Regarding the "rapture", etc. Recommended reading, March 2011.

Scotth1960 · Mar 12, 2011

Recommended reading, March 2011 AD.

1. Kung, Hans. (2001). The Catholic Church: A Short History. Translated by John Bowden. New York: A Modern Library Chronicles Book / The Modern Library.
ROMAN CATHOLIC

2. Gillquist, Peter E. (1979). The Physical Side of Being Spiritual. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
EVANGELICAL ORTHODOX (LATER: EASTERN ORTHODOX)

3. Guettee, Abbe, D.D. (n.d). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches. Translated from the French. New York: Minos Publishing Company. Orig. ed., Buffalo, NY, 1866.
EASTERN ORTHODOX

4. Harakas, Stanley Samuel. (1987). The Orthodox CHurch: 455 Questions and Answers. Minneapolis, MN: Light & Life Publishing Company.
EASTERN ORTHODOX

5. Metzger, John B., M.A. The Tri-unity of God Is Jewish. A Theological Study of the Plurality and Tri-unity of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. April, 2005. Jewish Awareness Ministries, Jewish Awareness Ministries - Proclaiming the Messiah - Praying for Israel Promises to Israel | Messiah | Jewish | Israel News Updates
MESSIANIC

6. The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume One. Selected and Translated by W.A. Jurgens. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970.
ROMAN CATHOLIC

7. Archbishop Chrysostomos. (2001). Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations From the Fourth Crusade to the Hesychastic Controversy. Etna, CA: Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
EASTERN ORTHODOX

8. Ruse, Michael. (2009). Defining Darwin: Essays on the History and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST

9. Yazykova, Irina. (2010). Hidden and Triumphant: The Underground Struggle to Save Russian Iconography. Paul Grenier, trans. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press.
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX

10. Cronk, George. (1990). The Message of the Bible: An Orthodox Christian Perspective.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. EASTERN ORTHODOX

11. Schaeffer, Frank. (2002). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religions. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. EASTERN ORTHODOX

12. Azkoul, Father Michael. (2000). Once Delivered To The Saints: An Orthodox Apology For The New Millennium. Seattle, WA: Saint Nectarios Press.
EASTERN ORTHODOX

"RAPTURE. Question: What do we believe about the rapture and the Second Coming? L.K., Williamsport, PA.
"The Orthodox teaching is that Jesus Christ will return at an unknown time and in a way we are not able to fully understand, to judge the living and the dead. We do not speculate any further about how and when this will take place. Our main concern is to be always ready, spiritually, for the event, but to avoid making efforts to understand the details of it. ... Our teaching, therefore, rejects curious and unfounded efforts to peer into the future and sketch out some kind of end-time plans. We do not even use the non-scriptural word "rapture" when we do talk about the end-times. Not so among many Protestants. great controversies occur among some fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants on this topic and there are all kinds of so0called "Dispensationalist" theories which use obscure phrases of the book of Revelation to form Millenniarianist teachings which purport to describe in detail what will happen at the end of the world, when Christ returns. Some of these hold that prior to the coming of Christ for the Last Judgment, He will return secretly in order to grant the "rapture" to His "elect." Needless to say these views are only by the greatest stretch of the imagination supported by the Scriptures, and not at all found in the ongoing Holy Tradition of the Church." Stanley Samuel Harakas, The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. (pages 271-272).

GOD SAVE US. AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington March 12, 2011 AD

AnandaHya · Mar 12, 2011

Hey you forgot a really important one: the Holy Bible.

here's a free online version in 25 different languages:

Revelation - PassageLookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com

zone · Mar 13, 2011

AnandaHya said:

hi AnandaHy...
what have you found in your Bible study concerning THE RAPTURE?
zone

AnandaHya · Mar 13, 2011

lol i don't have the time right now but maybe my brothers and sister in Christ will help here. I'll give you scripture verses when I get a chance.

Matthew 24:3
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Matthew 24:2-4 (in Context) Matthew 24 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 13:3
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately,
Mark 13:2-4 (in Context) Mark 13 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 21:7
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
Luke 21:6-8 (in Context) Luke 21 (Whole Chapter)

BibleGateway.com - KeywordSearch: end of times

Theres a quick cut and paste job.

zone · Mar 13, 2011

AnandaHya said:

lol i don't have the time right now but maybe my brothers and sister in Christ will help here. I'll give you scripture verses when I get a chance.

Matthew 24:3
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Matthew 24:2-4 (in Context) Matthew 24 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 13:3
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately,
Mark 13:2-4 (in Context) Mark 13 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 21:7
[ The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age ] So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
Luke 21:6-8 (in Context) Luke 21 (Whole Chapter)

BibleGateway.com - KeywordSearch: end of times

Theres a quick cut and paste job.

yay! .......

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

AnandaHya said:

Dear friend, I didn't forget the Holy Bible. Sometimes, I refer to the Bible in my posts. I refer to Holy Tradition, which is mentioned in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We need not the Bible alone, but the Bible in the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Church produced the Holy Tradition, of which the Holy Bible was the written part. And the Church produced other written writings and oral sayings, oral preaching. All of these come down through bishops of the Church from the holy Apostles of Christ. As for Revelation, every heretic makes almost constant appeal to Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Thessalonians, but ignores Matthew 24, which shows the second coming occurs after the tribulation. Not before it. And not secretly. No, "rapture" is not a biblical world. Go on Biblegateway.com and type in "rapture" in your KJV look up. You won't find the concept in the Bible.
Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

zone · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Dear friend, I didn't forget the Holy Bible. Sometimes, I refer to the Bible in my posts. I refer to Holy Tradition, which is mentioned in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We need not the Bible alone, but the Bible in the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Church produced the Holy Tradition, of which the Holy Bible was the written part. And the Church produced other written writings and oral sayings, oral preaching. All of these come down through bishops of the Church from the holy Apostles of Christ. As for Revelation, every heretic makes almost constant appeal to Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Thessalonians, but ignores Matthew 24, which shows the second coming occurs after the tribulation. Not before it. And not secretly. No, "rapture" is not a biblical world. Go on Biblegateway.com and type in "rapture" in your KJV look up. You won't find the concept in the Bible.
Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

and there's no second chance after the Second Advent.

AnandaHya · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

I don't know i spent most of my life just reading the Bible and talking to angels and demons so i don't have the knowledge about bishops and churches. I spent my childhood with just the Bible and my visions. I just started trusting the church. hard to trust people covered with demons.

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Dear friends, In addition to rejecting a pre-tribulation rapture, we must reject the Reformation dogma of "sola Scriptura." I read:

"Self-Interpretation
"The second presupposition for a doctrine of sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures are self-interpreting. Luther wrote, "An uncertain text is as bad as no text at all." (Quoted in Pelikan, Reformation, p. 181.). In other words, there is no point in having an inspired, all-sufficient text, if the meaning of the text is not clear. (Cf. the Westminster Catechism: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Article 1:8, Hodge, p. 39.).
"The idea that the Scriptures are self-interpreting is patently absurd. It assumes a degree of absolute objectivity that would make the most ardent positivist cringe with embarrassment. Einstein demonstrated that the observer is an inherent part of any scientific observation. There is no such thing as pure objectivity.
"If this is true for observation of the natural world, how much more is it true of the interpretation of texts. Texts do not exist in the abstract. Yet, this is exactly what the doctrine of sola Scripturaassumes: a bare text that somehow imposes its meaning on the reader. The absurdity of this claim is clearly evidenced by the multitude of conflicting interpretations that the thousands of Protestant denominations give to particular biblical passages.
"Although the doctrine of sola Scriptura logically presupposes a self-interpreting text, Protestants do not really believe that the text is self-interpreting. Take a trip to your local Christian bookstore and note the number of biblical commentaries for sale. There are literally dozens of different commentaries available for every book of the Bible. If the Bible interprets itself, why have Protestants written hundreds, if not thousands, of books to explain it? Why, indeed, do commentators from within the same Protestant tradition write commentaries that disagree with one another?
"The word tradition is very important here. Lutherans write biblical commentaries from within the tradition of Luther, Melanchthon, and the Augsburg Confession. Presbyterian write commentaries from within the tradition of Calvin, Beza, Knox, and the Westminster Catechism. In short, every commentary on the Bible is written from within some tradition. The real question is not whether Scripture implies tradition, but which tradition correctly interprets the Scriptures." .... (pages 99-101: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Clark Carlton. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997.).
God save us in Christ Jesus; AMEN. In Erie PA USA, March 13, 2011 AD (n.c.). Take care!

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Further reading:

Gentry, Jr., Kenneth L., Th.D. (1989). The Beast of Revelation. Tyler, TX: Institute For Christian Economics.

"THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hunder and sixty-six (Revelation 13:18)". "Due to this ancient phenomenon of the two-fold use of alphabets, riddles employing numbers which concealed names were common. The phenomenon is called a "cryptogram" by modern scholars. Among the Greeks it was called isopsephia ("numeral equality"); among the Jews it was called gimatriya ("mathematical"). Any given name could be reduced to is numerical equivalent by adding up the mathematical value of all the letters of the name." (Page 31.).
"In the midst of his Latin history, Suetonius records a sample of a Greek lampoon that was circulated after the burning of Rome which occurred in A.D. 64: "Neopsephon Neron idian metera apektine." The translation of this lampoon is: "A calculation new. Nero his mother slew." (Suetonius, Nero 39). J.C. Rolfe notes in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Suetonius's works that "the numerical value of the Greek letters in Nero's name (1005) is the same as the rest of the sentence; hence we have an equation, Nero = slayer of his own mother" (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, vol. 2). It is quite interesting to not that there were already anti-Nero cryptograms circulating when John wrote Revelation." (page 32.)
"Identifying 66 "Based on what we know of Nero's character and actions, he fits easily within the parameters of the textually derived principles stated above. ..." (p. 33.).
"Interestingly, several scholars of the last century -- Fritzsche, Holtzmann, Benary, Hitzig and Reuss -each stumbled independently upon the name Nero Caesar almost simultaneously. We have seen that the Greek spe lling of Nero's name has the value 1005. A Hebrew spelling of his name was Nrwn Qsr (pronounced Neron Kaiser). It has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name provides us precisely with the value of 666." (page 34.). (D.R. Hillers, "Revelation 13:18 and A Scroll from Murabba'at", Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 170 (April, 1963): 65.
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation. q.v.

God save us all. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

zone · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Dear friends, In addition to rejecting a pre-tribulation rapture, we must reject the Reformation dogma of "sola Scriptura." I read:

"Self-Interpretation
"The second presupposition for a doctrine of sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures are self-interpreting. Luther wrote, "An uncertain text is as bad as no text at all." (Quoted in Pelikan, Reformation, p. 181.). In other words, there is no point in having an inspired, all-sufficient text, if the meaning of the text is not clear. (Cf. the Westminster Catechism: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Article 1:8, Hodge, p. 39.).
"The idea that the Scriptures are self-interpreting is patently absurd. It assumes a degree of absolute objectivity that would make the most ardent positivist cringe with embarrassment. Einstein demonstrated that the observer is an inherent part of any scientific observation. There is no such thing as pure objectivity.
"If this is true for observation of the natural world, how much more is it true of the interpretation of texts. Texts do not exist in the abstract. Yet, this is exactly what the doctrine of sola Scripturaassumes: a bare text that somehow imposes its meaning on the reader. The absurdity of this claim is clearly evidenced by the multitude of conflicting interpretations that the thousands of Protestant denominations give to particular biblical passages.
"Although the doctrine of sola Scriptura logically presupposes a self-interpreting text, Protestants do not really believe that the text is self-interpreting. Take a trip to your local Christian bookstore and note the number of biblical commentaries for sale. There are literally dozens of different commentaries available for every book of the Bible. If the Bible interprets itself, why have Protestants written hundreds, if not thousands, of books to explain it? Why, indeed, do commentators from within the same Protestant tradition write commentaries that disagree with one another?
"The word tradition is very important here. Lutherans write biblical commentaries from within the tradition of Luther, Melanchthon, and the Augsburg Confession. Presbyterian write commentaries from within the tradition of Calvin, Beza, Knox, and the Westminster Catechism. In short, every commentary on the Bible is written from within some tradition. The real question is not whether Scripture implies tradition, but which tradition correctly interprets the Scriptures." .... (pages 99-101: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Clark Carlton. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997.).
God save us in Christ Jesus; AMEN. In Erie PA USA, March 13, 2011 AD (n.c.). Take care!

all you've done is show that sinful man DISOBEYS Sola Scriptura.
and in the same breath you will say that equally sinful men in hierarchies of religious institutions have preserved the real interpretations of the texts in rituals and traditions.

please don't get me started on all that Scott. i really don't want to have to go down the PATRON SAINT OF SUCH AND SUCH has hymns and churches and relics and icons road, okay?

AnandaHya · Mar 13, 2011

I think you misunderstand my humility for ignorance and self delusions. If you must know I've spent years studying theology. I have a degree in Religious Studies and Biology from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Its just i've had the Bible and visions longer then my relationship with the Earthly church.That does not mean i haven't spent the last ten years reading at least 5 religious commentary books a month. which is about 600 books. It is just compared to how much there is to learn. I feel Newton did when he says: he is but a child who finds a prettier pebble in the vast sea of knowledge.

But if you must have basis for my beliefs I will give you some Bible quotes and I can find some church traditions too if you have to have them. I still think being guided by the Holy Spirit is better, because that is what the churches I've attended have taught. they don't like the catholic church by the way.

this reminds me of Job.

sorry my kids just woke up, have to tuck them back into bed

AnandaHya · Mar 13, 2011

Here is what the world has to say about the Rapture since you don't want personal opinion, of course they are that person's opinion but anyways.

YouTube - The Rapture - You NEED To See This

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/the-rapture/

I haven't read or listened to them but that's from a google search. first skim makes it look ok. So what do you want to KNOW about the rapture and how does it affect your every day walk with Christ?

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

[quote=zone;400161]all you've done is show that sinful man DISOBEYS Sola Scriptura.
and in the same breath you will say that equally sinful men in hierarchies of religious institutions have preserved the real interpretations of the texts in rituals and traditions.

please don't get me started on all that Scott. i really don't want to have to go down the PATRON SAINT OF SUCH AND SUCH has hymns and churches and relics and icons road, okay?[/quote]
So was Martin Luther the first true Christian? Was he the first prophet of God? Did he encourage people to repentance? Or did he say, "Be a sinner and sin boldly." Every idle word we speak, remember? I was a Lutheran and very, very sinful for many many years. I said, not knowing any better, and being very bad, "Sin now, pay later." Yes indeed, we'll pay if we don't repent. We need t repent, all of us. That's true, even if a person looks down and despises the traditions of the early church, and wants to be some kind of Bible alone Protestant. How is it that some Protestants swear by the pretribulation rapture, and other Protestants can't stand that teaching? They both profess to go by "sola Scriptura". So, using the Sola Scriptura solution to all of Christianity's problems, which is it that THE BIBLE ALONE TEACHES
1. A PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE
2. NO PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE (POST-TRIBULATION, POSSIBLY).
or even 3. NO FUTURE GREAT 7 YEAR TRIBULATION (AMILLENNIALISM?)

Take care.
Martin Luther is the icon of the Protestants, or is John Calvin, or any of Protestants
so-called many Bible alone teachers. If you go by the Bible alone, why do you need a local congregation, or a preacher ? If you believe baptism is in the Bible, though, who will baptize you, if you are believing in your own private readings of the Bible?

zone · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

so you're blaming luther for your sin and ignorance of what the bible actually said?
does not compute.

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

[quote=zone;400186]so you're blaming luther for your sin and ignorance of what the bible actually said?
does not compute.[/quote]
No. Not blaming Luther. I just committed the same sin that Luther did. The Bible says, "Don't sin." The sinner says, "Sin." So, monkey see, monkey do. I'm sure I wasn't thinking of what Luther said. But the point is, Christians are accountable for what they say or teach. Luther shouldn't have written or said that. I shouldn't have said, "Sin now, pay later." I was wrong. Luther had a heart after God. I have had heart after God. People who seek God sometimes fall away, and fall into sins. I committed many sins. David sinned. He came back to God and found forgiveness. I pray to God we all find forgiveness from Christ. Even people who haven't sinned very many sins need forgiveness for just a few sins. All people need God's mercy. I'm not blaming Luther. I'm just saying I don't think we should rely on Luther as the one who will be the one to tell us what the Bible means. By that token, I should be more humble. I just hope I find forgiveness and mercy from God. No body in any confession or tradition is without sin. That doesn't mean that some church isn't closer to the Spirit of God than some other. Perhaps some churches understand and live by the Scriptures better than some other churches. Because we have a First Amendment, we can change churches and beliefs and creeds. We don't have to remain Lutheran, although some Lutherans are very fine people. I just feel a need to move on from Lutheranism, as in good conscience I can no longer believe "who proceeds from the Father AND THE SON". No FILIOQUE for me. I don't accept The Book of Concord anymore, either. I don't like the Westminster Confession of Faith either.

zone · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Scott.
this childish retreat into philosophical ga-ga is annoying.
NOBODY says BIBLE AND NOTHING ELSE. (even if they do, they're still saved if they believe in Jesus Christ)

NOBODY says to their bible: Bible, will you baptise me? Bible...will you fellowship with me?

please don't insult my intelligence, nor the sincerity of the reformers. they retrieved the Bible FOR THE LAITY, okay?

but apparently you'd rather have it the old way, have things chanted to you in a langauge you don't understand, mystical rituals performed you don't understand, and traditions pawned off as authoritative.

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS?????

Scotth1960 · Mar 13, 2011

zone said:

No. The Reformers didn't retrieve the Bible for the laity. The laity had the BIble. They had it in the lectionary of the Church. Luther came around and said, "There is no ship. There is no Church. I'm the Reformer. I'll reform the Church. I'll reform what I think is the Church. I'll cause another schism from the previous schism of Roman Catholicism. No doubt, Rome was in error, and Luther TRIED to reform Rome, but LUTHER FAILED. He created another FALSE GOSPEL OF HIS OWN. The TRUE GOSPEL was never lost. It is preserved in 20011 years of Eastern Orthodox Church history. I learned that when I learned what John 15:26. Lutheranism GETS THIS WRONG. So in Good conscience, since, I, too, go by the Bible, go by John 15:26 according to THE EASTERN ORTHODOX. I don't follow LUTHER'S READING OF AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. Luther didn't understand that FILIOQUE IS HERESY.
That is one of the WEAKNESSES IN LUTHERAN THEOLOGY. Luther started his own ship, a small boat, which got off the bigger boat of Rome. And Rome was just one Patriarch among the other 4 Patriarchs. The Church continued in holy doctrine and prayer in the other 4 patriarchates. They never lost the faith (Jude 3). Rome lost orthodoxy by saying "FILIOQUE", and then the Lutherans, who said FILIOQUE, lost Rome, but they didn't gain the one holy catholic and apostolic church. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

zone · Mar 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

your OBSSESSION with intruding into the GodHead is VERY UNHEALTHY.

WHO CARES WHAT ROME DID?

Rome is filled with blasphemy, just like her Mother.

and i'm not OF LUTHER. are you of Batholomew?

if you do not believe in salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ OUTSIDE THE LAW, in SPITE of all the warnings by the great pharisee Saul of Tarsus, you might as well go back to Rome.

let's talk about the OC then...and see what lies lurking below the pomp and ceremony.

i asked you:

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS?

give me a good reason for this fascination with john the baptist's head. do people pray to it? kiss it? ask it for intercession?

Scotth1960 · Mar 14, 2011

zone said:

Scott.
this childish retreat into philosophical ga-ga is annoying.
NOBODY says BIBLE AND NOTHING ELSE. (even if they do, they're still saved if they believe in Jesus Christ)

NOBODY says to their bible: Bible, will you baptise me? Bible...will you fellowship with me?

please don't insult my intelligence, nor the sincerity of the reformers. they retrieved the Bible FOR THE LAITY, okay?
No one doubts the sincerity of the Reformers. A person can be sincere, but wrong, sincerely wrong.
Either "alone" is in Romans 3:28, or it isn't. It isn't! Therefore, Luther is adding non-biblical words to the text of the Bible, and attempting to remove the whole book of James from the Bible, since it says "not by faith alone". Of course, Luther didn't follow through with removing James from his translation of the NT. To his credit. He feared God enough not to take his falsification theology of "faith alone" one step further from the Gospel, and remove whole Christian books from God's Word! Take care. We're not saved by our intelligence, but by God, through obedience to His Word (according to the Scriptures). Scott in Erie

but apparently you'd rather have it the old way, have things chanted to you in a langauge you don't understand, mystical rituals performed you don't understand, and traditions pawned off as authoritative.

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS????

Regarding the "rapture", etc. Recommended reading, March 2011.

Scotth1960

Guest

AnandaHya

Guest

zone

Senior Member

AnandaHya

Guest

zone

Senior Member

Scotth1960

Guest

zone

Senior Member

AnandaHya

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

zone

Senior Member

AnandaHya

Guest

AnandaHya

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

zone

Senior Member

Scotth1960

Guest

zone

Senior Member

Scotth1960

Guest

zone

Senior Member

Scotth1960

Guest