Jesus, Moshiach and Mohammed

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Muhammed is writen in the bible and Torah as well


Chapter and verse please.




posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Im assuming the pagan thing is directed at catholics(which most of those outragouse remarks are). There is no paganism in it. There were like some symbols they took on just to make the transition to christianity easier, but I never see them anywhere.


I see a contradiction there. There is no paganism in it. Some symbols were allowed. That would mean that there IS some Paganism in it. I guarantee you if you researched just how much was brought in, you would be amazed. But I'm curious as to why it bothers you.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

It's difficult to navigate my little ship in these stormy waters and harder still to keep an even keel while avoiding the rocks of religious fervor and the shoals of religious intolerance.


Try being a Jew in a Southern Baptist family! I can relate to the above!



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

It's difficult to navigate my little ship in these stormy waters and harder still to keep an even keel while avoiding the rocks of religious fervor and the shoals of religious intolerance.


Try being a Jew in a Southern Baptist family! I can relate to the above!
Well, at least you're not a "man without a country".
I'll wager you just love the Christmas and Easter holidays though, right?
Hehehe.... I hear ya.... I feel for ya, brother! More than you know!



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430
I can tell that you aren't a practicing Jew and something tells me that you're either really young or really uneducated about Judaism.


Yes I am young. In every forum I have been too on the internet everyone seems to pick out the point that a person asking a question is either uneducated or young as an excuse to make their own point seem so much better. Tall poppy. Can't a young/uneducated person ask a question without being told this? I don't practise because religions in some aspects religions are scams. They make you pay for the best seat in the house (especially in the shules I have been too). Yes there is something special about giong to shule or church but I don't see why I should pay my money to show how much I am devoted to G-d. G-d can take all my money and I would have no qualms and live a poor man forever but a mere mortal man taking my money for something that I can do in my own time...go figure. This is another subject altogether and lets not head down ont that patch because this is not what this post is about.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Well, at least you're not a "man without a country".
I'll wager you just love the Christmas and Easter holidays though, right?
Hehehe.... I hear ya.... I feel for ya, brother! More than you know!


Since I've had kids, Easter has been off limits. I know where it came from and always felt it wasn't right so that one wasn't so big. Christmas on the other hand IS an ordeal! My entire family including in laws are Southern Baptists so they don't understand anything else. My kids are old enough that we tell them that it's the other people's holiday and we're just there. If we end up in church for whatever reason, we'll gloss over the Jesus stuff (like if we're singing a song). That's okay though because one day, all of those relatives will be gone and my kids will have their own traditions. Plus I am teaching them about other religions because I firmly believe that all paths point to G-d and want them to not feel forced into the path that I chose.

PS. I'm a sister!!!!



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Yes I am young. In every forum I have been too on the internet everyone seems to pick out the point that a person asking a question is either uneducated or young as an excuse to make their own point seem so much better. Tall poppy.


How did I use it to make my point better? My point was that you seem to be uneducated about Judaism. Simple. It appeared to be that way. I didn't call you uneducated in general.


Can't a young/uneducated person ask a question without being told this?


Sometimes, it's nice and a little p.c. to know which direction to take when talking to someone.


I don't practise because religions in some aspects religions are scams.


Religion is man made and is usually used in the wrong ways. It should be about establishing a personal relationship with G-d. I think that some people don't mesh well with a certain organized one so they kind of pick and choose and make one to fit them.


They make you pay for the best seat in the house (especially in the shules I have been too).


I'm hesitant to ask what branch you've been going to. I don't pay for a seat.


Yes there is something special about giong to shule or church but I don't see why I should pay my money to show how much I am devoted to G-d. G-d can take all my money and I would have no qualms and live a poor man forever but a mere mortal man taking my money for something that I can do in my own time...go figure. This is another subject altogether and lets not head down ont that patch because this is not what this post is about.


Well it kind of is what the post about since each religion does it. I'm not sure about the tithing procedures in Islam, but Christians tithe because the Bible says to and starts in Genesis with Abraham and Shem. At shuls, synagogues, and temples you do a yearly fee based on age, marital status, kids, etc and pay it over the course of the year because Jews are not allowed to handle money on Shabbos. These facilities are also a business and it takes money to run them. So Jews are commanded to build a sanctuary but we are to just let it go? We have about 23 mitzvahs that deal with t'rumah, tithing, and taxes. Are we just to ignore them because we don't think it's right? I think your view is a little warped on the subject. Do you pay taxes to the government? They are ultimately a business too that has to be funded.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

Muhammed is writen in the bible and Torah as well


Chapter and verse please.


Some believe that the promise to Moses in Deut 18 refers to Muhammad.

Shonet, since you claim to be reasonably knowledgeable about Judaism, I suppose I could ask you. You obviously seem to believe that the KJV and newer versions of the "Old Testament" have been changed around. So, do you have a link to somewhere with what you would consider a valid translation of the Tanakh(sp?).

Also, just out of curiosity, does the word Muhammad, Mahmad, Ahmad, Hamad etc. mean anything in hebrew? (If you know hebrew, that is...not sure about that)



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyiShonet, since you claim to be reasonably knowledgeable about Judaism, I suppose I could ask you. You obviously seem to believe that the KJV and newer versions of the "Old Testament" have been changed around. So, do you have a link to somewhere with what you would consider a valid translation of the Tanakh(sp?).


Hey, Babloyi! I'd like to field that one. Fact is ... there's no translation that I'd personally favor over the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but ... I understand that Hebrew ain't everyone's cup of tea. So, ... I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of the following:

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew/Greek/English by Jay P. Green Sr.
The Hebrew is based on the Masoretic Text and the Greek is from the Textus Receptus.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (the one that's numerically coded)

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers by H.W.F. Gesenius

Some folks like "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon by Francis Brown", but I personally don't care much for it.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers

Otherwise, you can go with a strictly Jewish publication of the Tanakh:

Hebrew- English Tanakh



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Some believe that the promise to Moses in Deut 18 refers to Muhammad.


Some also claim that Jesus is referring to Muhammad and not the Holy Spirit that will come after him. Some could put both Jesus and Muhammad under Deut 13!

18.15-16 טו נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי, יָקִים לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ: אֵלָיו, תִּשְׁמָעוּן.
טז כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-שָׁאַלְתָּ מֵעִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּחֹרֵב, בְּיוֹם הַקָּהָל, לֵאמֹר: לֹא אֹסֵף, לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת-קוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי, וְאֶת-הָאֵשׁ הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת לֹא-אֶרְאֶה עוֹד, וְלֹא אָמוּת.
A prophet will the L-RD thy G-d raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that thou didst desire of the L-RD thy G-d in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: 'Let me not hear again the voice of the L-RD my G-d, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.'

Anyhow, here is a little snippet from my Torah Commentary about 18.15. The L-rd...will raise up: The continuity of prophecy is assured by means of divine election. Other offices achieve their continuity by means of professional training and appointment (as with the judges of 16.18-20, 17.2-13), or dynastically (the king of 17.14-20) or by tribal membership (the Levitical priesthood of vv. 1-8). That G-d alone appoints the prophet makes the prophet independent of all institutions and able to challenge them. A prophet, while grammatically singular, is distributive in its meaning: I will repeatedly raise up for you a prophet." more than one prophet is clearly intended. A much later Jewish interpretation that was accepted by the Christian church (John 1.21, 45, 6.14, 7.40, Acts 3.22, 7.37) understands the verse to promise a single, messianic prophet at the end of time. Like unto me: At Horeb (5.20-30), Moses established the distinctively Israelite model contrasts with the prophet as diviner (vv 9-14) where the prophet does not represent the G-d of Israel and where the supernatural communication about the future bears no relation to the covenantal law. Thus the prophet, like the king (17.15) should be from "Among your own people." Verses 16-17 see 5.20-28 and Exodus 20.16-18.


Shonet, since you claim to be reasonably knowledgeable about Judaism, I suppose I could ask you. You obviously seem to believe that the KJV and newer versions of the "Old Testament" have been changed around. So, do you have a link to somewhere with what you would consider a valid translation of the Tanakh(sp?).


First things first, I'm slightly knowledgeable about Judaism. I was raised Southern Baptist so sad for me, I know more about it. It's a LONG learning process if you aren't raised a Jew. I do mean LONG! Also, there has been plenty of changing around. The BEST translation of the Tanakh (oh and yes spelled just right!) is no translation at all but in Hebrew. Artscroll is probably one of the best transliterations on the market. It has both the English and Hebrew side by side and the Artscroll is used by the Orthodox Jews who rely heavily on exact wording, though most know Hebrew. The JPS puts out a student Tanakh that has the Torah commentary in it which is fabulous. It explains bits a pieces using the Talmud and other sources for the information. It also cross references just about everything. Online, I would say, there are a couple. Just about any of the Jewish texts are going to be pretty good so long as you get the gist of what is being talked about. In some translations, HaSatan is called Adversary instead of HaSatan. Both are technically correct. Probably the most infamous translation mishap is the use of virgin.

Take Isaiah 7.14

KJV-Therefore, the L-rd himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. NJKV, NASB, ASV, Darby, Young, and Webster all use virgin, NLT adds a footnote that virgin means young woman but still uses virgin anyhow. RSV uses young woman. And HNV uses almah.

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Judaica Press

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. JPS 1917

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Hebrew English

Then compare it to Genesis 24.16

KJV-And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

All Christian translations use virgin because that's what it truly is in this situation.

Now the maiden was of very comely appearance, a virgin, and no man had been intimate with her, and she went down to the fountain, and she filled her pitcher and went up. Judaica Press

And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up. JPS 1917

And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up. Hebrew English

The root word is different as can be seen at Blueletter Bible

Oh and here is a link that has several different ones on it. Tanakhs


Also, just out of curiosity, does the word Muhammad, Mahmad, Ahmad, Hamad etc. mean anything in hebrew? (If you know hebrew, that is...not sure about that)


Ok I'll try to condense this. My Hebrew isn't spiffy yet but I think I can explain this. Hebrew is made up of root words and in this case, the root word for all is h-m-d (chet, mem, dalet) which is to desire. Mahmad is seen in Haggai 2.7 which is precious, thus something to be desired. Hamad is used in the tenth commandment, coveting which of course is something desired. Since there are no vowels. ahmad would be the same as hamad.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Shalom!

Quote/Of these distortions we will point out first of all the famous alteration by the massoretes of Isaiah 7.14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son ..."
Knowing that this passage is a great favorite of the Christians and testifies best of all to the all-undefiled birth of our Lord,
the massoretes,
while carrying out their reform, inserted the word "al'ma" (young woman) in place of the word "vetula" (virgin) in all the Hebrew texts throughout the world.
At the time, the ancient Christian apologists took exception to this with the Jewish interpreters: "And what kind of sign,
about which the prophet speaks here, would the birth of a son to a young woman have been, since this is known to be an everyday occurrence?"

In a manuscript of the Prophecy of Isaiah written before the birth of Christ, which was discovered not too many years ago and reported in Time magazine (1952, No. 18, p. 5), the word "virgin" is used in Isaiah 7.14, and not "young woman."

It is, therefore, clear why for the authoritative text of the Old Testament the Church prefers the Septuagint translation over the currently existing Hebrew text,
for as we have shown, the Septuagint is the text established under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the concerted effort of the Old Testament Church.

www.orthodoxfaith.com...

The very first promise concerning the Redeemer, heard by our fallen ancestors Adam and Eve, contained a prophecy about a special Woman.
God said to the devil: "I shall put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and Her Seed" (Genesis 3:15).
It should be noted that during the time of the Old Testament the progeny were always called the seed or descendent of a male parent.
Only here is the Redeemer-to-Come referred to as the Seed of the Woman, and this was the first indication that He would have no human father.

Many centuries afterward the prophet Isaiah added important details to this first prophecy of Genesis.
He said that the Woman, Who will give birth to the Messiah-Emmanuel, will be a virgin. "God Himself shall give you a sign,"
explained the prophet Isaiah to the disbelieving descendants of king David, — "the Virgin shall accept into her womb and bear a Son, and shall name Him Emmanuel, which means: God is with us" (Isaiah 7:14)

For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and Holy is His name. And His mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation" (Luke 1:46-50).


The Angel of God appeared to Joseph in his sleep and told him that Mary would bear a Son through the action of the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord God had predicted through the prophet Isaiah (Is 7:14) and the Angel commanded Joseph to give Him the name "Jesus" Savior — because He shall save people from their sins.

www.fatheralexander.org...

CHRIST proceeded forth from the Virgin Mary,
as Adam had from the earth: Adam by the inbreathing of the Spirit of God—And breathed into him the breath of life;—and Christ by the coming of the Holy Spirit—the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee—was said of the Virgin Mary.
Thus Christ came forth according to the likeness of Adam (Gen 2:7; Luke 1:35

The first promised Eve, that through her man would be as God,—ye shall be as gods.
The second promised Mary that through her God would become man—He shall be called the Son of the Most High ... the Son of God. Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Genesis 3:4—Luke 1:32, 35; Matt. 1:23.

Eve showed disobedience to God and to His commandment—thou shalt not eat of it (of the tree) ... she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.
Mary was obedient to the will of God at the Annunciation without any doubt and she said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Genesis 2:17, 3:6—Luke 1:38.

www.orthodoxinfo.com...


Actually, the Orthodox Church liturgy is very similar to the Jewish practise of Liturgy.....the Only thing missing in the Jewish is Christ....
quote//former Orthodox Jew //
The Greek Orthodox Church, as most Orthodox Christian churches, reads the Tanach, or official biblical translation into Greek made by the Septuagint, the 70 Jewish Elders in Alexandria. In this way, they do recognize the full validity of the Jewish text, thus traditional understanding of the Tanach.

IX
helen



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430
Some also claim that Jesus is referring to Muhammad and not the Holy Spirit that will come after him. Some could put both Jesus and Muhammad under Deut 13!

Heheh....that's why I said "some". It would be pointless and silly to start an argument saying "It foretells Jesus!" "No, It fortells Muhammad!". There is no answer. It could foretell either, neither, or both. There is some proof either way.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
First things first, I'm slightly knowledgeable about Judaism. I was raised Southern Baptist so sad for me, I know more about it. It's a LONG learning process if you aren't raised a Jew. I do mean LONG!

Heheh... I suppose that is preferrable to getting into a religion that you later on don't agree with at all.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
Ok I'll try to condense this. My Hebrew isn't spiffy yet but I think I can explain this. Hebrew is made up of root words and in this case, the root word for all is h-m-d (chet, mem, dalet) which is to desire. Mahmad is seen in Haggai 2.7 which is precious, thus something to be desired. Hamad is used in the tenth commandment, coveting which of course is something desired. Since there are no vowels. ahmad would be the same as hamad.


Ahmed in arabic means "Praiseworthy". Thus Muhammad meant "One who is praise worthy". I see that arabic has similar construction to hebrew (and it should- it came from it). All arabic words come from some root, that consists of 3 consonants. Thus h-m-d means "praiseworthy", and it is used to derive words such as ahmed, muhammad, hammada, hamad, etc.
The reason I asked was because (and I am just passing the message here, didn't find it myself), the Song of Solomon 5:16 has "mahmadiym" in it, which apparently means "lovely".

[edit on 8-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 8-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 8-6-2005 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Shalom!

Sholem aleykham


Quote/Of these distortions we will point out first of all the famous alteration by the massoretes of Isaiah 7.14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son ..."

*snip*
Let's go over some things because I have to let you down in the next section. Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells the story of the North Kingdom of Israel and Syrian laying siege to Judah. G-d sends Isaiah to Ahaz to tell him that there was divine intervention. Isaiah gave him the sign to look for so he would know. The sign is 7.14 but starts in 7.11. I'll even use your version of the Bible. Look how nice I am! Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy G-d; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my G-d also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Ok so verses 11 and 16 put things into perspective. Before the child shall know the refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." So what does that say? Conflict ceases when the child is born. This has to take place during the time of Ahaz as the sign was for him which was oh I don't know, 500 years before Jesus. So why would G-d offer up a sign that won't happen during his lifetime? Is G-d lying? Behold says this is present, not future. G-d also only offered a sign. This is no miracle to answer your apologists. Mary didn't name Jesus Immanuel. So Matthew quoted from the Septuagint obviously. The Jews only had part in the translation of the Torah. See the Talmud Megillah 9a for the Jewish origin of the book. It says that in the days of King Ptolemy, the king ordered 72 rabbis to translate the Torah of Moses. Josephus also acknowledged the Septuagint being only the Law of Moses in this preface to Antiquities. But the translation come from parthenos which is said to mean virgin. Ever wondered why the original also used it for Dinah who was raped? She's obviously no virgin. Cross reference Isaiah's use of virgin to 23.4, 23.12, 37.22, 47.1 and 62.5. Also go to the Blueletter Bible and see for yourself. Almah is used in 7.14 and not be'tulah. Matthew 1.23 says they shall call him Emmanuel. That's not what Isaiah's prophecy is. The mother calls him Immanuel.


In a manuscript of the Prophecy of Isaiah written before the birth of Christ, which was discovered not too many years ago and reported in Time magazine (1952, No. 18, p. 5), the word "virgin" is used in Isaiah 7.14, and not "young woman."

In the future, I suggest you checking a source before you publicize it. As shown below, the text is second century so it's after Jesus. The "No. 18 part is deceptive. But that doesn't matter. BTW, I read No. 18 and it's not in there. Here are the three excerpts from Time in 1952 that deal with Isaiah. And you too can read these articles and search through No. 18 for only $1.99!

October 6, 1952 Article New Bibles
Although the committee had the backing of the National Council of Churches—and themselves represented most major Protestant denominations—they approached their translations not as theologians, but as scholars seeking the most authoritative text. Some of their changes are sure to rouse controversy. In Isaiah 7:14—"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son"—they have substituted "young woman" for virgin, on the basis of a 2nd century text.

October 3, 1952 Letters to the Editor

The Word of God

Sir:

In your Oct. 6 review of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, you state that the translators "approached their translations not as theologians, but as scholars seeking the most authoritative text," and cite, by way of illustration, Isaiah 7:14, where they have substituted "young woman" for "virgin," supposedly on the basis of a 2nd century text. If the age of a manuscript is to be the determining factor in the choice of a translation, it should be stated, however, that the Isaiah manuscript of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written probably before the birth of Christ, has "virgin." Unfortunately, the substitution of "young woman" for "virgin" reflects a persistent effort on the part of some modern theologians to obviate the miracle of the Virgin Birth.

L. W. SPITZ
Concordia (Lutheran) Seminary St. Louis

December 8, 1952 Nyuzu for Japan

The new version is written in simple language, using the most modern expressions possible, including such importations from English as nyuzu for news (instead of the older kikoe), rampu for lamp (instead of tomoshibi). Otome (young maiden) is used instead of Shojo Maria (Virgin Mary).* See footnote.

Footnote*A similar change was effected by U.S. scholars in the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament (TIME, Oct. 6). It aroused considerable opposition in some U.S. church circles. This week the Rev. Martin Luther Hux, pastor of the Temple Baptist Church in Rocky Mount, N.C., publicly burned a page of the new version. His principal objection: the use of "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.


The very first promise concerning the Redeemer, heard by our fallen ancestors Adam and Eve, contained a prophecy about a special Woman.
God said to the devil: "I shall put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and Her Seed" (Genesis 3:15).

That has nothing to do with Jesus as already shown by me in G-d only knows how many other posts so I snipped the remainder as it's not true nor pertinent.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Heheh....that's why I said "some". It would be pointless and silly to start an argument saying "It foretells Jesus!" "No, It fortells Muhammad!". There is no answer. It could foretell either, neither, or both. There is some proof either way.

I personally think it's a general foretelling of prophets in general since there is no promise for just one.


Heheh... I suppose that is preferrable to getting into a religion that you later on don't agree with at all.

Oh yeah! My kids are being raised Jewish, though I admit they were baptized! Either way, they are also learning about other religions/philosophies so they can make their own decision.


Ahmed in arabic means "Praiseworthy". Thus Muhammad meant "One who is praise worthy". I see that arabic has similar construction to hebrew (and it should- it came from it). All arabic words come from some root, that consists of 3 consonants. Thus h-m-d means "praiseworthy", and it is used to derive words such as ahmed, muhammad, hammada, hamad, etc.
The reason I asked was because (and I am just passing the message here, didn't find it myself), the Song of Solomon 5:16 has "mahmadiym" in it, which apparently means "lovely".


Mahmadiym would have the same roots...mhmdm of which the hmd is the root. Since the root is to desire, like seen in Haggai with precious, something lovely is to be desired. So in Hebrew Muhammad would essentially be one who is to be desired. And Song of Songs is a dirty book! Religious porn! Everything in that book is practically rooted in hmd since it's all about desire!





 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join