The Apostle’s Creed: I believe in Jesus

What is the case for the historical Jesus? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Since I’ve already looked at the words I believe, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel here. So let’s move on to the next line and notice that it says that I believe in Jesus.

At the bare minimum, let’s start with Jesus. What is the case that there was a historical Jesus?

Quite good actually.

You see, a lot of Christians don’t take the time to look for this evidence. A lot of atheists don’t either, or just disregard whatever evidence is presented because it doesn’t reach a bar that they arbitrarily set. Many don’t bother to take the time to see how the ancient world worked, to which I have some excellent resources on that here, here, and here.

Ancient historiography is not modern historiography. In our day and age, we have numerous recording devices and we all have access to ways to read and write for the most part. All of us communicate through the written word to some extent and we have added mediums the ancients didn’t such as television and the internet.

Also, ancients by and large had much better memories than we do. Why should we? We can make post-it notes and have our phones be our memories and save information on our computers. If you don’t have access to technology like that, chances are you’ll use your memory a lot more.

Let’s also keep in mind some realities which I’ve explained further in an article like this that would show that in the ancient world, Jesus wasn’t really worthy of mention. He never ran for office. He never went into battle. He never traveled as an adult outside of his country. He never wrote anything that lasted. To make matters worse, he was crucified as a Messiah claimant. You might say he did miracles, but so what? You think a historian in Rome is going to take seriously the claim that a supposed Messiah who was crucified did miracles? Nope.

So what do we have on the existence of Jesus?

Well right off, we have Paul’s letters. Now some will say these don’t say a lot about the historical Jesus. That’s right, but why should they? Paul is not attempting to write a biography. He’s wanting to deal with misunderstandings that have taken place. Yet there are times he does refer to the Jesus tradition.

In 1 Cor. 11, he has the Lord’s Supper.

In 1 Cor. 7, he has the Jesus tradition on divorce and marriage.

In 1 Cor. 15, we have the excellent creed that dates to within five years of the resurrection event that lists the appearances of Jesus.

In Romans 1, we have the testimony that Jesus was of the line of David.

In various places in the Pauline epistles, we have the statement of Jesus being crucified.

In 1 Thess. 4, it is believed we have some Jesus tradition in the fourth chapter concerning the resurrection.

In Galatians 1, we learn that Jesus had brothers, especially James.

Now some of you might be saying “And don’t we have in 1 Tim. that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate?” We do, but most skeptics will not accept 1 Timothy as an actual Pauline epistle. It is universally accepted that Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are authentic however.

After this, we also have all four Gospels. These Gospels date to the first century. For most ancient figures, if we had four sources like this within a hundred year period, we would be absolutely thrilled! Yet strangely enough, that bar is changed when we come to Jesus. Of course, anyone wanting to know about how the Gospels can be trusted is invited to listen here.

So let’s go on to sources outside the Bible. A great work you can read on these sources is “Jesus Outside the New Testament” by Robert Van Voorst. Let’s start however with Josephus. The longer reference is here.

“Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

There is also no doubt that there are some interpolations in here, which means later scribes added some material. The question is, is the whole thing an interpolation?

The leading Josephus scholars say no. We do have here some authentic language that comes from Josephus with some parts added in.

Yet some basic truths we could learn from the passage is that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was seen as one who worked miracles. He claimed to be the Messiah but was crucified under Pilate. There was a belief that He rose from the dead and the Christians named after Him persist to this day.

The idea that Jesus never existed and Josephus never mentioned him is not popular among Josephus scholars. It is a wonder why it is that we should take seriously the claims of internet atheists over scholars in the field.

What about the second passage?

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Well this is not considered to be an interpolation at all and the reference to Jesus here points back to an earlier reference. Without the earlier reference, this latter reference makes no sense. From here, we would also get the idea that Jesus does indeed have as his brother James, which is consistent with Paul.

Next is the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus wrote in his Annals in 15.44 that

“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

Interestingly, this is also the only place that he refers to Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus is seen as one of the greatest if not the greatest Roman historian. There is no reason to think that he uncritically shared a rumor and this is in fact something that a Christian would not write. It is not flattering to Christ at all. It refers to a mischievous superstition and indicates that it was something hideous and shameful.

Often reasons for rejecting this passage include that Tacitus gets the idea wrong about Tacitus. He was a prefect and not a procurator. Yet it’s just fine to think that Tacitus was using the title that was around in his day to refer to Jesus. There is also a possibility that there was a fluidity between the terms. To say that it is a hard and fast error is a huge burden for the skeptic.

Our next source is Seutonius.

“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

This could in fact be a reference to what is talked about in Acts 18 when some Christians were expelled from Rome as well. At that point in time, there would not be known to be much difference between Jews and Christians. Still, some are skeptical of this.

For instance, Raphael Lataster writes that Chrestus refers to “The Good.” I wrote to my friend Ron C. Fay, a Greek expert, on this regards, only to have him tell me that it’s a Latin term and does not mean “the good.” In fact, when I contacted other Greek experts, including my own father-in-law, Mike Licona, none of them thought such a thing was even plausible.

On a prima facie basis then, there is no reason to disregard this. The burden is on the part of the mythicist.

Next we have Lucian who did not care for the Christians at all. The first reference?

“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.”

What we could get from this is that Christians worshiped Jesus and that Lucian believed that they were gullible in doing so. This would also help indicate that Christianity was a shameful belief at the time. I take the reference to a synagogue to actually show some confusion on Lucian’s part in thinking that Christianity was a sect of Judaism, or else he is just referring to a gathering that he sees as an off-shoot of Judaism, which is correct insofar as it goes, and would meet at a synagogue then as that’s where Jews met. The other lawgiver in this case then could be Moses.

What about the second reference?

“The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence.”

Again, this is hardly a flattering statement to the Christians and not one that they would make up. They would not refer to Jesus as a crucified sophist and say that they accept claims without evidence. (So yes, this also means that the claims of Boghossian are nothing new.)

There’s also Pliny the Younger, who wrote about the behavior of Christians and said

“They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”

Here we have indications that these people were willing to die for Christianity, which is why Pliny is supposed to arrest them. They are being tried as if guilty of a crime. Surely if they were convinced this was a myth, they would not be willing to do so. Therefore, early on, we have belief in Jesus as a deity. How did this happen entirely within a relatively short time with zero reality behind it?

Finally, we’ll look at Mara Bar-Serapion.

What did he say?

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.”

Now some might say Jesus isn’t mentioned by name. Fair enough. But let’s see what we know about this person. He was a teacher of the Jews. He was said to be their king. He was said to be wise. After executing (Not just killing but executing which I take to refer to a capital offense) him their kingdom was taken away from them. This king lived on in the teaching he had given. (Note he does not say was resurrected as a Christian would.)

Okay. So someone wants to say it wasn’t Jesus.

Feel free to say who is a better candidate.

In light of all of this, and without strong evidence to the contrary, I find it no shock that NT scholarship doesn’t even debate this question any more. There are more certified scientists who hold to a young-earth than there are equivalent scholars in ancient and NT history that hold that Jesus never even existed.

“But the YEC position is totally bizarre!”

Yes. A number of skeptics might say that, but if you want to be consistent and consider Christ-mythicism as a serious position, then you should do the same with YEC. Note I say this in no way to insult YECs. I am not one, but I am happily married to one. (My own wife just doesn’t really care about the debate and even respects Hugh Ross far more than Ken Ham.)

For the Christian who says they hold to a historical Jesus, they are on the firm ground of NT scholarship. It is the internet atheist who has convinced himself he knows better.

He has not convinced those in scholarship of that.

There’s a reason for that.

And oh, if someone wants to say that this is just Christians saying this, two non-Christian scholars, Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman, have also written against Christ-myth nonsense.

Again, there’s a reason it’s considered nonsense.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “The Apostle’s Creed: I believe in Jesus”

  1. tildeb Says:

    Tacitus is seen as one of the greatest if not the greatest Roman historian. There is no reason to think that he uncritically shared a rumor and this is in fact something that a Christian would not write.

    Umm, not so fast.

    It is from Tacitus that we first encounter the term ‘Christian’… a term not used in Tacitus’ day. (We have evidence of the term ‘Nazarenes’ This is an interesting occurrence… considering that his original Annals were lost and we find this… unusual… language in the later copies you have quoted.

    In fact, we should – like any good historian – compare and contrast similar sources. Tacitus, writing ‘Histories’ Book 5, and specifically Chapters 8 – 10 describes Judea at the supposed time of Jesus. These chapters make no mention of the crucifixion of Jesus as mentioned in Annals. That’s red flag. They make no mention of Christians at all. Another red flag. They make no mention of miracles, or the dead rising from the ground, or Jerusalem in uproar at the arrival of Jesus. All red flags to us, the amateur historians. How much confidence should we place in a copy of Tacitus’ quotation you’ve used here? Well, I think there’s legitimate cause for caution. In addition, Tacitus was born 20 years after the death of Jesus and grew up in Southern France. Three of the four gospels were already written by the time he set about doing his annals (and we must remember that Mark – the first gospel – doesn’t include any mention of any resurrection… again, evidence that the copied Tacitus Annals may have been subject to… embelishment) so it’s reasonable to assume he could have easily heard of such a tale about Jesus.

    So let’s compare.

    Tacitus didn’t question the reality of Minos, the son of Zeus and Europa. He also doesn’t question the reality of Lycurgus that many historians doubt existed. He believes those two to be great law givers. He presents them, like he presents Jesus, as actual historical figures. The question we must keep in mind is whether the figures he speaks of are historically real or not. Obviously, this approach is not important to Tacitus. That isn’t what he’s trying to show. Tacitus draws from tradition and myths and presents them simply as stories – neither fact nor fiction – in a lot of his writings, not least in his apparent (and dubious) reference to Christians.

    Philo is much more interesting case in that he wrote at the exact time Jesus apparently existed, wrote about the exact places Jesus apparently performed all sorts of wondrous miracles; Philo does not mention him… at all… yet mentions plenty of other less impressive, and far more mundane people and their stories.
    Why doesn’t Josephus mention Jesus…despite his beloved father living in and around the area Jesus was supposedly causing shock waves?

    These discrepancies matter in deciding how much or how little confidence we should place in the later claims by biblical scholars about the historicity of the biblical Jesus that rely on these kinds of sources. There is cause for caution.

    • apologianick Says:

      Tilde: It is from Tacitus that we first encounter the term ‘Christian’… a term not used in Tacitus’ day. (We have evidence of the term ‘Nazarenes’ This is an interesting occurrence… considering that his original Annals were lost and we find this… unusual… language in the later copies you have quoted.

      Reply: This term wasn’t used in Tacitus’s day? Can you demonstrate that? It shows up in 1 Peter and Acts after all. It also shows up in Pliny and his correspondence with Trajan. So do you care to make that claim?

      Tilde: In fact, we should – like any good historian – compare and contrast similar sources. Tacitus, writing ‘Histories’ Book 5, and specifically Chapters 8 – 10 describes Judea at the supposed time of Jesus. These chapters make no mention of the crucifixion of Jesus as mentioned in Annals. That’s red flag.

      Reply: Why? Why should he care about Jesus? Tacitus mentions Jesus in the Annals mainly to explain Nero, not to talk about Christians. Why should he mention Jesus in the histories? It’s not a red flag at all. It’s a hyper-skepticism that is put forward that would not be put forward concerning other figures in antiquity.

      Tilde: They make no mention of Christians at all. Another red flag.

      Reply: No. Tacitus would not care to mention Jesus. They were a troublemaking sect not worth talking about. Had Nero never done anything like blame them for the fires and make them a scapegoat, Tacitus would have likely never mentioned them. Would you take that to mean they didn’t exist?

      Tilde: They make no mention of miracles, or the dead rising from the ground, or Jerusalem in uproar at the arrival of Jesus.

      Reply: Why should they? You think Tacitus would take such claims seriously? Tacitus was a skeptic about matters like that even concerning Vespasian, the emperor. He’s really going to take claims that a crucified Messiah did miracles seriously? As for the uproar, what about it? Jesus was another Messiah claimant who would have been seen as someone who should be forgotten already. It would be a shame to even mention Him.

      Tilde: All red flags to us, the amateur historians.

      Reply: Take this kind of claim to any professor of ancient history at any accredited university. Christian or atheist. I don’t care what their worldview is. See what they think of it.

      Tilde: How much confidence should we place in a copy of Tacitus’ quotation you’ve used here? Well, I think there’s legitimate cause for caution. In addition, Tacitus was born 20 years after the death of Jesus and grew up in Southern France. Three of the four gospels were already written by the time he set about doing his annals (and we must remember that Mark – the first gospel – doesn’t include any mention of any resurrection… again, evidence that the copied Tacitus Annals may have been subject to… embelishment) so it’s reasonable to assume he could have easily heard of such a tale about Jesus.

      Reply: And Tacitus was really close friends with Pliny the Younger and did not accept claims from Pliny uncritically. We’re to think he did such from the Gospels? Based on his testimony here, why would he even treat Christian claims seriously? What evidence is there that he used the Gospels? As for being born late, Carrier thinks we have a great case that Caesar crossed the Rubicon despite all the historians who mentioned the event were all born even further after the time than Tacitus was from this. If this is your standard for ancient history, you will know little if anything. Why sacrifice that much just because the existence of Jesus is seen as a problem? You know, there are many atheists who admit that Jesus existed and go on to lead meaningful and happy lives.

      Tilde: So let’s compare.

      Tacitus didn’t question the reality of Minos, the son of Zeus and Europa. He also doesn’t question the reality of Lycurgus that many historians doubt existed. He believes those two to be great law givers. He presents them, like he presents Jesus, as actual historical figures. The question we must keep in mind is whether the figures he speaks of are historically real or not.

      Reply: Few historians question the existence of Alexander the Great, thought to have been born of Zeus as well in the earliest biographies. Of course, all Tacitus does in book 3 of the Annals is mention their names. Whether they existed or not would not be a point really worth talking about. For Jesus, he ties a specific event to Him with specific details.

      Tilde: Obviously, this approach is not important to Tacitus. That isn’t what he’s trying to show. Tacitus draws from tradition and myths and presents them simply as stories – neither fact nor fiction – in a lot of his writings, not least in his apparent (and dubious) reference to Christians.

      Reply: It’s only dubious to those who have bought into the Christ-myth hypothesis. Other historians are sitting back and wondering when they’re going to catch up. It’s interesting that you think we should pay attention to the historians when it comes to Lycurgus, but when it comes to Jesus, the rules change.

      Tilde: Philo is much more interesting case in that he wrote at the exact time Jesus apparently existed, wrote about the exact places Jesus apparently performed all sorts of wondrous miracles; Philo does not mention him… at all… yet mentions plenty of other less impressive, and far more mundane people and their stories.

      Reply: Why should he? Jesus was again a crucified Messiah figure that showed up and for a time was popular and then died away. Why mention that?

      Tilde: Why doesn’t Josephus mention Jesus…despite his beloved father living in and around the area Jesus was supposedly causing shock waves?

      Reply: Josephus does.

      Tilde: These discrepancies matter in deciding how much or how little confidence we should place in the later claims by biblical scholars about the historicity of the biblical Jesus that rely on these kinds of sources. There is cause for caution.

      Reply: Only for Christ-mythers who react like Dracula to sunlight at the thought of a historical Jesus being real. Professional historians don’t even discuss this any more. There’s a reason for that.

      • tildeb Says:

        Which historical Jesus is the correct one is the real question here. And I always think of Crossan’s point in just such a consideration:

        “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography.”

        — Crossan, The Historical Jesus, p xxviii

      • apologianick Says:

        This is why historians have peer-review by those outside of themselves. What is accepted is what is universally agreed upon.

        Note that Crossan himself doesn’t even treat Christ-mythers seriously.

      • tildeb Says:

        Well, he (Crossan) clearly knows that many biblical historians have presented Jesus more along the lines of representing their beliefs than the record of the biblical Jesus. I read his book back in the early 90s and can’t for the life of me find it, but the paragraph from which the quote I used comes describes the various kinds of Christ-figures used by these guys to support their interpretation. In this sense – and in this sense only – Crossan disabuses us of the notion of any historical consensus on the biblical Jesus fitting any of these kinds. This raises the point that although we have evidence that Jesus lived and died, we aren’t nearly as sure that all these accounts – especially from accounts outside of those chosen for the Bible (Crossan used many for his research) – pertain to a single man or if several men were represented. It is this idea – of a compendium of accounts – that is used by atheists to indicate some reason to maintain skepticism about all specific claims for all specific deeds done by a specific and solitary rabbi called Jesus. The number of inconsistencies between these accounts and the order in which they were written really do indicate a fair bit of historical uncertainty… not that Jesus didn’t exist but that all these accounts are about one man.

      • apologianick Says:

        It’s fascinating that the historians seek to do what one is supposed to do and again, the rules change. Why are the Gospels used? Because they’re the earliest and they come from the apostolic tradition. There never was a debate over this. The church was not wringing its hands throughout history wondering if they should take Thomas seriously as a Gospel. Even in Egypt where heterodoxy was the highest, the manuscripts by far and to a huge percentage at that are in favor of the Orthodox Gospels.

        Again, this is also why we do peer-review. No one can say this is what Jesus is like in scholarship and just let it pass. It will be critiqued by people on all sides. Conservative, Liberal, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jews, Agnostic, etc. Everyone will critique it. Remarkably, all of these people agree that the Christ-myth theory is bogus nonsense and should not be taken seriously, yet lo and behold on the internet, the modern equivalent of Tacitus’s Rome, this theory has new life.

        The problem is that of course some legendary material came about, but what historian will throw up his hands then and say “Well darn it! I guess we can’t know for sure!” No. He works with a source and says why an account should be accepted or a part of account should be or vice-versa and he has to defend his hypothesis before his peers.

      • tildeb Says:

        There seems to me to be a conflation between what historians do and what biblical scholarship does that is not warranted. The two are not the same endeavor… although there is some overlap and it is in this area where some biblical scholarship has taken great liberties to use selected buts of the former to support certain favoured notions by the latter.

        Yes, you’re quire right to point out the peer review process in the discipline of History but I don’t think this is nearly as strong as you indicate for the biblical scholarship. You can’t equate the two as if one automatically supports the other. There is a very strong motive to be biased behind almost all biblical scholarship; how it comports with history is one of the reasons atheists remain skeptical about the biblical Jesus… from the very written accounts there are glaring factual discrepancies, timeline problems, obvious forgeries, a reliance on secondary and tertiary sources, and so on. This is deserving of strong skeptical consideration when utilizing biblical scholarship to support a historical claim; the biblical scholarship must be subservient to the historical scholarship and yet we tend to find biblical scholarship insisting that history align with it. And that’s why it has taken more than two thousand years for rabbinical scholarship to admit the Pentateuch is not history but story…. the same Pentateuch Jesus himself supposedly swears is a true account.

        You see the problem…

      • apologianick Says:

        Actually, I think the distinction is more imagined than real. You will find Biblical Scholarship in the Society of Biblical Literature, and most members there would not identify as evangelical Christians. Again, the same peer-review process works.

        Now is there a motive to be biased for scholars? Yes. This is for atheists as well as Christians. That’s why the peer-review process is in play. Note that I could just as easily say the scientific community has a bias for naturalistic theories and therefore, I should discount any arguments for evolution. But yet I suppose you’d tell me the same peer-review goes on there and there are Christians who accept evolutionary theory just fine and find no problem with it and Biblical interpretation, but I could still just as much say “Bias!”

        In fact, I could even point to the same problems you claim. I could point out that some fossils that have been found have been inauthentic. They have been, but so what? I’m sure the real authorities are aware of them and dismiss them just as quickly. I’m sure there are problems I am unaware of and solutions to those problems I am just as much unaware of.

        Now some issues you have raised are worth discussing, but how much do they really matter for believing in a historical Jesus? Not enough to convince scholars who readily see problems they think can’t be solved. I think the problems can be, but that’s secondary. I am not here to defend Inerrancy. At this point, it’s just the historical Jesus.

        But let’s avoid that bias card. Anyone can claim bias and bias is often an excuse to just avoid the data. One should only claim an opponent’s bias is affecting their handling of the data when one has clear evidence of that happening.

  2. The Apostle’s Creed: I believe in Jesus | A disciple's study Says:

    […] Read on at https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/the-apostles-creed-i-believe-in-jesus/ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: