Islam Bible v Quran

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why you all (not only you but all Christians) have a big punch of copy-past.
Why not read, digest, convinced, then use your own words.
Strange !!!!
At times we do however to which should you give heed to mans ways to convince or the Word of God?
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Fix your spelling first, it’s not أسل it’s أصل.
Aaaahhhh, you're not Arabic person although you pertaining to be.
IF you knew that I spelled the word wrongly, why you interpret the first 2 words :)
Until now you’ve not given a single statement from the council of Nicaea to back your claims, show us where Nicaea chose books for the Biblical canon or removed them from it?
I already added Jerome's statement.
Jesus didn’t speak Syriac he spoke Galilean Aramaic and the reason the New Testament wasn’t written in Galilean Hebrew Aramaic was because no one outside of Judea could understand it while everyone in the Mediterranean could understand Greek as the language of trade and commerce. It would be impossible to reach out to Non Jews in Hebrew Aramaic.
You're saying that disciples abandon and give up talking to Jews.
Instead of writing the first verson in their own language, they wrote a very strong high class Latin book. One of the authur suppose to be a fisherman who most properly illiterate
What a logic !!.

I know Matta Al Maskeen, he was a great Coptic monk and scholar, I don’t see how mentioning him is revelant here.
If you really know him, he's one of the scholars that are saying the books were subject to changes
Maronites use the Syriac Peshitta which has its own number of books due to possessing its own liturgy same goes for the Copts in Cairo. This isn’t an issue for Orthodox and Catholic as the books vary for tradition only as the East and West each had their own traditions and liturgies and each formed their own canon to conform to those liturgies. The issue of canon or the number of books in the sense of doctrinal issues is only held by Protestants against Orthodox and Catholic, but even then it’s a minor issue between dialogue between Christian sects. JW (not that they’re Christians anyway) follow the Protestant canon as far as I know.
As simple as you're saying.... No it's not. It's not minor at all. It's on Books, Chapters, Pages, statements, translation.
It means that some Churches agrees with me and rejects certain books, chapters, pages, statements, and translations.
It means they believe that these are not holy and not your God's words.
It means they believe that some people played with books.
Right ?
 
Upvote 0

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also it is interesting to note the Quran says true Christians will go to heaven . until I read it out of the Quran itself, I never knew this. why do people not speak of this? also one must note the Quran calls out Christians, in the sense it calls out the fake not true Christians .to my friend s who believe Mohammed, ask yourself this. if Christianity is wrong why dose your book say, we are to judge you wether you stand in truth or error. may the ONE and ONLY true God Father of us all guide us and NOT the will of man
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Since Limo claims to know Arabic this video is for him:

playing with words, fooling simple people.
Suppose for the seek of discussion, Quran misused the word Injeel.
Why Arab Christians uses the same word.
Why they didn't use the Arabic word بشارة means good news all other languages ?
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
playing with words, fooling simple people.
Suppose for the seek of discussion, Quran misused the word Injeel.
Why Arab Christians uses the same word.
Why they didn't use the Arabic word بشارة means good news all other languages ?
Injil is Greek it’s it Arabic or Aramaic. We use the word Injil because Jesus ordered his disciples to preach to all nations not just Israel so it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand. If however that for some reason the messiah or Masih was sent to Israel only then why send him a book with a foreign title. We don’t say Jesus was sent only for Israel we believe his message overlaps to all people. He was sent first to Israel then to the world. بشارة isn’t the exact translation of the Greek, the exact translation is إنجيل, some Bibles put the word بشارة instead of إنجيل, but it doesn’t really matter either way.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I already added Jerome's statement.

You're saying that disciples abandon and give up talking to Jews.
Instead of writing the first verson in their own language, they wrote a very strong high class Latin book. One of the authur suppose to be a fisherman who most properly illiterate
What a logic !!.


If you really know him, he's one of the scholars that are saying the books were subject to changes

As simple as you're saying.... No it's not. It's not minor at all. It's on Books, Chapters, Pages, statements, translation.
It means that some Churches agrees with me and rejects certain books, chapters, pages, statements, and translations.
It means they believe that these are not holy and not your God's words.
It means they believe that some people played with books.
Right ?
Can the Word of God be changed ? I believe not. If ANYONE is trying to lie to you to convert you know this is shameful and NOT the works of a Christian
playing with words, fooling simple people.
Suppose for the seek of discussion, Quran misused the word Injeel.
Why Arab Christians uses the same word.
Why they didn't use the Arabic word بشارة means good news all other languages ?
Have not Arab Christians been persecuted by Arabs who believe in the Quran ( and before we go into that topic the crusades WERE evil ordered by the FALSE Christian church spoken of in Revelations. Christianity in the sense of what it truly is not what men try to do to it ,has never gone to war. for our kingdom is above, this earth is not our home . our home is with God . so why would we war over earthly things? that make no difference in the end) thus dose it not make sense they would speak like the majority around them?
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Considering Islamic translators translate Injeel as Gospel I really have to wonder why you're arguing this. Are you arguing that the Arabic fathers, like John of Damascus or Theodore Abu Qurrah called it injeel because of the Quran? What are you talking about? Injeel in arabic means "good news" right? Gospel in English means "Good news." Gospel in Greek is Evangelion which means "Good news."
This isn't a matter of contention.
Exactly, to agree with Quran, to makes these "Good news" books looks like the inspired books Torah, Injeel, and Quran
They should've done like any other language and call it "Good news" البشارة

You can't take a single quote from Jerome to suggest that an issue of the council was to ratify the whole canon or in particular the whole of Gospels. We have the canons of council and none of them lay down the canon of scripture nor do the main decrees or arguments concerning the divinity of Christ against Arianism seem to deal with this issue. I do think it's quite possible that Judith was discussed

This is from Jerome, not a witness to the things of Nicaea but born some 23 years after the council. Not that I dismiss Jerome out of hand because it is entirely possible Judith, being a book in dispute (not like the four Gospels) was discussed at some point by the Bishops present as to whether or not it could be a scriptural authority. Not that the whole canon was formalized at Nicaea. We have no evidence of this.
After more readings, Nicaea didn't issue a canonical list but start it
If we drop Jerom's words who is born 23 years after Nicaea, then no other scholars word's are creditable,
It is not clear there was one Gospel and nor does this actually respond to my main argument. I'll lay it out again.

The Quran is a Seventh century document and in this document it addresses Muslims, Jews and Christians. To Christians in 5:46 it tells us that Jesus received the Gospel from Allah and then proceeds to tell the people of the Gospel to judge therein. There is no qualification here, it is addressing Christians who apparently have something called the Gospel that we are to judge by and discover Muhammad was true.

The problem is you don't have any evidence of this Islamic Gospel and if what you're saying is true the Islamic command for Christians to judge by their Gospel is nonsensical because Allah is demanding the impossible from us, to judge from something that doesn't exist.

You implied earlier Arabic Christians have the true Gospel. Point them out for me. Tell me where we see in history the Gospel the Quran is talking about.
Quran's words are are facts for Muslems to believe in.

Unless we've some evidences outside Quran, There is nothing to discuss.

There are evidences that agrees with Quran:
  • Textual criticism : possibilities of Q, R, S, T, and Proto book
  • Historical evidences by Non-Muslim scholars that the scriptures have been changed
  • Disputes between Churches on Books, Chapters, Pages, Statements, and translations means they some of the New Testimony are not genuine and people have played with
Right ?

 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I already added Jerome's statement.
Technically you didn’t even produce a statement belonging to Jerome, Jerome merely included Judith as Canonical when he translated the Bible to Latin. Nicaea using Judith to back up its claims doesn’t mean Nicaea decided what books should or shouldn’t be in the Bible. Had it done that we’d find a statement from the council declaring the Canonicity of certain books.
You're saying that disciples abandon and give up talking to Jews.
Instead of writing the first verson in their own language, they wrote a very strong high class Latin book. One of the authur suppose to be a fisherman who most properly illiterate
What a logic !!.

They didn’t abandon talking to Jews, they focused on evangelizing all people in the Mediterranean world, how could they do that if they wrote their scriptures in Hebrew Aramaic when only Jews understood it. The only reason they’d write in Aramaic was if they were preaching only to Jews and they weren’t. Ever heard of using scribes to write? After all wasn’t your prophet supposed to be illiterate

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

Sa'id said: Umar ibn al-Khattab said: Blood-money is meant for the clan of the slain, and she will not inherit from the blood-money of her husband. Ad-Dahhak ibn Sufyan said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wrote (كَتَبَ) to me that I should give a share to the wife of Ashyam ad-Dubabi from the blood-money of her husband. So Umar withdrew his opinion.

Ahmad ibn Salih said: AbdurRazzaq transmitted this tradition to us from Ma'mar, from az-Zuhri on the authority of Sa'id. In this version he said: The Prophet (ﷺ) made him governor over the bedouins.

Sunan Abu Dawud 18:2921 (sahih)

So if Mohammed could employ scribes as you will probably say he did, then why can’t John?


If you really know him, he's one of the scholars that are saying the books were subject to changes

Yeah scribal changed occurred and organization of canon were changed, not doctrinal changed. Scribal changed don’t effect our doctrine and neither do canon.

As simple as you're saying.... No it's not. It's not minor at all. It's on Books, Chapters, Pages, statements, translation.
It means that some Churches agrees with me and rejects certain books, chapters, pages, statements, and translations.
It means they believe that these are not holy and not your God's words.
It means they believe that some people played with books.
Right ?
Actually among Catholics and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox we don’t reject each other’s books for not including them, this is an issue among Protestants only. For example Catholics don’t reject the books the orthodox have, they just choose to no include them because they don’t conform to the Western Christian tradition. Orthodox contain more books because they have their own liturgy and tradition they don’t blame Catholics for not including their books or being short on canon. Neither do they reject certain books as uninspired, some just include them while some just exclude them without commenting. As I said this is only an issue among Protestants who question the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books. It’s not an issue among Orthodox and Catholics. To Catholics and orthodox this is a minor issue, even among Protestants and other Christians this is the leasts of our issues and divisions. As the Deuterocanonical books rarely effect doctrine. And when they do rarely effect doctrine then you’ll notice Protestant Christians will be the only one discussing it with other denominations.
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Read Sarah Ali Imran 3:47 3:44 3:49 3:73

Then read 3:83 and right after that read John 4:7-26

John 1:1-5
John 1:6-14
John 1:29-34
John 1:41
John 3:3
John 3:14-15
John 3:18
John 5:6-9

Etc etc its best to just read the whole NT and take notes
Sorry I missed to answer.
I'm reading NT but not as whole. since years.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry I missed to answer.
I'm reading NT but not as whole. since years.
Recommend you starting with John - revelation s at the first go around. It should be read as a whole it is actually easier. Because you get context.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Also it is interesting to note the Quran says true Christians will go to heaven . until I read it out of the Quran itself, I never knew this. why do people not speak of this? also one must note the Quran calls out Christians, in the sense it calls out the fake not true Christians .to my friend s who believe Mohammed, ask yourself this. if Christianity is wrong why dose your book say, we are to judge you wether you stand in truth or error. may the ONE and ONLY true God Father of us all guide us and NOT the will of man
The term "True Christians" means people who believed in Al-Maseeh the true prophet and person who is human born from a virgin who is neither god nor son of god.
He spoken while he was one day old.
Also Allah never called "O Christians" Allah called you and Jews "People of the book"

Also, Islamic believe is simple.It's one religion Jewish, True Christianity, Muslims.
They're just following a different prophet.
The role is simple, once a new prophet comes. previous prophet followers should beleive him.

It means once Al-Masseh was there, all Jews should have believed Al-Maseeh.
Once Mohamed is there, true Christians should have follow him.

It's one Creator who has send several messengers but one message, there is no god but Allah.
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Recommend you starting with John - revelation s at the first go around. It should be read as a whole it is actually easier. Because you get context.
Gregory
Specifically John or at least the current form is considered non first or even second century work.
It's debatable by schoalrs since 2nd century even before Islam.
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Injil is Greek it’s it Arabic or Aramaic. We use the word Injil because Jesus ordered his disciples to preach to all nations not just Israel so it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand. If however that for some reason the messiah or Masih was sent to Israel only then why send him a book with a foreign title. We don’t say Jesus was sent only for Israel we believe his message overlaps to all people. He was sent first to Israel then to the world. بشارة isn’t the exact translation of the Greek, the exact translation is إنجيل, some Bibles put the word بشارة instead of إنجيل, but it doesn’t really matter either way.
YiuveY started talking like me
Exactly"it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand."

English, french, Greek, German have a name they understand.
Christinty was there before Islam for 7 centuries. It's fare to give them an understandable name like Good News الاخبار السعيدة or البشارة

But instead, only in muslims countries and Arab world you used the Quranic name which is not Arabic.

By the way, what is it's name in Latin and Aramaic?

The minimum fairness is to give it a hebreH and Aramaic name ?
 
Upvote 0

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The term "True Christians" means people who believed in Al-Maseeh the true prophet and person who is human born from a virgin who is neither god nor son of god.
He spoken while he was one day old.
Also Allah never called "O Christians" Allah called you and Jews "People of the book"

Also, Islamic believe is simple.It's one religion Jewish, True Christianity, Muslims.
They're just following a different prophet.
The role is simple, once a new prophet comes. previous prophet followers should beleive him.

It means once Al-Masseh was there, all Jews should have believed Al-Maseeh.
Once Mohamed is there, true Christians should have follow him.

It's one Creator who has send several messengers but one message, there is no god but Allah.
Thank you my friend never heard it so plainly

My question would be then do you believe OT is true or do you believe it has been corrupted

NT I presume you say has been charged to this I ask if the NT isn't the Word of God thus can be changed why then did the false church not change it? I ask this because the NT blatenly says the things the false church teaches is not true the false church is the ones who rounded up all copies of the Bible they could then they hid them so only their eyes could read it and they used to teach and still do that people should trust them and not read the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
YiuveY started talking like me
Exactly"it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand."

English, french, Greek, German have a name they understand.
Christinty was there before Islam for 7 centuries. It's fare to give them an understandable name like Good News الاخبار السعيدة or البشارة

But instead, only in muslims countries and Arab world you used the Quranic name which is not Arabic.

By the way, what is it's name in Latin and Aramaic?

The minimum fairness is to give it a hebreH and Aramaic name ?
I didn’t understand this post at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregory95

You will know them by their fruits
Jan 15, 2019
859
289
29
missouri
✟37,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gregory
Specifically John or at least the current form is considered non first or even second century work.
It's debatable by schoalrs since 2nd century even before Islam.
I say John for John was with Christ and wrote his account in John then he wrote revelation also Acts is after John which leads into Romans etc for the first read through why read the same thing 4 times save that for after you go through John- revelation repetitive information can make some stop reading
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Can the Word of God be changed ? I believe not. If ANYONE is trying to lie to you to convert you know this is shameful and NOT the works of a Christian
Unless Allah committed to protect it, then it can be changed.
Even it's said in Old Testimony Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say that you are wise and that you know my laws? Look, the laws have been changed by dishonest scribes. " in Good News Translation
So, here Jerome is saying that the scribes have changed the Laws in the books.
Have not Arab Christians been persecuted by Arabs who believe in the Quran ( and before we go into that topic the crusades WERE evil ordered by the FALSE Christian church spoken of in Revelations. Christianity in the sense of what it truly is not what men try to do to it ,has never gone to war. for our kingdom is above, this earth is not our home . our home is with God . so why would we war over earthly things? that make no difference in the end) thus dose it not make sense they would speak like the majority around them?

There is no neutral fare evidences while Islamic Khilafa were strong and Moslems were practicing Shariaa that they not only persecuted but put pressure on people to become Moslems. May be there is an accident here or there but it's not an Islamic practice.
Vice versa, It's Haram (forbidden and punished by Allah) who forces someone to become Moslem

But in Modern era, when Moslems put aside Islamic Law and become less learnt about Islam, some Moslems get into clashes with Non-Moslems
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
57
✟35,475.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
I didn’t understand this post at all.
You've started talking like me
you said "it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand."

This rule has been applied in English, french, Greek, German. All these languages and may be others have a name for the new testimony they can understand.

But this rule is not applied in Arabic. Although Christianity was there before Islam for 7 centuries.
But instead of using an Arabic name for Gospels in Arabic. You used Latin name which Quran used. I'm asking you, It's fare ?

By the way, what is it's name of Gospel in Latin and Aramaic?

If we apply your rule, The minimum fairness is to give it a Hebrew and Aramaic name ?
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You've started talking like me
you said "it was necessary to write it in a foreign language that all people could understand."

This rule has been applied in English, french, Greek, German. All these languages and may be others have a name for the new testimony they can understand.

But this rule is not applied in Arabic. Although Christianity was there before Islam for 7 centuries.
But instead of using an Arabic name for Gospels in Arabic. You used Latin name which Quran used. I'm asking you, It's fare ?

By the way, what is it's name of Gospel in Latin and Aramaic?

If we apply your rule, The minimum fairness is to give it a Hebrew and Aramaic name ?
If the Gospel was translated to Hebrew Aramaic it would have an Hebrew Aramaic name and so far I’ve not seen one of those translations made.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Stop targeting the person, but discuss the subject.
These words are considered in an insult in my cultur

And I am not a Muslim, so everything you write is an insult to my Christian culture. Why should your culture win over mine on Christian Forums? Besides, in English, the language in which we are both writing right now, "silly billy" is so mild as to not even be a real insult. It is just silliness. :p A way of conveying how I feel about your argument without insulting anyone.

Arabic language can accommodate foreign languages words.

I already addressed that with the example of Egypt/Egyptos. Of course it can do that, just they could have written "Evangelion", though it would have come out very strangely relative to the Greek original (اوانكيليون = ewangeeleeyoun or ewankeeleeyon or something), but the point is what actually happened with both my example word and this word is that it took the non-Arabic word and put it in a form that is more in keeping with Arabic phonology. That's what I mean when I say the word was "nativized", just like the Greeks themselves took the original Aramaic name of Jesus and made a Greek name out of it, and the Arabs made an Arabic name out of it, and so on.

I don't care about what's possible in another alternate reality had things gone some other way; when it comes to questions of language and other things that are provable by scientific evidence and hypotheses, I care about what we can see by looking at what actually happened.

As far as I know Never translate names of lands, languages, books, persons.

What are you talking about? They absolutely do. I just gave an example with the name of Jesus Himself. And in place names and people names, too. The Assyrians are mentioned in the Bible, for instances, but they're not called in there "Atouraye", and neither are the Arameans called "Oromoye", unless you're reading Syriac-language Bibles. They're called Assyrians and Arameans. There are lots of examples we could give like that. The names are absolutely translated, when there is an alternative that is already known to the people who speak the language of that Bible.

Till date Copts uses Coptic language in churches

Yes, we do, in addition to Arabic and/or whatever the native language of the people is in a particular country. (Not sure what you think this proves?)

Egypt, syria, Lebanon were not using Arabic before Islam.

Of course, though there were smaller populations of Arabs in many places before Islam (only in Mesopotamia did they establish their own independent kingdom before Islam, among the Lakhmids with their kingdom at Al-Hira, from c. 300 to 602 AD). The Arabs were certainly in Syria and Egypt before Islam ever existed (the earliest example of Garshuni script -- that is, Arabic language written in Syriac characters -- has been found in the Monastery of the Syrians in Egypt, dated to the 6th century). I'm not as sure about Lebanon, because I don't know as much about it.

Do you really have any evidence about using the work Injeel in Arabic before Islam.

What we have evidence of is where the word came from, into Arabic from other Semitic languages which already had forms like that. I already gave my citation from Jeffery's excellent book all about foreign words in the Qur'an, which anyone can look up if they have time. I do not have time right now to type it all out, and anyway the entries in that book involve Syriac, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and other foreign scripts, and I can't type in all of them anyway (only Ethiopic, Arabic, Greek, and Russian keyboard settings are configured for my computer), so it wouldn't come out right.

Your words convince no single non-christian.

I don't really care about that, because I'm not writing as a Christian apologist right now. I'm writing as a linguist who has multiple degrees in the field and so can understand the literature that is already out there, and has decided on this subject (apparently against the Islamic narrative, but that's of no concern to me). The academic field of linguistics does not care what you or I believe, nor should it, though of course what you personally are willing to accept may be another matter entirely, and that is between you and your brain. Personally, I cannot imagine living with such cognitive dissonance.

textual criticism scholars have already proved it.

No they haven't. You've said they have. Find me even one disinterested (i.e., scientific) Biblical scholar or epigrapher or whatever who states, unambiguously, that such a thing as is assumed by the Islamic belief in an Islamic gospel given to Jesus ever actually existed.

You will not be able to find one. Such people don't exist because Q and other earlier hypothesized sources are certainly not such a gospel, and neither do they exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0