| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2005 04:00:26 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Islamic World History Fund |
MichaelC wrote:
From the Quranic author perspective, tis is *****.
You want the Bible for yourself to justify your sola Scriptura.
First off, I have no interest in the Quranic perpsective, because I
recognize no authority there. That's not an argument. Since Christianity
predates Islam, if you want to get a Christian to consider an islamic
perspective, you have to at least show that the Christian perspective is, in
some way, flawed. You have failed to do so.
Since you are still thinking in terms of Islam vs Christianity,
It is safe for me to say that you missed my point.
But any way, according to the Qur'an,
Hebrew Christianity and Arabian Christianity
have ISLAM in common and are supported by
the Scriptures (Bible)
Since Islam seems to be the ANTITHEISIS of Paul
and Paul being supported by the Bible, then
the Bible supports two doctrinal line and two
covenatal systems, The Old and the New Covenants.
Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false, so is the idea
that the Bible belongs to those who believe only
in Jesus as Son Of God or only in Paul version
of Christianity.
No one can claim exclusivity on Jesus and the Bible.
Now If you can prove that Hebrew Christianity and Arabian
Christianity have not Islam in common you will disprove
my finding
.
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 04:36:09 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135288826.913552.53190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
From the Quranic author perspective, tis is *****.
You want the Bible for yourself to justify your sola Scriptura.
First off, I have no interest in the Quranic perpsective, because I
recognize no authority there. That's not an argument. Since Christianity
predates Islam, if you want to get a Christian to consider an islamic
perspective, you have to at least show that the Christian perspective
is, in
some way, flawed. You have failed to do so.
Since you are still thinking in terms of Islam vs Christianity,
It is safe for me to say that you missed my point.
No, I get your point, but you (and the Quran, which I have some familiarity
with) depend on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture to make it fly.
But any way, according to the Qur'an,
Hebrew Christianity and Arabian Christianity
have ISLAM in common and are supported by
the Scriptures (Bible).
Since Islam seems to be the ANTITHEISIS of Paul
and Paul being supported by the Bible, then
the Bible supports two doctrinal line and two
covenatal systems, The Old and the New Covenants.
I get that point. However, that is quite different than arguing that there
are two "doctrinal lines" contained in the NT, taken by itself. IOW, you can
build whatever argument you wish vis a vis "doctrinal lines" using the Quran
and the NT; I am strictly interested in refuting the erroneous notion that
there was any pervasive or continuing disagreement between the Church of
Jerusalem and the Chuch of Antioch (and the rest of the world) after 49AD.
Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false, so is the idea
that the Bible belongs to those who believe only
in Jesus as Son Of God or only in Paul version
of Christianity.
No one can claim exclusivity on Jesus and the Bible.
The Bible is in the public domain. Anybody can do with it what they will.
However, Christianity as understood by today's Christians insists upon a
complex Godhead where Christ was pre-existent and fully consubstantial with
that Godhead, e.g., he is God. Others who call themselves Christians without
acknowleging this belief may consider themselves followers of Christ as
philosopher and/or moral teacher, but in that case, they are not using the
word "Christian" as it is generally understood.
Semantics matter. If you run around saying "Hey. I'm a Christian", then it
is assumed that you acknolwedge the Deity of Christ. If you then follow up
your statement with a long dissertation about how you follow the Christ as
described in the Quran, rather than by Paul in the NT, because Paul was this
about this, and yadayadayada........ you're going to be a buzz kill at a
party. Nobody's going to listen.
Now, instad, if you walk in the door and (instead of the above) you start
out by saying "Look, I'm a Muslim, but I believe that for whatever reason,
Islam has incorrectly minimized the moral teaching of Christ, and as a
result gotten off into all this jihadist and salafist and islamofascist and
whatever", then you'd be an interesting guy to have around.
But when you start the conversation by arguing (incorrectly) that there were
two Christianities, and the wrong one won, then someone will quite rightly
toss you in the swimming pool before the party even gets going.
Capice?
Now If you can prove that Hebrew Christianity and Arabian
Christianity have not Islam in common you will disprove
my finding.
I've already proven that what you call "Hebrew Christianity" never existed
as a discrete theology, but only as your invention (or, if you prefer, the
invention of Islam). Whether or not that has any relevance to your
innovative beliefs is your business.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 05:34:22 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Semantics matter. If you run around saying "Hey. I'm a Christian", then it
is assumed that you acknolwedge the Deity of Christ. If you then follow up
your statement with a long dissertation about how you follow the Christ as
described in the Quran, rather than by Paul in the NT, because Paul was this
about this, and yadayadayada........ you're going to be a buzz kill at a
party. Nobody's going to listen.
Only If people in that Party believe that Christianity started with
Paul version and that Paul was no novelty.
Now, instad, if you walk in the door and (instead of the above) you start
out by saying "Look, I'm a Muslim, but I believe that for whatever reason,
Islam has incorrectly minimized the moral teaching of Christ, and as a
result gotten off into all this jihadist and salafist and islamofascist and
whatever", then you'd be an interesting guy to have around.
Intersting to the who want to justify MISSION and proselystism
But when you start the conversation by arguing (incorrectly) that there were
two Christianities, and the wrong one won, then someone will quite rightly
toss you in the swimming pool before the party even gets going.
Capice?
Now If you can prove that Hebrew Christianity and Arabian
Christianity have not Islam in common you will disprove
my finding.
I've already proven that what you call "Hebrew Christianity" never existed
Now how do you call those Hebrews of Act 14.
"There came from Judea some people who
taught the brothers that unless you circumcise
according to the custom of Moses you wan't be
saved..." Acts 14,15
Were they Christians or not?
The believers from among the party of the Pharisees
during the Council at Jerusalem, were there Christian
or not. Luke refers to them as believers Acts 15
You are not being consistent with the Bible
as a discrete theology, but only as your invention (or, if you prefer, the
invention of Islam). Whether or not that has any relevance to your
innovative beliefs is your business.
What belief?
Now how do you reconcile this two facts:
Paul telling the Galates not to circumcise, and
James pleading to Paul not to stear away those jews
who want to be loyal to Moses, yet came to the faith
implying that it was ok for them to circumcise.
Were those Hebrew Christians or not?
If they were Christian how can you say there
were no Hebrew Christian.
With your mind set you can always ignore facts.
MISSIONARY MIND SET IS DANGEROUS
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 05:46:50 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135294462.031431.276380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
Semantics matter. If you run around saying "Hey. I'm a Christian", then
it
is assumed that you acknolwedge the Deity of Christ. If you then follow
up
your statement with a long dissertation about how you follow the Christ
as
described in the Quran, rather than by Paul in the NT, because Paul was
this
about this, and yadayadayada........ you're going to be a buzz kill at a
party. Nobody's going to listen.
Only If people in that Party believe that Christianity started with
Paul version and that Paul was no novelty.
And obviously they do, since Christians, using the accepted definition of
the term, believe in the Deity of Christ.
Now, instad, if you walk in the door and (instead of the above) you
start
out by saying "Look, I'm a Muslim, but I believe that for whatever
reason,
Islam has incorrectly minimized the moral teaching of Christ, and as a
result gotten off into all this jihadist and salafist and islamofascist
and
whatever", then you'd be an interesting guy to have around.
Intersting to the who want to justify MISSION and proselystism
But when you start the conversation by arguing (incorrectly) that there
were
two Christianities, and the wrong one won, then someone will quite
rightly
toss you in the swimming pool before the party even gets going.
Capice?
Now If you can prove that Hebrew Christianity and Arabian
Christianity have not Islam in common you will disprove
my finding.
I've already proven that what you call "Hebrew Christianity" never
existed
Now how do you call those Hebrews of Act 14.
"There came from Judea some people who
taught the brothers that unless you circumcise
according to the custom of Moses you wan't be
saved..." Acts 14,15
Were they Christians or not?
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they may have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one knows.
The believers from among the party of the Pharisees
during the Council at Jerusalem, were there Christian
or not. Luke refers to them as believers Acts 15
You are not being consistent with the Bible.
Perhaps not, but you're not doing a very good job of pointing out how.
Again, simply saying something isn't enough to make it true.
Mike
as a discrete theology, but only as your invention (or, if you prefer,
the
invention of Islam). Whether or not that has any relevance to your
innovative beliefs is your business.
What belief?
Now how do you reconcile this two facts:
Paul telling the Galates not to circumcise, and
James pleading to Paul not to stear away those jews
who want to be loyal to Moses, yet came to the faith
implying that it was ok for them to circumcise.
Were those Hebrew Christians or not?
If they were Christian how can you say there
were no Hebrew Christian.
With your mind set you can always ignore facts.
MISSIONARY MIND SET IS DANGEROUS
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 06:30:57 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Perhaps not, but you're not doing a very good job of pointing out how.
Again, simply saying something isn't enough to make it true.
Because you assume wrongly that they changed their
view while it is apparent in Paul own letters that
they did not.
The Qur'an also support the fact that they did not
change
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 06:11:28 AM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297857.356562.151420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
Perhaps not, but you're not doing a very good job of pointing out how.
Again, simply saying something isn't enough to make it true.
Because you assume wrongly that they changed their
view while it is apparent in Paul own letters that
they did not.
You're mistaking the natural tendency of people to prefer a quid-pro-quo
religious structure (in other words, "give me a checklist of what I need to
do to be saved, rather than complicate my life with abstract requirements
like 'faith'") for one based on faith-relationship. Legalism of this sort
pops up in Christianity all the time. It's always more comfortable for a
person to believe they have a to-do list of salvatory items which *obligate*
God to offer salvation (note the key flaw in the model) than attemtpt
holistically to emulate a relationship.
The Qur'an also support the fact that they did not
change
Yea, well........ Good for the Quran. :-) What else would you expect it to
say? If the Quran asserts the Pauline model, Mohammad would have been out of
a job.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:59:24 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297857.356562.151420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
Perhaps not, but you're not doing a very good job of pointing out how.
Again, simply saying something isn't enough to make it true.
Because you assume wrongly that they changed their
view while it is apparent in Paul own letters that
they did not.
You're mistaking the natural tendency of people to prefer a quid-pro-quo
religious structure (in other words, "give me a checklist of what I need to
do to be saved, rather than complicate my life with abstract requirements
like 'faith'") for one based on faith-relationship. Legalism of this sort
pops up in Christianity all the time. It's always more comfortable for a
person to believe they have a to-do list of salvatory items which *obligate*
God to offer salvation (note the key flaw in the model) than attemtpt
holistically to emulate a relationship.
We are talking about what the Bible says.
you have no idea
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 06:27:25 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they may have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 06:06:35 AM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St. Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
Seriously. Your "read" of the the New Testatment is through an Islamic lens,
where it is well known that (and sorry to have to say it) Islam's key
anti-Christian apologetic is the ultimate intellectual cop-out: claming that
PARTS, but not ALL, of the key reference text of your adversary is invalid.
Have you ever attemtped to read the New Testament AS A CHRISTIAN WOULD? In
other words, drop the Islamic lens, decide (just for the moment) that
Mohammad was just a nut in a cave, and study the NT from the assumption that
Christ was exactly who we say He is.
You'll find it quite enlightening. For the record, I've done this sort of
thing multiple times in various ways. I wouldn't ask you to do anything I
haven't done myself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:44:15 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St. Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
This was not the ISSUE. The issue was that Paul
teaching was new to everybody, which led some
rabbis to resist him, and this too is reported in the same
Bible. PICK AND CHOSE and pretend
to find uniform doctrines in it.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
Seriously. Your "read" of the the New Testatment is through an Islamic lens,
where it is well known that (and sorry to have to say it) Islam's key
anti-Christian apologetic is the ultimate intellectual cop-out: claming that
PARTS, but not ALL, of the key reference text of your adversary is invalid.
Have you ever attemtped to read the New Testament AS A CHRISTIAN WOULD? In
other words, drop the Islamic lens, decide (just for the moment) that
Mohammad was just a nut in a cave, and study the NT from the assumption that
Christ was exactly who we say He is.
You'll find it quite enlightening. For the record, I've done this sort of
thing multiple times in various ways. I wouldn't ask you to do anything I
haven't done myself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:54:41 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135370655.835905.159340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St.
Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no
reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
This was not the ISSUE. The issue was that Paul
teaching was new to everybody, which led some
rabbis to resist him, and this too is reported in the same
Bible. PICK AND CHOSE and pretend
to find uniform doctrines in it.
Do you mean "pick and choose?"
Did you do what I asked below? :-)
Mike
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although
it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
Seriously. Your "read" of the the New Testatment is through an Islamic
lens,
where it is well known that (and sorry to have to say it) Islam's key
anti-Christian apologetic is the ultimate intellectual cop-out: claming
that
PARTS, but not ALL, of the key reference text of your adversary is
invalid.
Have you ever attemtped to read the New Testament AS A CHRISTIAN WOULD?
In
other words, drop the Islamic lens, decide (just for the moment) that
Mohammad was just a nut in a cave, and study the NT from the assumption
that
Christ was exactly who we say He is.
You'll find it quite enlightening. For the record, I've done this sort
of
thing multiple times in various ways. I wouldn't ask you to do anything
I
haven't done myself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 03:57:07 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135370655.835905.159340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St.
Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no
reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
This was not the ISSUE. The issue was that Paul
teaching was new to everybody, which led some
rabbis to resist him, and this too is reported in the same
Bible. PICK AND CHOSE and pretend
to find uniform doctrines in it.
Do you mean "pick and choose?"
Whatever!
Did you do what I asked below? :-)
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:57:52 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St. Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
Seriously. Your "read" of the the New Testatment is through an Islamic lens,
where it is well known that (and sorry to have to say it) Islam's key
anti-Christian apologetic is the ultimate intellectual cop-out: claming that
PARTS, but not ALL, of the key reference text of your adversary is invalid.
If Islam is anti-Christian then the Bible is anti-Christian
because Islam is the hebraic interpretation of Moses Law
in relation to Christ.
YOU ARE SAYING THAT ALL THE FIRST HEBREWS CHRISTIANS
WERE ANTI-CHRISTIAN. I don't think so
Have you ever attemtped to read the New Testament AS A CHRISTIAN WOULD? In
This book report some stories about early christianity
You should just stick to Paul's teaching alone as a Gentile.
The NT is no uniform doctrines otherwise you would
not have thousand different sects
other words, drop the Islamic lens, decide (just for the moment) that
Mohammad was just a nut in a cave, and study the NT from the assumption that
Mohammad is no personal name, this is why
you miss the point If you thought it was.
For your information, MOHAMMAD IS a euphemism
for Christ.
Christ was exactly who we say He is.
Christ said Moses wrote about him., where do you
find that writing?
You'll find it quite enlightening. For the record, I've done this sort of
thing multiple times in various ways. I wouldn't ask you to do anything I
haven't done myself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:47:19 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St. Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
From you it is a compliment, because you don't even know
what Moses said about the Messiah.
You don't know Moses Christology and even If you knew
it you would not be able to reconcile it with Paul.
Messiah/Christ is a prophet like Moses, Deut 18:15
If you don't know that then you are OFF BASE
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 02:56:24 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135370839.404189.287910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after
being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they
may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one
knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St.
Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no
reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although
it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
From you it is a compliment, because you don't even know
what Moses said about the Messiah.
You don't know Moses Christology and even If you knew
it you would not be able to reconcile it with Paul.
Messiah/Christ is a prophet like Moses, Deut 18:15
If you don't know that then you are OFF BASE
This has already been explained. If you can't keep track of the
conversation, that's not my fault.
Tell me, what's your purpose in posting these heresies to Christian boards?
Certainly you don't expect Christians to be taken in by these facile
arguments?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 03:55:56 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135370839.404189.287910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did after
being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or they
may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No one
knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St.
Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's no
reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult, although
it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
From you it is a compliment, because you don't even know
what Moses said about the Messiah.
You don't know Moses Christology and even If you knew
it you would not be able to reconcile it with Paul.
Messiah/Christ is a prophet like Moses, Deut 18:15
If you don't know that then you are OFF BASE
This has already been explained. If you can't keep track of the
conversation, that's not my fault.
Tell me, what's your purpose in posting these heresies to Christian boards?
Certainly you don't expect Christians to be taken in by these facile
arguments?
Islam is no heresy. It is biblical.
Heresy maybe whithin the Roman Imperial borders
where Caesar Augustus was whorshipped as God
or the Son Of God. But Islam is no heresy before God
THE TWO Empires -The Catholic Holy Roman Empire
and the Islamic Empire facing each other in check and
balance was designed by God Himself that way.
YOU ARE THE ONES WHO MISSED THE POINT.
We did not.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 04:10:49 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135374956.325277.124130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135370839.404189.287910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135297645.731951.189300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There's not enough information to determine what the men did
after
being
refuted by the Council. They may have left in a hissy fit, or
they
may
have
changed their views according to Paul and James' position. No
one
knows.
Then you don't know the Jews and their
attachment to their Law.
Paul said they did not change their view as they
continued to teach that the Law was good.
Ref Epistle to Timothy.
Later in Galatia they taught a different "Gospel"
to Paul's disciples.
I'm pretty sure this is old ground at this point. I believe that St.
Paul's
refutation in Galatians 2 is sufficient as to explaining the
futility of
attempting to reinsert the Law of Moses into Christianity. There's
no
reason
for me to add anything to his assertations.
Let me ask you a question, and this isn't meant as an insult,
although
it
sounds like one at first:
Have you every considered the possibility that you're full of *****?
From you it is a compliment, because you don't even know
what Moses said about the Messiah.
You don't know Moses Christology and even If you knew
it you would not be able to reconcile it with Paul.
Messiah/Christ is a prophet like Moses, Deut 18:15
If you don't know that then you are OFF BASE
This has already been explained. If you can't keep track of the
conversation, that's not my fault.
Tell me, what's your purpose in posting these heresies to Christian
boards?
Certainly you don't expect Christians to be taken in by these facile
arguments?
Islam is no heresy. It is biblical.
Heresy maybe whithin the Roman Imperial borders
where Caesar Augustus was whorshipped as God
or the Son Of God. But Islam is no heresy before God
THE TWO Empires -The Catholic Holy Roman Empire
and the Islamic Empire facing each other in check and
balance was designed by God Himself that way.
YOU ARE THE ONES WHO MISSED THE POINT.
We did not.
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 04:29:33 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
Of course Jesus is God, but in Christ/ Messiah there is
the idea of kinship and rulership.
This is a clear exemple of Politics dressing up
in religious terms,jerk.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 04:37:55 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135376972.927845.54210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
Of course Jesus is God
Well, then, apparently we're on the same page.
Mike
, but in Christ/ Messiah there is
the idea of kinship and rulership.
This is a clear exemple of Politics dressing up
in religious terms,jerk.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
24 Dec 2005 10:27:21 AM |
|
|
On 23 Dec 2005 14:29:33 -0800, wrote:
MichaelC wrote:
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
Of course Jesus is God, but in Christ/ Messiah there is
Of course it's a figment of your deluded imagination IN TWO OF THE
NEWSGROUPS YOU'RE SPAMMING THIS STUPIDITY TO.
the idea of kinship and rulership.
This is a clear exemple of Politics dressing up
in religious terms,jerk.
The only jerk here is yourself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
31 Dec 2005 04:19:14 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005 14:29:33 -0800, wrote:
MichaelC wrote:
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
Of course Jesus is God, but in Christ/ Messiah there is
Of course it's a figment of your deluded imagination IN TWO OF THE
NEWSGROUPS YOU'RE SPAMMING THIS STUPIDITY TO.
Of course it is the clear meaning of the text:
"This is Jesus the King of Jew",
and the roman centurion's comment
This man was really the SON OF GOD
the idea of kinship and rulership.
This is a clear exemple of Politics dressing up
in religious terms,jerk.
The only jerk here is yourself.
WHATEVER, JERK
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 04:26:04 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Islam is no heresy. It is biblical.
Heresy maybe whithin the Roman Imperial borders
where Caesar Augustus was whorshipped as God
or the Son Of God. But Islam is no heresy before God
THE TWO Empires -The Catholic Holy Roman Empire
and the Islamic Empire facing each other in check and
balance was designed by God Himself that way.
YOU ARE THE ONES WHO MISSED THE POINT.
We did not.
Nonsense. Christ clearly asserted himself as God.
And that is a claim and not a proof
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 05:16:04 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
I get that point. However, that is quite different than arguing that there
are two "doctrinal lines" contained in the NT, taken by itself. IOW, you can
build whatever argument you wish vis a vis "doctrinal lines" using the Quran
and the NT; I am strictly interested in refuting the erroneous notion that
there was any pervasive or continuing disagreement between the Church of
Jerusalem and the Chuch of Antioch (and the rest of the world) after 49AD.
It is not about the Qur'an and the New Testament
But about the Qur'an vs Paul
Old Cov vs New Cov
Islam vs Catholicism and not Christianity.
Hebraic Christia
} Islam vs Gentile
Christia
Arabian Christia
James vs Paul
So If Paul and James agree on the mecanism of salvation
as you said
then there is no need for proselytism as understood
until now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 05:20:01 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135293364.687649.212350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
I get that point. However, that is quite different than arguing that
there
are two "doctrinal lines" contained in the NT, taken by itself. IOW, you
can
build whatever argument you wish vis a vis "doctrinal lines" using the
Quran
and the NT; I am strictly interested in refuting the erroneous notion
that
there was any pervasive or continuing disagreement between the Church of
Jerusalem and the Chuch of Antioch (and the rest of the world) after
49AD.
It is not about the Qur'an and the New Testament
But about the Qur'an vs Paul.
From the perspective of Islam, of course. Paul must be discredited for Islam
to be true, no question.
Old Cov vs New Cov
Islam vs Catholicism and not Christianity.
Hebraic Christia
} Islam vs Gentile
Christia
Arabian Christia
James vs Paul
So If Paul and James agree on the mecanism of salvation
as you said
then there is no need for proselytism as understood
until now.
Uh, nonsense. The salvatory mechanism is faith in Christ first, followed by
good works in keeping with that faith. This is not an intuitive salvatory
mechanism, and is significantly different from the JudeoIslamic model.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
22 Dec 2005 06:14:11 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135293364.687649.212350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
I get that point. However, that is quite different than arguing that
there
are two "doctrinal lines" contained in the NT, taken by itself. IOW, you
can
build whatever argument you wish vis a vis "doctrinal lines" using the
Quran
and the NT; I am strictly interested in refuting the erroneous notion
that
there was any pervasive or continuing disagreement between the Church of
Jerusalem and the Chuch of Antioch (and the rest of the world) after
49AD.
It is not about the Qur'an and the New Testament
But about the Qur'an vs Paul.
From the perspective of Islam, of course. Paul must be discredited for Islam
to be true, no question.
Old Cov vs New Cov
Islam vs Catholicism and not Christianity.
Hebraic Christia
} Islam vs Gentile
Christia
Arabian Christia
James vs Paul
So If Paul and James agree on the mecanism of salvation
as you said
then there is no need for proselytism as understood
until now.
Uh, nonsense. The salvatory mechanism is faith in Christ first, followed by
good works in keeping with that faith. This is not an intuitive salvatory
mechanism, and is significantly different from the JudeoIslamic model.
In Islam, both in its Hebraic version or Arabian version, it is
the same mecanism:Faith in Christ + good works.
This is why the Torah states clearly that
Christ is a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 05:43:00 AM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135296851.400573.179410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135293364.687649.212350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
I get that point. However, that is quite different than arguing that
there
are two "doctrinal lines" contained in the NT, taken by itself. IOW,
you
can
build whatever argument you wish vis a vis "doctrinal lines" using
the
Quran
and the NT; I am strictly interested in refuting the erroneous
notion
that
there was any pervasive or continuing disagreement between the
Church of
Jerusalem and the Chuch of Antioch (and the rest of the world) after
49AD.
It is not about the Qur'an and the New Testament
But about the Qur'an vs Paul.
From the perspective of Islam, of course. Paul must be discredited for
Islam
to be true, no question.
Old Cov vs New Cov
Islam vs Catholicism and not Christianity.
Hebraic Christia
} Islam vs Gentile
Christia
Arabian Christia
James vs Paul
So If Paul and James agree on the mecanism of salvation
as you said
then there is no need for proselytism as understood
until now.
Uh, nonsense. The salvatory mechanism is faith in Christ first, followed
by
good works in keeping with that faith. This is not an intuitive
salvatory
mechanism, and is significantly different from the JudeoIslamic model.
In Islam, both in its Hebraic version or Arabian version, it is
the same mecanism:Faith in Christ + good works.
This is why the Torah states clearly that
Christ is a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15
Christ can't be a prophet. To choose one of dozens of verses which one could
use to prove this:
" Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh
unto the Father, but by me."
Now, unless you've subscribed to a completly new belief which would be
blasphemy in both Islam and Christianity, a *man* cannot bestow salvation,
can he? What power does a *man* have to do this? A man may *explain* the
mechanism of salvation, as prophets do, but never have the power to bestow
that salvation. That is the sole perogative of God.
But, here we have Jesus Christ stating clearly that he has the POWER to
bestow salvation. If he had said the last nine words only, the
interpretation of "prophet" would be difficult, but not impossible. But, we
have the first eight words as well.
Now, logically, what does that mean? It means that Christ could only be one
of three things:
1) He was a blasphemous LIAR. He knew He was just a man, but pretended to
have the power of God for reasons known only to himself.
2) He was a MADMAN and a FOOL, filled with insane delusions, thinking
Himself part of the Godhead. Or.....
3) He was exactly who he said he was -- GOD in the flesh.
But, never a prophet. If He was *not* God, he was either (1) or (2), and
such a man could never be a prophet.
Mike
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 11:19:31 AM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
..
This is why the Torah states clearly that
Christ is a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15
Christ can't be a prophet. To choose one of dozens of verses which one could
use to prove this:
Are you saying that Peter was a liar?
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your
leaders.
18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through
all the prophets, saying that his Christ[a] would suffer.
19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your
sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
20and that he may send the Christ,
who has been appointed for you-even Jesus.
21He must remain in heaven until the time
comes for God to restore everything, as he promised
long ago through his holy prophets.
22For MOSES said, 'The Lord your God will raise
up for you a PROPHET like me from among your
own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
23Anyone who does not listen to him will
be completely cut off from among his people.'[b] Act 3:18
Stephen made the same point too.
Whenever I get a chance to get on computer again
I will reply to the rest of your posts
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 11:43:22 AM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1135358371.741286.133150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
.
This is why the Torah states clearly that
Christ is a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15
Christ can't be a prophet. To choose one of dozens of verses which one
could
use to prove this:
Are you saying that Peter was a liar?
Did Peter call Him a prophet? No, but no matter. If you prefer, I'll be glad
to qualify by saying that Jesus cannot be JUST a prophet.
The point I made stands.
Mike
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your
leaders.
18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through
all the prophets, saying that his Christ[a] would suffer.
19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your
sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
20and that he may send the Christ,
who has been appointed for you-even Jesus.
21He must remain in heaven until the time
comes for God to restore everything, as he promised
long ago through his holy prophets.
22For MOSES said, 'The Lord your God will raise
up for you a PROPHET like me from among your
own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
23Anyone who does not listen to him will
be completely cut off from among his people.'[b] Act 3:18
Stephen made the same point too.
Whenever I get a chance to get on computer again
I will reply to the rest of your posts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 03:34:24 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Did Peter call Him a prophet? No,
How about you saying you know no *****
PETER TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL:
For MOSES said, 'The Lord your God will raise
up for you the Messiah,a PROPHET like me from among your
own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
Anyone who does not listen to him will
be completely cut off from among his people.' Acts 3:18-23
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
23 Dec 2005 03:30:43 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Did Peter call Him a prophet? No,
Yes he did Acts 3:20
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islamic World History Fund |
24 Dec 2005 04:10:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
MichaelC wrote:
Did Peter call Him a prophet? No,
Yes he did Acts 3:20
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets
since the world began.
Bull doo doo!
Do you really think nobody checks these things, or doesn't
know the bible?
---------
*************************************************
The outrageous failed prophecy of Jesus
that he'd preside over the end of the world
and judgment day itself 1930 years ago.
William C. Barwell 3-16-05
*************************************************
Deuteronomy 18:21-2
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we
know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the
LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass,
that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken,
but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:
thou shalt not be afraid of him.
----------------------------------------------
Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of
the world (Matthew 24:3) and judgment day itself,
(Matthew 16:27-8), he claims he will "come in his
kingdom"and "reward all men according to their
acts".
This is expanded on in Matthew 25:31-45.
He will come in the glory of his angels,
he will be "the King". He will ascend to his
"throne of glory" and gather the nations.
He will sort the "sheep" from the "goats" the
good from the evil. Good will be rewarded with
eternal life in heaven, evil will depart into
"everlasting fire prepared for the devil and
his apostles" (Matthew 25:41)
This is what he means by come in his kingdom.
He will literally be "the King" of the world,
And will preside over judgment day itself.
(Matthew 25:31-34), (John 5:23, 5:27).
When? Matthew 16:27-8 has Jesus assuring his
listeners that "some standing here" will live
to see this all happen. See also Mark 9:1.
Matthew 24-5 is one long pericope. A narrative.
Here we are assured that this will happen in
"this generation", Matthew 24:36, see also Luke
21:32, and Mark 13:30.
This generation will see the sun and moon fail,
the stars fall from heaven. Then Jesus will
descend with his fathers angels and "clouds
of heaven". "This generation" is to see this.
Again, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21.
He tells the high priest at Jerusalem that he
too will see Jesus descend with "clouds of heaven"
the same phrase he tells us "this generation"
is to see in Matthew 24:36. See also Mark 14:62.
This phrase "clouds of heaven" of Matthew 26:64
and Mark 14:62 thus pins down the happenings of
Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 to be seen in
the times of "this generation" as being seen by
then living high priest, and "Some standing here".
Not some generation 1930 years later.
The "high priest", "this generation", "Some
standing here" did not see these things happen
as prophecied.
No religion has ever failed as spectacularly in
its'prophecies' as has Christianity.
This also puts an end to Revelations, all of that
too was to have taken place some 1930 years ago.
Christianity thus is incredibly irrelevant to
anything, having utterly failed in the main claim
of Jesus, when none of this happened as
prophecied,
by Jesus, alledged god himself according to many
trinitarian Christians.
If Jesus, supposed son of god was so wrong on
this, his main claim, he isn't going to be right
on anything else. This is the most obvious failed
'prophet' and the most failed religion of all
time.
And its finally time to admit these facts.
(End)
The verses quoted.
Matthew 16:27-8
27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of
his Father with his angels; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works.
28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9
1 And he said unto them, "Verily I say unto you,
That there be some of them that stand here, which
shall not taste of death, till they have seen the
kingdom of God come with power.
Matthew 25:30
31 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
and all the holy angels with him, then shall he
sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 "And before him shall be gathered all nations:
and he shall separate them one from another, as a
shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 "And he shall set the sheep on his right hand,
but the goats on the left.
34 "Then shall the King say unto them on his right
hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world:
41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those
days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall
not give her light, and the stars shall fall from
heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be
shaken:
30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of
the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory.
31 "And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
his elect from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other.
32 "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his
branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is nigh:
33 "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these
things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall
not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away.
Matthew 26
64 Jesus saith unto him, "Thou hast said:
nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 14
62 And Jesus said, "I am: and ye shall see the Son
of man sitting on the right hand of power, and
coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mark 13
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the
sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give
her light,
25 "And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the
powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming
in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall
gather together his elect from the four winds,
from the uttermost part of the earth to the
uttermost part of heaven.
28 "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her
branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is near:
29 "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these
things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at
the doors.
30 "Verily I say unto you, that this generation
shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words
shall not pass away.
Luke 21
25 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in
the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth
distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and
the waves roaring;
26 "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for
looking after those things which are coming on the
earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming
in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 "And when these things begin to come to pass,
then look up, and lift up your heads; for your
redemption draweth nigh.
29 And he spake to them a parable; "Behold the fig
tree, and all the trees;
30 "When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of
your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come
to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh
at hand.
32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall
not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words
shall not pass away.
Deteronomy 18
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among
their brethren, like unto thee, and will put
my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto
them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will
not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in
my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a
word in my name, which I have not commanded him to
speak, or that shall speak in the name of other
gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we
know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the
LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass,
that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken,
but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:
thou shalt not be afraid of him.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
