Results 81 - 100 of 126
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164021 | ||
CDBJ, to continue... I agree we get sick; nevertheless, it is not God’s desire that we are sick and that is why healing is made available to us. Allow me to clarify that I am not saying we never get sick or that we are totally free from it. I am saying that God intends and desires us to be in good physical health and, along with forgiveness (spiritual good health), has provided bodily, mental, and emotional healing. In addition, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. If that was your perception of my post, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am only sharing what I believe God has shown me. One final note: Because no one is a picture of health and celebrating their 200th birthday does not mean that healing and health is not God’s desire for us (Jer 29:11; 3 John 2). I appreciate your objections and hope no offense has been taken. |
||||||
82 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164015 | ||
CDBJ, Typographical error. I meant to say, even Jesus experienced hunger. I ain't perfected perfection, yet... |
||||||
83 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164011 | ||
Hi Mark I disagree that my position “would necessitate that we would all be completely, permanently healed and healthy from the moment we are born again” because: (a) we are not totally released from the possibility of committing sinful acts or engaging in sinful thoughts and desires; (b) we are not “completely and permanently spiritually alive”; (c) Jesus’ death did not yet fully and automatically do away with demonic rule and activity (Eph 2:2; 1 Jn 5:19). It seems to me that if Jesus’ Messianic activity “does not set a standard”, then (a) one could legitimately argue that Jesus’ moral character as holy does not set a standard because “it was before the cross”; (b) it is at odds with Jesus’ command to “Go into all the world” and, among other things equally important, “cast out demons” and “lay hands on the sick” (Mark 16:15ff; cf. Jam 5:14; Matt 10:8; Luke 9:2; 1 Cor 12:9). There are other reasons why your statement seems to be erred but I only have time to submit two. Even Jesus went without experiencing hunger; his fridge was not always filled but God did sustain him physically. In any case, I do not understand what God’s material provision has to do with healing. It is one thing to be hungry and another thing to be sick. As far as Lazarus and the blind man, there was no godly purpose for their illness but there was a godly purpose in Jesus healing them. From my perspective, the related texts show that illness has no Godly purpose and that is why God desires to heal. Healing has a godly purpose. If you get sick God does not have to say, “Oops!” It is not at all his fault that you got sick. We are predestined to be made into the image of Christ. It does not say we are predestined to be sick. My perspective upon what we learn from Job is different. However, because we are told to remember Job and emulate his perseverance in suffering, does not mean everyone Christian (or the majority) is sick because their integrity is directly challenged by Satan; not unless he can be described as a man who is “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil” and “there is no one like him on the earth” (Job 1”1,8). I disagree that God desires us to be sick because sickness serves no purpose (unless it is within the context of judgment); that’s why He desires to heal. |
||||||
84 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 164005 | ||
Hi CDBJ, Regarding the wages of sin, the context was sickness leading to physical death and, I was under the impression that in the discussion spiritual death was already assumed. Your comment, "We can be born twice and die once, because Jesus was born once and died twice" is well put. Someone said Jesus experienced on the Cross what he never experienced before - death - in order that we may experience what we have never experienced - eternal life. |
||||||
85 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163996 | ||
BradK, Oops! Sorry for the double-posting. Can't figure how that happened. I must have clicked twice without realizing it. | ||||||
86 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163995 | ||
Thanks BradK for your input. I do not see where Scripture disallows it but that is not to suggest any silence confirms it. I do not see where the Bible, especially in Isa 53 and the Gospels and Acts, is silent on the subject. I am not familiar with Bosworth. And there are certain views Gill and Spurgeon hold that I do not think the Church Father's agree with; nor do I think the Church Fathers were doctrinally correct in every instance. First of all, let me clarify that I did not mean to suggest that the purpose for the atonement was physical healing. Christ atoned for our sins in order to make the "whole man wholly" restored to God in every way, first, for our sins and, second,in order that we might obtain the blessings of God (all this would result in God receiving glory, which is the preeminent goal of salvation). If you will note in the reading of the Gospels, that in every case where forgiveness was administered by Christ, physical healing occured; and in every place where physical healing occured, forgiveness of sin is clearly implied as being given. But, maybe it would be misleading to suggest that physical healing is in the atonement. Rather, maybe we can say that man's wholeness, spiritually and physically, mentally and emotionally is found through faith in the work of Christ on the Cross. But, unfurtunately, that may diminish somewhat the explicit significance, which the Gospels seem to place on physical healing (and demonic deliverance). Second, I did not mean to imply that we need not physically deteriorate and die. The "wages sin is death" and no one can avoid it. I also doubt if anyone of 80 years is as vigorous as in is twenties. But although we must die, that does not mean we have to die physically sick or mentally diseased, slowly and painfully, or, maybe, even, outside of persecution, tragically and violently (Psa 91; 103:4-5). Therefore, I cannot disagree with Spurgeon that sin is "deadly." However, the Psalmist still declares that along with God forgiving all my sins, he also heals all of my diseases. For me, it is not so much trying to figure out whether or not God desires to heal and heals - for me, that is a given in the Bible - but to believe him at his Word that he does heal irrespective of what position the Church Fathers, Gill, or Spurgeon held (along with 2000 years of Church History). |
||||||
87 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163994 | ||
Thanks BradK for your input. I do not see where Scripture disallows it but that is not to suggest any silence confirms it. I do not see where the Bible, especially in Isa 53 and the Gospels and Acts, is silent on the subject. I am not familiar with Bosworth. And there are certain views Gill and Spurgeon hold that I do not think the Church Father's agree with; nor do I think the Church Fathers were doctrinally correct in every instance. First of all, let me clarify that I did not mean to suggest that the purpose for the atonement was physical healing. Christ atoned for our sins in order to make the "whole man wholly" restored to God in every way, first, for our sins and, second,in order that we might obtain the blessings of God (all this would result in God receiving glory, which is the preeminent goal of salvation). If you will note in the reading of the Gospels, that in every case where forgiveness was administered by Christ, physical healing occured; and in every place where physical healing occured, forgiveness of sin is clearly implied as being given. But, maybe it would be misleading to suggest that physical healing is in the atonement. Rather, maybe we can say that man's wholeness, spiritually and physically, mentally and emotionally is found through faith in the work of Christ on the Cross. But, unfurtunately, that may diminish somewhat the explicit significance, which the Gospels seem to place on physical healing (and demonic deliverance). Second, I did not mean to imply that we need not physically deteriorate and die. The "wages sin is death" and no one can avoid it. I also doubt if anyone of 80 years is as vigorous as in is twenties. But although we must die, that does not mean we have to die physically sick or mentally diseased, slowly and painfully, or, maybe, even, outside of persecution, tragically and violently (Psa 91; 103:4-5). Therefore, I cannot disagree with Spurgeon that sin is "deadly." However, the Psalmist still declares that along with God forgiving all my sins, he also heals all of my diseases. For me, it is not so much trying to figure out whether or not God desires to heal and heals - for me, that is a given in the Bible - but to believe him at his Word that he does heal irrespective of what position the Church Fathers, Gill, or Spurgeon held (along with 2000 years of Church History). |
||||||
88 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163990 | ||
Part 2. With respect to the apostle Paul, to say that his “thorn in the flesh” was sickness is merely speculation, at least, according to my reference readings. It cannot be determined what he actually meant by the phrase. There are different interpretations other than that it was a physical sickness. Regarding the apostle’s “bodily illness” in Galatians: (1) The NAS margin has literally, “weakness of the flesh.” (2) The Greek word translated “infirmity,” as gathered from a few references, seems not to necessarily mean “physical sickness” (cf. Rom 8:26; 15:1; 2 Cor 11:30; 12:5,9; Heb 5:2; 7:28) (3) I assume the certainty of meaning would need to be gathered by the context and in Galatians it is vague. (4) Could this mention of an “infirmity” refer to something acquired from being persecuted and not so much a sickness as a physical deformity? I admit, God can heal deformities but if obtained for the sake of Christ, it may remain on him as proof of his struggle for the gospel (Gal 6:17). Yet, even if it is admitted that Paul makes reference to being sick, all it shows is that believers can get sick (something that is not denied). It does not support the idea that Father (1) desires his children to be sick, (2) does not intend for all to be healthy, (3) will not heal in answer to prayers of faith. In John 11:4, it was not the sickness that resulted in death itself that exhibited God’s glory but the act of healing (v.45; 12:9,17). The quote, “I'm just saying that after we've asked for healing, we need to submit to God's sovereign will”, is obviously at odds with the Biblical writer who declared, “Is any sick among you? …let the [elders] pray over him…and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord will raise him up…” (Jam 5:14-15; cf. Matt 7:7-11). James seems to suggest it is always God’s will to heal, therefore, after we’ve asked, we are not told to “submit to God’s sovereign will”; we are commanded to believe God will answer (Mark 11:24; Heb 11:6). To believe God is submission required. Again, I offer these observations not for the purpose of provoking debate, argument, or bad feelings but just to share my faith with others of God’s family. And, as Kalos took the time and effort to respond to my posting, I only felt to exhibit its value by a more thoughtful answer, with all due respect, however contrary it may be, in return. |
||||||
89 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 163987 | ||
Having some spare time, I hope it is okay that I take the opportunity to share some insights supporting the view that physical healing is included in the atonement. I would like to respond (in 2 parts) to certain verses posted by Kalos (ID#160440). Part 1. As I discussed previously (ID#161083), to limit the reference in Isa 53 to spiritual healing only is not just inconsistent with the text, it also would make Matthew’s use of the text erred since he sees Jesus physically healing the sick as fulfillment of Messianic activity. Now the question of whether physical as well as spiritual healing is in the atonement can be answered by determining when in his life Jesus, according to Isaiah, bore our sickness and the chastisement that made him whole, and was bruised for our healing. Was it not at the same moment he was “Smitten and afflicted by God,” when he was “wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our "iniquities,” and “the Lord visited on him the guilt of us all” (cf. Tanakh)? Was not that moment at the Cross? At the Cross, Isaiah prophesied that he was punished for “our sins” and “our sickness” (v.4a; 5a, Tanakh). If "transgressions" and "iniquities" set the context for spiritual healing, then “disease” (v.3b; 10a), and “sickness” (v.4a) should also set the context, which would, therefore, suggest both spiritual and physical healing is considered. Again, this is not to say that healing is guaranteed (and neither do I mean that a person will necessarily, although possible, never be sick all throughout his life). Even forgiveness is not guaranteed or automatic just because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for sinners and neither for a believer who sins refusing to repent (Matt 6:15; 19:35). However, physical healing for the sick, like forgiveness, is provided. As I see it, in Timothy’s case, the “sickness” concerned his diet; a change in diet was the reason for his stomach having problems. Once Timothy followed Paul’s advise, it is assumed in the text, he would be cured. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to support the idea that God intends some to be sick. Regarding Trophimus, even if admitting the apostle was not able to secure a healing for him, should that one occasion in itself nullify the many verses that say God desires and promises, can and does heal and that such healing is provided in the atonement as Isaiah 53 suggests? Epaphroditus, true was sick, but he was healed as v.27 suggests: “…God had mercy on him…I sent him…” Whether or not he was healed by Paul’s hand is irrelevant. The fact is, Epaphroditus was healed. Should we assume that the Psalmist, who declared, “[God] heals all your diseases” (Psa 103:3), was not inspired but rather mistaken? Job, it is true, was sick but God healed him completely. In any case, is there the suggestion that Job’s case is, rather than unique, the same as every believer who suffers? I do not think it is; Job is the exception to the rule. |
||||||
90 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163952 | ||
Please read my note ID#163927. There was no suggestion that doctrine is not derived from the Bible; but, please note, that the fact of doctrine derived from the Bible does not necessarily mean one has it correct. False doctrine can also be extracted from the Bible (2 Peter 3:15-16). Also, there was no intention to devaluate the importance of doctrine but just to place it in a - and I believe, Biblical - proper perspective. Allow me to repeat, relationship with Father, not doctrine, is the goal when studying the Bible. |
||||||
91 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163927 | ||
Greetings Kalos, Relationship with God is the goal; doctrine is the means. We should not read the Bible for the purpose of formulating doctrine except to deepen our relationship with God. Notice, for one example, the apostle Paul encourages Timothy to "Hold fast the pattern of sound words" (i.e. doctrine)...in faith and love" (i.e. in relationship)...with Christ" (2 Tim 1:13). In v.14, Timothy is instructed to keep the things that we committed to him in relationship with the Holy Spirit. It seems there are patterns in Timothy, which show, in one way or another, that what one learns is for the purpose of maintaining relationship with God and not for learnings sakes or just to be doctrinally correct. I think I have clarified my position in a way that is agreeable to you. |
||||||
92 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163909 | ||
Hi Tim... You're welsome. The poem, actually a song, is mine. I am aware that it has no Bible references to support it but figured it would help stimulate some thought. |
||||||
93 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163870 | ||
I believe, Tim's provision of a "slightly different perspective," is valid and more in line with accessing the intended meaning of the Biblical writers. There are those who say Jesus died but for a few By a sovereign decree No man can view God made the choice Who was to win Who was to lose But I believe Jesus dies for all men The Word says what it means And it means just what it says Every man of Adam's fall Can come to the Cross And be restored The mystery is not For whom Christ died But that he died For us all They say "the world" means "The elect" and not "all men" And "all men" just means "The chosen" before the world began God made the choice To save a few And damn the rest But I believe Jesus Atoned for all men And no one is beyond The reaches of God's arm Every sinner can hear the call And believe for Jesus Shed his blood for all The mystery is not For whom Christ died But that he died For us all |
||||||
94 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163739 | ||
Hi Sonlit, Maccarthur and Piper demonstrate that (1) their interpretation of scripture is open to error, and (2) what they teach in general is not necessarily Biblical truth. May I offer a few suggestions? Whenever you read a book, don't take the writer's word for it. Just read and glean what you believe is consistent with the Bible and the rest discard. Just because one is a theologian or a scholar does not mean he is either a good scholar or is correct in his theology. To briefly answer your two last questions: You can know, as far as possible, the correctness of one's interpretation by the plain speaking of Biblical revelation; Father does not hide truths necessary for his children to know. And truth is known by faith in the Spirit's guidance if we are intending to seek his glory and obey (John 7:17; 15:13). The Bible is read to seek God and deepening relationship with him, not doctrines. Of course, doctrines will necessarily be found but they are subservient to knowing God through faith. Which leads to the second suggestion, read the Bible through faith in God’s promises (cf. Hebrews 11:6; Jeremiah 29:13; John 7:17. Be as comfortable with not understanding as you are with understanding. What you know take firm hold of it and let it increase your faith. What you don’t understand just set it aside. You need not know without a doubt on a certain subject. Embrace as much as you can understand about what you don’t fully understand and the rest, allow God to bring wisdom in time. Direct your "faith without a doubt" on God's character and word, not on doctrines. Doctrine is important but doctrine tells us about God; doctrine is not God, at least, doctrine as we finite creatures are able to comprehend. Remember, we all know “in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Better than just knowing is the one who loves through what he knows (1 Corinthians 13:13; 3 John 4-5). Anyone who claims that their doctrinal teachings are either something like an “accurate reflection of Bible truths,” “the gospel,” or phrases like these, be very wary. More than likely they hold erroneous if not heretical notions of God. And remember, it is through faith in Christ that the full knowledge of God is received. Any form of knowledge that either ignores or sets him to the side is false. A good Bible to use for intimate studying with the Lord is the “Thompson Chain Reference” Bible and I believe it comes in the New American Standard, which is a translation I personally recommend (although, again, I am not a scholar). I suggest this study Bible because it has no explanatory notes but many cross references and topical studies; therefore, it helps to keep one as objective as possible in studying. I’m sure others can add, give better, and more helpful suggestions but these are some that have helped me |
||||||
95 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163692 | ||
Hi Doc, I agree the letter is to believers but that does not demand “any” be understood as confined to them or a group called “the chosen”. It is not denied that the letter is encouragement to its readers but it is still no reason to confine “any” to the aforementioned group. In my initial comment, I attempted to show that if “any” is understood as having reference to only “the chosen,” then they must not have been saved at the time of reading, or else why would God need to have patience with them and desire their repentance and salvation (cf. v.15) if they are already saved? The plain sense of “any” seems to be “any”, not a specific group at the exclusion of another. John Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9: Maybe “no mention of the purposes of God” was hidden from Calvin but it is not a mystery to me why some are saved and others not since the Bible makes it clear (e.g. John 3:36; Mark 16:16). Furthermore, the last sentence quoted seems contradictory since “stretch[ing] forth His hand” with the intention of laying hold of some and not all is in itself making a difference between one and another. John Gill: I cannot see any warrant for Gill’s exclusion of those outside the community of the Church (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11; Jonah 4:11). John Hendryx: Regarding the “simplest…solution”, I am unaware of this verse being hard to understand in the first place; that “any” means all men was a given, at least, to me. Wilhelmus a Brekel: No argument except to say that prior to salvation, the elect are not "elect" but sinners and God is patient with all sinners (Ps 145:8-9a; Nahum 1:3a; Matthew 5:45). Alexander Nesbit: If he is correct, then it must be because the readers were not yet saved; if saved, no delay for Jesus’ return was required for their sake. Most likely, if they had it their way, they wanted Jesus to come while they were reading the letter (cf. v.15a)! With all due respect to John Owen, Thomas Peck, A. W. Pink, James H. Thornwell, Francis Turretin, as well as the persons cited above, the Bible shows me they are mistaken. Just because my argument is weak does not necessarily mean my conclusion is faulty and “unpopular” as it may be “among the learned of the church” is no reason why I should go against what God has revealed to my conscience and agree with them. Not being universalistic, I am not certain why they would find it so appealing. I know why I do. I pray my comments have not “sounded” rude and that you have not been personally offended by my admission of disagreement. |
||||||
96 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163104 | ||
When I made that comment, my mind was not thinking of divine discipline but things like rape, murder, sickness, etc. Occasions where the Bible does show God inflicting these things or allowing it occurrence, it is due to judgment against sin. I was also thinking in terms of God not desiring, intending, or planning for his people to suffer in any way. Again, there basically is no argument against the idea of divine discipline per se. I can see two reasons for divine discipline: (1) to correct us for either sin or error in judgment, i.e. a purifying from, or (2) although one may already be blameless before God, God desires him to obtain more discernment and power for the task set before him, i.e. a purifying for. The suffering itself, from discipline or otherwise, is not the blessing; the good obtained is the blessing. I have no time to submit specific verses (except for Jer 29:11; Ps 91 and 103:1-6) but, for me, this is the whole tenor of the Bible. |
||||||
97 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163101 | ||
You asked, “Discipline is their perseverance?” Maybe I was not clear. It is discipline in order that they would be trained and strengthened to persevere. The believers in Hebrews are urged to use the persecution to their benefit, that is, to train themselves by it to greater obedience to Father. However, I do not agree that it is persecution which God “set up” for them although (1) it necessarily occurs because, as I have stated, the world’s hostility to the gospel and (2) God does allow it for the very reason that he needs faithful men to witness for him for the purpose of saving, even those who are his enemies. For my part as a parent, I do not want my children to suffer. I’d rather they obey by their experience of my voice as one who loves them and seeks their best. That is how I have trained them. However, there is no disagreement on the necessity of discipline although it is something I do not want to do and take no pleasure in. I do not see this as discipline but as testing. Jesus needed no correction. Jesus was being tested and proved as to his fitness for the task of redeeming sinful men. Again, (1) Jesus’ life/death is unique and certain aspects of it do not necessarily mean it is to be experienced by all believers. (2) It was God’s “idea” but not without Jesus submission to be driven into the wilderness. It needed to be shown that he was "holy, innocent, undefiled, and separate from sinners." You said, “Please do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that God inflicts suffering for the sake of watching us squirm! But I think the Bible is clear that suffering has a place in our development, and God would be remiss if He did not include it as needed.” I am not arguing the point that suffering is and, at times, is necessary. I am saying that God never planned, intends, or desires that we do suffer. |
||||||
98 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163092 | ||
Hi Doc. You're making me smile. Since we can only envision how someone is looking when they are making their comments, without being insulting, you have this crooked smile, pleading eyes, and hands folded together in appeal...you got me smiling. Anyway, I think throughout this discussion I have presented a fair amount of verses in support of my position. But if you look at my initial Note #162232 (11/14/05), I did enter some verses, especially under point #3 (since that seems to be the main contention). You're welcome to review the Note and show where or how I have misused or misinterpreted the verses. |
||||||
99 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163089 | ||
Hi Mark, My closing comments to you. 1. Heb 11 presents those of faith who, despite the obstacles to faith, persevered and did not fall away from their confidence in God. It can be admitted that persecution is not the main issue; faithfulness to God’s promise is. 2. However, we should not forget the history of each person mentioned. For example, Abel was persecuted by Cain. It can be assumed that Noah was persecuted for his preaching (2 Pet 2:5). Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael. Jacob was persecuted by Esau (although, afterwards, they were reconciled). Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Moses chose persecution (“mistreatment,” NIV). The people of Israel were persecuted by the Egyptians. 3. I can agree that the this chapter does not emphasize persecution but that is because, I think, the writer’s intention is to emphasize people of faith who believed in the promises of God, although they could not see it, regardless of outward circumstances. 4. Then the writer of Hebrews moves into the present situation (chapter 12) where, it seems, the believers were in danger of shrinking back away from faith in Jesus as Messiah. 5. You state, “Verse three speaks of the ‘contradiction’ of sinners against Jesus. This is not necessarily persecution, but could also be opposition, hostility, or rebellion.” But, “opposition, hostility, or rebellion” is persecution. If someone is opposed to you, hostile towards you, and rebellious towards you because you do what is right, what is that if not persecution? Furthermore, I think the writers emphasis was on the event of Jesus' crucifixion. 6. Granted, discipline does not need to be confined through persecution. However, on the contrary, from the context here, as I read it, the discipline is not the persecution itself but their perseverance in the midst of persecution and/or various trials because of their faith in Messiah. In all this, my main point is that God does not intend for his children to suffer. Taken at face value, I do not think any can disagree. The question can be asked, “Is the parent that wants their children to suffer a bad parent?” At face value, how do we think it would be answered? With respect to discipline, it does cause suffering, but it is a suffering necessary to avoid greater evil and suffering and promote that which is good and healthy. However, what parent would rather their children just trust them and obey their word than have the need to discipline them? It seems to me God wanted our First Parents to just obey his word, not by experiencing discipline, but by the mere experience of his voice. I think that is how God would rather we learn to obey him. I have come to know God as a Father who does not intend for us or desire that we suffer. |
||||||
100 | Suffering and God's providence | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 163086 | ||
Hi Mark, I am not against the concept of divine discipline; it is Biblical. Like a parent, I just think it is something God does not have on his mind to do unless it is necessary and it is not the ideal way he wants to encourage obedience. In addition, there are some things that cannot, at least in my mind, be construed as discipline, e.g. being sick or raped. The former, if one is to intepret it as from God, is rather divine judgment; the latter is just plain evil, an inspired act from evil powers. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |