Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[mcdaddy]

We'll never know. *sigh*

[mymistake]

In light of the evidence presented here I'm going to have to re-think my opinion on Paul. Thanks for the help.

[mcdaddy]

My opinion remains the same.

 

Still a fucktard.

[Guest Valk0010]

It all boils down to one little thing: If Paul knew of an EARTHLY JESUS, or if the information gathered from Cephas/Peter (and they're not necessarily the same person), James, or anyone else involved in early Christology was about AN EARTHLY JESUS, why does he mention NOTHING AT ALL about Jesus' purported life? No miracles. No wise sayings. No parables. No mention of Nazareth/Galilee. No Virgin birth. No JERUSALEM crucifixion.

 

Just "he was crucified, raised up, and is in heaven this was predicted by the scriptures". That's basically IT.

 

This is enough alone for me to think no real Jesus ever existed.

 

And don't tell me Paul just wasnt concerned with earthly details. He would have at some point mentioned SOMETHING. This is supposedly the greatest man to ever walk the earth. He saw alleged prophecies that were already being propounded by Philo and thought this Christ character was killed by who knows what, who knows where. Probably in some lower level of heaven. He doesn't mention Romans killing him, or the Sanhedrin. Its all a myth that evolved over time and took on a life of its own when Mark was written.

Arguements from silence usually only work when there is a good reason that something should be mentioned if it is actually true. Its why Paul not mentioning a empty tomb is a strong arguement against its existence. Buuuuuut you would have to establish why there should have been a reason for him to mention something for yours to work.

 

Well... when Paul writes "he was buried" and then "he was raised" that seems to imply a tomb and that later he wasn't in the tomb anymore.

 

Valk, you said that Paul contradicts the gospels on the resurrection story. Do you mean that the gospels don't mention the 500 at one time detail?

That only seems to imply a tomb if your william lane craig or maybe gary habermas. But ex post facto examination doesn't cut it with me. And as far as I understand the four fold hoti thing, about the only thing you could reasonably say is that he died and came back to like. Saying anything else besides that is essentially circular because your assuming that just because the gospel writers are aware of the tradtion, means that paul was too. He would have likely had a common grave criminals burial from what i understand in regards to the time.

 

Well I mean paul doesn't mention a tomb, but the gospels do. And paul mentions 500 which countradicts acts.

[Guest Valk0010]

I agree about the glorified body. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" - this is probably meant literally and not as a metaphor about morality.

 

I brought up this stuff because when I was a Christian, in those moments of doubt, one of the arguments I'd fall back on was the Who Moved the Stone? argument. By that I mean the claim that the apostles were martyred (w/ exception of John), and they wouldn't have been tortured or put to death for what they believed was a lie. So they must have believed Jesus rose from the dead. And the only thing that could have convinced them of that, after the shock and disillusionment of their teacher's crucifixion, would have been the resurrection itself. And a mass hallucination is not possible.

 

Since then I don't subscribe to the above claims, of course. Some reasons:

1. we don't have evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles except for the bible itself (e.g. Stephen) and later traditions that presuppose its truth

2. groups of people in heightened states of religious fervor or what have you (let's just say, religious tension) can claim to have witnessed something that was not there. And the claim can grow over subsequent days and weeks. Just as what we see if we look back on the NT accounts.

3. of course the improbability of someone's rising from the dead, so REALLY GOOD proof is required

 

But the stuff in I Cor bothers me. Normally in handling texts historians are slow to conclude that the writer is lying unless there's counterevidence that shows up the lie. It's a hypothesis but not the first one the researcher usually makes. I looked on Richard Carrier earlier today and somewhere on his site he says that he doesn't think the beginning of I Cor 15 is an interpolation, though he says some critics maintain that it is. That passage doesn't claim that the resurrection is to be in the flesh, in any case.

Well the school of thought most historians go far as far as I understand it is that, you don't take the text as authority but rather as sources. That is why you get things like form criticism and the like.

 

My general response to who moved the stone is that it was a temporary grave. Think about the timing of the death. There is no way in hell that they were going to have the time before the sabbath to do full burial procedures, so jesus' tomb if there was one had to be temporary.

 

That makes the most sense to me, as far as explaining the countradictions of things like. The women wondering where jesus was and running into only a gardener but there being troops there and all that.

[mcdaddy]

I still think Mark was written as fiction.

 

PROVE ME WRONG BABY

 

[Guest Valk0010]

I don't think the difference between burial in a ditch and in a hewn-out tomb is signficant in this connection, since the Greek "etaphe" can cover both. A tomb hewn from rock could be called a "taphos."

Sure but Paul was being essentially apologetics happy. Remeber the context of the passage, he was selling the Corithians on the idea of the resurrection of the dead. And sure, its quite possible that the Corithians were aware of the tomb, but even if that is true, paul would have had to been a real idiot not to think "Wait a minute maybe I should remind them of the tomb and make a point of it again incase future generations read this letter." After all, its kind of wierd at least to me, that one of the biggest apologetics for christianity is something more or less neglected by paul in one of the few times he is talking more then just about philisophy and theology but what is the evidence for the resurrection of the dead.

 

Like Valk, I'm not sure how much weight we can put on an argument from Paul's silence about events of Jesus' life. After all, his letters were "occasional" writings, many of them prompted by particular situations and addressing those problems. We don't have his full preaching. True, the Book of Acts represents Paul as making reference to details about Jesus' last days in chapter 13 and elsewhere. I think R. Carrier dates it possibly to early 2nd century or late 1st century, so there was plenty of time for sermons of Paul to be invented. So if we scrap Acts and just focus on the epistles, it's still not clear that Paul should be expected to put in more biographical details about Jesus. Consider, too, that Paul wants his ministry to be accepted as apostolic. He doesn't have expertise in the life of Jesus - everyone knows that. His claim to authority comes from his claims to spiritual experiences (incl. Jesus telling him stuff) and his exegesis of the OT. So it's consistent with what we might attribute to him as motives for him to go easy on details about Jesus' life, where he has to rely on others' testimony, and go into depth in areas where he claims direct authority. Anyway, his silence is consistent with more than one hypothesis.

And he said things without the resurrection your faith is in vain. The resurrection seems to take primacy in pauls thinking as far as I can tell (I will cave to those more knowledgeable then me if I am wrong there). So makes sense to me, to think Paul just didn't think it important even if he knew about it to talk about say Jesus mother for example.

 

If I Corinth. is dated c. 55 AD, that makes the earliest ref. to the resurrection a generation later than the purported event. I know that many scholars claim that the beginning of I Cor. 15 represents or transmits an already-formulated creed because of its style and meter. I don't think that can be proved. Paul surely could have come up with his own formulation and put it in a style that would be easy to remember or whatever.

To me he did that too. Because if its true that passage was a already forumated creed then, it would logically follow that the gospels writers would follow pauls format.

 

He introduces that material as what he teaches, so I don't think we have warrant to conclude that it came to him in the form in which we find it. The propositional content, on the other hand, he claims came to him from others. It seems clear that the propositions about jesus' dying, burial, rising and appearances predate 55 AD. I agree that we can't be sure that Paul heard them in or near Jerusalem from Cephas and James in c. 36 AD, as people infer from Galatians. But either he's lying about that meeting or he must have gotten some material from those guys that early.

I would put my money on him basically getting just the dying burial and appearances part. I am not entirely convinced however, that they were physical appearances because if they were, the gospels describe them in a real ass backward sort of way with having people doubt that they were seeing him in matthew and jesus trying to sell the apostles on him being there in a physical form.

 

I think I Cor actually raises difficulties for people who hold that Paul taught that Jesus was killed, buried, rose for our sins all in the "sublunary realm" i.e. not in our historical world but in some alternate space-time frame. I think the difficulties come from Paul's argument that believers will be resurrected, as Christ was. Paul speaks as though believers and Christ undergo/will undergo resurrection. Since believers have to be resurrected after their fleshly deaths, it seems "off" to suppose that Paul doesn't believe that Christ died the same kind of fleshly death and was resurrected analogously to the way believers will be resurrected.

Paul would inconsistent if he thought jesus rose spiritually but the rest would be raised bodily, since pharisee's believed in a end days mass bodily resurrection. In fact iirc, he called jesus the first resurrection and that we all would follow. I think it was in 1 corithians but its been awhile so I may have to look it up again to double check.

 

So far, then, I think the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus who his followers thought rose from the dead explains Paul's stuff better than the hypothesis that Jesus never existed and that Paul preached a savior whose career was carried out wholly on an alternative spiritual plane.

I am not sure I would go as far to say a alternative spiritual plane. But I agree there was a historical jesus definitely.

 

 

JayL, in case you're still here, I don't think this proves that Jesus rose from the dead. I also don't think that EVEN IF Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity as we know it is proved. I was raised in Self-Realization Fellowship, which claims that Jesus was a great, ascended yoga master who controlled his own death and resurrection as many other yoga masters have done. There are stories of many figures through history who were believed to be founders or leaders of cultic groups, and such stories include accounts of rising from the dead. Fundamentalist Christianity can't be true, for even between Paul and Luke/Acts there are differences that undermine the claim that scripture is inerrant.

Yeah fundamentalism or even literalism is dead. Jesus is a wierd case of doomsday prophet becoming son of god as far as I can see. That explains the countradicts in the text the best as far as I can see.

[Guest Valk0010]

I still think Mark was written as fiction.

 

PROVE ME WRONG BABY

 

Well its not my job to disprove you richard carrier.

 

EDIT: I hope you got the sarcasm there. I was joking.

[mymistake]

I still think Mark was written as fiction.

 

I still agree with that idea. Mark just has too much in common with the Odyssey.

[centauri]

...So far, then, I think the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus who his followers thought rose from the dead explains Paul's stuff better than the hypothesis that Jesus never existed and that Paul preached a savior whose career was carried out wholly on an alternative spiritual plane.

 

Akheia, McDaddy, Valk and others (Centauri, BAA Citsonga et al) I'd love to see flaws pointed out in what I've said above. Cheers

These are a few general observations that I gleaned when I was looking at this issue.

If memory serves, Paul acknowledged Jesus as being born of a woman and descended from David.

So it seems he believed in a flesh and blood Jesus before the resurrection.

Whether Paul thought Jesus was resurrected as a spirit or in the flesh is not clear to me.

Arguments can be made either way on this one.

 

Keep in mind that Paul was allegedly a Hellenized or Greek influenced Jew from Tarsus.

Another Greek influenced Jew was Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE), who wrote extensively on theology and he melded Greek concepts into Judiasm.

Philo was the one who wrote of the Logos, the celestial mediator between God and man.

Philo was alive in just right time period for Christinaity to have borrowed some of his concepts and used them to form a new religion.

It's my suspicion that Philo was the theological explorer whose works were instrumental in forming some of the Christian ideas about the Logos, a type of super-Moses.

Philo never mentioned anything about Jesus but he was very aware of the Essenes, a sect within Judaism.

 

Note that both Paul and Luke claim that Jesus died, was buried and rose after 3 days according to scripture.

The problem is that there is no scripture that says this in the Bible.

This is extra-biblical teaching, perhaps written by scribes from a heretic branch sect of Judaism, where a king messiah was thought to serve as a sacrifice.

Wherever they got this teaching from, it's not in the Bible, much to the embarrasment of Christians.

 

There are also some very Greek like elements in Christianity.

Gods mating with human females and producing supermen was a Greek motif.

Jesus was produced by God impregnating a "virgin" human female.

Greek gods would disguise themselves and appear to men, which Jesus did in Luke 24.

 

In my opinion, Christianity evolved from a hodge-podge of various teachings, was fueled by the turmoil of the era (60-70CE), and eventually purged out elements from within itself that were not powerful enough to compete with "main line" orthodox sects.

The battle over the divinity of Jesus and the vilification of the Gnostics are examples of this evolution.

[mcdaddy]

But that line about being born of a woman "could" be an interpolation, considering it only appears once and doesn't really jive much with the other 99% that avoids all implication of a Galilean wanderer.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Akheia, McDaddy, Valk and others (Centauri, BAA Citsonga et al) I'd love to see flaws pointed out in what I've said above. Cheers

 

I don't really have anything of value to add to the debate over the existence of a guy named Jesus, but I can toss in my thoughts on the matter. We know that the biblical texts have been altered over time, and since we don't have the originals, it's impossible to know exactly how much they've changed. We know that the biblical texts are contradictory and unreliable, and therefore cannot reasonably be viewed as historical documents. Thus, I don't believe that we could ever arrive at a truly "historical Jesus," in that if a person lived whom the stories are loosely based on, we do not have a historical account of the individual and can never arrive at a reliable history of him.

 

I do think that the mythicists have some decent arguments, and it's entirely possible that there never was a real "Jesus," but at the same time I realize that the mythicists also have to speculate about interpolations or alterations of certain statements in the Bible that don't fit the bigger picture of their argument. Again, we know that the biblical text has indeed been altered over time, and I am on board with acknowledging the alterations that have been demonstrated. However, even though the mythicists could be right in suggesting other potential alterations, I'm personally not a big fan of speculating such with certain texts simply because they're inconvenient for a particular hypothesis.

 

So, I guess I take an agnostic approach to Jesus. Maybe he was a spiritual invention who evolved into an allegedly historical individual, or maybe he was a real teacher who was later exaggerated into the supernatural character in the Bible, or maybe he's even loosely based on multiple people. It's an interesting topic for discussion, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter all that much to me, because however you slice it, we most certainly do not have a "historical Jesus," and the Jesus character as presented in the Bible is a fabrication.

[Guest Valk0010]

I don't know enough about this stuff to say if or if not jesus existed or paul thought of the resurrection as some spiritual event. But the saying the idea of, the resurrection being a totally, 100 percent flesh and bone resurrected jesus seems to me to be absurd considering what the texts say.

[centauri]

But that line about being born of a woman "could" be an interpolation, considering it only appears once and doesn't really jive much with the other 99% that avoids all implication of a Galilean wanderer.

That's certainly possible.

There's not much in the way of details.

 

I tied Gal 4:4 to this:

 

Rom 1:3-4

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good, Valk, and McDaddy (I hadn't realized what you were getting at - sorry) for pointing out that Jesus, if he existed, may have been buried in a ditch or mass grave or at least, not in a rock-hewn tomb. I should have said I thought "etaphe" implies grave, not "tomb." That's the force of tradition - I'm so used to the phrase, the empty tomb!

 

BTW in ancient classical Greek the verb "thapto" is better defined as "celebrate funeral rites for" than as "put in the ground," since it can be used when cremation is the method as well as when there is interment. The other uses of that verb in the NT all seem to correlate with interment, but probably because the people involved are all Jewish.

 

There's a strange detail in Paul's list of stuff that he preaches in I Cor 15. All the verbs are in the aorist tense, used for a simple, completed action - "he was buried", etc. But the verb that translators render as "he was raised" is in the perfect tense, showing an action whose results remain into the present. It literally means "he has been raised." That same form occurs several other places in I Cor 15. I'm not sure whether this is relevant for its appearance early in the chapter. It grates on the ear because it destroys the parallelism of tenses. At first thought, my impression is that this detail counts against the hypothesis that Paul is transmitting an already-formulated credal statement, at least in the form in which we find it there.

[mcdaddy]

Akheia, McDaddy, Valk and others (Centauri, BAA Citsonga et al) I'd love to see flaws pointed out in what I've said above. Cheers

 

I don't really have anything of value to add to the debate over the existence of a guy named Jesus, but I can toss in my thoughts on the matter. We know that the biblical texts have been altered over time, and since we don't have the originals, it's impossible to know exactly how much they've changed. We know that the biblical texts are contradictory and unreliable, and therefore cannot reasonably be viewed as historical documents. Thus, I don't believe that we could ever arrive at a truly "historical Jesus," in that if a person lived whom the stories are loosely based on, we do not have a historical account of the individual and can never arrive at a reliable history of him.

 

I do think that the mythicists have some decent arguments, and it's entirely possible that there never was a real "Jesus," but at the same time I realize that the mythicists also have to speculate about interpolations or alterations of certain statements in the Bible that don't fit the bigger picture of their argument. Again, we know that the biblical text has indeed been altered over time, and I am on board with acknowledging the alterations that have been demonstrated. However, even though the mythicists could be right in suggesting other potential alterations, I'm personally not a big fan of speculating such with certain texts simply because they're inconvenient for a particular hypothesis.

 

So, I guess I take an agnostic approach to Jesus. Maybe he was a spiritual invention who evolved into an allegedly historical individual, or maybe he was a real teacher who was later exaggerated into the supernatural character in the Bible, or maybe he's even loosely based on multiple people. It's an interesting topic for discussion, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter all that much to me, because however you slice it, we most certainly do not have a "historical Jesus," and the Jesus character as presented in the Bible is a fabrication.

 

Agreed.

 

If I had money on it, I'd say he was probably invented. But I wouldn't feel GREAT about it.

 

I'm like 70/30 he didn't exist.

[mcdaddy]

But that line about being born of a woman "could" be an interpolation, considering it only appears once and doesn't really jive much with the other 99% that avoids all implication of a Galilean wanderer.

That's certainly possible.

There's not much in the way of details.

 

I tied Gal 4:4 to this:

 

Rom 1:3-4

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

Yep. The mythicist position is not without it's issues, and is currently the minority position for a reason. I realize that. Each person just has has to look at all the information and come up with what scenario speaks best to them. That's why I always try to say I "lean" mythicist. But sometimes I get too aggressive and just make flat out statements of his non existence, and shouldnt do that.

[mcdaddy]

Good, Valk, and McDaddy (I hadn't realized what you were getting at - sorry) for pointing out that Jesus, if he existed, may have been buried in a ditch or mass grave or at least, not in a rock-hewn tomb. I should have said I thought "etaphe" implies grave, not "tomb." That's the force of tradition - I'm so used to the phrase, the empty tomb!

 

 

There's also the possibility his body, if it existed, was left on the cross to be eaten by wild animals, which I've read was usually the case. We dont see any real evidence (if ANY of this can be called "evidence") of this, but its just something to think about. I think in the case he DID actually exist, that he was buried in a temporary grave, and then was moved, and this is what caused his followers to believe his body had been raised.

 

But obviously its all conjecture. Freaking sucks we cant know for sure.

 

OR we could just believe Jay, and we'll all fly away.

[TrueFreedom]

If you haven't followed the Carrier vs. Ehrman wars, check out the list of links at http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2012/04/bart-ehrman-and-richard-carrier.html.

 

I found this article particularly enlightening: http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/05/the-torturous-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

OR we could just believe Jay, and we'll all fly away.

 

"I'll fly away, I'll fly away oh glory,

glory, fly away,

when I die, hallelujah bye and bye,

I'll fly away."

 

Bouncy tune, always liked it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

If you haven't followed the Carrier vs. Ehrman wars, check out the list of links at http://philochristos...rd-carrier.html.

 

I found this article particularly enlightening: http://religionatthe...-dying-messiah/

 

Thanks for the links. I hope I can get to them soon. Right now I have to stop letting this stuff distract me from what I should be working on, which is just as bad: the problem of the historical Socrates. Big difference in the social and political implications, though - to say nothing about otherworldly ones. No one is going to fry in hell for eternity for getting some details wrong about stuff in Plato or Xenophon.

 

Edit: actually there is an instructive difference. The hypothesis that Socrates never existed is a non-starter because there are contemporary hostile sources. In fact, our earliest source, contemporary with Socrates, is Aristophanes' Clouds, a comedy that lampoons him. There was also the rhetorical display piece, the Accusation of Socrates by Polycrates, about which we know from several sources. If we only had, say, Plato's dialogues, which present Socrates as a hero, someone might get some traction from the thesis that Socrates was a made-up figure, but that doesn't really fly when you have balancing, hostile sources from the same time period. Quite a different evidential situation from the one about the historical Jesus, where we don't have any balancing sources that are contemporary, and the ones we do have from two generations later are problematic (e.g. Tacitus may just get his info from Pliny or other Romans who interrogated Christians, Josephus has been discussed ad infinitum so I add nothing...)

[TrueFreedom]

 

Right now I have to stop letting this stuff distract me from what I should be working on, which is just as bad: the problem of the historical Socrates.

 

Business or pleasure?

[♦ ficino ♦]

i'm retired but keep on with research and writing about ancient philosophy. Just heard today that an article is basically accepted by an international, peer-reviewed journal, but I have some revisions to make and am grateful to the anonymous referee for suggestions and criticisms.

[Akheia]

See, that's how real historians do shit--they get critiqued and can evaluate the criticism and make changes to their hypotheses and theories as needed. They don't insist that OH NO I'M TOTALLY RIGHT HERE and start making rationalizations to explain away the new information. (Jay, are you listening?)

 

Could there have been a "real Jesus"? Sure. He absolutely wouldn't have looked like the NT's claims, though. Almost nothing about the NT's bio of Jesus is even credible, much less supported by evidence. But sure, there were a bunch of Jesuses running around that time, all preaching weird mixtures of Judaism and paganism and all to a greater or lesser extent making the Jewish authority structure nervous and pissed. Chances are one of them sparked the idea of Christianity. Which Jesus is the "real" one though? His name might not even have been Jesus, for that matter. Maybe we just got the name wrong and once we figure out what the real name is, we'll find the fanatic prophet-evangelist-rabbi who captured the zeitgeist of the Roman-occupied Levant and sparked the Christian religion. See what I mean? You could chase your tail for decades trying to force something where there's simply nothing there to force.

 

If you're able to say that you don't believe there could possibly be a Yahweh based on the evidence we have, then why would you be less able to say that about his bastard god-man-son Jesus, about whom there is just as little evidence?

 

If evidence arises that shows something solid about the "kernel of truth" of Jesus, then I'm cool with that. I'll go where the evidence points. Doesn't mean he's a "messiah" or a "son of god", of course. But at least it'd show there's something more than a shadow where the man should be. Until then, I'm on record as saying I don't believe in a "historical Jesus" for the simple reason that to be historical, some tiny detail about him has to show up somewhere in the historical record. The sheer lack of ANY historical footprints (even in 55 AD, 20 years after his putative death, there could have been eyewitness writings made, but weirdly, there are NONE) leads me to think that he's an idea, an amalgam, a construct, maybe very loosely based upon people who did exist, but not taken directly from any one person's life story or teachings.

[mcdaddy]

See, that's how real historians do shit--they get critiqued and can evaluate the criticism and make changes to their hypotheses and theories as needed. They don't insist that OH NO I'M TOTALLY RIGHT HERE and start making rationalizations to explain away the new information. (Jay, are you listening?)

 

Could there have been a "real Jesus"? Sure. He absolutely wouldn't have looked like the NT's claims, though. Almost nothing about the NT's bio of Jesus is even credible, much less supported by evidence. But sure, there were a bunch of Jesuses running around that time, all preaching weird mixtures of Judaism and paganism and all to a greater or lesser extent making the Jewish authority structure nervous and pissed. Chances are one of them sparked the idea of Christianity. Which Jesus is the "real" one though? His name might not even have been Jesus, for that matter. Maybe we just got the name wrong and once we figure out what the real name is, we'll find the fanatic prophet-evangelist-rabbi who captured the zeitgeist of the Roman-occupied Levant and sparked the Christian religion. See what I mean? You could chase your tail for decades trying to force something where there's simply nothing there to force.

 

If you're able to say that you don't believe there could possibly be a Yahweh based on the evidence we have, then why would you be less able to say that about his bastard god-man-son Jesus, about whom there is just as little evidence?

 

If evidence arises that shows something solid about the "kernel of truth" of Jesus, then I'm cool with that. I'll go where the evidence points. Doesn't mean he's a "messiah" or a "son of god", of course. But at least it'd show there's something more than a shadow where the man should be. Until then, I'm on record as saying I don't believe in a "historical Jesus" for the simple reason that to be historical, some tiny detail about him has to show up somewhere in the historical record. The sheer lack of ANY historical footprints (even in 55 AD, 20 years after his putative death, there could have been eyewitness writings made, but weirdly, there are NONE) leads me to think that he's an idea, an amalgam, a construct, maybe very loosely based upon people who did exist, but not taken directly from any one person's life story or teachings.

 

THIS is why I love u Ak.

 

<3