The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

This is starting to remind me of Doherty (who I first read about on Neil Godfrey's blog about ten years ago), but if Rom. 1:1-5 is an interpolation (along with any similar passages that mythicists reject), there are other things that make me think that Paul believed in a human Jesus.

I take Paul's use of "according to the flesh" to mean that Jesus was a human in the way that Hegesippus means it. Rom. 8:5 seems like a good example:
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
And Rom. 4:1:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter?
And Rom. 8:13:
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
And 2 Cor. 5:16:
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
And 1 Cor. 15:20-21:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
And 1 Cor. 15:35-44:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
But if we take Rom. 1:4 off the table, then I don't know how/when Paul thought the "divine figure" (i.e., "Christ") entered the human Jesus. And now that I think about it, maybe the idea that Jesus was adopted at his baptism did not exist until after 70 CE (when I presume all gospels were written).
Last edited by John2 on Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

According to Wenham (pg. 301):
...although it may seem a priori likely that Paul was familiar with the story of Jesus' baptism by John, is there any way of showing that he was? Certainly nothing direct.

https://books.google.com/books?id=jHZKA ... us&f=false
And on page 303 he says:
Is there any more concrete evidence that Paul knew the story of Jesus' baptism, as the Gospels describe it? Again the answer must be that there is no direct evidence.
Hm.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:13 pm Ben wrote:
If Romans 1.1b-5a is an interpolation, then the Pauline position seems pretty consistently to be that Jesus was the preordained son of God, sent in the form of humanity in order to redeem us, with no point of adoption in his putative human form. How then to explain that later gospels and other texts posit an adoption of some kind at the resurrection, at the baptism, or at the virgin birth? Are these later authors actually demoting Jesus? If so, why? My proposed solution is that Paul was writing of a purely mythical divine figure, whereas those later authors were writing either about a purely human Jesus or about the hybrid divine human or human divinity we know as Jesus Christ. The confusion arose over different ways of merging the two figures.
I can more or less live with this solution (though I would take Paul's "purely mythical divine figure" to be based on Daniel's "Son of Man"), but is there really no evidence in Paul of a moment in time when this divine figure entered into a human Jesus?
Not that I am aware of. But you can peruse the passages relevant to Pauline Christology which I have collected here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2489. Maybe something has been missed.

Ben wrote in his thread that he linked to above (which I recall reading before but forgot it involved Rom. 1:4):
I see some potential wriggle room in the exact phrasing of Romans 1.4 inasmuch as Christ is said to have been declared the Son of God with power at his resurrection, but having wriggle room is not the same thing as it being a good idea to take advantage of it.


I was wondering how much wriggle room there could be regarding "in power" too, but if we can jettison the whole verse, then it falls back to is there anything else in Paul that supports some kind of adoptionism, and I gather there isn't from your statement above that if Rom. 1:4 is an interpolation, "then the Pauline position seems pretty consistently to be that Jesus was the preordained son of God, sent in the form of humanity in order to redeem us, with no point of adoption in his putative human form." But are you saying that Paul's position is that there is no human Jesus, just a pre-ordained son of God sent at some point in time in the form of humanity (like Docetism)?
[/quote]

I think that Paul thought of Jesus either as truly human or as docetically human. Jesus took on human flesh in some capacity, according to Paul, and walked the earth as a human. (In a later post you conjure the shade of Doherty in this connection, but that is not my position at all, and Doherty and I debated each other strenuously on the matter a few years ago.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Thanks for all that, Ben, and I will look at that link. And I would like to see the debate you had with Doherty, if there is a link to that. I spent a few years thinking about Doherty's theory (and never understood all the acrimony it seemed to generate), and I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to set aside certain verses that may be "historicist" interpolations or have plausible "mythicist" interpretations (e.g., maybe "brother of the Lord" means James was in some kind of special group and not Jesus' literal brother, though I doubt it), but I don't agree with his interpretations of certain verses like the ones I cited above, and I think (no matter who thinks otherwise) that the "rulers of this age" in 1 Cor. 2:8 are human rulers and not demons. Just saying.

You wrote:
Jesus took on human flesh in some capacity, according to Paul, and walked the earth as a human.
I guess it's the "in some capacity" part that I'm curious about. And while there may not be any direct evidence that Paul knew the story of Jesus' baptism, I suppose it's not out of the question that he could have (Wenham thinks he did and points out some indirect, if unpersuasive, evidence).

Do you accept Gal. 4:4 ("born/made of a woman"), by the way? I have no problem with that one. If it's on the table, then it sounds like Paul thinks that Jesus had a normal (perhaps even virginal) human birth, at least.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

I'm liking the way Sigal puts the situation:
In his earthly existence, it is said that Jesus "was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh." At some point the preexistent being entered Jesus' physical body. The process by which the divine being enters the naturally born Jesus is never discussed. Paul did not consider Jesus to be part of God in the trinitarian sense. According to Paul, this enhanced Jesus attained to a significantly higher position in God's universe by his suffering the agonies of death on the cross (Philippians 2:6-11). Apparently, such suffering could not be undergone by a purely celestial being but could be by a human being housing this entity ... For Paul, Jesus was not the son of God from the time of his conception. Paul declared that Jesus' exalted position was granted to him by God (Philippians 2:9), not that it was naturally his as one would expect if Jesus was truly part of the Godhead. Jesus had to earn it. There is no reason to believe otherwise than that Paul considered Jesus in his original state to be the biological son of Joseph and Mary.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5wN-d ... th&f=false
I want to look at Php. 2:9-11 again.
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I've never had a position on this "name" issue before, but now I'm starting to wonder if God "gave" Jesus his (God's) name (Lord = YHWH?) in the sense of making Jesus special, not that he was literally given the name Lord/YHWH, like Num. 6:27 (in the case of Israel):
So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them.


Or 2 Ki. 21:4 (in the case of Jerusalem):
He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my Name."


Was God's name literally "put" on Israel and in Jerusalem? No, it just means that Israel and Jerusalem were given a special status by God. So maybe Jesus was in this sense given "the name above every name" (i.e., Lord/YHWH), and consequently, because he now had this special status, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:41 pmDo you accept Gal. 4:4 ("born/made of a woman"), by the way? I have no problem with that one. If it's on the table, then it sounds like Paul thinks that Jesus had a normal (perhaps even virginal) human birth, at least.
I suspect that the phrase "born of a woman, born under the law" was absent from Marcion's text, since Tertullian skips right over it in a context of bemoaning what Tertullian has (allegedly) erased from the epistle, and the phrase "born of a woman" especially would have stabbed at the very heart of the Marcionite gospel's contention that the savior appeared out of nowhere in Capernaum:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4.2-3: 2 For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. 3 But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons.

Now, even if we accept this as evidence of the absence of this phrase from Marcion's text, the obvious question remains. Did Marcion himself expunge them or did he find the text in the abbreviated state (and others eventually interpolated them)? I tend to think that Marcion was less of an redactor than is often supposed, and that a lot of things were added to the text that he had received from the earlier churches and published for his own use, though I do not imagine that he made no changes whatsoever. At the very least, this phrase seems suspicious to me. But, if it should turn out to be genuinely Pauline, then it reveals only that Paul thought that Jesus had played the part of a human for an entire lifetime. This would be a decent enough thing to demonstrate, but it sheds little light on what he thought of the very flesh of Christ. Was it docetic or real?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:12 pmI've never had a position on this "name" issue before, but now I'm starting to wonder if God "gave" Jesus his (God's) name (Lord = YHWH?) in the sense of making Jesus special, not that he was literally given the name Lord/YHWH, like Num. 6:27 (in the case of Israel):
So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them.


Or 2 Ki. 21:4 (in the case of Jerusalem):
He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, "In Jerusalem I will put my Name."


Was God's name literally "put" on Israel and in Jerusalem? No, it just means that Israel and Jerusalem were given a special status by God. So maybe Jesus was in this sense given "the name above every name" (i.e., Lord/YHWH), and consequently, because he now had this special status, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."
I think there probably is a literal element to this issue of naming the temple or the people after Yahweh. I think that these verses mean that, from God's perspective, the temple and the people will be rightly named "the temple of Yahweh" or "the people of Yahweh" (phrases which occur a number of times in the Hebrew scriptures). That is, the Lord will have given his blessing to the naming of these things after his own name, much like corporations give permission for their names and logos to be used in certain contexts.

It is hard for me to escape the most natural reading of Philippians 2.5-11, to the effect that the name is Jesus (verse 10) and that it is the "name above all names" (verse 9) precisely because of its etymology: "Yahweh saves," where Yahweh is the name above all names with which Jews would have been familiar. Jesus is definitely being given a special status here, but I am not sure it is kosher to accept this without also accepting the literal meaning of the text, which seems to be that the name Jesus was bestowed upon this figure as part of God's recognition of this status.
  1. God had a son, and this son was preexistent (Philippians 2.5-6).
  2. God sent this son to redeem humankind (Galatians 4.4; Romans 8.3). Part of this process involved the son divesting himself of his very divinity in some way (Philippians 2.7-8).
  3. The son complied and through his obedience unto death was granted resurrection and the bestowal of the name above all names (Philippians 2.9-11).
Step 2 above actually seems more consonant with an ordinary birth and human existence, with real human flesh, than with a docetic existence which would imply his ongoing divinity in a body which only seemed human. But Paul does not seem to commit to this with any real fervor, using language to the effect that Jesus took "the form" of a man, which seems ambiguous to me.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Thanks for all the good feedback, Ben.

Regarding the "born/made of a woman" issue in Gal. 4:4, while I get the impression from Tertullian that it may not have been in Marcion's Galatians, Ehrman suggests that Tertullian did not counter Marcion with the "born/made of woman" part because he may have been using a Latin text that says "made" instead of "born" so it would not have served Tertullian's argument that Jesus was "born."
It should strike us as odd that Tertullian never quotes the verse against Marcion, despite his lengthy demonstration that Christ was actually "born." This can scarcely be attributed to oversight, and so is more likely due to the circumstance that the generally received Latin text does not speak of Christ's birth per se, but of his "having been made" (factum ex muliere).

Given its relevance to just such controversies, it is no surprise to see that the verse was changed on occasion, and in precisely the direction one might expect: in several Old Latin manuscripts the text reads: misit deus filium suum, natum ex muliere ("God sent his son, born of a woman"), a reading that would have proved useful to Tertullian had he known it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HGpL9 ... an&f=false
And Tertullian's contemporary Irenaeus (writing originally in Greek) cites the verse in AH 3.22.1:
The Apostle Paul, moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, “God sent His Son, made of a woman.”
And while I can't find Jerome's commentary on Galatians online, Clark notes that:
According to Jerome, "through" a woman was a reading of the Galatians text that Marcion and other heretics espoused in order to deny that Jesus had real human flesh.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oxLiD ... on&f=false
Lieu doesn't seem to place much stock in this, but does say:
Jerome, perhaps following Origen, does claim that 'Marcion and the other heretics' want the text to read 'born through a woman' (factum per mulierem), but this generlisation is too common to establish Marcion's text.

https://books.google.com/books?id=aAK7B ... on&f=false
Irenaeus then cites Rom. 1:3-4, which of course is long before the codex Boernerianus, so I am inclined to see it as being original to Romans rather than to suppose that only the codex Boernerianus somehow is the original.
And again, in that to the Romans, he says, “Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
And I think it makes sense for Paul to not mention Jesus' baptism and miracles and to emphasize that Jesus became son of God at his resurrection since in my view he says outright that he has no interest in the earthly Jesus in 2 Cor. 5:16:
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
I think this explains the absence of discussion of Jesus' baptism and miracles in Paul, for I notice that the word for "power" that Paul uses in Rom. 1:4 (δυνάμει) is also used in the gospels to describe Jesus' miracles.

Mt. 11:20:
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles [δυνάμεις] had been performed, because they did not repent.
Mt. 13:54:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers [δυνάμεις]?" they asked.


Mk. 5:24-30:
A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power [δύναμιν] had gone out from him.
And I think it would have served Paul's purpose not to mention Jesus' miracles and baptism given his position against observing the Torah and matters of "the flesh" (which I take as being rooted in his opposition to observing the Torah), and especially not Jesus' baptism, given that Hippolytus says that Jewish Christians associated it with Jesus' observance of the Torah.

RH 7:22-23:
They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

But there was a certain Theodotus ... appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion ... that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:37 am Thanks for all the good feedback, Ben.

Regarding the "born/made of a woman" issue in Gal. 4:4, while I get the impression from Tertullian that it may not have been in Marcion's Galatians, Ehrman suggests that Tertullian did not counter Marcion with the "born/made of woman" part because he may have been using a Latin text that says "made" instead of "born" so it would not have served Tertullian's argument that Jesus was "born."
Tertullian has no problem using "made of a woman" against those who denied the flesh of Christ in On the Flesh of Christ 20.2b-3a:

Sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: Misit, inquit, deus filium suum, factum ex muliere. numquid per mulierem aut in muliere? hoc quidem impressius quod factum potius dicit quam natum. simplicius enim enuntiasset natum; factum autem dicendo, et verbum caro factum est consignavit et carnis veritatem ex virgine factae adseveravit.

But Paul also imposes silence these grammarians: God, he says, sent his son, made of a woman. Does he mean through a woman or in a woman? This is indeed the more emphatic in that he says [the word] made in preference to [the word] born. For it would have been simpler to pronounce that he was born; yet, by saying [the word] made, he has both set his seal on [the sentence that says that] the word was made flesh and asserted the verity of the flesh made of the virgin.

The truth is that any real difference between "made of a woman" and "born of a woman" is strictly in the mind of the theologian. They mean the same thing: a real birth from a real woman. Greek texts go back and forth between "come/made of a woman" and "born of a woman" without any indication that two different kinds of genesis are in view. Euripides has "produced from a woman" (as an alternate wording). It is the phrase, consisting of production ("made"/"born") from a female ("woman") that is important, not the exact word for the birthing itself.

This is not to say that the change from factum to natum is surprising; theologians wanted to get the sense of the passage just perfect, of course. But I do not think that (factum ex muliere is too weak to use against anyone who would wish to argue against a docetic Jesus, as Tertullian himself shows in On the Flesh of Christ.
Irenaeus then cites Rom. 1:3-4, which of course is long before the codex Boernerianus, so I am inclined to see it as being original to Romans rather than to suppose that only the codex Boernerianus somehow is the original.
If the passage is an interpolation, it is a fairly early one. So it is not surprising to see evidence of it early on. Do you think that Paul's enjoining women to silence in 1 Corinthians 14 is original? There are no manuscripts which support its total absence.
I think this explains the absence of discussion of Jesus' baptism and miracles in Paul, for I notice that the word for "power" that Paul uses in Rom. 1:4 (δυνάμει) is also used in the gospels to describe Jesus' miracles.
How would you differentiate this state of affairs from Paul not knowing about Jesus' baptism?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
How would you differentiate this state of affairs from Paul not knowing about Jesus' baptism?
I now see the situation as being like Hippolytus puts it above regarding the followers of Theodotus (who appropriated his ideas about Christ from Jewish Christians), that some thought Jesus "received Christ" at his baptism, some thought he was never "made God," and others thought he was "made God" after his resurrection. And I don't get the impression that these three factions were unaware of the other two positions, but rather that one version of how/when/if Jesus became God (or received Christ) was preferred by a particular faction over the other two options. So if there is anything to Rom. 1:4, then maybe Paul was in the latter camp, which would be understandable given that the baptism story involved Jesus being "justified by fulfilling the law" and served as an example for others, in contrast to Paul's position in Gal. 2:16 ("by the works of the law no one will be justified").
They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

But there was a certain Theodotus ... appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion... that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply