judea, but was afraid of Herod’s successor.
Luke’s account is pretty different. In Luke 2:4, we see that Joseph and Mary were already living in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem for a census. Several scholars have been puzzled by this reasoning, but that in itself is nothing conclusive. Luke agrees that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he says there was no room in the inn, so Jesus was laid in a manger after his birth. Luke has shepherds that visit, but there’s nothing about Herod or the wise men.
According to Luke, the family of three stays in Bethlehem until Mary’s time of purifying was over (Lev 12:1-8); this would have been about 6 weeks. Then they travelled to Jerusalem to perform the purification rituals. Once that was completed, they returned to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).
This is not merely an instance where Matthew provides more information than Luke – Luke actually doesn’t allow an opportunity for going to Egypt – nor does there seem to be any reason to. In Luke’s account, Joseph and Mary obviously weren’t concerned about Herod, because they went right into Jerusalem. In order to agree with Matthew, we could say that after their trip to Jerusalem, they returned to Bethlehem, where they met the wise men and were warned about Herod. But this disagrees with Luke 2:39 (where they go straight back to Nazareth), and it also doesn’t make any sense. If their home was in Nazareth, as Luke says, why would they return to Bethlehem?
We could also try to find agreement by saying that they left Bethlehem for Jerusalem, went to Nazareth, and then fled to Egypt. But Matthew says that Herod’s murder of the infants only happened in Bethlehem, so there would be no need to leave Nazareth. In fact, if they left Bethlehem to escape the infanticide, why not just go straight to Nazareth?
Here’s what I think: Jesus was from Nazareth. Jews believed that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), as seen in John 1:46, when Nathanael asks if anything good can come out of Nazareth. So Matthew and Luke both needed to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Matthew simply had Joseph and Mary start out there. But then he needed a reason to have Jesus come to Nazareth, so he devised Herod’s slaughter of the infants, which no historian ever recorded, even those who weren’t fans of Herod. In creating the infanticide, he also found an opportunity to work in the “out of Egypt” “prophecy” that we talked about earlier.
Luke decided to start Jesus out in Nazareth and used a census to bring him down to Bethlehem. Again, most scholars have been puzzled by this since it also seems a little contrived. [Note: After all, Luke says they needed to go to Bethlehem for the census because Joseph was of David’s lineage. But David lived a thousand years before these events – can you imagine the upheaval that would occur if every family had to go back to the hometown of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand father (could be more, depending on the genealogy you use) every time there was a census?] Once Luke had them in Bethlehem, it simply makes sense for Mary and Joseph to wait there until they could present Jesus at the temple. From there, they simply went home to Nazareth.
The bottom line is that these accounts are widely divergent when it comes to the details. The most likely explanation seems to be that they were written by two people who knew that Jesus was from Nazareth, but came up with different ideas about how he could have been from Bethlehem too.
In the next post, we’ll look at the conflicts surrounding Jesus’s genealogy.
Finding Truth 
william, well, i suppose we’re at or close to the heart of our debate here. it has to be judged whether or not it is appropriate at all to do any kind of interpretation of the bible; and if so, how much? what is reasonably acceptable, and what crosses the line into what most people would consider invention? as i think we both know, i find that the two nativity accounts can be synchronized, without adding much at all (a move somewhere between Jesus’ ages of a couple of months and two years), while you and others seem to find that addition beyond acceptable.
i am aware that many people believe the bible fails. i used to be one of them. there are examples in the bible that still bother me, or i have to say, “i don’t know” (though the nativity is not one of those examples). but for me, that doesn’t mean the bible fails. more likely, it means i fail to understand. and as i mentioned much earlier, if there is a point(s) of failure in the bible, for me it doesn’t mean the whole thing comes tumbling down.
thanks for making me think. in fact, i believe my brain is about to explode.
LikeLike
Dave, I’ve enjoyed the discussion. It’s been a good one. And I don’t mean to say any interpretation is problematic – i don’t think that. but as you said, somewhere there is a line between interpretation and invention.
And you say that you used to be skeptical of the bible – to what degree?
And what exactly gave you confidence in the old book?
Like nate, I used to be a fervent believer and a very active christian. I wouldn’t say that one thing did it in for me, but i guess it several things that got me to looking deeper and several more that pushed me over the edge.
I eventually realized the bible was simply a book that was written, compiled, copied and distributed by men – so my faith had really only ever been in the claims of men – not god.
LikeLike
Dave,
This recent exchange between you and William has been really interesting. Since some of the contradictions we’ve mentioned were a bit new to you, allow me to make a shameless plug and invite you to read the series I’ve done on contradictions. In fact, you might get something out of the one I did on prophecy as well. Both can be found in my About section.
Once you’ve gone through those, I’d recommend that you read this one again, as well as the two passages that recount the nativity story. To me, the number of problems in the Bible is overwhelming, once they’re all considered (not that my posts include a full list). And the way Matthew and Luke each tell this story shows me that the only two points they had in common were Bethlehem and Nazareth. None of the connecting details match.
If you can, try to temporarily put aside the thought that people would have stripped these stories out if they were truly contradictory, and just look at the stories for what they are. Most people are loathe to remove stories from the Bible — after all, as mortal men, who are we to judge? So if I were you, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the fact that they both still appear in the Bible.
Anyway, that’s my suggestion to you, if you’re interested. Feel free to comment on any of the threads you happen to read, if there are points you’d like to discuss. When I first started studying these issues, it took finding several flaws before I could finally admit that that’s what they were.
LikeLike
@Dave.
Sadly there is no archaeological evidence that matches luke’s description. Absolutely none.Your defence is no different from any other apologist.
This city with its ”multitude” its ”synagogue” and ”temple” is not mentioned in any pre christian literature. Not a whisper or allusion.
Are you aware of the Nazareth Farm Report?
Origen who lived just up the road was aware of the story but didn’t know of the place. Neither did Eusebius and if my god lived in a village town hamlet city less than a day’s donkey ride ( from Caeseria) I think I would want to pay the place a visit. Wouldn’t you?
The Peutinger map features the Mount of Olives and more than 3000 other place names, but no Nazareth.
Josephus, who at one time lived in Sepphoris which is 6 kms up the road never mentioned it once. Yet he apparently knew of your man god courtesy of that fraudulent document the Testimonium Flavianum
The geography of the area does not in fact match Lukes description. Ánd what would be the point of marching jesus all the way there to this cliff to sling him off when a stoning a la Stephen would have been quite sufficient and the accepted means to deal with a blasphemer.
And please bear in mind that the word city is used to describe Nazareth.
To continue to offer any sort of evidence to someone who is obviously inculcated with the biblical version is a waste of my time.
LikeLike
Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
LikeLike
that’s a relief, as i already have more people to respond to than i can handle.
LikeLike
Nicely done! 😀
LikeLike
Evidence of that, is the fact that the Priestly (P) Source wrote the first Chapter of Genesis to replace the one written 400 years earlier by the Yahwist (J) Source, feeling that the J Source had created a god that was too anthropomorphic. After all, he popped down to earth “in the cool of the day” for chats with young Adam and Eve, sewed clothes for them on the celestial Singer, and later chatted with Cain as to the location of Abel – the priests in Babylonian captivity, who wrote the P Source, didn’t believe their god would act with such familiarity, so they reinvented him. The great Redactor, combining all of the works into the Torah around 400 BCE, reluctant, as Nate said, to throw out any books, included both versions of the creation myths, thus defeating the P Source’s purpose.
LikeLike
@Arch
Wow, I’d never heard this before. I knew about the “sources” but didn’t know this is how they came about. What is your reference source? Would be interested in reading more.
LikeLike
Am I having trouble understanding everyone or is everyone having trouble understanding me?
The Bible is a means to an end. The goal isn’t to read the Bible, or to memorize the Bible, or to believe the Bible, or to interpret the Bible.
The goal is to transmit the gospel, from one person to another. This can also be expressed as the goal being for the Church to fulfill its mission to ‘teach all nations.”
The Church takes the position that it has a great deal of freedom when it comes to HOW it teaches. One of the gazillion things the Church has done over the years is to gather a bunch of writings from the ‘early days’ and compile them into a single volume. This is called the Bible, or the New Testament, or the Christian scriptures, or — as you might have it — “Favorite Fairy Tales”.
Jesus didn’t instruct anyone to produce a Bible nor did he forbid it. It’s as if he said, “OK guys, you’ve all got brains in your heads, you figure out for yourselves how to fulfill the mission of teaching that I’ve given you.”
What Jesus actually stipulated was repentance, the Forgiveness of sins, baptism and the Eucharist. I’m sure he realized we’d have plenty more to decide about beyond those direct instructions but he entrusted the work of building a Church to imperfect and limited human beings.
Why, since the work is being done by imperfect and limited human beings, should anybody be surprised that there are lots if things about the Bible that are really, really good and a lot that’s … er… shall we say less than good?
I’m still on my iPhone so it’s hard to write long comments….
Paul
LikeLike
Nan – check your email —
LikeLike
Paul, let’s look at it this way. Where do you learn about jesus and the christian notion god if not the bible? To me it looks like you’re getting your info from the bible and then tossing out the bible because it’s too hard to intelligently defend. It’s confusing.
And if it’s the chruch that makes the calls, you still run into the same problems because they’re also just people who also got their info from either the bible itself or of we go far enough back from the same fouled up sources that gave us the bible.
LikeLike
William hits the nail on the head. How can anyone be a “Christian” if not for the stories about Jesus that are in the bible?
BTW, it’s my understanding it was Paul that taught the practice of the Eucharist, not Jesus.
LikeLike
William, you’ve expressed what I was thinking, but didn’t say, due to my upcoming New Year’s Resolution, for which I’m currently practicing, to avoid arguments with fence posts.
No offense, Cap’n, merely a metaphor —
LikeLike
@Dave
“the residents were either unaware or unbelieving. even if mary told her neighbors about the magi, they may not have believed, particularly because that happened years before in bethlehem. with all the violence in israel at that time – by the kings, and by the roman empire – the slaughter of the innocents may not have been more than a news blip, and that from years before.”
Oy!
This is so silly it makes me want to cry. Honestly. Do you actually think that these contorted speculations relate, even in the remotest way, to me making room in my heart for God?
I’m cringing, thinking about you thinking about a conversation between Mary and her Nazarene neighbors where Mary claims that she, and Joseph and the baby Jesus were visited by three travelers from the East and feted with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
I know nothing that will help us figure out where Jesus was actually born and I care less than I know. The point of telling a story about God becoming a baby and being lain in a manger is to help you make sense of the gospel. The fact that you’re scouting around, trying to find historical evidence to prove that this is what actually happened makes me wonder whether you’ve missed the point entirely.
Peace,
Paul
LikeLike
Alright, enough lurking. Too much to say. Sorry for the length.
@Paul,
I get it. This is the perspective I held two years ago. I wanted to look at the big picture and focus on the message. Don’t get caught up in the details. The details are messy, the big picture is beautiful. Keep the main thing the main thing. This is where I was and then I realized something. When I added up all the details, it turns out they didn’t mesh with the big picture. I had created my own version of Christianity and if the bible was only useful for my subjective picking and choosing, why was I using it as a foundation for understanding God in the first place? Why should I think that the authors had any special insight that I should draw from?
The details are important because they inform the big picture. We shouldn’t start with an assumption about what the big picture is and then gloss over the details. We should construct the big picture from the details. If the details tell us that God ordained what are very likely conflicting records of his incarnation then we have to question whether God is really behind the story. And if God isn’t behind the story, then why should we be so sure that the humans behind it have a correct understanding of God?
@Everyone,
I haven’t yet seen anybody attempt to explain why the “different stories” explanation is better than the “different timelines” explanation for the conflict. Let me try:
It all starts with the synoptic problem. Matthew and Luke share a common core (aka Mark) but that core doesn’t include the nativity. So at some point those portions of the text came from different sources. Our first mention of Matthew tells us it is a collection of sayings in Hebrew. That doesn’t sound like our modern Matthew. The patristic sources also tell us that the Nazoreans and Ebionites relied on a Hebrew version of Matthew. So how did Matthew come about? First, it would appear that the sayings were combined with Mark to arrive at a greek gospel (proto-Matthew), but there still wasn’t a nativity. Next, we notice that Matthew is clearly targeted toward a Jewish audience. But who did the targeting? Well, Matthew 2:23 gives us a pretty good clue – Jesus ended up in Nazareth to fulfill the prophesy that he would be a Nazarene. The Nazoreans and Ebionites were predominantly in Israel and observed Jewish laws but held that Jesus was the messiah. They disagreed, however, about one key thing. Nazoreans held that the messiah was God’s son from birth. The Ebionites held that the messiah was adopted as God’s son at his baptism. So, if you’re a Nazorean and you have the Jews on one side rejecting Jesus as the messiah and the Ebionites on another side rejecting his divine birthrite, what do you do? You appeal to a common authority – the scriptures. You claim that Jesus was born of virgin according to Isaiah. You have Jesus come from Bethlehem, according to Micah (even though you only know he came from Nazareth). You parallel Jesus to Moses (the messiah prototype) by sparing him from infanticide and tie this into Jeremiah. You claim that God’s son was called out of Egypt according to Hosea (another Moses parallel). Put it all together and, presto, you’ve got yourself a nativity.
What about Luke? Luke came along and got his hands on Mark and perhaps the proto-Matthew. Neither has a nativity. Still, there are other sources to draw from and clearly the whole virgin birth thing has made the rounds (just like it had for other man-gods). Luke’s sources have these interesting songs and extra info about John the Baptist’s birth but they don’t explain how Jesus could be Jesus of Nazareth yet come from Bethlehem. Everybody knows the messiah had to come from Bethlehem. Well, there was this census a long time ago that caused people working away from home to have to temporarily go home. Maybe that could be leveraged to explain how Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He is, after all, in the line of David like any messiah would be. So, put it all together and, presto, you’ve got yourself a new nativity.
Is a lot of this speculation? Yes. I can’t prove that this is what happened, but I have done my best to incorporate as much of the data as possible. Isn’t that what makes an explanation good – that it does the best job of fitting all the data? I think so, and this story is the one that has done the best at minimizing cognitive dissonance for me.
LikeLike
@Nan
“BTW, it’s my understanding it was Paul that taught the practice of the Eucharist, not Jesus.”
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is the first record we have of somebody detailing the way Jesus commanded us to celebrate the Eucharist. It’s in the 11th Chapter, v 23-28.
Paul, however, makes it clear that he’s not presenting something of his own invention but giving a summary of the way that believers had been practicing it for years — ever since Jesus himself instructed the apostles.
Paul
LikeLike
hi nan, i’ve been meaning to get back to your comments. like you, i apologize for taking so long, but we probably ought to stop apologizing and simply realize we’ll all get to it if we want and when we can.
1. you said: “Yes, John does record Jesus’ statement that he and the Father are one. However, if you will note in John 17:22-23, Jesus makes a request of “the Father” that all may be one. Is he asking that everyone be God in the flesh? Rather, I think he is saying he is one with the Father in purpose and it is his desire that this same unity exists among all believers.”
in the context of john 17, i agree with you, that is what Jesus is saying.
there are a variety of other places in the gospels where Jesus indicates that He is God. For example in Mark 14:61-64, where Jesus says, “I am” (which i think has a double meaning) to the question of whether He is the Christ.
2. you said: “As for Jesus saying he is the Messiah, I think it’s important to point out that the early writings of Paul predate the gospels by several years. His first few epistles were written around 10-20 years before Mark (who wrote the first gospel) and at least 40-50 years earlier than the gospel of John (generally dated anywhere from 90-125 CE). Taking note of this, it was Paul who first made the claims that Jesus was the “the Christ.” As he spread his version of Christianity, this soon came to be the general consensus and thus became part of the belief of the gospel writers. Particularly John, whose gospel is said to be the most “spiritually-based” (as opposed to “historical”).”
or, Jesus and his disciples really did say He was “the Christ,” which started the whole thing.
3. you asked: “And Paul? Nowhere does it say that Jesus appeared to him. What he saw was a talking “light from heaven” that claimed to be Jesus.”
granted. if his letters and acts are to be trusted, however, something big happened that was not simply in paul’s mind. i recognize that you and others feel they are not to be trusted.
4. you asked: “40 days? Hmmm. Luke’s gospel says he was around for only a few hours, John reports he was only seen up to a week after his death. It was the writer of Acts that reported he was present for 40 days. Which one is right?”
the writer of luke and acts are one and the same. i believe that person to be luke, though that is disputed by various scholars. not sure what you have read in john that says “only seen up to a week.” the gospel ends by saying, “Jesus did many other things as well,” which leaves things pretty open-ended.
5. you said: “Not sure that this is an indication of James dying for the faith. It sounds more like a political death to me since all it indicates is that he “belonged to the church.” I tend to agree that the reported “deaths for the cause” are more tradition than fact.”
but they are traditions with some evidence. the fact that christian martyrdom was fairly common until christianity became the religion of the empire gives some more credence to the tradition. it’s not unreasonable to believe that they died for the faith.
6. “And finally, the reason you don’t know of any other sources is because there aren’t any.”
yes, i know, and even if there were other sources, they would probably be under attack as well. your original point was this: “And finally, do you know of any reports outside of the bible that mention a man returning to life? Seems if such a miraculous event actually took place there would be something recorded about a dead man walking around and talking to people (at one point, 500 at a time).” i would like to add that, similar to your point, something might have been recorded about the finding of Jesus’ body. i don’t know of any such record.
LikeLike
paul, i’m feeling awful… from wasting one person’s time, to making you cringe. i recall having that same effect on women when i was in my 20s. ah, but i digress.
i have nothing to add to what others have said about the importance of the bible to our understanding of Jesus and to the christian faith.
i do agree with you that there is a point to all of it – as you said, “to transmit the gospel.” john’s gospel, 20:31, is very clear on this (maybe you said this already… sorry if that’s a repeat). i just think the bible is a critical part of this point.
LikeLike
nate, i will take you up on your shameless plug, but i’m not sure when. i was also hoping to look into the apparent contradictions on post-resurrection appearances, which i am guessing may be taken up in your “contradictions” piece, so i may do that all at once.
what i truly like about this site is that it’s not what often happens in discussions about religion – “you believe your way, and i’ll believe mine.” i mean, that is reality – each person is free to believe what he/she wants to believe – but saying something like that at the beginning of a discussion doesn’t help anyone really delve into anything and gain understanding. so thanks for your blog and the way you invite discussion.
LikeLike
Ahhh, thank you Paul–you explained a bit for me. I really, truly, was somewhat confused about your position. But this helps:
Perhaps all Christianity has painted itself into a corner here. All my life I’ve heard that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible itself claims “all scripture is given by inspiration”. But, of course, there was no “bible” when those words were uttered (yes, assuming they were uttered by the person recorded as uttering them, etc). Every version of Christianity that I know of has always taught “the HOLY Bible”.
Sorry for my Combative tone earlier (recently been reading military history…)–you are right about “FINDING truth” and that truth can be elusive, at best. However, I must say that if the point is to Spread the Gospel, then The Church has a very difficult job for itself, for the only known “source” of the gospel message is a very flawed collection. To believe in its narrative, esp. knowing that it is a flawed book, appears to me to be the same as choosing to believe in Eru Iluvitar b/c the Silmarillion teaches about him (with rather fewer contradictions, I might add 😉 ).
I’m not being (or not trying to be) argumentative here, but I think you can possibly see how it would be difficult to accept the “truth of the gospel” when our only knowledge of it comes from such a flawed collection of accounts. As a Secular Humanist, I tend to have some expectations of “logic” and “evidence” about a proposition I’m expected to accept. I tend to think this isn’t asking too much (of course I wouldn’t, would I? lol).
But again, it gets to the point of why accept Christianity as true? Why not Judaism or Islam? If the “truthfulness” or “accuracy” of the “holy” book that is our only source of the religion is not something to be concerned with, then what is there? Simply accept what we were taught as children and have faith? That would be unfair to all those who must be convinced of the truth of the gospel in order to be Saved.
LikeLike
All one has to do is read books from 2 of the premier NT experts of our time, Raymond E. Brown (Catholic) and Geza Vermes (Jewish) . Their books ,”The Birth of the Messiah” (Brown) and , “The Nativity…..History and Legend” (Vermes) .
They each go into great detail to analyze the Birth Stories. Vermes agrees with W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison that, “The Infancy Gospels are not the stuff out of which History is made”.
Borrowing OT Scripture to support the Birth Stories , Raymond E. Brown says, ” The conception of prophecy as prediction of the distant future has disappeared from the most serious scholarship today, and it is widely recognized that the NT fulfillment of the OT involved much that the OT writers did NOT foresee at all”.
LikeLike
Travis, I can relate to your journey, although it sounds like mine went a little faster once I started noticing the details. I still marvel at how quickly that castle of sand sank into the sea.
You presented an interesting scenario for how the gospels could have been developed. I have not personally studied too much on that topic, but if nothing else it shows just how many ways the stories can be “rationalized” – either to uphold or to tear down.
LikeLike
@Dave
“paul, i’m feeling awful”
I feel your pain, man! I get that same pain a lot whenever I get into these on-line discussions.
I’m very heartened that you took my comment in the spirit that you did. I also have a suggestion (that has served me well over time) that might help you feel less awful.
I try to think about religion and spirituality in these terms — I think about “an idea” instead of “my idea’; “an understanding” instead of “my understanding”; “a belief” instead of “my belief”.
I was honest when I said that I cringed. Perhaps you will more fully appreciate the respect I actually do have for you if you consider that I cringed at “an understanding” instead of “Dave’s understanding.”
Dave, I hope, will avoid the mistake of letting his ego get too caught up in the business of choosing one idea over another. You should give yourself the freedom to let go of a thought that served you in the past once you realize there’s a different thought that will better serve you in the present.
In Christ,
Paul
LikeLike
@eSell
“Every version of Christianity that I know of has always taught ‘the HOLY Bible’.”
You, like a lot of people, have been sold a bill of goods and I can assure you that the person who sold you that bill of goods was a Protestant.
I don’t want you to think that I’m a bigot. I certainly don’t discriminate against Protestants, I don’t hold the opinion that they won’t be saved if they don’t convert to Catholicism, I’m quite sure that God loves Protestants as much as She (or, if you must, “He”) loves Catholics (or atheists, for that matter!), I certainly believe that baptism in a Protestant Church is as valid as baptism in the Catholic Church. I consider Protestants sisters and brothers in Christ.”
My beef with Protestants isn’t personal; it’s just that there as some really fundamental divergences and one group is professing the truth while the other is off the mark. I will say with compete conviction that believing the truth will bring joy into your life whereas believing something less than the truth will keep you miserable.
I’ve got to believe one thing or the other. I can’t believe both; and I certainly want to believe the teaching that will bring joy into my life.
There is a REASON why Protestants say that Christianity is based on the Bible, or derives its authority from the Bible and it’s a reason that anyone who understands human nature can readily see.
Luther was the first (the first we know of, anyway) and many followed him in thinking that he’d figured out a way to avoid the problems of having to accept the authority of flawed human beings. In Luther’s day, the authorities in the Catholic Church were greedy, stubborn, egotistical, vindictive and lecherous and he was appalled at the idea of having to submit to their authority.
With me so far?
Now, you may ask, why were the leaders of the Church like that? The reason is that people have always and everywhere been “greedy, stubborn, egotistical, vindictive and lecherous.” It’s not possible to find people without finding the characteristics that come along with human nature. In other words, we’re all assholes. You can verify that proposition for yourself whether you read the Bible or you don’t. The fact that everyone is an asshole isn’t something I believe because I read it in a book. I believe it because I’ve considered my own lived experience.
Actually, there are TWO kinds of assholes. There are assholes who know they’re assholes and there are assholes who hold on to the delusion that they’re NOT assholes. Obviously, the deluded ones are the ones causing the most trouble.
Phew! Let me take a breather here. You probably want one too. So, smoke ’em if you got ’em…
Later, Dude,
Paul
LikeLike