Sabbaths’ Feast Condemned or Defended?



Quoting GE “Now, please, why don’t you this time quote me verbatim like you often do? Because you can’t, because I never was “trying to change (the "or") to "OF"”. Shows how inattentive and prejudiced you read my arguments.   I cannot make out which ‘eh’ (‘or’), you refer to; but here’s a list of all the possibilities: …”


First you make this charging accusation of inattentiveness or prejudice; then you go and admit that you don't even know which word is in question.

Which "or" has been changed to "of" in your translation? It is obviously "eating and drinking, OR in respect of a holy day", which you change into "eating and drinking OF feast".



Negative! I show you the whole list of ‘EH’s’-‘or’s’, and NO one has been changed by me into ‘OF’. The ‘OF’ – as I explained thoroughly – is NOT by Ellipsis, but by Inflection: in the Suffix, ‘heort-EHS’-‘OF, feast’. “Eating and drinking” is present by Ellipsis though – “eating and drinking of Feast”. This is how I wrote it since we began our discussion, and you haven’t noticed?

No! You refuse to admit, hanging on like a terrier: “Regardless of whether it is from "ellipsis" or not; you still replaced "or" with "of".   I translated correctly, showing the Genitive which the KJV, does not do that clearly. Sometimes the English language can also take things for granted, you know? The problem is not with the KJV so much though as with your scheming to escape from being convinced of truth.




Yes it (judging) is the big deal; because you are trying to make all of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking" rendering the text "eating and drinking of feasts, or eating and drinking of sabbaths or eating and drinking of moons; etc". But What I am saying is that it is JUDGING in regard to eating or drinking; or JUDGING in regard to feast days; or JUDGING in regard to new moons, or JUDGING in regard to the sabbath.



Wrong again! In neither Romans nor Colossians is it about a ’judging’ / ‘condemning’ of days, but of one person the other. In Colossians it is the world that judges / condemns the Church, solely. In Romans there was another kind of ‘judging’ also: the ‘judging’ that meant the ‘observance’ of ‘days’ – not  to ‘condemn’. The last is nowhere the case in Collosians. 


First, to remove a little obstacle to getting to the gist of my viewpoint (referring you again to the very last point above): “... all of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking" in fact! But not in the order you smuggle in, “rendering the text "eating and drinking of feasts, or eating and drinking of sabbaths or eating and drinking of moons; etc".” (Prettily with an “etc”!) “All of the possessives refer back to "eating and drinking"”, but not with all the Plurals you have, and also not with the Singular you omit! So that ‘rendering the text’ the way you do, is far from ‘rendering the text’ the way I do. My way renders the text exactly: “eating-and-drinking-of-feast, whether eating-and drinking-of-month’s(Sing.)-feast, or, eating-and drinking-of-Sabbaths’-(Plural)-feast”: In all, two recurring events: “event of month’s” (probably the Lord’s Supper), and, “event of Sabbaths” – undoubtedly the ‘weekly Sabbaths’ Day’ … I believe, both month’s- and, Sabbaths’-events, on the Sabbath.



Still; if I put all of that word-for-word translation you cited together; I can get "Not therefore then, anyone, YOU let judge, in drinking and in eating / celebrating, or with regard to OF feast;* OF month’s, or OF Sabbath’s." 'that' and either(*) is added by ellipsis; right?



I truly appreciate your honesty – it should lead us somewhere somehow to where the parallel lines hopefully will meet.

To answer:

No, regrettably, 'that' and either(*) is NOT added by ellipsis. “That” = ‘EH’ = “or”. Remember our rather lengthy discussion of the Pronominal quality of ‘EH’?

WITHIN ‘EH’, “eating and drinking” is presented by Ellipsis. No different than ordinary English: “Do not you let judge you anyone in eating and drinking (‘en’ plus Dative ‘brohsei kai en posei’), OR (‘eh’, = “that”) with regard to eating and drinking”:– “eating and drinking” derived from ‘en merei’ plus the required Dative of Relativity and Incidence –brohsei kai posei– which you won’t find written there, but which is repeated there through Ellipsis (which is present there by omission). [*See Blass Debrunner (cited at the end) for the Conjunctive nature and function of ‘eh’.*]



But that (Ellipsis) is an assumption; because without it; I could see where the possessives would refer back to "judge". So another proper ellipsis would be "Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or the observance of feast, or [the observance of] new moons; or [the observance of] the sabbath day".



But that (Ellipsis) is an assumption.  The Ellipsis is no ‘assumption’! The Genitive, ‘OF month’s’, ‘OF Sabbath’s’, requires and proves the presence and functionality of Ellipsis.  The verb has ‘You’ its Object, “Do not let YOU”, as well as Subject, “Do not you let anyone judge YOU”. Not, “Let not your eating and drinking be judged’, or ‘your Sabbaths be judged’, or ‘your Feast be judged’  – because neither ‘eating and drinking’ nor ‘months’ nor ‘Sabbaths’ are either Subject or Object. Even ‘without Ellipses’ you still would not have been able to “see where the possessives would refer back to "judge".  How or “where”, would you “see where the possessives would refer back to "judge"?  By undefined ‘logic’ of grammar?  What would it have helped you, since logically the text would still have said the feasting or Sabbaths should NOT, be judged! It would still have been the defence of “Sabbaths’ Feast”, and not its condemnation … all because of the Negation (‘meh oun’) that keeps applying to both the direct Object Accusative, ‘hymahs’-‘you’, and – against your logical wishes – the relative adverbial phrases telling what ‘you’ should not allow yourselves to be ‘judged’, about.


Even supposed without Ellipsis the text by Datives and Genitives in the adverbial phrases confirms “eating-and-drinking-OF-feast”! Obliged to BE!



So another proper ellipsis would be ... [the observance of]  Exactly! Here at last it seems the parallel lines do meet! You may call it ‘observance’; I call it a “feasting” / “celebration” seeing it is an ‘observance’ by “eating and drinking” spiritually of Jesus Christ (not excluding by a possible physical eating in faith). Point is: Ellipsis functions; is legitimate!

Only ask yourself a few questions:  Where is “[the observance of]” mentioned, because it must be truly present in the nearby context to be implicated through Ellipsis?  It is mentioned in the words “eating and drinking of feast”, or in only the words “eating and drinking”! Therefore yes, “proper ellipsis would be "Let no one judge you in regard to eating and drinking or the observance of feast”!


Also ask yourself: For being of what nature does Paul condone and the judging party the ‘world’ condemn, the “observance” or ‘celebration’ or ‘feast’ “concerned” (Dative and ‘en merei’)?  Was the “observance” Christian, or was it un-Christian?  Did Christians, feast it –“observe”– it? (Christians did!)  Who else, could have “observed” it? (Nobody!)  Did Paul condone it, or did he condemn it? (He condoned it!) 


Therefore: The “observance” was Christian!



The whole debate ultimately hinges on this; because if Rom. and Col. are saying the same thing: let no one judge ANYONE over ANY days; but whoever keeps a day keeps it unto the Lord; then all of this grammar and stuff means nothing. Once again; granting you the benefit of the doubt: "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts". This nowhere says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath". Nowhere does it say that it is still a binding "duty" for all. But it does go right long with Romans 14. If they so choose to keep the day (and its "feast") unto the Lord; let no one judge them for it. Yet you have to dismiss this like nothing.



For you, “The whole debate ultimately hinges on this; because if Rom. and Col. are saying the same thing...”, “BECAUSE IF” – not for me. If we could agree not to agree on this point, we would have made good progress.


But just take the word ‘judge’, and from just it, see how Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are NOT “saying the same thing”:

In Romans Paul says, “Don’t one judge the other” – he presupposes brethren in the faith the one turning against the other in their observance, and condemns them for condemning one another!  Paul finds fault with the Church in Romans: You are not acting like Christians! You are divided, and make of the non-essential the essential!


But in Colossians Paul says, “Do not you, let judge you, anyone!” – he presupposes brethren in the faith standing united against a common foe. Paul sympathises with the Church and “comforts” them (2:2). He takes up the cudgels for them: What you practice is your Christian inheritance and right and with your implementation of it there’s no fault to be found: You are behaving like Christians; keep on enjoying, “don’t let anybody judge you in it!”


The ‘judging’ in Romans was sinful and revealed inner weakness and the pride of the believers; therefore it had all to to with the observers and none with the observance.


The ‘being judged’ in Colossians implied the commendable; was referred paragon of the Freedom in which the Church stood undaunted against the world.

In Romans the Church ‘judged’ and it ‘condemned’ one another; in Colossians the world ‘judged’, and the world ‘condemned’, the Church.  In Romans brother judged / condemned brother unjustly, disregarding the other’s devotion. In Colossians the world regarding its blameless devotion judged / condemned unjustly the Church. Paul in Romans reprimands the Church sternly; in Colossians Paul, while condoning and defending the faith and action of the Church – “presented holy, unblameable” (1:22) “in Christ” before the Judgement seat of God, warns and rejects with contempt the world’s unjust judging of the Church.


Yes, the concept ‘judged’ is used in both passages, but in each with many and largely different connotations. Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are NOT “saying the same thing”.  And so we could go on and shall see there’s NOTHING “the same thing”.  The whole debate ultimately does NOT hinge on this.

I thought we have long ago lost Romans 14. I do not submit to hermeneutics of Colossians 2:16-17 by alien invasion. I also won’t submit to hermeneutics by alien invasion of Romans 14, where you after everything said, again shuttled in from vastest space, “whoever keeps a day keeps it unto the Lord”.


All of this grammar and stuff” is the Text; is the Word – God’s Word, not mine. “It means nothing” to you; it means everything to me. So you throw in the towel, but won’t separate with your world-title belt.



Once again; granting you the benefit of the doubt: "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts". This nowhere says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath". Nowhere does it say that it is still a binding "duty" for all.



Granting me, “the benefit of the doubt”? What doubt?  Yes, I say the text “says "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath"” – not so much ‘by the letter’ – but by showing they in fact did, and thereby for later generations created a perfect, undeniable, precedent. But what they did they did on grounds of Christ’s doing, and therefore by irrevocable precept – not only precedent. Look what New Testament Law looks like!


I have always said the Sabbath is “for the People of God” and not for everyone – not for “anyone” else who may even judge all Christians for ‘keeping the Sabbath’.


What does "Let no one judge you for eating of your sabbath-feasts" tell you? That "all Christians are bound to keep the sabbath"”, or that Christians are FREE to keep the Sabbath? “The love of Christ constraineth us.”



If they so choose to keep the day (and its "feast") unto the Lord; let no one judge them for it.



If they so choose ...

Not reiterating the same objections against your referring to Romans 14, now asking you: Who chooses? Is it up for grabs by anyone according to anyone’s liking? “Joying and beholding your order”, says Paul, while he comforts the Church in her feasting her Sabbaths’ Day, challenging the whole world and all principalities and powers of the kingdom of darkness, Don’t you dare judge the Church if they so choose! Is that your choice, that it isn’t binding – not inviting, not begging, not pleading, “Enter in, enter in!”? I won’t say it does – it’s up to you to ‘decide’ if, or not. You, decide, mighty man!



But then it (to decide) becomes impossible to anyone false or true; when they all have convincing grammatical arguments like this.



... when they all have convincing grammatical arguments like this.” All? And everyone differently? You think it possible based on the single Text? You think it possible linguistically for one and precise language, the Greek, they all, have convincing grammatical arguments? Come on! Name but one, and show, his convincing grammatical arguments “like this”, nevertheless against ‘this’ and proving ‘this’, wrong and false! Only one!



Because the JW's claim there should be an indefinite article before theos in John 1:1. They argue that in other places, like "a prophet is without honor in his own country"; that an indefinite article is not in the Greek; but it is added there --by "ellipsis". But we can disprove it by other means. Like the fact that while there can be more than one prophet; (for one to be singled out with an indefinite article); there can only be one God; so there is no such thing as "A god" to us.



Your example? BY analogy of one false application of Ellipsis you do away with all Ellipsis and deny its function in this specific and totally unrelated instance?  If “the JW's claim” is that one instance, then you overwhelm me with the credit due all those who so thoroughly have dismantled “the JW's” false “claim”.



You believe God has preserved His word properly translated. Not really because you believe this passage reads something totally different from what we have been reading. I believe that God has not allowed His word to be changed; even by "imperfect humans" that much.



This passage may be read as is from the KJV with exactly the same meaning as I would have rendered it with. It all depends on what predisposition one reads it with or from.

Now let me tell you one thing you obviously are unaware of, that “what we have been reading” in this passage mostly has never been “what we have been reading”, but what we have been brain-washed to read INTO it!

First of all one could freely generalise and say everybody always says this passage condemns Sabbath-keeping – says, “judge”, means condemning what is WRONG, and that the WRONG condemned, is Sabbath-keeping (like in Romans 14) , ‘they say’.

But by reading the exact same lines, word for word the same, the thought is conveyed to the honest and open mind that here –in Colossians 2– is a judging spoken of, not of Sabbath-keeping nor of Sabbath breaking, and as a WRONG justly judged, but of a RIGHT, unjustly judged!

Next one could freely generalise and say everybody always says in this passage it is Paul who judges and condemns Sabbath-keeping – that he tells the Church, and I quote: NAB, “Let nobody prescribe to you to keep the Sabbath!”

But by reading the exact same lines in the KJV, word for word the same, the thought is conveyed to the honest and open mind, that here is Paul comforting and reassuring the Church NOT to allow herself be judged for her Sabbaths’ Day or its, correct, feasting!

And so I can go on and lift out opposing impressions allegedly obtained from the text, but falsely so, they having originated in and having been fetched and imported from Tradition, and not from the Text!

So what little value can you attach to “what we all have been reading”. We have all been listening to tradition, and have not really been reading. Back to the original! There we have every word and all the convincing grammatical factors against which to test opinion, interpretation and tradition or whatever what is not the text or according to the text itself. (Don’t go to another passage that has nothing to do with the issue here!)



Then what in the world are we arguing about? (if not about working on the Sabbath) I am arguing against the idea that one must "keep" the day; by following the OT command not to do any work on that day (with the exception of removing "the Jews' additions; of course).
What you said I could agree with; especially that people's taking it to their convenience means He is not Lord of that day (to them). This is what I realized when I was first shown from Col., Rom.14 and Gal. that I can keep the day "unto the Lord" myself, but not judge others over it. What 'fun' was that, then? I'm no better than the Sunday keepers. What's the purpose of keeping it, then? The sabbath then lost all of its significance. It was just a tool to try to be better than others. That was never what it was about in God's eyes, but that was what it was to the Jews and the Judaizers, and to these modern sects and cults today. And that is why I argue against it; not because I am pushing Sunday.
I can still respect the significance of the sabbath, and if I could start my own church; I would probably choose Sat. to meet on. But not forbid anyone to work, or whatever else.
You must realize, that you spoke of a "duty", and "lawlessness", and all that stuff just like the SDA's, Armstrong groups, SNG and all the rest arguing that no one should work on it. (the difficulty faced in getting the day off is supposed to be part of one's "trials of the faith"; thus further proving its whole significance to God). That is why I argued so long. But if there is no ban on working, then there is no real debate



Consider: “if there is no ban on working, then there is no real debate.

I think you’re seriously wrong here. The real debate about the Sabbath only starts when the side-issue of work on the Sabbath Day had been settled – it doesn’t end there. (I always think of the figure from the Letter to the Hebrews of the two-edged sword. God’s Word is sharper, says it, than this sword when dealing with the Sabbath-truth.) Barth’s famous words: “the monstrous scope of the Sabbath” or of its truth or doctrine, are most appropriate. This respected theologian wrote more than one large paragraph on the Sabbath doctrine, and each word of it carried weight, the side issue of work on the Sabbath Day regardless.


My stance on work on the Sabbath Day I hoped to have taken on the grounds of Christ’s virtue and merit, not because of any dismissal from duty. I’m supposing an absolute irrevocable, inescapable DUTY. God’s Law is valid – today, as ever before or beyond, and more so than ever before or after because now God’s Law is Jesus Christ Living Confronting me – you – whomever He graciously may will to confront. In Christ is the Sabbath Day confronting me, you, the Church Corporate Body of Christ’s Own. There is no Church where is no Sabbath Day. If my work or not working interferes with this God’s design for His Day, namely for His Worship, then the Law looms over me like a dark cloud.  Such work is easy to recognise and easy to indicate: such works are works like of serving Mammon and greedy and selfish interest.


If one’s duty – one’s whole duty as his Christian duty – requires of him to work on the Seventh Day of the week the Sabbath of the LORD your God, then fine – it’s his duty. May God find every workman of His working when He comes. But we know with Whom we have to do – God is not mocked.


Colossians is about God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ, the Church celebrating her Sabbaths’ Day for His worship. Colossians 2:16-17 entails the grand vista of the “monstrous range” of the Sabbath and its doctrine. Colossians does not presuppose small issues of million pounds penny pinching or global yet ever so bourgeois social relationships.

Colossians concerns the Body of Christ’s as the Witness and Proclamation to the world and before God and among one another of the Crucified and Risen who is the Inspiration and Power and Dictum of its every breath and movement.

There therefore is this very real debate between you and me about the very real reality and pertinence of the Sabbath Day for believers in and followers of Jesus Christ.

The Sabbath is not for our may-be’s – it is for the sure promises and mercies of God!



You're trying to say it was the civil law (or not so civil) of the pagans that was the "handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the Cross. But Paul is referring to the Law of Moses. It was the Old Covenant that was superseded. Gentile laws have nothing to do with it, as they never condemned anyone before God.




Gentile laws have nothing to do with it (the "handwriting of ordinances"), as they never condemned anyone before God.

Gentiles and emperors condemned and put to the stake Christians they thought as before God, thinking indeed themselves to be God. Civil law in those ancient times was holy and divine law in the eyes of its makers. Wiping out God’s People and their Faith was, the religion of the day.



"handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the Cross ... Paul is referring to the Law of Moses.



Sure he does! And the law of Moses was civil law while religious law; ‘ceremonial’ law while ‘moral’ law; ‘sacrificial’ law while ‘spiritual’ law; “law of Moses” while Law of God. But we see Jesus. We see Him, and taking in his body ALL law – even laws of men and governments and courts – to the Cross! To the cross, and to it, nailing it, taking it out of the way, abolishing it: Wave this useless “court-order against us” that “condemns” us, is “contrary us” – ignore it, it’s “made a shame” of by Christ! Don’t you be judged!

The Christian finds his comfort and strength in Jesus Christ even in the case of being brought before the courts of law of the land – through real “hand-written ordinance by law”. It was the very situation of discomfort of the Colossian Congregation feasting their Sabbaths’ Day in the hostile world that prompted Paul to write to them.

Still you think, “Still (I) think it is only laws that they "added" that were abolished.” How can you still think so? Haven’t I argued those Laws even what God had commanded in the Old Covenant were abolished? Like sacrifices, etc., even the Ten Commandments? And WITH them, the Sabbath? And with THEM, even the laws and ordinances of rulers and lands!

What I have denied all along and ‘still’ deny, is that ANY laws, “were push(ed)” upon the Church ‘religiously’. What I on the contrary have argued is that judgement was being served upon the Church by “statutory” ‘decree’ – ‘cheirographon tois dogmasin’ = “by enactment of a legislative body (the “rule” / “government” (‘emperor’) of the “world”) expressed in a formal (“written”) document” = court order = “to judge”. In the particular circumstance of the Colossian Congregation that ultimately meant to be “condemned”.

I have all along maintained “pushing laws” is not what “to judge” means.

Here’s the true point of difference between us – laws weren’t ‘pushed’, they were “taken out of the way”!



They took exceptions for specific REASONS. It was the Jews who were threatened because of Christ in His own right. What He stood for meant the end of their system. The pagans were not threatened at all by what they saw as just a new tribal god among all the others. It was their refusal to worship the emperor that made them take exception.



I can’t see that the Christians’ “refusal to worship the emperor ... made them (the pagans) take exception”, but that they “were not threatened at all by what they saw”.  The religion of the Gentiles more than the Jewish religion was in fact historically threatened by the New Faith! Christians were killed by the thousands by the pagan religious authorities for no other reason they felt and in fact were threatened by the New Faith. The religion of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth notwithstanding persecution or precisely because of persecution, posed the ‘threat’ that soon was to replace the ideology, authority and religion of pagan emperors, law and order.

During the first century despite the short periods of persecution under them, the Jews were the bearers of the Gospel rather than its opponents. That was when Paul wrote his Letter to the Colossian Church.


Therefore the laws whereby the Church was “judged” / “condemned” / “incriminated” (‘krinoh’) were laws of the pagan world-state and pagan world-religion, “against” them, and “contrary”, that is, “opposing” them. They were not laws “added” whereby the Church supposedly was to be ‘educated’, ‘corrected’, ‘improved’, ‘converted’, or, ‘misled’, ‘tempted’, ‘corrupted’, to the Jewish religion and Judaistic idealism. Not here in Colossians.



Of course it's impossible (to have Christ and worship both Him and the emperor)-- before God. But the pagans didn't know that. So many other groups worshipped their gods; and then gave homage to the emperor, and there was no conflict. The pagans did not automatically know that Christ was not just some new god being created by His followers.




You’re making an overkill of no kill. The gentleman protests too much.



You're still talking about what believers knew (there’s no either or in serving Christ). I'm talking about what the pagans knew. They were blinded. 1 Cor. 8:5-7 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But TO US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Nevertheless there is not in every man that knowledge...".



This Scripture you’re quoting is true in what it says in itself. What has it got to do with Colossians 2:16-17 though? That the world of pagans and pagan non-gods would not judge and condemn the Christians for believing in Christ and keeping His Sabbaths’ Feast? I think it would imply just the opposite! “TO US there is but one God, the Father ... and one Lord Jesus Christ ... Nevertheless there is not in every man that knowledge” – meaning trouble for “us”!



Well before, you looked like you were holding this "another day" up as a continued sabbath for today. What would be the point of holding up "if Jesus gave the rest, then he would not have spoken of another ___", then?



"(A)nother day"” I have last time explained is metaphor for “rest”, and “rest” is metaphor for Jesus. Jesus is God’s rest, is His last (and only) redemption and salvation. After this “rest” which God had given us in Jesus Christ, there comes no further ‘rest’. Jesus’ ‘day’, is the last ‘day’, is the last “Today!” on God’s calendar for the world. I am the Way, said Jesus – there’s no second ‘way’ to God and His Rest or Salvation. There never had been another before. God has only this one day for everyone, “TODAY, if you hear His Voice, harden not your heart!” “The GOSPEL, was preached unto them, like unto us”!

I am the door, said Jesus, and no other door is to open for anyone tomorrow; and by none other than THIS Door any before had entered in. “There is no other day after these things” which is after Jesus, after His rest, after His “day”, after His “having entered into His own rest as God”!  And no other Day had there been before for any man how godly; he was unable to create his own.

There’s no Jesus after “this Jesus whom you have crucified but whom God raised from the dead”. (Peter)  “There is no other Name given!” Not ever before; not ever “after these things”. This is the day! Today! Christ’s day!

“There is no other day after these things” – after His “having entered into His own rest as God”: “THEREFORE”! What concerns us here, what has direct bearing on us, today, “seeing Jesus had given them rest”, “HAVING entered in into His own rest Jesus” (Participle-use), is this: “Therefore there remains a keeping of God’s Sabbath Day for His People!” “God thus concerning the Seventh Day had spoken: And God on the Seventh Day rested from all His works.” You have never seen Law have you not seen it in the New Testament!

Having problems to grasp? I regret I cannot be of better help even though the Sabbath is such an urgent matter in the eyes of God and of those He employed to write down His Will to us. O Jesus, be merciful! O Christ be Thou mine Rest!



The spiritual rest is not "keeping" a day. But then now you seem to be saying something like that at times.



That’s what I’ve been saying all along, “the spiritual rest is not "keeping" a day”! Indeed! The ‘anapausis’ is NOT the ‘sabbatismos’ even though ‘spiritually’ dedicated and ‘spiritually’ acceptable to God.

What it seems to me you are saying, is: ‘The spiritual rest is not, comma, ‘keeping’ a day at all’.  That would have been true, and how it should be understood and believed. The two things must not be identified; the one must not disappear into the other; they must stay what God made them: separate things neither of which might be neglected without the other neglected inevitably and invariably!















































































Gerhard Ebersoehn

Suit 324

Pvt Bag 43

Sunninghill 2157