The resurrection of Jesus Christ – Part Four

Are naturalists right in saying that miracles are “improbable” (Ehrman) if not “impossible” (David Hume)?

The famous 18th century philosopher, David Hume, stated that miracles are a violation of natural laws. Our unalterable experience has established these laws. Therefore because miracles are outside our experience they are impossible. But is that actually true? 

This is a continuation of my series of posts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In response to Hume and Ehrman, I will make two quick points (these points are covered more thoroughly in the videos):

First, Christianity is not making the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead by natural means. We’re claiming that God raised Jesus from the dead, and since we believe God both created and exists outside natural laws, He has the means to do it.

Paul makes stakes everything on this argument:

15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.  (1 Cor.15:15 *)

Second, Hume’s and Ehrman’s argument assumes a worldview where the only reality is what we can experience within the limits of natural law. This is not only a myopic worldview, it’s circular reasoning that essentially goes like this:

  • I don’t believe in the resurrection (or miracles) because it violates natural laws.
  • Miracles, by definition, are the least probable thing that can happen.
  • Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus did not happen (or highly improbable).

This actually does not address the evidence. As the author of the first video below says:

“This just a priori excludes any theory, however likely it is, that disagrees with your preconceived notions about how reality should work…. These sweeping dismissals, whether from Hume or Ehrman are nothing but circular reasoning and dismissing any type of evidence that challenges their already determined worldview.” (starts @ 4:53)

But the Christian claim is not that a resurrection is a natural phenomenon or even likely. We’re saying quite the opposite, that not only did God supernaturally raise Jesus from the dead, but it was a unique event. We believe there are only two distinct resurrections in human history (possibly three if you take Rev.20:11-15 into account): Christ’s resurrection and a future resurrection of the saints before the end of this age:

20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. (1 Cor.15:20-24 *)

So neither the improbable argument nor the violation of natural law argument refutes the Christian claim for Jesus’ resurrection.

Another important point in the second video is made by Amy Orr-Ewing that this recent resurgence of Hume’s argument by the new atheists is ironically not sustainable by his own standard of analysis and empirical verification:

“It’s fascinating this is coming back because, actually, what philosophers coming after Hume discovered is that Hume’s idea itself collapses; it’s neither true by definition nor is it empirically verifiable.” (starts @5:12)

Here are the two short video clips that go into further detail on this subject.  The first video is from InspiringPhilosophy’s series titled, “The Resurrection of Jesus.” In this video, the author looks at both Hume’s and Ehrman’s “nature” argument against miracles.

This second clip is from Godnewevidence’s series titled, “After Life.” In this video, the question is answered by experts, “Does science make it impossible that Jesus rose from the dead” and other common arguments against the resurrection. Well worth the watch.

NOTE: Please confine your comments to the subject matter of the post and video. Also, please keep your comments concise (under 500 words, preferably much shorter).

* New King James Bible translation. All emphasis added.
Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 36 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to The resurrection of Jesus Christ – Part Four

  1. Great information Mel! As always it is a very important topic and great videos!

  2. Arkenaten says:

    So he raised himself from the dead, did he?
    So why did he allow himself to be crucified in the first place?
    And why was it necessary… he being god?

    • Mel Wild says:

      So he raised himself from the dead, did he?
      So why did he allow himself to be crucified in the first place?
      And why was it necessary… he being god?

      No, God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus totally put His human life in the Father’s hands to raise Him up. First, God did this to validate who Jesus said He was. It was also symbolic of what God will do with us in the final resurrection. When we talk about Jesus Christ, we are talking about God the incarnated Son. Jesus was both God and human (called hypostatic union). Philippians 2 states that He set aside His “Godhood” to become a man in all things, willingly laying His life down, even to the point of the cross. Everything Jesus did in His earthly ministry, He did as a man, fully devoted and submitted to God.

      Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified to reveal what’s truly in man’s hearts. The crucifixion put what’s wrong with us on display. It’s what we do to pure Love (figuratively or literally). Or, as Rene Girard said, we scapegoated God! As Robert Capon said, it announced the end to religion (man’s way of trying to appease God). Jesus allowed us to crucify Him so that He could put the “Adamic us” to death in order to free us from our alienation from God and reconcile us back to God. God was not the one who needed reconciling; we were the enemies of God in our own minds. The cross was like a human “reboot,” inaugurating the beginning of the New Creation.

      What Jesus accomplished is that He defeated death (eternal death), set us free from our own captivity, and brought us into the very Trinitarian life of God.

      It was necessary that Jesus was God because no human being can relate directly to God or participate in the Trinitarian life of God. As I’ve said before, it’s like Shakespeare and Hamlet; two totally different realms. So God traversed the dimensional gulf and became a man through His Son. And when Jesus died, we (humankind) died with him, when He was raised from the dead, He brought all humankind to God. We are now all in the “Divine Dance” of God as it’s been called, metaphorically (technical name is “Perichoresis”). The only reason we can be in this familial relationship (called “adoption” in the NT) is because a Man is now in the Godhead and we’ve been placed in the Man. Jesus’ relationship with the Father is our relationship. I know that may sound strange to you but it’s both spiritual and metaphorical language. The Bible employs anthropological language in order to express the relational nature of God and our relationship to Him in way we can understand.

      That’s the short answer. 🙂 I will probably have to do a series of posts to explain it more thoroughly.

    • Arkenaten says:

      So, if his dadsacrificed his own son ( nice of him) then Jesus obviously wasn’t actually Yahweh, then?

    • Mel Wild says:

      So, if his dad sacrificed his own son ( nice of him) then Jesus obviously wasn’t actually Yahweh, then?

      First, that is an erroneous statement. His “dad” did not sacrifice His Son. Jesus Christ, God the Son, sacrificed Himself. And when we say “sacrifice” we’re not talking about it like a pagan ritual to appease an angry deity. Jesus’ sacrifice was more like that of a soldier, willingly laying his or her life down so that others could live. In this way He gave His life for us. As the Hebrew prophets even said, God never wanted our religious sacrifice; all He ever really wanted was our open hearts to receive His love and enter into relationship with Him.

      If you think I said Jesus wasn’t Yahweh, then you didn’t understand what I said at all. God is triune in nature–revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit. They are one yet are distinctly three persons. A weak analogy would be like an atom has three main properties (Electron, proton, neutron) yet it is considered one atom. You don’t say you have three atoms. You say there are three parts to one atom. Again, like all analogies, this is weak and breaks down when trying to fully explain the nature of God.

      Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son, willingly stepped into time and space and became a human being, but without leaving His divinity. He was fully God and fully man, and IS forever fully God and fully man (hypostatic union or dual nature of Christ). But because He laid down His human life willingly for us, fully trusting in His Father to raise Him up again, we now can live our life in God. And when I say that a “Man” is now in the Godhead, I’m talking about the incarnated God, the Son of God, who fully fused the human nature to God’s nature and being. While the Trinitarian nature of God can be seen all the way back to Genesis 1, it was a mystery hidden from man’s understanding until Christ revealed God to us.

  3. Arkenaten says:

    So the angel Gabriel tells Miriam Mary that Yahweh is going to make her pregnant. Yahweh then spiritually/supernaturally rapes a 14 year old Jewess , effectively his own mother if we are honest, thus making it a sort of incestuous rape as well. the Angel Gabriel
    Gross, but par for the course for the bible.
    After which he transmogrified into a human seemingly forgetting he was Yahweh. This is obvious as he didn’t realise he was praying to himself in Gethsemane and obviously there was non one there because Yahweh was now human.
    Later he allows himself to be crucified because humans are all sinners and Yahweh require punishment for sin and obviously a death as this is Yahweh’s nature.
    And its obvious that Jesus forget he is Yahweh as he calls out to his dad and wonder why has has ditched him?
    Afterwards he is buried in a tomb … though no one knows where it is … because they’d all buggered off while he was crucified.
    So eventually he realizes that Yahweh is not going to save him and as he is Yahweh he is forced to save himself.
    Much later the Angel Gabriel visits Mohammed and informs him he is the last prophet and over a period of time transmits Yahweh’s message that eventually becomes the Qu’ran.

    I honestly think Marcion’s story was much better than this nonsense.

    • Mel Wild says:

      There is so much wrong with your belligerent statements I won’t bother unraveling it all, but just say that all of what you said is utter nonsense and wrong on every single point. You’ve just erected a straw man that’s not the Christian claim at all. I have to say, you are the master at making fallacious arguments!

      One thing that has become quite obvious to any thinking person from our conversations here, Ark. You cannot produce one single viable counterclaim to the resurrection that actually provides a better explanation for the evidence that has explanatory scope and power, so you stoop to ridicule and ad hominem attacks and many other fallacious arguments instead.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I already told you the truth of the resurrection … fiction.
      And I fully explained why we cannot trust the the source or the proponent but you didn’t respond to that comment.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And “fiction” that is NOT an answer, that’s a claim. And if you’re referring to the mythic theory counterclaim by some skeptics, that was soundly refuted on the videos I showed.

    • Arkenaten says:

      As is your claim of historical fact.
      Except that my claim is more plausible.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Saying it’s fiction says nothing at all, Ark. And by that standard, then ALL history is fiction. Why don’t you see this? The only real reason you cannot accept it is because it goes against your naturalist worldview. But your reasoning against miracles, like Ehrman’s, is circular. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Nope, not in the least.
      We have the history of the dinosaurs, for example, which can view through the fossil record.
      Historians cannot investigate supernatural claims which is why you will not a find a History of Fairies or The History of Unicorn anywhere other than in the children’s’ section or the fantasy/myth section.

      It is not only that it goes against the Laws of Nature but you have no evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claims. Only clever arguments.
      You simply have to accept that all you have are theological arguments and faith.
      Nothing more. Accept it and deal with it.

    • Mel Wild says:

      We have the history of the dinosaurs, for example, which can view through the fossil record.
      Historians cannot investigate supernatural claims….

      Again, another fallacious argument, Ark. You cannot dig up a “miracle” fossil! That is an irrelevant comparison. In fact, you can’t dig up most events in human history because they don’t have archeological evidence. For instance, there is no archeology for Julius Caesar being stabbed by Brutus, or literally millions of other historic events, but we don’t doubt these events because we have the same kinds of historical evidence that we use for the resurrection event. Most of our history comes from documents.

      Why don’t you get this? We DO have evidence for the resurrection claims, just like other historical events. Actually, more than most. To say we don’t is just dishonest or ignorant of how historiography works. And many of these claims are based on evidence agreed on by almost all textual scholars.

      You need to provide a better explanation for:
      – Jesus really existed, reported to work wonders (by external sources) and was crucified in either 30 AD or 33 AD.
      – Early dating of oral creeds and hymns within a year or two of the crucifixion, recorded in Pauline epistles that have been validated as authentic by almost all New Testament textual Scholars.
      – Jesus’ disciples said that Jesus appeared to them alive, including over 500 at one time (almost all scholars have no doubt they believed this.
      – Skeptics (Paul, James) reported Jesus appeared to them prior to their conversion.
      – The conversion of skeptics Paul and James.
      – The empty tomb and the Jews’ claim that the body was stolen.
      – Low status of women in the ancient world as witnesses (embarrassment)
      – Immediate proclamation in Jerusalem (not made up later)
      – Voluntary suffering of the disciples and eyewitnesses (no one will die for something they know for certain is a lie).
      – Jesus’ bodily resurrection was unprecedented and unanticipated, unlike any pagan myth or world religion so it could not have been copied. It was also not the prevailing Jewish Messianic expectation.

      Beside this, we have:
      – The unbroken testimony of the church from the first century onward (25, 000 + manuscript copies and fragments. We currently can reconstruct the original intent to 99% accuracy. Even Bart Ehrman agrees with this.
      – That unlike all other Jewish messianic sects in that day, Christianity continued and thrived after the death of its leader, in spite of the intense persecution.

      This list is not exhaustive. But you have to give a better answer that provides explanatory scope and power than the resurrection claim otherwise the claim stands. To dismiss it as fiction is an unsubstantiated opinion, not a valid counterclaim.

      The truth is, the only honest answer you can give is that you don’t believe in miracles. But as the video in this post pointed out, that’s circular reasoning based on an a priori naturalist bias.

    • Arkenaten says:

      The truth is, the only honest answer you can give is that you don’t believe in miracles. But as the video in this post pointed out, that’s circular reasoning based on an a priori naturalist bias.

      You are correct. I don’t believe in miracles as they violate the only laws we are able to test – the natural laws.
      And this next point is very important.
      Neither do historians.

      Thus the only answer we can offer is that it is simply a fictional event, much like claims of seeing unicorns or Mohammed receiving his miraculous visions from the Angel Gabriel.

      Your belief is simply based on faith. Nothing else.
      Just accept this and stop trying to prove otherwise.

    • Mel Wild says:

      You are correct. I don’t believe in miracles as they violate the only laws we are able to test – the natural laws.
      And this next point is very important.
      Neither do historians.

      Did you even watch the videos here? Miracles, by definition, violate natural laws, so your argument is circular. It doesn’t deal directly with the evidence. It only proves your a priori naturalist bias. Therefore this is not a valid counterclaim.

      And the idea that historians cannot evaluate miracle claims is a favorite myth of people like Ehrman and anti-theists. There is no such canon rule in historiography. The first video quotes historians who disagree with this premise, like David Hackett Fischer (Historians’ Fallacies) and Thomas Haskell (That Noble Dream).

    • Arkenaten says:

      There is no evidence to test …. only an account written in a ”book” that is full of corruption from beginning to end.
      You choose faith.
      I don’t.
      Deal with it.
      If you wish to pursue this line then you will have to accept Mohammed’s story as well.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And you are wrong for the reasons I already stated.

      Ark, your “fiction” position is a faith-based opinion based on your naturalist bias. You believe there is nothing more than what can be observed in nature.

    • Arkenaten says:

      That is all there is so we cannot test for the supernatural.
      And historians don’t.

      Would you like to pursue the subject of Yahweh’s spiritual pseduo incestuous rape of a 14 year old child or shall we discuss Gabriel’s visit to Mohammed now?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Would you like to pursue the subject of Yahweh’s spiritual pseduo incestuous rape of a 14 year old child or shall we discuss Gabriel’s visit to Mohammed now?

      No, I don’t care to unravel your belligerent straw man argument. Would like to provide one valid answer for the evidence itself instead of your opinion that the evidence is fiction?

    • Arkenaten says:

      If you don’t like my answer then tell me what secular historians think?

    • Mel Wild says:

      It doesn’t matter what secular historians think if they cannot provide a better answer for the evidence. I’ve given some of the popular counterclaims already (mythic, conspiracy, hallucinations. etc.) All of them fail. Do you have a better one?

    • Arkenaten says:

      Yes … fiction.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Why do you consider it fiction?

      Do you truly believe in the supernatural or only the supernatural that applies to your faith?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Do you truly believe in the supernatural or only the supernatural that applies to your faith?

      IF you actually watched the video, this question would’ve been answered. Please stop wasting my time.

    • Wally Fry says:

      Your complete and total misrepresentation of theology says one of two things, Ark

      You are actually clueless about The Bible. I suspect this is not the case

      You intentionally twist and misrepresent it to further your own flailing agenda of hate against the God who holds your very life in is hands. This makes you no more than a bully and a liar.

      I am still hoping against hope that you might respond to the actual post here with some substantiated rebuttals to the Resurrection you so vehemently deny with somethings besides, “Because I said so.”

    • Arkenaten says:

      I am sorry Wally, would you like to enlighten me then?
      Did Yahweh impregnate a 14 year old Jewess without her consent?
      Was Miriam/Mary Yahweh’s mother?

    • Wally Fry says:

      My comment stands, as is. You either are clueless, or a liar.

      Answer your challenge, if you bring something besides your declaration the Resurrection is fiction.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I am neither.
      I did answer the challenge.
      It is a theological claim and cannot be verified or investigated to arrive at a historical position other than it is myth or fiction.

    • Wally Fry says:

      Sigh. Again either you are slow, or intentionally obtuse.

      The challenge is for you to present your counterclaim with something other than only your assertion that our claim is false.

      Duh..

      I’ll give you a few centuries to come up with your fleshed out counter claim.

      LOL

      Have a nice day!

    • Arkenaten says:

      But there is no other claim that can be made, Wally. Do you not understand?

      If one is not predisposed to believing in miracles taken purely on faith then how is one supposed to offer an alternative?
      The most difficult and most outrageous explanation with the least amount of probability is that it was a supernatural event that cannot be verified or even checked. Therefore, the most likely is that it is fiction. And based on the level of corruption the bible suffers from and the unreliability of humans then fiction is the most likely answer.
      Because you have, a desperate desire to believe you therefore create a scenario that allows you to do just that.
      Hence, you believe in global flood -false -and Noah’s Ark – false -and Adam and Eve -false- and dinosaurs co-existing with humans -false. Even when every single piece of evidence is screaming at you that your YEC take on life is unequivocally wrong, and has been flat out refuted by every scientific and discipline .
      And yet you refuse to accept it.
      Does this make you willfully ignorant, incredibly stubborn or religiously indoctrinated?

    • Arkenaten says:

      Here you go Wally, this was my last reply to Mel on part deux.
      As you would say, ”answered.”

      Not ”arguable” or ”apparent”. They are forgeries so let’s not quibble over terms.
      And the corruption runs deep as well you know if you are prepared to be brutally honest.
      No, it does not affect the doctrine, you are quite correct. And this is simply because it is based solely on faith. You have stated as much on numerous occasions. And continue to so so,
      This is not verifiable historical evidence. And proper historians have no way of investigating supernatural claims so they do not consider them.
      Your claims are all theological, and this particular argument carries no more weight than if you were trying to punt that Jesus walked on water. How the Gehenna would you argue that I would like to know?
      And this is why no genuine historian will ever touch this stuff with a ten foot barge pole and why you will never find the bible in the history section of any library or book store.

      The bible ,Old and New , simply contains too much historical fiction as well as corrupt text, forgeries and interpolations to be taken seriously by any one not already predisposed.
      Therefore, what you are selling is tainted and thus there is no evidence you could possibly present that will demonstrate the veracity of any claim you wish to be viewed in any serious light. Just accept this fact.
      You are making theological arguments and trying to claim they are archaeologically and historically sound.
      Once and for all, understand that they are not the same thing.

    • Wally Fry says:

      Yes, my faith is huge. I am not ashamed of that, although you wag it around as if I should be. I suspect my own faith is not as strong as yours in your naturalistic religion.

      Yeah, corrupt blah blah blah. Your argument there has been refuted by Mel soundly for the simply fact that you only consider evidence presented by those who share your religion.

      So, back to the challenge?

      I suspect you have nothing.

      Interesting.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Refuted? Where? How?
      You are a YEC. The entire basis of this belief is corrupt.
      Maybe if you were to revise your thinking on this first then perhaps you would be in a better position to discus the Resurrection?

    • Wally Fry says:

      Right, right. Got it. My beliefs regarding the age of the Earth disprove the Resurrection. Fine.

      Now pretend I believe the Earth is billions of years old, and that Evolution is true. NOW provide a plausible counter claim.

      Sheesh. If you keep running around in this circle of avoidance I will have to go do something useful like beat on my toes with a hammer.

    • Arkenaten says:

      I have .. it is a fictitious story.
      Unless you can provide evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claim then it is simply untenable. A theological claim rooted in faith.
      Nothing more. You need to accept this fact and deal with it.

    • Mel Wild says:

      @Ark. I have given you the evidence, Ark. It’s the same kind of evidence historians use for just about anything else in history. You’re either lying or don’t understand historiography when you say there’s no evidence.

      The only part that is a claim on our part is the resurrection itself. But this claim is inferred from the actual historical evidence, So you must provide a better explanation that provides explanatory scope and power for the evidence itself. To say the evidence itself is fiction must be proven with a better explanation. I gave you a partial list of the evidence again in my other comments to you.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Secular historians do not consider the supernatural.
      There is nothing you can say that will alter this fact.
      I do not lie.
      You continue to tell me I am lying just as Wally does.
      If this is what you truly believe then you may go fuck yourself … with my sincere blessing.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Secular historians do not consider the supernatural.
      There is nothing you can say that will alter this fact.
      I do not lie.

      Wrong. You may not lie but you are misinformed. There is no such canon rule in historiography where historians cannot evaluate miracle claims. The first video quotes historians who disagree with this premise, like David Hackett Fischer (Historians’ Fallacies) and Thomas Haskell (That Noble Dream).

    • Arkenaten says:

      They do not accept the supernatural as it cannot be tested.

      That is the end of it. You have no more argument and it has simply collapsed.

      Be adult enough to recognize you only have faith.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Cannot be tested? That is a self-refuting argument. Science can only test things within the natural realm. How can you test something with the scientific method that’s theoretically outside of the natural realm? This not only refuted itself, it proves nothing.

      All we can do is infer to the best explanation. I’ve already refuted your myopic argument in the previous posts about natural theology.

      Your “cannot be tested” argument is irrelevant and self-refuting.

    • Arkenaten says:

      And the best explanation is, it is a piece of fiction.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And that’s your unsubstantiated opinion. But thank you.

    • Arkenaten says:

      And the opinion of every secular historian.
      I am quite happy to align with their view. At least it is honest.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Haha. Another non-answer. Fine. We’ll leave it at that. You have no answer for the actual evidence.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Yes we do. There is no ”actual” evidence.

    • Mel Wild says:

      That’s a lie.

    • Arkenaten says:

      Not at, All we have are claims in a ”book” that is replete with corrupt text.
      If you wish to pursue this line then you are obliged t accept there may be validity of Mohammed’s claim of supernatural revelation by Gabriel.
      And please stop saying I lie.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And please stop saying I lie.

      Okay, if you’re not lying then you’re either not understanding what I’m asking or being willfully ignorant of the facts. Again, the resurrection argument made here was based on actual evidence that scholars use, using the same criteria one would use to determine the best answer for any historical data. Only the resurrection claim itself is in question, and we’re saying you have to provide a better explanation for the evidence instead of just saying the evidence itself is fiction. To say there is “no evidence” is not true in any world.

      If you wish to pursue this line then you are obliged t accept there may be validity of Mohammed’s claim of supernatural revelation by Gabriel.

      And here we are again with your fallacious argumentation. I really get tired of having to point this out to you. As I told you before, this is a Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy (if one miracle claim is true then we have to accept all other claims). That is fallacious and false. The video exposes this fallacy, which Ehrman also likes to use, by the way. I cued it up to that spot for you here…

    • Mel Wild says:

      And why don’t you be adult enough to admit that to believe the only reality is what we can observe and test is based on faith? It’s a totally myopic worldview that refuses to deal with implications of something beyond the material world.

    • Mel Wild says:

      @Wally.

      My beliefs regarding the age of the Earth disprove the Resurrection. Fine….If you keep running around in this circle of avoidance I will have to go do something useful like beat on my toes with a hammer.

      Yup, he’s the master or fallacious argumentation! Beating your toes with a hammer just may be more productive. 🙂

    • Wally Fry says:

      Pretty sure beating on my toes is better that Arks last suggestion to you too!

  4. Pingback: The resurrection of Jesus Christ – Part Five | In My Father's House

  5. Pingback: The Naturalist’s dilemma | In My Father's House

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