Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by Peter Kirby »

hakeem wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:06 pm In effect, the supposed Eusebius had the very same details about Marcion's preaching 200 years earlier in Justin's Apology.

Eusebius' Church History Justin's First Apology
4.11. 9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common. XXVI And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.

Eusebius looks to have lifted this passage from Justin's text.

Eusebius refers to Tertullian in Church History, 2.2.4-6.
4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows:
5. “But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.
6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians.” Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.
The note from Schaff's edition is written:
Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of Tertullian’s which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian’s works, or at least the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen’s note in his edition of Eusebius’ History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of Tertullian’s Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible.
If Eusebius read only the works of Tertullian that had been translated into Greek, it's understandable that he might look to Greek writers when talking about Marcion.
davidmartin
Posts: 1595
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion)

Post by davidmartin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:51 pm One of your extracts from Irenaeus mentions the Apocalypse of John, and I have suggested before that Revelation 2.14 and 2.20 are reactions against the Pauline position, and that Revelation 2.2 and 21.14 are ways of suggesting that Paul is not an apostle, even though he calls himself one: most notably in every one of his letters. I suggest that the seven letters in Revelation are, in fact, a reclaiming of Asia Minor from (some kind of) Paulinism, the treatment of food sacrificed to idols being one of the main points of contention.
Factionalism. Yet Revelation was accepted by many
Hence why I think orthodoxy blended elements of Paul and his more Judaic opponents, as Acts appears to describe took place. And this occured over a certain period slightly out of sight chronologically from the first textual witnesses. During this event various things were agreed. The non-eating of food sacrificed was one of them maybe. So Revelation clashing with Paul's epistle's is exactly expected from such a union, so as much as this points to an opposition on the part of Revelation to Paulinism it also points to a later union of previously opposing factions. And neither are quite the original thing

Interestingly the Preaching of Paul has the Paul/Peter big meeting taking place in Rome, not before. That might suggest Romans was written after this meeting and would make Galatians maybe also a response to it. The orthodox response was no no Peter came to fight Simon not Paul cause they had to have them in agreement to hold the authority/lineage of both.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by hakeem »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:58 pm
hakeem wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:06 pm In effect, the supposed Eusebius had the very same details about Marcion's preaching 200 years earlier in Justin's Apology.

Eusebius' Church History Justin's First Apology
4.11. 9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common. XXVI And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.

Eusebius looks to have lifted this passage from Justin's text.
That is the precise problem. Eusebius should have had knowledge of Marcion's supposed Apostolikon and Evangelium circulating in the Christian community for around 200 years and Tertullian's supposed 5 books and multiple versions of "Against Marcion" in circulation for about 100 years prior to the writing of Church History yet Eusebius only repeated almost verbatin the words of Justin written since 138-161 CE.

Peter Kirby wrote:If Eusebius read only the works of Tertullian that had been translated into Greek, it's understandable that he might look to Greek writers when talking about Marcion.
Eusebius have debunked such a notion. The writer admitted he used the Latin version of Tertullian's "Apology".

Eusebius' "Church History"3.33.3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

The fact that Eusebius knew Latin and writings of Tertullian appears to be evidence that he knew nothing of any version of Tertullian's "Against Marcion" in Latin or Greek.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by Peter Kirby »

hakeem wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:53 am Eusebius have debunked such a notion. The writer admitted he used the Latin version of Tertullian's "Apology".

Eusebius' "Church History"3.33.3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

Your interpretation is wrong. This is the same Apology that was previously referenced.
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:58 pm Eusebius refers to Tertullian in Church History, 2.2.4-6.
4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows:
5. “But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.
6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians.” Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.
The note from Schaff's edition is written:
Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of Tertullian’s which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian’s works, or at least the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen’s note in his edition of Eusebius’ History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of Tertullian’s Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible.
If Eusebius read only the works of Tertullian that had been translated into Greek, it's understandable that he might look to Greek writers when talking about Marcion.
Adelbert Davids also observes on how Eusebius took little interest in Latin literature (The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought, p. 195):
Many sources from the earliest history of the Christian church are known to us only through Eusebius’ History. He quotes extensively from them or describes their content. As assistant to Pamphilus, who died as a martyr in about 310, he had easy access to the impressive library of Origen in Caesarea, of which Pamphilus, a great admirer of Origen, was in charge. He could also make use of the library of the church of Jerusalem. The Jewish writers Philo and Flavius Josephus were very important witnesses for Eusebius, and of the Christian authors writing about the apostolic era, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria were particularly important;5that is, the authors of Greek texts which dealt almost exclusively with the situation in the Eastern part of the empire. Eusebius was hardly interested in the Latin West. If the West was mentioned, it was always in reference to Roman contacts with the East.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by hakeem »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am
hakeem wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:53 am Eusebius have debunked such a notion. The writer admitted he used the Latin version of Tertullian's "Apology".

Eusebius' "Church History"3.33.3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

Your interpretation is wrong. This is the same Apology that was previously referenced.
i have nothing to interpret.

The passage cleary states "We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above."

Eusebius' Church History 3.33. 3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by Peter Kirby »

hakeem wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:20 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:10 am
hakeem wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:53 am Eusebius have debunked such a notion. The writer admitted he used the Latin version of Tertullian's "Apology".

Eusebius' "Church History"3.33.3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

Your interpretation is wrong. This is the same Apology that was previously referenced.
i have nothing to interpret.

The passage cleary states "We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above."

Eusebius' Church History 3.33. 3.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.

The Apology was written originally in Latin, as Eusebius notes. The earlier reference makes it clear that Eusebius used a Greek translation that already existed, and this later reference also mentions the translation.
We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. The translation runs as follows: And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:23 pm All of this being the case, we form a picture of Christians in the middle of the second century being dominated by the kind of teaching being identified (in modern times) as "Valentinian."
I guess it makes sense that Tertullian starts Against the Valentinians with this line:
The Valentinians, as everyone knows, are the most commonly encountered sect of heretics
Tertullian also says that the Valentinians believed there was a "higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos" - the Cross which marked the boundary of the Pleroma, above the seven heavens, above the Demiurge, and above Achamoth (the female being abandoned by Sophia, the last aeon, whose suffering and longing brought forth the world and its demiurge).
Following the analogy of the first Tetrad, they crowd him with four substances: the spirit-like from Achamoth, the soul-like from the Demiurge, the bodily which is indescribable, and the substance from Saviour, namely dove-like. Saviour at any rate remained in Christ untouched, unhurt, unknown. Finally, when captured, he left him during Pilate's questioning. Likewise, the seed from his mother did not receive injury, being equally, immune and unknown even to the Demiurge.

The soul-like and bodily Christ suffered to illustrate the experience of the higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos, when he shaped Achamoth in essence, though not in intelligible form.

In such a way everything becomes an illustration or image; even, obviously, these Christians themselves are imaginary.
This is a pretty clear attestation of a crucifixion above theme (with the caveat of a crucifixion below as well).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:15 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:23 pm All of this being the case, we form a picture of Christians in the middle of the second century being dominated by the kind of teaching being identified (in modern times) as "Valentinian."
I guess it makes sense that Tertullian starts Against the Valentinians with this line:
The Valentinians, as everyone knows, are the most commonly encountered sect of heretics
Tertullian also says that the Valentinians believed there was a "higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos" - the Cross which marked the boundary of the Pleroma, above the seven heavens, above the Demiurge, and above Achamoth (the female being abandoned by Sophia, the last aeon, whose suffering and longing brought forth the world and its demiurge).
Following the analogy of the first Tetrad, they crowd him with four substances: the spirit-like from Achamoth, the soul-like from the Demiurge, the bodily which is indescribable, and the substance from Saviour, namely dove-like. Saviour at any rate remained in Christ untouched, unhurt, unknown. Finally, when captured, he left him during Pilate's questioning. Likewise, the seed from his mother did not receive injury, being equally, immune and unknown even to the Demiurge.

The soul-like and bodily Christ suffered to illustrate the experience of the higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos, when he shaped Achamoth in essence, though not in intelligible form.

In such a way everything becomes an illustration or image; even, obviously, these Christians themselves are imaginary.
This is a pretty clear attestation of a crucifixion above theme (with the caveat of a crucifixion below as well).
Indeed: Two crucifixion stories: the gospel Jesus crucifixion under Pilate (i.e. an earthly crucifixion story) and a Pauline heavenly, spiritual - or intellectual and philosophical - crucifixion story). Yes, to a certain extent the two are brought together via the gospel resurrection story. But even here the post-resurrection story has the disciples failing to recognize the resurrected Jesus - until he shows the marks of the crucifixion. The new, resurrected, Jesus retains elements of the old but within a spiritual i.e. an intellectual 'body'. The gospel writers emphasize the earthly, the physical. The Pauline author emphasizes the spiritual/intellectual element of the NT Jesus figure. All that basically boils down to is that physical reality, in this case Jewish history, was instrumental in bringing about a new spiritual understanding, a new philosophical world view.

Yep, common knowledge - everyone knows Christianity has Jewish roots - end of story for many people. But somehow or another that gospel story remains a source of contention. Is that story history, is it mythology, is it allegory or just plain simple fiction. We are almost 2000 years away from the 15th year of Tiberius - and yet answers to these questions still remain controversial. And no, Pauline theology can't answer them. That's the job for historical research.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:15 pm
Tertullian...says that the Valentinians believed there was a "higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos" - the Cross which marked the boundary of the Pleroma, above the seven heavens, above the Demiurge, and above Achamoth (the female being abandoned by Sophia, the last aeon, whose suffering and longing brought forth the world and its demiurge).

.
Following the analogy of the first Tetrad, they crowd him with four substances: (i) the spirit-like from Achamoth, (ii) the soul-like from the Demiurge, (iii) the bodily which is indescribable, and (iv) the substance from Saviour, namely dove-like. Saviour at any rate remained in Christ untouched, unhurt, unknown.

Finally, when captured, he left him during Pilate's questioning. Likewise, the seed from his mother did not receive injury, being equally, immune and unknown even to the Demiurge.

The soul-like and bodily Christ suffered to illustrate the experience of the higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos, when he shaped Achamoth in essence, though not in intelligible form.

In such a way everything becomes an illustration or image; even, obviously, these Christians themselves are imaginary.
.

:eh: Interesting that Pilate gets a mention in a reference to the Valentianian Saviour and as influencing the entities therein ...
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 11:15 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:23 pm All of this being the case, we form a picture of Christians in the middle of the second century being dominated by the kind of teaching being identified (in modern times) as "Valentinian."

Tertullian...says that the Valentinians believed there was a "higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos" - the Cross which marked the boundary of the Pleroma, above the seven heavens, above the Demiurge, and above Achamoth (the female being abandoned by Sophia, the last aeon, whose suffering and longing brought forth the world and its demiurge).

.
Following the analogy of the first Tetrad, they crowd him with four substances: (i) the spirit-like from Achamoth, (ii) the soul-like from the Demiurge, (iii) the bodily which is indescribable, and (iv) the substance from Saviour, namely dove-like. Saviour at any rate remained in Christ untouched, unhurt, unknown.

Finally, when captured, he left him during Pilate's questioning. Likewise, the seed from his mother did not receive injury, being equally, immune and unknown even to the Demiurge.

The soul-like and bodily Christ suffered to illustrate the experience of the higher Christ who was stretched on Cross, otherwise known as Horos, when he shaped Achamoth in essence, though not in intelligible form.

In such a way everything becomes an illustration or image; even, obviously, these Christians themselves are imaginary.
.

This is a pretty clear attestation of a crucifixion above theme (with the caveat of a crucifixion below as well).
.

Not just Horos in the Valentianian system but [sometimes, at least] Horos-Stauros, with Stauros being a god and stauros being the Greek word meaning cross and manifestations of it meaning crucifixion.
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:17 am
.
The Valentinian system

2.6 Horos

A figure entirely peculiar to Valentinian Gnosticism is that of Horos (the Limiter). The name is perhaps an echo of the Egyptian Horus.[14][21]

The task of Horos is to separate the fallen Aeons from the upper world of Aeons. At the same time he becomes a kind of world-creative power, who in this capacity helps to construct an ordered world out of Sophia and her passions. He is also called Stauros (cross), and we frequently meet with references to the figure of Stauros. Speculations about the Stauros are older than Christianity, and a Platonic conception may have been at work here. Plato had already stated that the World-Soul revealed itself in the form of the letter Chi (X), by which he meant that figure described in the heavens by the intersecting orbits of the sun and the planetary ecliptic. Since through this double orbit all the movements of the heavenly powers are determined, so all "becoming" and all life depend on it, and thus we can understand the statement that the World-Soul appears in the form of an X, or a cross.[14]

The cross can also stand for the wondrous Aeon on whom depends the ordering and life of the world, and thus Horos-Stauros appears here as the first redeemer of Sophia from her passions, and as the orderer of the creation of the world which now begins. Naturally, then, the figure of Horos-Stauros was often assimilated to that of the Christian Redeemer. We possibly find echoes of this in the Gospel of Peter, where the Cross itself is depicted as speaking and even floating out of the tomb.

(These paragraphs are from V.5 here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Enc ... lentinians,
which is a reproduction of [14] Bousset, Wilhelm (1911) "Valentinus and the Valentinians," Encyclopædia Britannica. 27 (11th ed.). pp. 852–857)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentini ... ian_system

21, Legge, Francis (1914). Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity. New York: University Books. p.105.
.

It's interesting that Stauros was the name of a theological entity in what would have been a theological system - albeit a gnostic one - concurrent with early Christianity and particularly with Justin Martyr.
.

From a crude translation of a passage in Epiphanius -

he is Σταυρον, Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Σταυρον, Stauros [ l. Σωτήρα, Saviour ] as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρον [stauros; cross], and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;" and again, "Taking up the σταυρον [stauros; cross] follow me;" but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."

Post Reply