Results 81 - 100 of 1260
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: charis Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Is baptism a work? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66637 | ||
Dear Indy, Greetings in Jesus' name! Just to let you know that I see that you did a balanced research, and asked some pertinent questions. The only One able to consider ALL Scripture is God. But you did a commendable job, for a 'mere' Christian! :-) (apologies to C.S. Lewis) Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
82 | Submit . . . unless it hurts? | Eph 5:33 | charis | 66636 | ||
Dear srchng, Greetings in the name of Jesus! you wrote: 'And the last plea I made was, "Please help me see where scripture relieves a wife of the resposibility under God to submit to her husband because it pains, injures, or even kills her."' The New Testament does not speak to us of abusive husbands. Beacuse the Bible is pure and simple truth, it is assumed that a 'husband' is one that makes covenant and commitment to care for and protect his chosen bride, and the mother of his children. Whether the husband is saved or not, it is natural for him to behave properly. When a man steps out of the bounds of propriety and dignity, when he stoops to the gutter of abuse and abasement, he forfeits his right to claim husbandship. He has 'left' his wife, and abandoned her. To equate the bearing of insane barbary with serving the Lord is lunacy. Truly, a wife (or husband) may be called to years of unanswered prayer for the spouse's salvation. Truly, a believer may be called to bear humiliation, boredom, and loss of reputation. But a spouse who renounces their vows of love and protection has nullified the contract. Frankly, to even hint that a woman must submit to such a person, even to death, is irresponsible, even criminal. God is NOT glorified! Scripture does not have to 'relieve' a spouse from such things. Common sense does that. As to 'lesser submission,' there is no such thing. There are abusive wives, too, you know! I hope that this gives you something to ponder. Peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
83 | What purpose did each baptism serve? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66630 | ||
Dear Teacher, Greetings in Jesus' name! Indeed, there ARE four! (present tense) Please see ID# 66609 for Part 2. You can find my email address in my personal profile. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
84 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66629 | ||
Dear Cyclist, Greetings in the name of Jesus! Good question! I did a quick search through e-Sword (my 'physical' resources are in my office, and I'm now at home), and they all say that the pregnant or those nursing babies are not able to flee to Jerusalem on that terrible day. The unborn or nursed babies are not mentioned. When I read your post, the first thing that came to my mind was that these mothers would fear for their unborn or babes. But nobody else said that. :-) Thanks for visiting. We are blessed! Serving Jesus is our joy! Peace to you in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
85 | "Call no man father" | Matt 23:9 | charis | 66625 | ||
Dear Emmaus, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I see that you DID post this study. Sorry, I didn't check the 'daily postings,' only those that sent me automatic notification. :-( Friend, I am not really against the use of 'titles' as a show of honor and respect. Otherwise, I would be as guilty as anyone else! The context of the above Scripture is warning all ministers of the DESIRE to hear 'Rabbi' or 'Teacher' or 'leader.' I can clearly see the inherent danger and temptation of this attitude. As to the verse in question, it is pretty clear and specific. So specific, in fact, that even many explanations fail to make me understand allowing such a tradition to continue. There is indeed the problem of those ministers 'confusing themselves with God.' Moreover, the problem is that it encourages the flock to confuse these men with God. This is unacceptable, to me. But, my gentle colleague, this is but my opinion. Thank you for the post, I do understand better the use of the title. Finally, regarding Rabbi Mark, I understand that your 'situation' with him was not about his 'Username.' That was more my doing. But he was rather caustic and condescending to all, and his misquote of Matthew 23 made me to ask him about his 'title.' Sadly, he never answered the questions I asked, but continued to be arrogant toward the whole forum, and now has left, angry and self-inflated. I hoped to have a Biblical discussion for mutual benefit. Well...that's a forum. Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
86 | Why Rabbi? | Eph 5:33 | charis | 66619 | ||
Dear Emmaus, Greetings in Jesus' name! Yes, 'Brother' Emmaus, it has been a while. ;-) Please accept my apology if I was rude about 'a major religion.' Please know that I hold you and your faith in Christ Jesus in the highest regard! I look forward to hearing from you about the title 'Father.' While I am saying that, let me also say that I have spoken at length with priests and brothers and long-time faithful Catholics, but never have I had the pleasure of real fellowship in Christ Jesus and the Bible until I met you here. You are a credit to your church. (I hope I didn't make you blush! :-)) With your permission, let me tell you some further experiences with 'titles' in Japan. Christians are rare here, and Christian ministers more rare. Most Japanese have never met a minister of the Gospel, and only seen them on TV, usually some 'gaijin' (foreigner) ackowledging wedding vows in a cheesy soap opera! Most of these TV directors have no clue what a Christian (of ANY persuasion) is, so invariably the minister is dressed in papal robes and regalia, and is called 'Fah-zah' (Father). Therefore, when introduced to people, I am always called 'Fah-zah' or 'Shimpu-sama' (exalted Priest). I've known some people for years, and they still call me 'Fah-zah!' :-) Whatever! As long as I have some respect in their eyes, and (susequently) an opportunity to share the Gospel, I am blessed! Peace and joy to you in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
87 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66617 | ||
Dear retxar, Greetings in Jesus' name! My friend, I always consider! :-) I well understand yout point that God shows no partiality, but I fail to see the connection between this child (quite probably Jewish, and very possibly the child of one of His disciples!) and every child on earth. More than that, however, I do not see this child as any more than an example for Jesus' discourse. Unless the Lord changed the direction of His teaching in vs. 3 and 4 (...like children..., ...as this child...) and v.5 (...one such child...), then the following verses are speaking of followers of Christ only, not including this particular child or all children in general. My friend, are there any other supporting Scriptures that clearly teach the pre-accountability salvation (innocence) of all children? Using only this passage, which is pretty ambiguous, to found a major salvation doctrine is too shaky for me to change my present thinking. Thank you for your thoughts. I look forward to hearing more from you. Love to you and yours in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
88 | Accountable for every commandment? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66616 | ||
Dear inmyheart, Greetings in Jesus' name! With all due respect, this sounds like water baptism is a requirement for salvation, repenting and believing on Jesus are separate events or actions, and that we must produce fruit until the end of our days or we're 'toast.' I would not know where to begin (or end!) trying to define 'fruit' if it means 'sum.' My friend, I respect your opinion, and hope that your definitions are not as severe as they sound, but this is just too terribly close to 'performance-based salvation' for my taste. As a shepherd, I know more about the sheep entrusted to my care than anyone (except maybe my wife!). I can't think of a one, including myself, that would 'stand muster' if the Inspector were 'counting merits and demerits.' I believe we are saved by grace through faith, even though God knew the missteps we would make. Well, enough said. I'm sure you understand my stance. Blessings and peace to you and yours. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
89 | Accountable for every commandment? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66610 | ||
Dear agree3, Greetings in the name of Jesus! My first reaction to your post was to reply, "Why, no, I never did get past Acts 1:4! :-) But, seriously... Yes, my friend, I HAVE read those Scriptures. As far as I can see, they do not alter my basic position. For more on my beliefs, click the 'Search' button and type 'baptism' in the Word box, and 'charis' in the User box. Hope you have some time... In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
90 | What purpose did each baptism serve? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66609 | ||
Dear Teacher, Part 2 Greetings again in Jesus' name! 3) Water Baptism - A washing that we chose to receive in obedience to the example set by Jesus and His disciples in the Bible. I believe the ideal method is full-immersion, but circumstance would not prevent this blessing from taking place if plenty of water were not available. However, to make extenuating circumstances into the norm, and practice sprinkling or dipping is not in keeping with the commandment to be 'whelmed.' Another practice I cannot accept is infant baptism. I trust fully that God will grant grace to the children of believers. I also see that faith is a necessary component of baptism, and that faith-by-proxy is not faith. As you can see, my friend, I have not supplied Scripture for Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Water Baptism. The reason is time and space (nothing to do with quantum physics! :-)). Please use the 'Search' function and type 'baptism' along with my user name 'charis,' and you will find 85 posts in which I write my position and supply Scripture reference. Finally, I have not yet made a definitive 'system' or 'method' out of my beliefs about the baptisms. This is because as soon as I do, it would be succeptable to error or criticism. I might even be the one to find the error! I see that 'setting doctrine in stone' (or print) makes us bound (enslaved) by tradition and conservatism, to the point that we are unable to accept an even slightly different thought. On the other hand, I do not believe in 'floating' doctrine, that changes with each fad or 'guest speaker.' I have a certain amount of 'leeway' built into my doctrine, but not so much that it has undergone a major 'revamp' in over 20 years. If you do have the time to read some of my postings, you will find that I do live and teach a fairly clear doctrine. (I hope!) Certainly clear enough to love God, and serve Him with all my being. Now, it's your turn! :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
91 | What purpose did each baptism serve? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66607 | ||
Dear Teacher, Greetings in Jesus' name! Male - Randy, not Grace. :-) From your emphasis on 'WERE,' I gather that you think that there are now less than three? I'll try to explain 'my' position: 1) John's baptism - As you wrote, a full-immersion water baptism unto repentance, and to prepare a way for the Messiah (Christ). "Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'" Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Matthew 3:1-6 NASB. In my opinion, many churches today are still practicing a baptism similar to John's. By this I mean that it is a 'general' baptism, 'preparing the way,' but not spiritually effective. It may separate them from the world (repentance), but not baptize them 'into Christ.' 2-a) Baptism of the Holy Spirit - a spiritual washing of the Holy Spirit that is sometimes concurrent with our repentance experience. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Instigator (Apprehender?) of our 'meeting' with the Lord, and Encourager of our 'acceptance' of Christ Jesus as Savior. However, because of the many references to 'conversion,' 'baptism,' 'renewal,' and the like, I lean toward this being a separate gift or blessing. How or why, I do not have a definitive answer. (sorry!) My excuse is that virtually every 'definitive' answer is full of holes! :-) I do observe, however, that some souls who proclaim Christ as Savior do not produce the appropriate fruit. It would be easy to just say, "Well, they're not saved!" I cannot do this, as the only truly 'appropriate fruit' is perfection, and none can achieve this. So, it 'seems to me' that the Holy Spirit can (and will!) indwell (immerse, baptize) a believer that opens his heart and his life to Him. This, to me, is a step beyond justification by faith. Ideally, all Christians will seek this blessing, but alas... 2-b) Baptism of Fire - 'John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."' Luke 3:16 NASB. (and Matthew 3:11, Isaiah 48:10, I Peter 1:7, Hebrews 12:29, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15) The above Scriptures tell me that God sometimes chastens us, tries us by fire, that we may become pure. I have experienced such 'seasons,' and ministered to saints in the midst of trial. Seeing the results of such times, I can only conclude that these were sent by the lord to cleanse our lives. Baptism means washing, purification. I find that I have surpassed the 5000 limit! (ME!?) So, for the exciting conclusion to this post, see my next post. Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
92 | Why Rabbi? | Eph 5:33 | charis | 66591 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! Don't you mean "Saint Joseph!" ? :-) Blessings, 'Friend' Joe! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
93 | Do all little ones believe? | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66590 | ||
Dear retxar, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I can't see from this Scripture (Matthew 18:2) that the child, and all children, are included in the analogy. Do you have other Scriptures to back it up? Friend, I have no desire to condemn children. When I see the children of the unsaved, I FEEL that they have not rejected Jesus, so He MUST accept them. But what I feel, and what I read in the Bible do not always match! There may be other Scriptures that clearly show that all children are 'innocent' until they willfully reject God, then become 'guilty' until they 'accept' Jesus. I have not yet found them. Please teach me. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that God is just, and that I don't know His plans for all children. I DO know He extends grace to the children of believers for a season, but we have an awesome responsibility to bring them up for Jesus. "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4 KJV. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4 NASB. In any case, we are to preach the Gospel to all mankind, and the Lord will save whoever He wills! Peace and joy in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
94 | Why Rabbi? | Eph 5:33 | charis | 66588 | ||
Dear justme, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I try to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to situations such as this. Indeed, there are many that simply want to share with others what they recieve at home. In many churches, calling a minister 'Elder Elijah' or 'Deacon David' or 'Pastor Paul' is considered a sign of both familiarity and respect. I don't have much problem with this, though I must admit it sounds a bit 'hokey.' :-) A major denomination is enthralled with the use of 'Bro.' and 'Bros.' (not spelled out 'Brother') I thought this was fine until I found that some were VERY serious about the proper usage. If the person did not meet with their standard, the 'title' was revoked. (apparently this has something to do with their doctrine of 'closed-communion' and recognition of standing with the Lord) This one, I believe, can be abusive. Other groups use 'Brother Barnabas (or Sister Sarah'), (spelled out) to mean minister, while others use it across the board for all of faith. While 'cute,' this can be a bit tedious and-or contrived. One major religion recommends calling it's ordained ministers 'Father,' and this is where a clear contradiction of Bible teaching shows up. I am sure they have a 'plausible' excuse for this. Perhaps I can be 'enlightened?' :-) FInally, we have a recent trend of calling ministers by some pseudo-Biblical moniker. I have heard 'Prophet Peter' and 'Disciple Daniel' and 'Teacher Thomas,' and I am sure there are others. Perhaps 'Rabbi Rueben' is a new one? I , too, find it difficult to use these 'titles,' but can't really judge. To be fair, I will explain my own situation. I pastor a church in Japan. In this society, first names are not often used, and even then, '-san' is added. When a person is a teacher, they are commonly called 'Sensei' (Watch 'Karate Kid' :-)) A pastor is often called 'Bokushi-sensei' (Pastor-Teacher) or even 'Bokushi-sama' (exalted Pastor). I found myself in a dilemma! Most Japanese people cannot bring themselves to call a 'teacher' by his first name, even with the '-san' attached! Well, for some reason obscured by time (senility?), I ended up being referred to as 'Pasutaa,' which is the phonetic representation of 'Pastor.' I guess it doesn't bother me so much, as this is the same word we use for Italian noodles. :-) For some reason, this satisfies the societal dictates, and I pray that I am not 'desiring' this moniker as a 'title' to rule over another soul. In fact, I get a chuckle (and so do they!) every time someone hears the explanation that 'pastor' sounds like 'pasta.' Now I have to go on a 'low-carbo' diet! :-) Friend, I agree with you, we have nothing to boast about! No amount of Bible-knowledge or years-in-faith or 'salvations-to-our-credit' will make us any 'more saved.' Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
95 | Are little ones trusting, easily led | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66531 | ||
Dear cwade, Greetings in Jesus' name! Just a quick note, as it's pretty late. I don't know if I believe that it requires a 'break from tradition' to say these 'little ones' are faithful disciples of Christ. Many of the commentaries I use are pretty old (after all, they are free, as is e-Sword!). Also, much hisory I read tells me that the norm is to consider children as the 'seed of Adam.' Please note that I trust, as most Christians do, that the children of a believer are held in a special grace. They are not yet capable of taking the responsibility of serving Jesus, yet God honors the parent(s) faith. (1 Corinthians 7:14) My friend, I believe that the 'innocent children' idea is fairly recent. I cannot say when or where it became 'popular,' but it does not seem to be the norm, say, 100 years ago. In any case, my opinion. So far, nobody has given me Biblical confirmation of the 'all children are innocent' theory. :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
96 | Are little ones trusting, easily led | Matt 18:6 | charis | 66485 | ||
Dear cwade, Greetings in the name of Jesus! My friend, not intrusion whatsoever! After all, this is a public forum! :-) I see what you are saying, but I will have to say that I think that the 'little ones' are actually faithful, dedicated believers, regardless of their significance or maturity 'level.' Some commentators even go as far as labeling them disciples or ministers. (I use "e-Sword" in my computer [last count, 13 commentaries], and "The Pulpit Commentary [23 volumes]" and 5 different Study Bibles) My own experience in Christ tells me that the faithful Christian becomes 'less complicated' with maturity. Though I have not yet 'arrived' at striving to be humble, it is my earnest goal. One more 'food-for-thought' comment. You asked if 'as children' might mean "...people who are very trusting by nature and easily led." I think that dedicated, faithful Christians, regardless of their 'maturity,' are NOT "very FOOLISH by nature and easily MISLED." Just because they might be 'caused to stumble' does not necessarily mean they are stupid and easily duped. I still think that the 'dependent on God' aspect is more in keeping with the context of this passage, rather than 'cute an innocent.' For instance, when we 'turn the other cheek,' we should be well aware that we will probably get smacked again. But willing anyway! It's usually not like the movies when the 'offender' breaks down in repentance seeing our humility! So, saints... "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16 NASB. I appreciate your comments. I know that my thoughts could 'rub the wrong way.' I just look at these Scriptures and see that they speak to 'converted' disciples of Christ. BTW, How are things in 'Joh-jah?' My big brother lives near Ellijay, Nohth Joh-jah! :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
97 | Submit . . . unless it hurts? | Eph 5:33 | charis | 66473 | ||
Dear srching, Greetings in Jesus' name! Bearing physical persecution for the sake of your faith is one thing, bearing physical abuse for the sake of a whim from someone that promised to love you and care for you is another. In my experience, men do not abuse their wives 'because they became Christians,' but because they want to abuse their wives. "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15 NASB. I would say that if physical abuse is chronic (and even psychological or emotional abuse in some cases), the the unbelieving (or even believing!) spouse is not 'with' their mate, but has 'left.' Mind you, every case needs the special attention of a caring shepherd, so I only speak in generalities. But physical abuse is dangerous and illegal. There is no Biblical commandment to bear this. Peace and wisdom to you. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
98 | Accountable for every commandment? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66470 | ||
Dear inmyheart, Greetings in the name of Jesus! My friend, I have read and reread your post, and can't help feeling that you want to say something, but aren't saying it. (?) Perhaps I am just reading too deeply, but it seems to me that you consider our salvation to be decided upon the sum of our walk with Christ. For instance, the Bible speaks of repentance in ways. The initial repentance is turning away from our sinful nature and turning toward God. This repentance is part of saving faith, and is also concurrent with calling upon the name of the Lord (for the first time). From this starting point we are saved. (Actually, God knew us from before our birth, so from His standpoint, we are saved even before we are 'apprehended' by God and respond to His calling!) After this 'meeting' with the Lord, we continue to call upon his name, to exercise the gift of faith, and repent from our sinful ways. But these subsequent actions are not for 'continued' salvation, but to serve the Lord, to perfect our lives, to please our Savior. I believe that water baptism is part of the latter sanctification, not the former justification. If we say that we must be baptized, repent daily, call upon His name daily, and read the Bible daily in order to 'preserve' our salvation, then we indeed begin to have a 'performance' based salvation. As I have said before, we are saved by grace (alone) through faith (alone). Nothing further is required to 'preserve,' 'validate,' or 'update' this salvation. However, obedience to the commandmants of the Lord Jesus pleases our God, and produces fruit and reward. This reward does not produce 'more-saved' saints. :-) It just pleases God. This, to me, is good enough. Well, it's late. Good night. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
99 | Is baptism a work? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66453 | ||
Dear Ray, Greetings in the name of Jesus! I pray you are well, my brother in Christ. May the Lord be your strength and peace! Yes, my friend, I am well aware of the 'problem' of Eph 4:5 "...one Lord, one faith, one baptism,..." NASB. However, I cannot find a way to 'do away' with BOTH water baptism and the baptism of fire. Sure, you COULD say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit encompasses both of the 'other' baptisms, but it is very difficult to deny their importance considering how much Scripture is devoted to them. :-) Personally, I solve the dilemma by trusting that either Paul was speaking only of water baptism, or that he was speaking of one 'washing from God' with three distinct aspects. Take your pick! :-) One thing I do know, either of the above is preferrable to the alternative, because I have not found a way to 'delete' any two! Frankly, between you and me (and the rest of the forum! :-)), I don't lose sleep over this issue! I never tire of quoting the Scripture that I have used in this thread, but I am sorry to see people become so myopic and selfish concerning this topic. Fortunately, this particular thread has been very dignified and amicable! :-) Oh, yes! I really love your reference to 1 Corinthians 6:11. Blessing and love to you and yours. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
100 | Accountable for every commandment? | NT general Archive 1 | charis | 66452 | ||
Dear inmyheart, Greetings in the name of Jesus! My friend, I agree with you that repentence is necessary for salvation. To me, repentance is an integral and inseparable part of faith in Christ Jesus. It is impossible to be under the Lordship of Christ without repentance. Grace is extended to those that understand their humility, their lowly stature, their sinful nature, when confronted with the awesome glory of God. Well said. As to water baptism, I agree that it is important, VERY important. But not for salvation. To facilitate and enhance our sanctification during this earthly journey. All three baptisms seem to be exactly what the root word implies; washed, cleansed, whelmed. I believe that sanctification and salvation are closely linked, sometimes the distinction is blurred. But the 'justification' aspect of salvation is clearly 'by faith (alone) through grace (alone). Now some completely justified (saved) saints did some really foolish (sinful) things that obviously did not please God. But He, as a loving Father, did not revoke the status of righteousness from these men. In the same manner, we see that God may strongly desire men to do a certain thing or live a certain way, but He will not deny them for lack of it! I believe that water baptism falls into this category. I water baptism necessary for salvation (justification)? No. Does God want every believer to be water baptized? Yes. "According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 NASB/ I think that the above passage clearly speaks of the proper realtionship of (God-pleasing) works to salvation. They are separate issues. But such works are not for nil, and dead works are not acceptable to God! This speaks of reward, and loss of reward according to the manner of our walk in Christ Jesus. But there is no fear of loss of salvation! Praise God! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [63] >> |