Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ice Cream > Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

    Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
    That's sort of what I'm getting at - that food in the afterlife is basically like ice cream given that we won't need it for nourishment. Yet marriage is removed (even if unnecessary), doesn't this imply that marriage is less important than even the simplest form of pleasure?
    Marriage here below means self-contained units (families) that separate from the larger community. It means different households. But in the next age there will only be ONE household...the household of God.


    The eating and drinking represents the fellowship among those who partake of things together. Whether there is a physical eating and drinking or that is just a metaphor for fellowship remains to be seen... Just a few ideas...

    Striving to apprehend that for which I have been apprehended in Christ Jesus.



    sigpic
    מרן אתא

    Walk in the Light!
    התהלכו באור

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

      Originally posted by Karaite View Post
      -I dont know what you are talking about when you state "marriage destroyed" "useless pleasures" and then state ice cream-could you please expand. If i am understanding yoiu correctly you think there will be fine dining in resurrection?
      There will be food on the New Earth, and since it won't be to sustain life, it is equivalent to leisure.

      God did not create marriage as we know it in Eden. A covenant has to be consummated in order for it to be valid. there is no evdence of Adam and Eve consummating a marriage. Only after the fall do we see that Adam "knew" his wife. Again our sex and sexuality wont be destroyed-it will be redeemed.
      Okay, I agree with this.

      -I dont know how this pertains to the question
      You asked how procreation is a secondary function of marriage; and I cite God's reason for creating marriage, which was to solve man's aloneness not his virginity or lack of children. When Eve was created, the problem was solved - not after she had given birth.

      -Children(fertility) are just as primary to marriage as the rest of your points
      If making babies was the primary function of marriage, God would not have called Day 6 "very good" until Adam & Eve had children.

      The days are theological and not literal
      Adam and Eve were married before they sinned regardless of whether or not the days are literal.

      Which will continue when our bodies are redeemed at resurrection-but with the whole body of Christ.
      To be "married" to everyone is not marriage as defined in Genesis. Marriage in Genesis is defined as an ideal union with one member of the opposite sex specifically created as a counterpart. I don't want to be married to everyone let alone people of the same sex.

      I dont understand why you go to the extreme of destroyed or annihilated
      If there is no original/redeemed marriage model on the new Earth, then marriage will be destroyed by definition because it no longer exists.
      「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
      撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

        Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
        We will also have countless brothers and sisters - so will there be a need for an exclusive relationship of the kind the Man and the Woman had?
        If the remedy for aloneness could be solved by brothers and sisters, God would have created brothers and sisters for Adam - not one wife. It also suggests that God went with the inferior option if the relationship structure is "improved" by being removed entirely.
        「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
        撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

          Originally posted by episkopos View Post
          Marriage here below means self-contained units (families) that separate from the larger community. It means different households. But in the next age there will only be ONE household...the household of God.
          The kingdom of God is already here - we are already a spiritual family, yet some have spouses. So I'm not clear on why the model drastically changes when we are simply moved locations and given immortality. (Not challenging you, I'm just not convinced yet).
          「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
          撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

            Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
            If the remedy for aloneness could be solved by brothers and sisters, God would have created brothers and sisters for Adam - not one wife. It also suggests that God went with the inferior option if the relationship structure is "improved" by being removed entirely.
            The remedy for aloneness wasn't solely in the Woman, but in all the Woman made possible. God could have created every creature on earth (in a way He continues to do so,) but He didn't, He made procreation part of the filling the earth BOTH with creatures and mankind.
            Secondly, note that after Man and Woman you need to decide was God saying two people is enough. I don't believe so as man was told to multiply as well.
            Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
            So this shows that procreation was part of God's plan. Will it be a part in the future? We don't know, because there will be countless multitudes from every tribe, tongue and nation.
            Thirdly, who was Cain's wife? Who was Seth's? The simplest suggestion is the sister, unless you believe that God made multiple people or that people mated with angels initially, both of which I doubt you believe (I don't).
            So the remedy for aloneness is found in our brothers and sisters. God only made ONE pair of each type of creature according to Genesis, and only ONE pair of each type was brought into the ark (apart from certain groups). The fact that God therefore made ONLY one pair doesn't negate that more relationships is better. So it isn't an "inferior" option but neither is it the finished option. It comes back to whether you believe that which is very good can be improved or not. I believe ALL relationships are designed to improve over time. What the Man and Woman started with wasn't the End - it was a beginning, which tragically went wrong with a divorce.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

              Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
              The remedy for aloneness wasn't solely in the Woman, but in all the Woman made possible.
              I disagree based on God's own words.

              “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18)

              The problem was completely solved upon the creation of Eve. Adam's aloneness had to do with the lack of a mate, not lack of other humans in general. God said that He would make a helper (singular) fit for Adam (specifically).

              Secondly, note that after Man and Woman you need to decide was God saying two people is enough.
              My point is that Adam's personal dilemma was solved by Eve - one person (wife) was indeed enough for Adam and the problem was lack of a counterpart.

              So the remedy for aloneness is found in our brothers and sisters.
              If this were true, God would have created brothers and sisters, but more importantly, Day 6 would not have been "very good" because there was still a "not good" given that Adam still had no siblings if this was the problem.
              「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
              撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                You first have a problem to resolve in that you think we will be living in heaven - this obviously colours your thinking and understanding, just as the reverse is true for those who believe paradise will be on earth.
                -You have the problem of putting words into my mouth, and then creating an argument that never existed, and answering your own created argument-I have never stated that we will be living in Heaven with resurrected bodies

                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
                Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
                Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

                Here Adam clearly states that they become one flesh. So this evidences the fact that not only were they of one flesh, but that they were intimate becoming one flesh.
                -It is only your imagination that creates the scenario that they were intimate in this passage

                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                Also Jesus quoted this verse here:
                Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
                Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
                Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

                This shows that Jesus considered the two joined together by God from the beginning.
                -this is all encompassing, and Jesus is talking to a fallen audience-unless you are going to impose that Adam and Eve had a Father and a Mother. context context and may I repeat the word context again Vakeros

                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                Possibly pre-fall Eve was capable of controlling when her body would release the ovum for fertilisation. So she didn't have any periods - until post fall.
                -This one takes the cake, and is just plain nonsense Vakeros

                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                What does redeeming our sex and sexuality mean except that it is restored to how it was BEFORE. Hence Aviyah's continual pointing back to the situation preFall.
                -I point to the pre fall also. You 2 keep imposing the condition of the fall into the pre-fall and cant grasp that sexuality can be more than just an erotic experience.


                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                The purpose of a woman isn't procreation in entirety, but firstly as someone so that Adam wouldn't be alone - IOW for relationship first. Procreation is a bonus.
                -It is not one or the other, it is part and parcel. Song of solomoin is a great example as it shows love, passion and affection in a background of fertility. The blessings of the Law is stated in the same language.
                -Our nature gives us the exclusive right to marriage
                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                No they don't. Children aren't the central part to a marriage. It is basing a marriage on such a premise which leads to all sorts of problems. The central part to a marriage is that we are also shown between Jesus and His Bride - which is relationship. Children then is bonus.
                -I dont know how many times to repeat myself, but I will do it again. Fertility is one central part of marriage along with companionship,etc., Take the fertility, out of marriage and sterilize it and the Bibles purpose of marriage becomes "impotent" and this is apparent as the secularists are running wild with redneck lame responses. You cant live as a secularist and then debate a secularist on their own turf.


                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                Actually God did enter His rest on the 7th day and they hadn't sinned yet. God was separate from them when they sinned. It may have been on the seventh day in the evening as it says:
                Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
                The cool of the day is either early morning or evening. Due to context this would suggest AFTER day 6 and thus either day 7 or a later day. The days are literal, but that is an argument for another thread. Regardless, they were joined by God BEFORE the Fall.
                -It could not be the morning as Adam and Eve would have sinned in broad daylight as the text does not state that it was dark. it would have been in the afternoon as the earth was cooling, indicating the end of the 6th day..I can back this up from the whole of scripture...but may be another topic, maybe I will post it in a place like bible study.
                -Adam and Eve did not enter the rest of God-this carries thru the whole of the Tanakh and New Testsament. Israel did not enter the rest either.


                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                Again don't get confused about what happened preFall with post Fall -
                Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
                In this verse we see the man does use a name for the woman "woman" which basically means he clarifies us as himself. This is in contrast to what happens postFall when Adam gives her the name of Eve. This naming is an effect of sin.
                -This again kills you and Aviyah's sex before the fall scenarios. Adam named Eve "woman" and then after the fall named her yet again as "Eve"
                -Eve means "mother to the living" this name was not given until after the fall.
                -Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.


                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                But removing marriage means it is gone and NOT redeemed.
                Where I do question Aviyah though is that God joins people together in the Genesis account. We are joined with Jesus in the marriage. This is not a physical union but a relational one. As the main purpose of Man and Woman being united was relational, then this suggests a shift in the need of man for woman in this way. We will also have countless brothers and sisters - so will there be a need for an exclusive relationship of the kind the Man and the Woman had? IOW was Man and Woman meant to be exclusive preFall as they are seen postFall. This is an unknown.
                -you stated "relational" and you have answered the question but your materialism blinds you

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                  Originally posted by Karaite View Post
                  -Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.
                  We agree on what I've been saying this whole time
                  「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                  撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                    Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                    We agree on what I've been saying this whole time
                    Yes, our sexuality before the fall was male and female. Where we have a fork in the road is the marriage and physical sexuality aspect. In both cases Adam names the woman-before the fall and after the fall,showing headship of the woman. They were created equal but with different roles. In the post edenic state the woman is named "mother of all the living". Adam then "knew" his wife after this-and a child was born.
                    In paradise they would have had a perfect sexuality and this would have been perfect without intercourse. There were only 2 in paradise, but in paradise restored there will be billions, and we will share a heightened agape love for each other-just like Adam and Eve. Our love will not be based on selfishness.
                    Look forward to it Aviyah-you will share a love with my husband and my kids greater than I experience with them now in this life when- in paradise. The bride of Christ will be unified under our Groom

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                      Originally posted by Karaite View Post
                      There were only 2 in paradise, but in paradise restored there will be billions, and we will share a heightened agape love for each other-just like Adam and Eve.
                      I don't see evidence that having the same feelings towards everyone is equal to or better than having a unique counterpart specifically created for you as an individual. If God wanted a singular group of people with no family unit and no exclusive intimacy between two people, why did God create just one person for Adam? Would Adam and Eve have been divorced if they had children prior to the Fall given that their feelings towards their children would be the exact same as those towards each other?

                      I have difficulty understanding why marriage cannot prevail while still having a perfected relationship with everyone else.

                      Look forward to it Aviyah-you will share a love with my husband and my kids greater than I experience with them now in paradise.
                      It won't be the same type of love exclusive to marriage - more accurately the love of family members.
                      「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                      撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                        Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                        I don't see evidence that having the same feelings towards everyone is equal to or better than having a unique counterpart specifically created for you as an individual. If God wanted a singular group of people with no family unit and no exclusive intimacy between two people, why did God create just one person for Adam? Would Adam and Eve have been divorced if they had children prior to the Fall given that their feelings towards their children would be the exact same as those towards each other?

                        I have difficulty understanding why marriage cannot prevail while still having a perfected relationship with everyone else.



                        It won't be the same type of love exclusive to marriage - more accurately the love of family members.
                        Aviyah, I think that you want to be married and are down about the whole thing-and now are idealizing this to the point of ignoring even the Master Teachers own words.
                        I will love you and everyone on here even greater than my love for my husband and children. Adam and Eve were the only two people at a given time-we will have many people to cherish and love...the Bride of Messiah! I have had 4 babies that are in paradise and they have never had the chance to ride a bike,go on a date or be married and all that jazz, I cant interpret the Bible in light of they got ripped off-that is eisegesis! It is nor realistic either Aviyah-they went from the warmth and safety of my womb, to something greater than I, my husband or marriage can ever offer!
                        Look forward to it Aviyah!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                          Originally posted by Karaite View Post
                          Aviyah, I think that you want to be married and are down about the whole thing-and now are idealizing this to the point of ignoring even the Master Teachers own words.
                          I'm not idealizing it beyond what God created in the beginning. If there is no redeemed marriage, then it is evidently not worth more than even the simplest form of pleasures.
                          「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                          撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                            Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                            I disagree based on God's own words.
                            “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18)
                            The problem was completely solved upon the creation of Eve. Adam's aloneness had to do with the lack of a mate, not lack of other humans in general. God said that He would make a helper (singular) fit for Adam (specifically).
                            That doesn't deny what I have stated. It in fact compliments what I have stated. The Woman is the counterpart to the Man. Without the Woman what does the Man achieve, and vice versa. The relationship between the Man and the Woman and the multiplication that would occur was ALL to deal with Man being alone. IOW with the woman there was not simply a doubling of people, but now there was a multiplication possible. Taking God as the perfect relationship we have a trinity of persons - the Man and the Woman don't have that. However when they unite then there is a deepening of each as well as an opportunity for further relationships.

                            My point is that Adam's personal dilemma was solved by Eve - one person (wife) was indeed enough for Adam and the problem was lack of a counterpart.
                            His personal dilemma wasn't simply solved in the Woman alone, but in what the Woman meant and what together they would be. IOW a fact of the sum being greater than the parts. Adam wasn't "alone" when he had God. So we need to understand what the "alone" means in context.

                            If this were true, God would have created brothers and sisters, but more importantly, Day 6 would not have been "very good" because there was still a "not good" given that Adam still had no siblings if this was the problem.
                            No God didn't create ANY brothers and sisters for any of His creation, instead what He did was create a means for US to create brothers and sisters. IOW He placed the means and opportunity in them. A very good is still only a very good, is it an excellent or a perfect - I'll say it again as you haven't dealt with this point - is perfection or even very good a static place or one of deepening relationships. Man and Woman was a starting point, NOT an end point. Thus it was very good and if things would have continued without sin, then that very good may have been even better. This is what you aren't dealing with in your thinking. You are arguing incorrectly that God had to make siblings or otherwise it wouldn't be very good. That is simply incorrect, what it means is that God makes it possible for us to go from glory to glory. The Man and the Woman didn't have a perfect relationship, but it also wasn't a wrong relationship, it was a relationship which was full of wonder and discovery - unfortunately they also discovered that which was bad for them (and us.) This also shows that the Man and Woman weren't "perfect". They were very good and full of potential. You deny their potential and hold the garden of Eden as the end of any possible relationship rather than the beginning.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                              [QUOTE=Karaite;3095966]-You have the problem of putting words into my mouth, and then creating an argument that never existed, and answering your own created argument-I have never stated that we will be living in Heaven with resurrected bodies[QUOTE]
                              You said we would be living in Heaven in post #48 so it isn't putting words in your mouth. However if that wasn't what I meant then you can ignore this point.

                              -It is only your imagination that creates the scenario that they were intimate in this passage
                              -this is all encompassing, and Jesus is talking to a fallen audience-unless you are going to impose that Adam and Eve had a Father and a Mother. context context and may I repeat the word context again Vakeros
                              I complete agree that context is indeed what holds it together and this is what you have either ignored or misunderstood - Jesus is indeed talking to a Fallen audience, but to what does He uphold as being a VALID relationship? He quotes Gen 2 and states that they were joined together, which within context is prior to the Fall. Hence context upholds my point. I ALWAYS look for what context says. If you could show that the context that Jesus explicitly says was a joined, valid, (therefore by your understanding and mine) consummated relationship isn't that of the Man and Woman then to what relationship in the beginning was He referring to?

                              -This one takes the cake, and is just plain nonsense Vakeros
                              Why is it nonsense? Let's go back to your own understanding of what uncleanness of a woman refers to? It points to sin and death! Was the Woman in sin and death prior to the Fall? If they never sinned then would she therefore ever have had a period? Surely NOT because if she did then that means it isn't a VALID picture of sin. You have pointed to this women's time as showing this very thing on other threads and I think you have a point. So it isn't nonsense. It also isn't a big point and you can choose to disagree, but I usually have good reasons for suggesting something even if you don't get why or decide that my idea is wrong.

                              -I point to the pre fall also. You 2 keep imposing the condition of the fall into the pre-fall and cant grasp that sexuality can be more than just an erotic experience.
                              No, you keep pointing to postFall and I do grasp that which gender we are (our sex) isn't simply about eroticism or an erotic experience. However you seem to reduce it to that if we disagree with you.

                              -It is not one or the other, it is part and parcel. Song of solomoin is a great example as it shows love, passion and affection in a background of fertility. The blessings of the Law is stated in the same language.
                              -Our nature gives us the exclusive right to marriage
                              It is indeed a potential part - but it isn't a requirement or necessity for two to become one. What you are doing is bringing in postFall requirements and blessings. Two become one is the focus of marriage - the fact it can then become three or more is a follow on.

                              -I dont know how many times to repeat myself, but I will do it again. Fertility is one central part of marriage along with companionship,etc., Take the fertility, out of marriage and sterilize it and the Bibles purpose of marriage becomes "impotent" and this is apparent as the secularists are running wild with redneck lame responses. You cant live as a secularist and then debate a secularist on their own turf.
                              Fertility isn't the central part at all. It is an aspect, but the central part is a right relationship. The Bible's purpose of marriage isn't procreation, that is the curses requirement. Note where God shows that in Gen 3! The problem is you bring in the postFall curse and blessing into a preFall situation.

                              -It could not be the morning as Adam and Eve would have sinned in broad daylight as the text does not state that it was dark. it would have been in the afternoon as the earth was cooling, indicating the end of the 6th day..I can back this up from the whole of scripture...but may be another topic, maybe I will post it in a place like bible study.
                              -Adam and Eve did not enter the rest of God-this carries thru the whole of the Tanakh and New Testsament. Israel did not enter the rest either.
                              It doesn't say cooling, but cool thus it was after the heat had passed. I agree that it wasn't dark and thus wasn't night. Do you hold that it was dark at 6pm? Surely like the day which has the hottest time at midday, there is deepest night (midnight) and dusk and dawn. Thus the cool of the day was either BEFORE the heat of the day, which I agree isn't the normal usage or it was AFTER the hottest time had passed. Remember also that on day 6 God both made and brought the animals to the Man BEFORE He made the Woman. Thus on Day 6 there wasn't much time for them to sin. They also were joined as Jesus stated.
                              The problem wasn't that they didn't enter God's rest, but that they didn't remain IN His rest. This is a problem of many who come to church. They fail to remain IN His rest. They are like those outside His body. We ALL sometimes do this, but some actually reject God after having tasted of His goodness. This is one of the greatest sadnesses.

                              -This again kills you and Aviyah's sex before the fall scenarios. Adam named Eve "woman" and then after the fall named her yet again as "Eve"
                              Actually as I highlighted the Man didn't name the Woman but acknowledge her as Woman. This is not naming. She was Woman before the Fall because her central role wasn't fertility. It was companionship, as helpmeet, as co-equal though different. It also doesn't kill the idea that they intimately knew each other.

                              In fact there is a possibility that they had children BEFORE they sinned. This isn't a nonsense idea, but it isn't strongly supported either -some verses which suggest it are:
                              Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
                              We often only think of the second part of this verse, but the first part suggests a possibility that she already knew what childbearing was like.
                              Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
                              This could mean the earlier children of the Man and Woman BEFORE the Fall. Because they took the fallen women as wives then their sinless nature was corrupted.

                              This of course is a side idea and there are good reasons NOT to accept it as being correct. However what it highlights is that there are many things we aren't specifically told and we need discernment and wisdom and some things we just can't categorically state as being either this or that, instead we have to use probables.

                              -Eve means "mother to the living" this name was not given until after the fall.
                              -Adam names Eve before and after the fall-so we can assume that our roles continue in heaven and resurrection.
                              Naming the Woman as Eve shows a change in the relationship and NOW postFall fertility becomes a central part to marriage.
                              The Man doesn't name the Woman beforehand. Understand what the words he uses mean. They point to an acknowledgement that she is he yet other.

                              -you stated "relational" and you have answered the question but your materialism blinds you
                              You like to accuse others of certain things like materialism etc. I am materialistic. I am certainly not blinded by it or in my theology. The key role between the Man and the Woman is relational. This is the purpose foremost in their creation. With each other and with God and this then extends to their multiplication.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Ice Cream > Marriage

                                God said that Adam was alone - and given that he wasn't literally alone (God was with him as were animals), "alone" must have meant something deeper. Adam was alone because he didn't have a mate... and this is proven when God creates one person (Eve) and afterwards the "not good" becomes "very good." Adam was not "alone" because there were no other humans in general - otherwise God would have simply created more humans in general.

                                So, again, how is it that lack of marriage in perfection pre-fall is "not good", yet it becomes "good" post-resurrection?

                                Originally posted by Vakeros View Post
                                God didn't create ANY brothers and sisters for any of His creation
                                Surely God created more than 1 single celled organism, or more than 1 tree, or more than 1 ant?
                                「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                                撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X