So much of one’s interaction with atheists is just mind-numbing. Their repetition of false statements. Their belief in fallacious arguments. Old, old, old propositions, and long refuted atheist suppositions seem to get regurgitated in the atheist community every forty or fifty years. In my own case, four or five months seems to be the turn around time. One of the most tiresome comments made by atheists goes something like, “No one knows who wrote the Gospels.” Or they say that the Gospel's are so late dated that they can't be trusted.
We Christians have an enormous abundance of historical evidence from which we can solidify our faith. We have a solid, solid foundation of evidence-based data upon which to build our journey in Christ Jesus. Atheists are very fond of evidence - usually. The problem is, because atheists begin with the presupposition that God does not exist, whenever they run into evidence that points toward God, the atheist has to pretend to h/herself that the evidence was manufactured and that it therefore is not true.
When it comes to the authors and authority of the Gospels, extra-biblical testimony unanimously attributes the Gospels to their traditional authors. The term “Extra-biblical” is important to atheists because if a document was written, and it was later included into the Bible, well, they automatically view that document as a lie. So what is this evidence for who wrote the Gospels?
1) The Gospels and Acts are cited by a series of reports, regularly employed to establish authorship of secular works; and when this test is applied to the Gospels, their authenticity is firmly established. This chain of testimony exists from the Epistle of Barnabas (a contemporary of Jesus and His disciples), the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas, all the way to Eusebius. In fact, as has been repeatedly stated, there is better testimony for the authenticity of the New Testament books than for ANY classical work of antiquity.
Sadly, this doesn’t make any difference to atheists because they use a different standard for judging documents of antiquity IF they’ve been included into the New Testament. What is that standard you ask? Well, if any document from that time has been included into the New Testament, um, it's judged to be a lie, a fiction, untrustworthy, tampered with etc. etc. The only criteria for the atheist’s exclusion of the work, is its inclusion into the New Testament.
2) The Scriptures were quoted as authoritative and as one-of-a-kind. Theophilus, the writer against Artmon, Hippolitus, Origen and many others saw them as such.
3) The Scriptures were collected very early into a distinct volume. Ignatius refers to collections known as the Gospel and the Apostles, which is the same that we now call the Gospels and the Epistles. According to Eusebius, Quadratus distributed this same collection to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the same collection of writings that we call the New Testament.
4) These writings were held in high regard by Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus and others refer to them as Scriptures and Divine writings.
5) These same documents were publicly read and taught. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian each wrote about this.
6) Copies, commentaries, and harmonies were written on these books. Noteworthy in this connection is Tatian’s “Diatessaron,” which is a harmony of the four Gospels.
Listen now because this is important.
With the single exception of Clement’s commentary on the Revelation of Peter, NO commentary was ever written during the FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS afer Christ on ANY BOOK outside the New Testament.
7) The Scriptures were accepted as authentic by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples include the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others.
8) The Gospels and Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter were received without doubt as authentic even by those who doubted the authenticity of other books now in the canon. Origen reports that the four Gospels alone were received without dispute by the “whole Church of God under heaven.”
9) The early opponents of Christianity regarded the Gospels as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded. Celsus admitted that the Gospels were written by the disciples. Porphyry attacked Christianity as found in the Gospels. The Emperor Julian followed the same procedure.
10) Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, which always contained the Gospels and Acts. This is supported by quotes from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril and others.
11) The apocryphal books of the New Testament were NEVER treated with this kind of respect. With a single exception, no apocryphal gospel is ever even quoted by a known author during the first three hundred years after Christ. In fact, there is no evidence that any inauthentic gospel whatever existed in the first century, in which all four Gospels and Acts were written.
The apocryphal gospels:
. were never quoted,
. were not read in Christian assemblies,
. were not collected into a volume,
. were not listed in the catalogues,
. were not noticed by Christianity’s adversaries,
. were not appealed to by heretics and
. were not the subject of commentaries or collations,
but were nearly universally rejected by Christian writers of succeeding ages.
Reality is, the external evidence strongly confirms the authenticity of the Gospels. It can not in any way be denied that the Gospels contain the story that the original apostles proclaimed and for which they laboured, suffered and died. This is regardless of what your local atheist tries to tell you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Rest assured that I (and others far more learned than I) will respond to this post in greater detail. However, at this stage, I would like to humour you and ask one simple question:
If you watched me being killed, had my death verified by attending medical personnel and then I appeared to you alive the next day, would you believe me if I told you that I was the second coming of Christ? If yes, why? If no, why?
"If you watched me being killed, had my death verified by attending medical personnel and then I appeared to you alive the next day, would you believe me if I told you that I was the second coming of Christ? If yes, why? If no, why?"
No, but I would say that it was a miracle. Why? For at least five reasons.
1) Jesus said that the next time He comes, it will be evidenct to everyone on earth, in the blink of an eye and that He would come in power and glory to judge the living and the dead. Anything and anyone claiming to be Jesus that does not appear like that is and will be a fraud.
2) Because dead people don’t come back to life by natural means. That is why people try to explain away Jesus’ resurrection. They say Jesus wasn’t really dead. Or that He was in a different tomb. Or that someone stole His body. Or as the Muslims state, It was really Jesus who was crucified.
We’re all agreed that dead people don’t “naturally” come back to life. Something that needs to be remembered is that this was not just the resuscitation of a corpse. It was not a return to the earthly mortal life. This was the transformation of the body to a new mode of existence which Paul described as powerful, glorious, imperishable, and Spirit-directed - 1 Cor. 15:42-44.
3) While your resurrection was obviously supernatural, it did not take place within a religio-historical context. This is not true for Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection occurred within a religio-historical context and it came at the climax of His own life and teaching about His life, death and resurrection. The context of Jesus crucifixion was that He claimed to be God incarnate. That is why He was killed - for this blasphemy of calling Himself God.
4) There was no other confirmation of your resurrection besides my testimony. There was no empty casket or grave, no appearance to family members, no appearance to sceptics, no appearance to a large group of people and no repeated appearances over an extended period of time.
5) And most of all You never claimed to be Jesus / God - so why would I believe you to be Jesus?
What do you mean by "authenticity of the Gospels"?
Listen now because this is important.
With the single exception of Clement’s commentary on the Revelation of Peter, NO commentary was ever written during the FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS afer Christ on ANY BOOK outside the New Testament.
"Was ever written"? How do you know that? Since everything comes down to us as copies of copies if such writings were written, scribes might not have thought it worth their time and effort to copy them. What other books were never written just because you have not seen them?
I can't be bothered going through this brain-dump of uncompelling "evidence" so I'll take a few randomly.
4) These writings were held in high regard by Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus and others refer to them as Scriptures and Divine writings.
5) These same documents were publicly read and taught. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian each wrote about this.
How is this evidence of the authorship of the Christian gospels?
They were held in high regard and referred to as Scriptures? They were publicly read and taught? I'd be hard pressed to think of a religion that doesn't hold its holy texts in high regard!
In order to better understand the 4 gospels, I recommend this 2 minute video from William Lane Craig stating all the points that all 4 independent gospels are in agreement on and form the basis for Christianity.
Sorry, JD, there is something wrong with your link.
Let's try that again Flute. Take #2, William Lane Craig
Thanks JD, it worked that time.
all 4 gospels are in agreement?
so what is the lineage of jesus?
so how many people went to see the empty cave?
when the apostles where to see jesus did they travel or see him in that same city?
etc etc etc.
[waits for 'these are not contradictions! they are slight differences!']
yeah, those are what we call contradictions.
we have plenty of examples of additions and deletions in these 4 gospels since they where written.
The counsel of niscea had a LOT to do with why we don't have other commentaries...that whole burning of books, killing of dissenters, and exhile thing has a bit to do with it.
'these people said these books where highly regarded!'
yeah, and? that doesn't mean they where TRUE.
Oh look! A Dan Brown groupie. How cute.
Nice way of ignoring his comment Makarios.
TAM - "Rest assured that I (and others far more learned than I) will respond to this post in greater detail."
So, are these intelligent people on holidays?
=========
Explorer - Check out the link by JD. You argument is like saying that JFK is still alive because there are differing theories on how many shooters there were.
"we have plenty of examples of additions and deletions in these 4 gospels since they where written."
Any that aren't already noted in every Bible ever published?
I can't help myself here, but i just have to point out the following.
Joseph Smith claimed supernatural events had happened to him, which ultimately led to him being in posession of golden plates that he translated to create the book of mormon.
He has several witnesses who claim they saw/handled the plates from which he translated.
Joseph Smith was more than prepared to die for his belief, hence the mormon war. In fact, he was killed because of his belief. He could've easily exclaimed that it was all a lie before he was shot, but no. That is effectively the same argument for all those who died claiming they saw jesus etc.
Do you believe Joseph Smith's story?
Probably not.
Can you superimpose the rationale behind your disbelief in Joseph Smith and the book of mormon to the holy bible?
Probably not.
JD's video states that there are differences between the gospels.
Makarios' question, "Any that aren't already noted in every Bible ever published?" acknowledges that the gospels have been altered.
I am very interested to hear why Mak does not believe that Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and why the Book of Mormon is not an actual record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.
Rab - As I've said before,
What would you think if, as happened to Smith's followers, seven of the eleven disciples of Jesus recanted and changed their stories, i.e., admitted that they'd lied and that Jesus really hadn't risen from the dead? I don't think there'd be a Christian Church today if that had taken place. I certainly would be part of it.
On the contrary, we have:
. An empty tomb
. The dramatic change in the disciple’s character from cowards to fearless
. The conversion of the sceptic and enemy of Christians, Paul
. The conversion of the sceptic and half-brother of Jesus, James
. The sightings of the risen Jesus by hundreds of people in many different localities, in varied circumstances, in numerous social and emotional conditions where they ate with, listened to, talked with, touched and were taught by Jesus, testimonies of sightings that led to their deaths instead of recanting, that demands an explanation.
. The rise of the Christian Church, right there in Jerusalem where the murder of Jesus had taken place.
All of these demand an explanation and, I think, the resurrection of Jesus best explains them all.
And second, I'd probably be willing to be executed (shot) for my faith in Jesus. I can't say for sure if I'd allow myself to be tortured and killed in the manner of Jesus' disciples.
===============
"JD's video states that there are differences between the gospels."
Flute, think about that. What if four people said that they'd each interviewed who knows how many different witnesses and all four of these people published word for word identical books of what happened. THAT to me would raise my scepticism.
Here's an example of what "Rational Explorer calls contradictions.
1) Wyatt went with me to get the car from the garage today.
2) Wendy and I went to get the car from the garage today.
3) All of us went to get the car from the garage today.
These are all different.
Are they contradictory?
Are any of them wrong?
Are all of them wrong?
FACT: None of them are wrong. While they differ in the non essentials, they are unanimous in the essential detail that we got the car from the garage today.
It is exactly that same with the Gospel accounts. They are unanimous that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried in a rich man's grave and that He rose from the dead on the third day and that He was seen by many witness.
Your salvation is not going to be in doubt because it isn't clear how many women went to the tomb on Sunday morning. That is a non essential. And it's exactly the same type of non essential that Explorer calls a contradiction.
=============
"Makarios' question, "Any that aren't already noted in every Bible ever published?" acknowledges that the gospels have been altered."
So? If you have access to a Bible, look up Mark 16:8. Just after verse 8 you'll see something like, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
It's the same with the story of the "woman caught in adultery."
The reason that WE KNOW there have been additions is precisely BECAUSE we have such an abundance of well preserved copies (over 10,000) and very, very early copies (a thousand years earlier than any other work from that time in history)
Are you telling me that you reject every newspaper or youtube story or internet news agency that has ever made a mistake or even deliberate error? Of course not. So why do you hold the New Testament to a differnt standard? That's an important question that you need to answer - for yourself and your own well-being.
The New Testament is a collection of ancient INDEPENDENT documents that were circulating in the fist century AD. They were compiled into one "book." And despite what the Da Vince code would have you believe, there isn't some deep dark conspiracy to take you captive to some destructive cult.
Mak, I can't speak for why people with more knowledge relating to the alleged historicity of Jesus have not commented on this one. However, all you have provided is a list of people who think what you are asserting is correct.
You wrote:
4) These writings were held in high regard by Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus and others refer to them as Scriptures and Divine writings.
5) These same documents were publicly read and taught. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian each wrote about this.
This establishes nothing more than the fact that the craze of Christianity established a foothold in Roman society in the decades an centuries following the supposed death of the "prophet Jesus". If you study Roman history, you will find that these folks believed in all kinds of crazy things.
If we accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified by the Romans, the generally accepted approximate date of his death was 30 AD. Polycarp wasn't born until 69, Justin the Martyr in 100, Tertullian in 160 and Origen in 18. Irenaeus died in 202. Cyprian died in 258!
Then it gets better. You write: The apocryphal books of the New Testament were NEVER treated with this kind of respect. Based on that kind of reasoning, I should rely on TV Guide for historical accuracy on Rome rather than Gibbon because more North Americans generally refer to it.
The reality is not that the external evidence strongly confirms the authenticity of the Gospels as you suggest. The reality is that the commentators in the centuries following the supposed death of Jesus referred to the gospels as being authentic. Don't you see the difference? It's kind of like really strong hearsay evidence but the problem is that it is hearsay of miraculous events. You would have a problem believing that a miraculous event occurred if you saw it with your own eyes (though, evidently, apparently not as difficult a time as I would). Why are you willig to accept such piss poor evidence of events that, if true, shake to the core all you know about nature? I just don't get it but I suspect that childhood indoctrination and wishful thinking have plenty to do with it.
Joseph Smith claimed supernatural events had happened to him, which ultimately led to him being in posession of golden plates that he translated to create the book of mormon.
So you shamelessly admit that you didnt even bother to do a comparative study between different religions before spouting off factual nonsense and demonstrating you intellectual dishonesty by lumping them all in together. Nice.
"Some Mormons will agree that all three witnesses denied the book of Mormon but came back to deny their denial. Imagine the twelve apostles suddenly denying Jesus rose from the dead in public, only to ask people to ignore their denials and accept their testimony once again. This the apostles of Christ never did." Link
JD's video states that there are differences between the gospels.
Makarios' question, "Any that aren't already noted in every Bible ever published?" acknowledges that the gospels have been altered.
Flute, it's like 4 eyewitnesses seeing the same event and describing it differently. If all 4 gospels were carbon copies of one another with each point being 100% the same in all 4 accounts, I would suspect a fake. All are in agreement on the points cited by the video and there are many more that can be made if asserted to in 3 of the 4.
TAM - You're missing the point of the post. You can find it in Point #1.
I wrote this in response to your comment that we don't know who wrote the Gospels and that they were written centuries after Jesus died.
Instead we have in our possession a solid paper trail right from after Jesus resurrection onward establishing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the original and early authors of the Gospels. What they wrote is not an issue in this post.
Oh, and JD, thanks for stepping in. I really appreciate your help on any and all of these posts.
Flute must have thought you the kind of Christian who believes there are no errors in the Bible. But since you admit that the Bible contains errors, he'll have to change his track.
JD, i'm sick fed up being accused of intellectual dishonesty by someone who believes in the story of noah's ark, or at least isn't prepared to admit we know it never happened.
Your level of delusion is incredible.
That is all.
"I am very interested to hear why Mak does not believe that Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and why the Book of Mormon is not an actual record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas."
Sure, no problem. What we know about Joseph Smith is that he and his father, when they lived in New York, were obsessed with finding Captain Kids’s buried gold. Then what does Smith later claim he finds? Golden plates from the Angel Moroni, and then they disappear and are supposedly taken to heaven and never seen again.
It’s an elaborate hoax, compared to the Gospels, with the evident sincerity of the people in what they were reporting. The problem with Mormonism is basically one of credibility because of the unreliability of Joseph Smith and a blatant lack of corroboration.
Unlike the gospels, whose credibility has been greatly enhanced by archaeology, archaeological discoveries have REPEATEDLY FAILED to substantiate the Book of Mormon.
JD, i'm sick fed up being accused of intellectual dishonesty by someone who believes in the story of noah's ark, or at least isn't prepared to admit we know it never happened.
So you shamelessly admit that (again) you dismiss out of hand yet another Biblical account without even examing evidence for it. Socrates would have made mince-meat out of you Rab.
Today 60% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of the Great Flood, and most cultures record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories....."the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account."
Why don't you educate yourself before spouting off yet again and proving that you're intellectually dishonest when you could just state much less in your posts and let others just assume that is the case?
"Today 60% of Americans accept as truth the Biblical account of the Great Flood"
How sad. If there was a great flood imagine the huge amount of evidence it would leave! Some cultures that were around at the time of the flood don't mention being killed by it.
JD im sick of this bull-fucking-shit that comes out of your mouth on a daily basis.
Why do you think i haven't examined the evidence?
I've been over this with you in another thread but seeing as your too fucking stupid/ too busy trying to take the piss for no good reason i'm going to tell you again.
Geological evidence flat out proves that at no time has the entire earth been flooded.
Secondly, there isnt enough water for this feat to ever have happened given the geography of the planet.
Logistically, how the fuck does a geriatric get two of EVERY FUCKING CREATURE on the planet onto an ARK? Emphasis on EVERY. I'd love to know what the fuck happened to plants while he was at it.
Think about it.
He has to feed them, dispose of their waste and keep control of them at all times.
How does he build an ark big enough to accomplish this? Think of the size of the biggest zoo's and they have nowhere near two of every animal. Never mind the resources and time needed.
How the fuck did they get back to their originl habitats and continents after it had finished?
How the fuck did the land dry up so quickly?
How did they reproduce so fucking fast after the flood?
Where was the food after the flood?
How did people get back on the other continents?
I could go on and on with simple questions like that which to any reasonable person indicates that it obviously never happened.
INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY????
WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???
You are a grade A deluded jackass if you believe that the story of Noah's ark ever happened.
You have one ludcirous explanation for the ridiculous absurdity of the story - God did it. God did it. God did it.
You make me cringe when you use the term 'intellectual dishonesty' and 'evidence'.
Makarios - Please tell me that although you believe in god, you surely do not believe in the story of noah's ark. Do you honestly side with JD on this matter?
And JD, what the fuck are you trying to prove with the link you provided? That is utter nonsense. Another evangelical christian biased website that was created by people as foolish as yourself.
Want to see the wikipedia counter-article? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth
MYTH.
The bible isn't the first place to come up with floods.
You are actually insane if you believe in it. Insane.
- Rant over, see you's in two weeks.
What cultures would those be?
Do you honestly side with JD on this matter?"
Absolutely! The questions that you ask show that you haven't even read the account in the Bible and if you have read it you clearly aren't able to understand what's being said.
The questions that you ask show that you haven't even read the account in the Bible and if you have read it you clearly aren't able to understand what's being said.
Then why not try to answer his questions?
"Geological evidence flat out proves that at no time has the entire earth been flooded.”
If there had been a flood, what would you expect to see that is different from what we have now? Finding billions upon billions of fossils of plants and animals in layers of what was once sediment many kilometres thick is NOT consistent with a flood? Finding these fossils and plant matter that were obviously buried quickly is NOT consistent with a flood?
=====================
“Secondly, there isnt enough water for this feat to ever have happened given the geography of the planet.”
Yes, but how to you know what the geography of the planet was like then? If the sea floor was raised by half, and the mountains lowered by half, currently there is enough water in the oceans to cover the earth to a depth of almost 3 kms. You have no way of knowing if current ocean mountain ranges and valleys even existed then. The Himalayas are formed from what was once ocean sediment and contain masses of fossils of ocean animals and plants. We have no way of knowing how much of this water was held in subterranean lakes. Nor do we know how much was held in the canopy of cloud that surrounded and encased the earth until this flood. Both of these, the eruption of subterranean lakes and the collapse of the canopy were both parts of what caused the flood.
==================
Logistically, how the fuck does a geriatric get two of EVERY FUCKING CREATURE”
Where does it say two of every creature? Depending on one’s definition of “kind” estimates range anywhere from 2,000 to 16,000animals required to populate the earth with today’s species. We’re told that by supernatural means, “they came.” The ark carried only young air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds.
If a cubit equals 46 cms. “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.” This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people.
==================
I'd love to know what the fuck happened to plants while he was at it.”
Are you suggesting that plants can’t and don’t go dormant under extreme conditions?
==========
He has to feed them, dispose of their waste and keep control of them at all times.”
Says who? Many animals go into “survival mode” and appear dead in crisis situations. Perhaps, in the dark, they went into some type of hibernation. Again, we’re talking about an act of God, a miracle so all options are open.
===============
“How the fuck did they get back to their originl habitats and continents after it had finished?”
There was probably only one continent at the time of the flood. In fact theorists believe that the flood is what triggered continental drift. Genesis 10:25 says, “It was at this time that the earth began to move.”
===================
"How the fuck did the land dry up so quickly?”
Define quickly. They were on the boat for a year. As the earth’s crust collapsed and warped, huge amounts of water could have disappeared / dropped very quickly, pouring into today's ocean, underground caverns that exist to this day. Perhaps you’re just not able to make the connection between the vast under ground lakes and rivers that exist?
=================
How did they reproduce so fucking fast after the flood?
Did they?
=============
I could go on and on with simple questions like that which to any reasonable person indicates that it obviously never happened.
I don’t think it’s obvious at all, and I’m a pretty reasonable person.
Mak, my friend you are losing credibility with all those but the fundie delusion set. You wrote: but how do you know what the geography of the planet was like then? We know the geography from advances in the theory of plate tectonics. If you can find me ONE qualified geologist or oceanographer (not employed by the Discovery Institute) who is willing to say that it is even remotely possible that the entire earth was flooded during the past 100,000 years (I guess you would be happy with only 6000 years), I look forward to receiving the cite.
The age of smirkish respect for delusional religious views (such as the story of Noah's Ark) is fast coming to an end. People are waking up to the fact that this crap has been spread for too long and they are finally putting their intellectual foot down.
Assuming that we don't destroy ourselves before then (and how the fundies would embrace such an armegeddon!), I am convinced that historians will look back to the time when myths such as these continued to be accepted by educated folk and laugh ... face in palm.
Maybe -
We know the geography from advances in the theory of plate tectonics."
"Most of those Inland Places. . . are, or have been heretofore under the Water. . . the Waters have been forc'd away from the Parts formerly cover'd, and many of those surfaces are now raised above the level of the Water's Surface many scores of Fathoms. It seems not improbable, that the tops of the highest and most considerable Mountains in the World have been under Water, and that they themselves most probably seem to have been the Effects of some very great Earthquake.
Robert Hooke (1635-1703)."
TAM are you saying the all the mountain ranges that we have now have always been existent. Are you in fact saying at that one time the Himilayas were infact covered with water?
For crying out loud makarios.
You are not as reaonable as you think you are if you believe the story of Noah´s Ark.
All that shit you spouted made me want to look away.
What about this then? -
The problem of the lions.
They get off the ark, go home, and unsurprisingly become hungry rather quickly.
Being carnivorous, what do they eat?
One of the remaining zebras/wildabeast/hyena/sprinbok/ etc etc etc?
I´m sure you appreciate what i am getting at here, and this problem of what to eat is completely applicable to every creature, particularly carnivores.
Oh, plants can drown by the way. You stick a tree that isn't adapted to underwater conditions in that very spot, it will drown.
Plants respire too.
Adios from Cancun.
Post a Comment