This began as a response to unkleE in the comment thread of my last post. However, I decided that I was getting too wordy for a comment and decided to turn it into a post. But I’m also pretty lazy and have left the post as though I’m talking directly to unkleE. Here it is:
I want to address your statements about Jesus. You are someone who has actually studied what the historians have said about Jesus, and I respect that about you. Too many people on all sides of this issue don’t do the research they should. That being said, doing that research doesn’t necessarily make someone a believer. There’s not even full agreement among scholars on whether or not Jesus was even a real person. I tend to think he was, but there are some decent arguments that take the opposing view.
But even among those who do think he was historical, there’s a wide assortment of opinion about who he was. Before the Enlightenment, virtually all scholars believed Jesus was divine, because that was about the only option in Western society. I think that’s why there’s broader diversity on the subject today.
So if he wasn’t divine, how did his following begin? I think that’s a question we could ask about every example of hero worship. Why did people follow Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, or David Koresh? What about Sathya Sai Baba? The details are varied, but they mostly come down to charisma. I think Jesus was a charismatic preacher that made a huge impact on his small group of followers. I think his death was quite a shock to the disciples. They had given up so much to follow him, how could they just forget all his teachings and go back to their old lives? So I think they continued to move on and hold together.
More than likely, at least one of them saw him in a dream or during a moment of great sadness, etc. And I’m sure they felt that he was “living on” in the work they continued to do. Regardless, decades go by, and the disciples are successful in bringing others to their manner of life. Stories about Jesus circulate among these new believers — no doubt some of them become embellished. By the time the gospels are written (at least 30-40 years after his death, by most estimates), there are many stories about Jesus’ life and his works. In fact, now that we’ve found some of the “other gospels,” we see just how varied some of these stories were. There are very good reasons for thinking that the 4 gospels in our Bibles were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, so that makes it hard to take them as first-hand accounts.
So at that point, what are we left with? Yes, Christianity grew, but so has every other religion — ones that Christians would consider false. We do have some secular sources of the time that refer to Christ or Christians, but none of them actually verify any of the miraculous things we’re told about Jesus. At most, they just show that some people of the time believed in and followed him.
I guess the crux of the issue comes down to who wrote the gospels. I’m convinced that they were written by Christians who never actually knew Jesus — and probably didn’t know any of the apostles either. Even if Luke actually wrote Luke, he’s not someone who knew Jesus. He only seems to have been an associate of Paul’s. His gospel even seems to use Mark as a source (Mark didn’t know Jesus either). For me, there’s just not enough evidence to make the claims about Christ tenable.
Now I don’t expect any of that to convince you that Jesus was not truly divine. That’s not my intent. I just want to show that someone can be familiar with the gospels, the historical evidence, and the arguments of scholars and still not believe that Jesus was anything more than a man. Granted, I haven’t gone into much detail, but I know you’re familiar with the things I’ve mentioned.
Thanks as always for the great conversation.
So that’s what I had written to unkleE. Let me add just one more thing. In my last post, I talked about the historical evidence that claims Tecumseh was a prophet. Now these accounts were all written after the fact. None of his prophecies were written down before the events he prophesied took place. So it’s easy to assume that he never actually prophesied anything at all. Instead, these could have just been claims made by those who revered and believed in him. Is it surprising that his followers might have exaggerated his abilities because of their incredible admiration of him, especially once he died? No, to me, it’s easy to understand why they might have been inclined to do that. So why should we think Jesus’ situation is so different? Isn’t it easy to see why Jesus’ followers might have told larger than life stories of him out of reverence? In fact, passages like the woman caught in adultery are a great example of that very thing. All evidence indicates that that story was a small bit of fiction that made its way into the book of John many years after it was first written. So if we can understand the very human tendency to add a bit of mythology to life stories of those whom we love and admire, why do we assume the followers of Jesus didn’t do any of that?
Anyway, those are some of the reasons why I don’t believe Jesus was any more divine than you or I. I hope that helps clarify my position a bit more, and I hope you’ll all feel free to comment away in the section below.
Thanks! (and a Happy 4th to my fellow Americans!)
Finding Truth 
Dave, thanks for the comment! Yes, that’s pretty much how I see things too — in fact, some of my other blog posts have talked about the issues you bring up. I’m really glad you dropped by, and I’ll be sure to check out your blog as well.
Persto, I also really identify with your last two comments. I view the miracle thing as something similar to divine revelation — like Thomas Paine said, something’s only a revelation to the person who receives it. As soon as he tells someone else about it, it ceases to be revelation and merely becomes hearsay.
LikeLike
Nate,
Yes that is a good point.
LikeLike
actually the pharisees, which was the more liberal sect of Jews did believe in the Resurrection.
However the sadducees which are the temple did NOT believe resurrection
LikeLike
Persto, I wonder where this discussion is going now. When we started, you suggested that the miracles of Jesus were comparable to the miracles of a number of other figures. I gave criteria why they were different, and you seemed to accept that point, or at least not argue it any longer.
Then you questioned my statement that scholars believed Jesus was known as a miracle worker. Once we established that I had not expressed myself well and you had misunderstood, you agreed with me.
Then you made some very definite statements that only a prejudiced scholar could believe Jesus actually performed miracles and I gave examples that showed that some eminent scholars, not all of them christians, do indeed believe this.
So then you made another definite statement that the Jesus of the gospels did not exist, and I pointed out this was your opinion, not a fact – with scholars falling on both sides of the question.
It seems like a pattern, don’t you think, of you making strong statements of apparent fact that can be shown to be wrong? Do you think maybe it is time to conclude?
“Would you like me to furnish all the evidence for why Jesus, as he is rendered in the bible, did not exist?”
I would like to see you try, but not here.
“I propose we abstain from an exercise in futility and remain on topic: are miracles historically probable?”
That may be what you want to talk about now, but it wasn’t what we started with, as the above history shows. I am not much interested in discussing our respective opinions on the probability of miracles for we would be unlikely to reach any agreement, and that is why I have tried to concentrate on what scholars say are facts.
“I have not once located a historian or scholar who does not believe in the supernatural that affirms the authenticity of the miracles of Jesus, as they are portrayed in the bible. Does that strike you as odd?”
Yet I mentioned one or two. And even if true, it wouldn’t be odd – it would just show that belief in miracles is both a historical and a metaphysical matter, which is what most scholars say.
So I think I will withdraw from this discussion because I don’t see it going anywhere. I hope that doesn’t offend you, but it is best to recognise when it is time. Thanks for your time.
LikeLike
I do agree that the discussion is pretty much played out. I’ll only point out that I think Persto was making the same point that Bart Ehrman argues — the very nature of history deals with probabilities, because we can never completely replicate historical events in a way that tells us exactly what happened. And since miracles are a suspension of natural law, it’s virtually impossible to say that they actually occurred — by definition the occurrence of a miracle is the least likely scenario, since it violates the natural order of things. And that’s why accepting a miracle is an act of faith — it can never be proven unless one actually witnesses it. That doesn’t mean they haven’t occurred, just that it’s hard to argue for their occurrence from an historical perspective.
In the end, this is just semantics. The people who believe Jesus really lived and really performed miracles and was really the literal son of God believe that the historical evidence supports their position. Those of us who don’t believe Jesus was divine also believe the historical evidence supports our position. Of course, the real discussion still lies in examining the evidence, not in how history works.
That being said, I also agree with unkleE’s point that it seems people at the time accepted him as a miracle worker of some kind.
Thanks for the great discussion, everyone. 🙂
LikeLike
G’day Dave,
“The point I was making is that there is evidence for a “building up” of embellishments.”
I have no real problem with this. Many people had stories to tell, and each told them slightly differently. Richard Bauckham says that transmission of oral history can be shown to be generally precise in the main facts, but story-tellers were encouraged to be creative in the way they dressed up the story, what they included and what they omitted.
And this is what we see in the gospels – important facts are the same, but there are variations in perspective and minor detail.
“the resurrection story”
The problems with the resurrection story are over-stated. NT scholar John Wenham has produced a plausible sequence of events that fits every detail in. He agrees that it can’t be known to be correct, but it shows that we cannot say that the stories are definitely inconsistent. I actually find his reconstruction very believable, but it is enough to say it is plausible to answer the critical comments. Read about it in Was Jesus raised from the dead?.
” that there were many other gospels written, most of which no longer remain (probably expunged by the “orthodox”).”
Consensus scholarly opinion (with a few who disagree) is that none of these was written in the first century. There is no comparison between the 4 canonical gospels and the rest. The ones you refer to are way later.
Of course there are difficulties in all this, but popular opinion on the internet is often way more critical than the scholars are (in the main).
LikeLike
“the very nature of history deals with probabilities”
I agree Nate. The problem for me was that Persto kept making statements of certainty rather than probability. That was what I contested.
“And since miracles are a suspension of natural law, it’s virtually impossible to say that they actually occurred — by definition the occurrence of a miracle is the least likely scenario, since it violates the natural order of things.”
It is only the least likely scenario, Nate, if you have already concluded that God doesn’t exist. If he does exist (or even if he may exist) then a well attested miracle may be far more likely than some other strange coincidence. Check out the miracle stories at Ten Healings, I still keep to Jesus this night and Heart starting action.
“And that’s why accepting a miracle is an act of faith — it can never be proven unless one actually witnesses it. “
Even then, a sceptic and rationalist will disbelieve their own experience. Of course believing in a miracle is an act of faith, but it still may be the most reasonable response.
LikeLike
unkleE said:
This is exactly the problem, in my opinion. In fact, I’d say the variations in the gospels look much more like what happens when a group of people all know the same story, and then they retell it in their own way. Since they didn’t witness the events themselves, it’s easy to mess up important details, like what day or time Jesus was actually crucified. I find it very hard to believe that these were actually written by eye witnesses.
I skimmed your link about the resurrection, but I’ll have to spend more time with it. So far, he seems to gloss over some details. I don’t really see how someone could include every detail of the 4 gospels and make them all fit together. I’ve written more about that here.
That’s too much of a generalization. It would be like me saying that Christians are so gullible, they’ll believe anything — the less evidence, the better. Skeptics and rationalists are often just looking for good evidence. I imagine that many of them would be convinced if they saw an actual miracle.
LikeLike
Nate, I think we are pretty much in agreement about the facts, and I don’t propose to argue about our different views of the details.
“In fact, I’d say the variations in the gospels look much more like what happens when a group of people all know the same story, and then they retell it in their own way. …. I find it very hard to believe that these were actually written by eye witnesses.”
I don’t know if anyone says they were written by eyewitnesses, but first told by eyewitnesses, and written down when the eyewitnesses were starting to die out.
“That’s too much of a generalization. …. Skeptics and rationalists are often just looking for good evidence. I imagine that many of them would be convinced if they saw an actual miracle.”
Yes you are right. It was meant as a generalisation, about ‘thorough-going’ rationalists. I have read a number who said exactly what I wrote. But of course you are right, others wouldn’t say the same. My point was that once you say miracles are the least probable explanation, then your own experience must be dubious if it tells you a miracle apparently happened. Your comment is in line with what I think, that saying a miracle is the least likely explanation begs the question and is no use in finding truth.
LikeLike
As a boy, I used to ride my bicycle down to a small country gas station/convenience store and buy a coke or some gum. This store was owned and operated by an old couple. In 1969, after the first moon landing, everyone was watching TV and talking about all that had transpired related to the Space Mission and Science. This old couple had seen all of this, but they held firmly to their belief that we had never gone to the moon. It was just hype, a conspiracy to justify higher taxes and take our minds off our other troubles. After all, man had never gone to the moon before. They had seen and heard all the evidence that supported the belief of most Americans, but chose to believe in a conspiracy as the most likely scenario. I had not personally witnessed the actual launch or landing on the moon, but I had seen it on TV. I had heard all the reports from the people involved in making the mission happen, and trusted that they were reputable people and were accurately describing the events in a forthright manner. I believed, even though everything I knew was “heresay” or could have been manufactured for TV.
I am amazed that 2000 years after an event and life that is attested to by a variety of individuals, whether the writers of the 4 Gospels or contemporaries that witnessed or at least lived within a hundred years of the events, people seem to think they have a clearer understanding of Jesus and who he was than those who wrote about Him and lived in the same time that He did. Had there ever been anyone like Him before? Has there ever been anyone like Him since? No, but that doesn’t mean He didn’t live or that the Gospel accounts are not what they claim to be. We had never been to the Moon before 1969, and we haven’t been back in many years, but this doesn’t mean the events haven’t happened.
I know that claims of miracles are not the same as going to the moon, although at one time people found it easier to believe in miracles than in man going to the moon, but I think it speaks to Unklee’s point. Those who don’t want to believe and who choose not to believe, would find reason to doubt, even if confronted with a miraculous event. After all, they refuse to accept testimony of those who were closer to the life of Christ and were in a position to know what they are talking about. In my opinion, it is very similar to saying “I’ll believe man can go to the moon once I’ve gone and have come back, not before.”
LikeLike
Your example of the moon landing is good. As you pointed out, there are some differences between the moon landing and miracles. For instance, the moon landings are scientifically possible. And people living in 1969 had history as evidence too: the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the automobile, and most importantly, airplanes. As you said, there were also newspaper reports, television coverage, etc. And the conspiracy would have to be so large, it’s hard to see how it could remain secret.
Regardless, it’s not hard to see why some people would find the moon landing hard to swallow. Arthur C. Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And most of us don’t believe in magic. But their doubt in the moon landing really didn’t matter either. It didn’t make them bad people — they just weren’t convinced of the evidence. And there were no repercussions for their lack of belief. The government wasn’t going to shoot them; no one was going to torture them.
Christianity is different. We have many claims of the miraculous from all kinds of ancient (and even modern) sources. Some have better evidence than others, but most people today don’t believe them, unless they’re the miracle stories of their own particular religion. But almost no one today believes the stories about Zeus or Thor, because we understand that ancient people understood less about the world than we do, so they relied on myths to explain those things. So it should be easy to see why some people are also skeptical of Christianity. As was mentioned earlier, the accounts we have of Jesus aren’t even in complete harmony with one another. And while that’s not a big deal for some people, it is for others.
So there are good reasons to be skeptical of the claims of Christianity. But what makes it so much worse than the moon landing example is that according to Christianity, those who don’t believe in Jesus will be seriously punished for their unbelief. Suddenly, it makes an otherwise decent person worthy of divine wrath. And such a person has more reason to be skeptical of Jesus than the old couple had to be skeptical of the moon landing. Do such consequences seem rational?
More importantly, most of us who don’t believe didn’t come to our conclusions because of the life of Christ. We decided Christianity didn’t make sense because of other things: doctrinal issues, the barbarism of the OT, textual contradictions, failed prophecies, etc. Jesus himself actually comes through pretty good. But that in itself is not enough for us to ignore the other issues. I think that’s where we all differ. Dad, you take the entire Bible as absolute truth. I take it as complete myth. And unkleE is in the middle. He agrees with me that the Bible is far from perfect, but he’s on your side when it comes to Jesus. To each his own. The three of us simply have different thresholds for belief, and I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this particular issue.
Thanks again for all the comments.
LikeLike
Sorry for the long post, Nate.
@unkleE
Do you have a reading comprehension issue? I hope that does not offend you. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, you just see things the way you want to see them.
“When we started, you suggested that the miracles of Jesus were comparable to the miracles of a number of other figures. I gave criteria why they were different, and you seemed to accept that point, or at least not argue it any longer.”
My earlier reply:
Apollonius, ben Dosa, and Jesus possess the equivalent probability of conducting miracles. That is they probably did not perform miracles. We can examine and compare the evidence buttressing the assertions that these individuals did or did not perform miracles, but a principled historian cannot declare they literally transpired. When this occurs that person is no longer conversing as a historian but a believer. Do you detect the distinction? Comparing various accounts that explicate or invalidate miraculous events is impressive and historical, but it does not get you any closer to manufacturing claims that the alleged miracles of Jesus actually occurred.
Just to clarify this means that there is no amount of evidence that can make a miracle probable. Answered!
“Then you questioned my statement that scholars believed Jesus was known as a miracle worker. Once we established that I had not expressed myself well and you had misunderstood, you agreed with me.”
My earlier reply:
So, yes I concur that first-century Palestinians, and a substantial quantity of mortals over the last 2000 years, believed Jesus to be a miracle-worker–believed is fairly distinct from know, I must say–or something neighboring that description.
And another:
First-century Palestinians surmised the sun coming up, lightning striking, and crops putting forth fruit were miracles. For ancient people the natural world was not separate from the supernatural world. So, I do not imagine that people of that day could be relied on to identify a supernatural violation of natural law.
I should have added, that there is evidence that Jesus could have been, if he existed, a purely natural healer. Kee provides some context in Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in New Testament Times.
“Then you made some very definite statements that only a prejudiced scholar could believe Jesus actually performed miracles and I gave examples that showed that some eminent scholars, not all of them christians, do indeed believe this.”
My statement:
“Yet, what I do not accede to is compiling and analyzing the historical data and then constructing grand denouements about the veracity of Jesus’ miracles established on the compilation and examination of the historical evidence. Of course, the compilation, examination, and discussion of the historical evidence is a function of the historian, however, when that evidence is utilized to fabricate affirmations about the veracity of supernatural acts, at the moment of that assertion, that individual is not speaking as a historian. On the contrary, that person is speaking as a believer and is a prejudiced scholar.”
Firstly, I never said christian believer only believer. It seemed obvious, to me, that I mean and meant believer in the supernatural. Many Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, and Jews claim Jesus performed supernatural miracles similar if not identical to the biblical miracles. This is not shocking, proves nothing, and is not pertinent to my point because they believe in the supernatural. If you believe in supernatural occurrences would it be very difficult to make you believe in supernatural miracles? I think not. However, what you have not given and cannot give are examples of non-believers, who are scholars or historians, declaring the authenticity of Jesus’ miracles. And don’t use Michael Grant because he only claims that Jesus healed people by purely natural means. He does not affirm the biblical miracles. Try again.
“It seems like a pattern, don’t you think, of you making strong statements of apparent fact that can be shown to be wrong? Do you think maybe it is time to conclude?”
You know you shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house!
“That may be what you want to talk about now, but it wasn’t what we started with, as the above history shows. I am not much interested in discussing our respective opinions on the probability of miracles for we would be unlikely to reach any agreement, and that is why I have tried to concentrate on what scholars say are facts.”
My primary point throughout this entire discussion has been about the historical probability of Jesus’ miracles and the role of historians. Can you prove otherwise? Do you read the comments before responding?
“and that is why I have tried to concentrate on what scholars say are facts.”
My God! This is what I have been yelling all along. In history there are no facts! Do you get this?! It is about probabilities! You cannot prove anything from ancient history. Nothing! It is only about constructing what probably happened. You can never know what actually happened.
“Yet I mentioned one or two. And even if true, it wouldn’t be odd – it would just show that belief in miracles is both a historical and a metaphysical matter, which is what most scholars say.”
No you did not mention one non-believer who proclaims the veracity of the biblical miracles of Jesus. So, since you claim you did, please, provide the ones you allegedly mentioned.
Belief in miracles is not historical, which is precisely what I have been saying this entire time. Did you read my comments?
“The problem for me was that Persto kept making statements of certainty rather than probability. That was what I contested.”
Earlier statement:
Historians can only substantiate what probably transpired or probably did not transpire, garrisoned on the maximum quantity of procurable evidence, and the probability of a miracle occurring, by definition, is exceedingly improbable, a historian can under no circumstances confirm that a miracle probably materialized. If they do assert that a supernatural violation of the laws of nature occurred they are manufacturing this assertion not as a historian but as a believer.
Parting query: Do you own a mirror?
LikeLike
“The problem for me was that Persto kept making statements of certainty rather than probability. That was what I contested.”
I forgot to add, in my haste to finish that long response, that this is the only certain thing I have said. You know why? Because it is a fact.
LikeLike
Hi Persto, I said I thought it was time to draw a line under this discussion, and I still think so. So I won’t be responding in any detail.
But judging by your response, I seem to have upset you, and I’m sorry if that is the case. I’ll leave it to others to judge if I have been unfair, not provided sources for my statements, and likewise about you.
So just to clear up a few questions you asked….
“Do you have a reading comprehension issue?”
Some would say! : )
“I hope that does not offend you.”
You can rest easy!
“Parting query: Do you own a mirror?”
I avoid mirrors! If you could see my face, you would understand.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
@unkleE
I apologize for being rude. It was inappropriate behavior for an adult.
It seems we disagree about a great number of things and we were talking on different wavelengths. Perhaps, we should initiate a discussion with a specific topic. I believe that conversation would be immeasurably better than our previous one.
I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier in the discussion, which I believe may have been skipped over. When I was saying that certain scholars are prejudiced I was not saying all their work is prejudiced; only the assertion that the biblical miracles of Jesus are factual events. What they said before and after is not, necessarily, partial only the declaration that the miracles of Jesus are authentic.
Again, I apologize for my rudeness and I hope there are future discussions.
LikeLike
Persto,
Thanks for your apology. I wasn’t offended, but I appreciate the apology.
I’m honestly not sure whether further discussion will be useful. But if you really wish to give it a try, I suggest we go somewhere else than Nate’s blog. I have a little forum, not active, but which I use for discussions like you propose, and unless you have another suggestion, I suggest we discuss there. It is on my website Is there a God?, and all you need to do is “Apply for membership” (which only takes a short time) then start a new discussion under whatever topic seems most appropriate, and away we go.
What do you think?
LikeLike
Nate,
Based on what you replied, I think you would agree that the old couple who didn’t believe in the moon landings or space travel were erroneous in their views, for all the reasons you listed. I’m surprised you stated ” The conspiracy would have to be so large, it is hard to see how it could remain secret.” as proof that the reports of the moon landing were accurate. After all, the level of conspiracy to pull of the biggest falsehood in history as perpetrated by the Bible would have to be much larger (IMO), yet you aren’t concerned with that. As far as science, I think we would all agree that science is not equipped to deal with or prove everything, and has often been wrong in it’s “proven” conclusions. For example, for centuries it was thought to be a scientific fact that infection after surgery was caused from “bad air”. For many years it was believed and supported by science that an element in addition to air and fuel had to be present for there to be a fire, and if isolated, the fire would not burn. There are many other such errors that have been scientifically proven, only to be disproved over time as more information has come to light. Why one would choose to place their faith in science and not God is beyond my understanding.
The assertions of the errors and contradictions in the Bible seem to me to be based primarily on things we don’t know or on premises that have not been proven to be fact. Assertions are made, evidence is presented to support those assertions, and the evidence in opposition to them is ignored.
If there is a God and the Bible is true, then yes, there are consequences of an eternal nature if we refuse to submit and obey what is taught in the Bible. If it is not true, then there are no consequences and we are all free to live any way we choose. Since there is such great debate, and no concrete proof one way or the other, and many scholars are on both sides of the issue, then what is the logical choice? If true, then by obeying God i have been assured of a wonderful eternal home, as well as blessings from living a Godly life now. If it is not true, then it doesn’t matter how I live my life anyway. The principals of the Bible will still bring me a good life here on this earth, and are worth following. In reality, since there would be no eternal consequences, if I chose to live my life for my own pure enjoyment and profit, then that is all that matters. Brutality, if it helped me achieve my goals, would not be wrong. As a matter of fact, how could we define “wrong” anyway? Every person would be a law to themselves.
The old couple who refused to believe in the moon landing reasoned just like an atheist. They just didn’t want to believe, so they would not be convinced. I’m sure you are right in that we can not agree on this matter. I pray that will change over time, and that we will be granted enough to time for the change to come.
LikeLike
There was no conspiracy necessary for the Bible to be written. We’ve talked about that before, and I may do a post about it — it would just take too much time to comment on it here.
If you have no trust in science, why do you drive a car, watch television, use credit cards, take medicine, or obey traffic signals? Science doesn’t have an explanation for everything, but it does explain a lot.
We’ve also discussed the contradictions and failed prophecies of the Bible on numerous occasions. If you’d like to examine specific ones again, you can find links to them in my “about” section. The same goes for morality.
It’s fine for you to say that I’m just like the old couple that didn’t believe in the moon landings because I don’t believe the Bible is true. But I could just as easily say that you’re just like that old couple because you refuse to accept what the evidence plainly shows and instead cling to some ridiculous idea. But that assertion, just like yours, proves nothing.
Religion is complicated because it discourages critical analysis, rewards faith, and threatens punishment for those who don’t comply. That’s not a good recipe clarity. So if we really want to discuss certain issues, let’s stop dealing in generalities and go to a thread that tackles a specific issue.
Thanks
LikeLike
Hello Jesus People
LikeLike