Christian Debate Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
McCulloch
First Post |
 Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: Messianic Prophesies |
 |
|
Do Messianic Prophesies prove that Jesus was the Messiah?
There are a significant number of prophesies in the Jewish holy writings which predict certain things about the messiah. Early Christian writers have made the claim that Jesus fulfilled those prophesies. To these facts most will agree.
Explanations for this seem to fall into two categories:- God inspired the writers of the prophesies by his own foreknowledge and his own will as to what would happen. Jesus, the Son of God, then fulfilled those prophesies on earth as the Messiah.
- The writers of the New Testament, who were quite familiar with Jewish messianic literature, writing some years after the life of Jesus, in an attempt (successful as it turns out) to give credibility and legitimacy to their new religion, made sure that they made up many examples of events that fulfilled prophesy.
Which of these hypotheses best explain the facts? What are the testable predictions from each of theses hypotheses? Do the facts agree better with one over the other?
|
|
 |
einstein Apprentice Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Total posts: 145 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
1148.97 tokens
|
Post 31:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the relevant passage in the KJB: But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.
Here is the relevant passage from the Hebrew Bible: And you, Beit-Lechem Ephratah, you should have been the lowest amongst the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from old, from ancient days.
An analysis of the Hebrew indicates the prophet is not addressing the town of Bethlehem, rather he is addressing the clan, ie the House of Lechem (bread) residing in the town of Ephratah, ie Bethlehem. The Hebrew states "v'atah bait lechem ephratah", atah being second person masculine gender. If the town of Bethlehem were being addressed, the prophet would have said "v'at" ie second person feminine gender which is used for towns and cities. (eg Jer 50:24)
Since it is the clan that is being addressed, jit is of no significance which town the Mashiach is born, rather it is the clan, the family which is significant.
This passage is about Ruth, an ancestor of the Davidic line. Ruth married into the the clan of Lehem by marrying into the family of Elimelech and Naomi. Because Ruth was a Moabitess, and a convert to Judaism the uneasiness felt by the people is properly expressed through the prophet "You should have been the LOWEST amongst the clans of Judah...
This passage is really about the ancestry of King David- the Messiah being a byproduct of this ancestry.
There is a second problem with the passage. The phrase concerning the origin being from ancient days is mistranslated in the KJB and omitted altogether in Mattew. The phrase in Hebrew is "mi'yimei olam". It is relevant that this phrase is used 6 times in the Tanach and in 5 out 6 cases it is correctly translated in the KJB as "days of old". Only in Micah is it mistranslated as "everlasting" since the proper use of the term "from days of old" contravenes the Church's position that Jesus is supposed to be around from the beginning of time.
There are other problems with Mattew.
1) He leaves out the town name Ephratah not realizing who is being addressed.
2) He completely changes the intention of Micah. The KJB translation of Micah has -though thou be little among the thousands.. while Matthew unable to accept this low status as befitting the Messiah, changes the phrase with a negative- thou...are NOT the least...
In order to fit this passage with the Christological paradigm, Matthew omitted the problematic mistranslation in the KJB "everlasting" and changed the prophet's intentional meaning by reversing you areto read you are not |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easyrider
Usergroups: None
0.00 tokens
|
|
Post 32:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Einstein -
An interesting synopsis.
First, let it be known that Jesus the Jewish Messiah was born in the town of Bethehem, as Matthew and Luke both attest.
Regarding your statement: "An analysis of the Hebrew indicates the prophet is not addressing the town of Bethlehem, rather he is addressing the clan, ie the House of Lechem (bread) residing in the town of Ephratah, ie Bethlehem."
I think Matthew gives better clarification on this than you've provided. Matthew gives, "IN Bethlehem, IN Judea..." (although your statement above nevertheless addresses Bethlehem anyway). Here, it's fairly evident a geographical description is being provided, vs. a clan who could be anywhere in Israel. It also doesn't prohibit, by any means, any of the clans of the House of Lechem from living in the town of Bethlehem, in Judea, from whom the Messiah would come. I don't see this as an issue from what you posted but just wanted to clarify this further.
Next, you cite "other problems with Matthew." Since Matthew is quoting the learned Jewish "chief priests and teachers of the law" of his day on where the Messiah would be born, then your problem isn't necessarily with Matthew, but the Jewish chief priests and teachers of the law themselves, whom Matthew cited. You then have to ask yourself why ancient Jewish priests and teachers understood Bethlehem in Judea to be the birthplace of the Messiah?
Along with that, we have this:
"Out of thee Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me, to exercise dominion over Israel. Whose name has been spoken of Old from the day of Eternity." (Targum Jonathan)
Since this is basically in line with the questionable KJV (I prefer the NIV, thanks), then we again have the question concerning why the Jewish Targum assigns ancient origins to the name (person) of Messiah?
Finally, I am glad you admit that Micah 5:2 is a Messianic prophecy. The majority of Christians believe that also.
Jesus is the Bread of Life, and the "Manna from Heaven," who was born in Bethlehem, the "House of Bread." Very fitting!
Cheers... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| einstein Apprentice Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Total posts: 145 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
1148.97 tokens
|
|
Post 33:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you have missed my point. Micah is a prophecy about the place of origin of the Davidic dynasty, not necessarily about the place of birth of the Messiah.
Although the authors of Matthew and Luke state Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the author of John is not so sure.( John 7:40-43) and the author of Mark would assign it of no significance since he is silent.
Secondly, it is quite clear how Matthew misapplies and mistranslates this passage. (he does the same in other passages in this chapter, too) Therefore why would anyone accept his statement when he puts words in the mouths of the chief priests and scribes?
As another example, Matthew talks about the slaughter of the babes in Bethlehem. An event of this sort would have been recorded in the Jewish records and undoubtedly in the Roman records. There is no accepted extra-biblical mention made of this imaginary slaughter in any historical record.
Thirdly, I have explained previously that the Targumim are not accurate translations-rather they are a form of paraphrasing used to teach various theological concepts. In your example the talmudic commentary is that Yonathan is expressing the idea that the concept of the Mashiach existed in the mind of Hashem even before the creation. This does not change the real meaning of the Hebrew m'yimei olam "from ancient days" not "from everlasting or eternity."
The word "moshel" (ruler) used in Micah refers to an actual physical ruler, a person of authority. Jesus was never a ruler while he was alive. Any suggestion that he will rule with a second advent is just rationalization.
Time permitting, several other examples of misapplication and mistranslations in Matthew from the Tanach will be presented. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easyrider
Usergroups: None
0.00 tokens
|
|
Post 34:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| einstein wrote: |
| I think you have missed my point. Micah is a prophecy about the place of origin of the Davidic dynasty, not necessarily about the place of birth of the Messiah. |
Of course that's hardly a universal belief among Jews, as I've previously documented.
| einstein wrote: |
| Although the authors of Matthew and Luke state Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the author of John is not so sure.( John 7:40-43).. |
Let's review that passage and see if you presented it fairly (which you didn't):
John 7:40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." 41 Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
So, John is simply recording what various Jewish people said (not John's personal opinion as your argument suggests).
| einstein wrote: |
| "....and the author of Mark would assign it of no significance since he is silent." |
Mark starts the story of Jesus when he's fully grown, so you can't attribute anything to Mark one way or the other. I could state with the same veracity that Mark never denies the Bethlehem birth of Jesus, and that would also be correct.
| einstein wrote: |
| Secondly, it is quite clear how Matthew misapplies and mistranslates this passage. |
What did I previously say on this that you seemingly ignored? Since Matthew is quoting the learned Jewish "chief priests and teachers of the law" of his day on where the Messiah would be born, then your problem isn't necessarily with Matthew, but with the Jewish chief priests and teachers of the law themselves, whom Matthew cited. You then have to ask yourself why ancient Jewish priests and teachers understood Bethlehem in Judea to be the birthplace of the Messiah?
| einstein wrote: |
| As another example, Matthew talks about the slaughter of the babes in Bethlehem. An event of this sort would have been recorded in the Jewish records and undoubtedly in the Roman records. There is no accepted extra-biblical mention made of this imaginary slaughter in any historical record. |
And how many babies two years old or so would have been in that tiny town? 4? 6? King Herod committed numerous atrocities (Yes, he was a butcher!) and I don't believe they were all documented, so you have nothing of any real substance here, especially considering CNN Breaking News doesn't start up for some 2,000 years.
| einstein wrote: |
| Thirdly, I have explained previously that the Targumim are not accurate translations-rather they are a form of paraphrasing used to teach various theological concepts. In your example the talmudic commentary is that Yonathan is expressing the idea that the concept of the Mashiach existed in the mind of Hashem even before the creation. This does not change the real meaning of the Hebrew m'yimei olam "from ancient days" not "from everlasting or eternity." |
Now you're arguing against your own Jewish sources. Obviously there's a diversity of opinion on this.
| einstein wrote: |
| The word "moshel" (ruler) used in Micah refers to an actual physical ruler, a person of authority. Jesus was never a ruler while he was alive. Any suggestion that he will rule with a second advent is just rationalization. |
First of all, the problem is resolved simply by noting that Christians believe that Jesus, upon His 2nd coming, will establish a literal, or "visible" (as the author calls it), Kingdom. However, it is probably more than reasonable to suggest that Jesus is still a ruler in the "visible" authoritative sense. Quite obviously, more people have submitted to Christ's rule throughout the centuries than all of the other Israelite kings combined. One might say in response, "Yes, but the prophecy says ruler over Israel." However, even if we interpret this so it can only mean literal Jews, then Christ still fulfills the prophecy since hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the centuries, including between 100,000 and 300,000 today, embrace Jesus as the Messiah.
However, a case can be made that "Israel" need not refer only to literal Jews. Consider the words of the apostle Paul:
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew….Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace….What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their backs always. I say then, Have they sbumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump also is holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in." (Romans 11:1, 2a, 5, 7-19)
Here the apostle relates Israel to a wild olive tree with the Jews being the natural branches. However, the unnatural branches, the Gentiles, can be grafted into this tree through belief in the Messiah. (tektonics.org)
| einstein wrote: |
| Time permitting, several other examples of misapplication and mistranslations in Matthew from the Tanach will be presented. |
Which will likely also be clarified and / or refuted.
Jesus is Lord! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goat Site SupporterSavant
Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Total posts: 12264 Age: 52 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
45947.91 tokens
|
|
Post 35:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easyrider wrote: |
| einstein wrote: |
| I think you have missed my point. Micah is a prophecy about the place of origin of the Davidic dynasty, not necessarily about the place of birth of the Messiah. |
Of course that's hardly a universal belief among Jews, as I've previously documented.
| einstein wrote: |
| Although the authors of Matthew and Luke state Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the author of John is not so sure.( John 7:40-43).. |
Let's review that passage and see if you presented it fairly (which you didn't):
John 7:40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." 41 Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
So, John is simply recording what various Jewish people said (not John's personal opinion as your argument suggests).
| einstein wrote: |
| "....and the author of Mark would assign it of no significance since he is silent." |
Mark starts the story of Jesus when he's fully grown, so you can't attribute anything to Mark one way or the other. I could state with the same veracity that Mark never denies the Bethlehem birth of Jesus, and that would also be correct.
| einstein wrote: |
| Secondly, it is quite clear how Matthew misapplies and mistranslates this passage. |
What did I previously say on this that you seemingly ignored? Since Matthew is quoting the learned Jewish "chief priests and teachers of the law" of his day on where the Messiah would be born, then your problem isn't necessarily with Matthew, but with the Jewish chief priests and teachers of the law themselves, whom Matthew cited. You then have to ask yourself why ancient Jewish priests and teachers understood Bethlehem in Judea to be the birthplace of the Messiah?
| einstein wrote: |
| As another example, Matthew talks about the slaughter of the babes in Bethlehem. An event of this sort would have been recorded in the Jewish records and undoubtedly in the Roman records. There is no accepted extra-biblical mention made of this imaginary slaughter in any historical record. |
And how many babies two years old or so would have been in that tiny town? 4? 6? King Herod committed numerous atrocities (Yes, he was a butcher!) and I don't believe they were all documented, so you have nothing of any real substance here, especially considering CNN Breaking News doesn't start up for some 2,000 years.
| einstein wrote: |
| Thirdly, I have explained previously that the Targumim are not accurate translations-rather they are a form of paraphrasing used to teach various theological concepts. In your example the talmudic commentary is that Yonathan is expressing the idea that the concept of the Mashiach existed in the mind of Hashem even before the creation. This does not change the real meaning of the Hebrew m'yimei olam "from ancient days" not "from everlasting or eternity." |
Now you're arguing against your own Jewish sources. Obviously there's a diversity of opinion on this.
| einstein wrote: |
| The word "moshel" (ruler) used in Micah refers to an actual physical ruler, a person of authority. Jesus was never a ruler while he was alive. Any suggestion that he will rule with a second advent is just rationalization. |
First of all, the problem is resolved simply by noting that Christians believe that Jesus, upon His 2nd coming, will establish a literal, or "visible" (as the author calls it), Kingdom. However, it is probably more than reasonable to suggest that Jesus is still a ruler in the "visible" authoritative sense. Quite obviously, more people have submitted to Christ's rule throughout the centuries than all of the other Israelite kings combined. One might say in response, "Yes, but the prophecy says ruler over Israel." However, even if we interpret this so it can only mean literal Jews, then Christ still fulfills the prophecy since hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the centuries, including between 100,000 and 300,000 today, embrace Jesus as the Messiah.
However, a case can be made that "Israel" need not refer only to literal Jews. Consider the words of the apostle Paul:
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew….Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace….What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their backs always. I say then, Have they sbumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump also is holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in." (Romans 11:1, 2a, 5, 7-19)
Here the apostle relates Israel to a wild olive tree with the Jews being the natural branches. However, the unnatural branches, the Gentiles, can be grafted into this tree through belief in the Messiah. (tektonics.org)
| einstein wrote: |
| Time permitting, several other examples of misapplication and mistranslations in Matthew from the Tanach will be presented. |
Which will likely also be clarified and / or refuted.
Jesus is Lord! |
That does show that the Author of the Gospel of John didn't understand Hebrew very well, and probably was working off the Septiguant.
Just another mistake in the Gospels. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easyrider
Usergroups: None
0.00 tokens
|
|
Post 36:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| goat wrote: |
That does show that the Author of the Gospel of John didn't understand Hebrew very well, and probably was working off the Septiguant.
Just another mistake in the Gospels. |
You might have more credibility in these threads if you could back up your arguments with some substance sometime, instead of just being a hit and run kibbitzer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoatSite SupporterSavant
Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Total posts: 12264 Age: 52 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
45947.91 tokens
|
|
Post 37:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easyrider wrote: |
| goat wrote: |
That does show that the Author of the Gospel of John didn't understand Hebrew very well, and probably was working off the Septiguant.
Just another mistake in the Gospels. |
You might have more credibility in these threads if you could back up your arguments with some substance sometime, instead of just being a hit and run kibbitzer. |
I think einsteins post backs it up very completely.. and much more accurately than J.P. Holding. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easyrider
Usergroups: None
0.00 tokens
|
|
Post 38:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| goat wrote: |
| Easyrider wrote: |
| goat wrote: |
That does show that the Author of the Gospel of John didn't understand Hebrew very well, and probably was working off the Septiguant.
Just another mistake in the Gospels. |
You might have more credibility in these threads if you could back up your arguments with some substance sometime, instead of just being a hit and run kibbitzer. |
I think einsteins post backs it up very completely.. and much more accurately than J.P. Holding. |
Well, if he does then we don't need your back slapping, do we? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easyrider
Usergroups: None
0.00 tokens
|
|
Post 39:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The timing of the Messiah's birth had been indicated in Genesis 49:10 in words spoken by Jacob on his deathbed to his son Judah: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah . . . until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
The term "Shiloh" was recognized by the Jewish rabbis as a Messianic title. The "scepter" refers to the judicial power of the nation.
Although Judah was deprived of its national sovereignty during the 70 year period of Babylonian captivity, it never lost its scepter, for the Jews were allowed to have their own judges even while in captivity.
Josh McDowell, in his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, points out that "the first visible sign of the beginning of the removal of the scepter from Judah came about when Herod the Great, who had no Jewish blood, succeeded the Maccabean princes who belonged to the tribe of Levi and who were the last Jewish kings to reign in Jerusalem."
The crucial turning point came soon after Herod's death when, in about 7 AD, the Romans removed the power of the Sanhedrin Council in Judah to pronounce the death penalty. Thus the scepter (the supreme judicial power) passed from Judah.
There is a notation about this in the Talmud (the Jewish oral tradition). The Talmud states that on this occasion the members of the Sanhedrin were overtaken by "a general consternation." Incredibly, it is further recorded that they "covered their heads with ashes and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!'"
What they did not realize was that Jesus the Messiah had been born around 4 BC during the last years of Herod (Matthew 2:1), so "Shiloh" had arrived shortly before the scepter departed - just as prophesied!
(lamblion.com) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| einstein Apprentice Joined: 06 Sep 2006 Total posts: 145 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
1148.97 tokens
|
|
Post 40:
Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Easyrider"]
Of course that's hardly a universal belief among Jews, as I've previously documented.
What you are saying is not a universal belief of Christians. The New Jerusalem Bible in its footnotes to this passage agrees that Micah is referring to the ancient origin of the Davidic dynasty.
| einstein wrote: |
| Although the authors of Matthew and Luke state Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the author of John is not so sure.( John 7:40-43).. |
Let's review that passage and see if you presented it fairly (which you didn't)
So, John is simply recording what various Jewish people said (not John's personal opinion as your argument suggests).
The author is reporting what was suspected by many at the time that Jesus may have been from the Galilee. A similar inference is made at John 1:46 and the author does not refute it.
What did I previously say on this that you seemingly ignored? Since Matthew is quoting the learned Jewish "chief priests and teachers of the law" of his day on where the Messiah would be born, then your problem isn't necessarily with Matthew, but with the Jewish chief priests and teachers of the law themselves, whom Matthew cited. You then have to ask yourself why ancient Jewish priests and teachers understood Bethlehem in Judea to be the birthplace of the Messiah?
As previously stated, why believe anyone who mistranslates and misapplies the Tanach to suit his own purposes.
And how many babies two years old or so would have been in that tiny town? 4? 6? King Herod committed numerous atrocities (Yes, he was a butcher!) and I don't believe they were all documented, so you have nothing of any real substance here, especially considering CNN Breaking News doesn't start up for some 2,000 years.
Just as stated: no evidence outside of the NT.
Now you're arguing against your own Jewish sources. Obviously there's a diversity of opinion on this.
Not at all. The meaning of the targum was explained.
| einstein wrote: |
| The word "moshel" (ruler) used in Micah refers to an actual physical ruler, a person of authority. Jesus was never a ruler while he was alive. Any suggestion that he will rule with a second advent is just rationalization. |
First of all, the problem is resolved simply by noting that Christians believe that Jesus, upon His 2nd coming, will establish a literal, or "visible" (as the author calls it), Kingdom. However, it is probably more than reasonable to suggest that Jesus is still a ruler in the "visible" authoritative sense. Quite obviously, more people have submitted to Christ's rule throughout the centuries than all of the other Israelite kings combined. One might say in response, "Yes, but the prophecy says ruler over Israel." However, even if we interpret this so it can only mean literal Jews, then Christ still fulfills the prophecy since hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the centuries, including between 100,000 and 300,000 today, embrace Jesus as the Messiah.
That second coming again when all will be set right  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
