Responding to Matt Dillahunty on Jesus’ Resurrection.

Screen Shot 2016-09-22 at 8.07.48 PM.png

In a debate on the Christian show ‘Unbelievable’ the atheist Matt Dillahunty charges that he doubts the resurrection evidence because “the bible is the claim. It’s not the evidence for the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what we have with the Bible are anonymous texts, non originals, written by non-eyewitnesses of claims that we cannot verify.”  This is very much the general sort of challenge that Christians will face when debating the historicity of the resurrection. However, how does it stand after some scrutiny?

1. “The Bible is the claim. It’s not the evidence for the claim”

Dillahunty is essentially arguing that we can’t use the New Testament historical documents as evidence to argue for Jesus’ resurrection. In other words, since the Bible says Jesus was resurrected from the dead as an act of God then one can’t use “the Bible” as evidence. My response would be that this challenge would stand if the Bible was just a single book of which it isn’t. However, because “the Bible” is a substantial library of historical documents and claims it can be matched and corroborated against other biblical texts. The historian, for example, can put the Gospel of Mark against the Gospel of John, or Paul against Acts, or 1 Peter against 1 Timothy etc., in order to review the history behind them, and whether that history is corroborated and so on. What do these texts have to say about early Christian belief in Jesus? What do they say about the societies in which they were penned? In this way it’s matching history against history, and thus I believe Dillahunty’s claim of “the Bible” as a singular entity is unwarranted.

Secondly, the Bible is not just one monolithic claim. It makes many claims surrounding Jesus. It documents a whole movement in the early church that follows on from him, the ancient Judaism that preceded him, and so on. Thus Dillahunty’s dismissal would have us reject a rich reservoir of history. He would have us simply dismiss the gospel accounts, the Apostle Paul’s own letters, and the many other letters of the New Testament. But that is clearly irrational for someone like Dillahunty who is all about evidence, reason, and inquiry. No historian throws out historical evidence as Dillahunty suggests that we should do. My contention is that the New Testament provides evidence for early Christianity and the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. Historians would agree with me on this basic fact. Thus, can the New Testament, as part of “the Bible”, be used as evidence for the resurrection? Yes, it can.

Thirdly, something that stood out for me, is just because a specific thing (a text, a document, book etc.) is a claim doesn’t make the claim false. That has to be argued on other grounds. Say, for instance, that we find a text saying how God opened some portal for Jack, and that Jack was taken to heaven through that portal. Does the fact that this single text which makes the claim that Jack was teleported to heaven false? No, the text could be true even though it is making a claim about itself. So I don’t think that Dillahunty’s claim is necessarily a good one.

2. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

This line is quite problematic when we actually look closer at it. On a first note extraordinary claims (say a miracle) do not require extraordinary evidence, rather they require sufficient evidence. An extraordinary claim may very well be the best explanation for a set of data and if so it would be silly to simply dismiss it. Secondly, this is another blind dismissal by Dillahunty. What I really get from this line is that Dillahunty simply raises the bar of what constitutes evidence so high that it merely dismisses all evidence that doesn’t agree with his own atheistic presuppositions. So whenever he is confronted with evidence that threatens his atheism he will simply retort that the evidence is not “extraordinary enough.” That’s hardly openminded to evidence and reason. Thirdly, Dillahunty’s standard  is very subjective. What constitutes “extraordinary evidence?” Who is the arbitrator? Who gets to decide?

Finally, consider probability theory. Apologists routinely point out that Jesus’ resurrection is best explained by a set of facts known as the minimal facts. The minimal facts approach only considers historical data that the majority of historians and critical scholars accept. Four of these facts are quite pertinent, namely that -1- Jesus died via crucifixion, -2- that he was buried, -3- that three days later the tomb Jesus was placed in was found empty, and -4- that the disciples, the persecutor Paul, the doubting brother James, and others had post-mortem experiences of the resurrected Jesus. This are facts accepted by the overwhelming majority of historians. Now, if we were to apply probability theory to these four basic facts we would need to then ask “What would the probability be of the resurrection not happening given these four facts?” To which philosopher William Craig answers: “It is highly, highly, highly, improbable that we should have that evidence [four facts] if the resurrection had not occurred” (1). So really Dillahunty’s challenge experiences a 180 degree turn.

3. “…what we have with the Bible are anonymous texts, non originals, written by non-eyewitnesses…”  

Now, there is quite a lot here. Dillahunty essentially wants to undermine the biblical testimony that provides evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. First he says that “what we have with the Bible are anonymous texts…” We shall accept that this is the consensus view of scholarship. The majority of scholars identify the gospel authors as anonymous. But, yet again, historians will not agree with Dillahunty that anonymity equates with unreliability, or that because they are anonymous they must somehow be questionable. Firstly, anonymity doesn’t equate to total ignorance. The fact that we don’t know who penned the Gospel of John doesn’t mean we don’t know things about the author. We may never know his name but we can know a number of things about him. Based on internal evidence we can know that he was a Jew, that he wrote for a Jewish audience, and that he knew about Jewish customs, Jerusalem & Jesus’ ministry. Although he was a Jew he is also evidently hostile to the Jewish enemies of Jesus. We can also know approximately when he, and our other gospel authors penned their works. In reference to Matthew’s author it is likely that he was a Christian Jew, that he was familiar with Jewish history, customs, ideas, and the classes of people as well as with Palestinian geography. Luke’s author was clearly educated, probably lived in the city, wasn’t a Jew or a Palestinian, and was a person who respected manual work. Mark wrote for a Greek & a gentile audience as seen in the author’s need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms. This audience was likely made up of Greek-speaking Christians probably in Rome although Galilee, Antioch, and southern Syria have also been suggested as alternatives. So anonymity does not equate to totally being in the dark. In this light the actual names of the authors do not matter one bit. Whether John’s author was named Jack or Sam really doesn’t matter given what we can know about the author.

Then Dillahunty says that the gospels accounts are based on “non-eyewitnesses of claims.” Firstly, it is simply false on at least one front. Mark’s gospel makes use of a pre-Markan Passion narrative, “The idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars” (2). Exegete and philosopher William Lane Craig provides a fuller examination, “Most scholars today agree with this [that Mark had a source he used]. Any reconstruction of this source is controversial, and not widely accepted. That is to say, did verse 5 of chapter 15 belong to the pre contents of the pre-Markan passion source may be in debate, the actual existence of this source is readily accepted… That Mark was using and relied upon a pre-Markan passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eyewitness testimony” (3). In other words, it is very probable that we have eyewitness testimony to Jesus’ passion, the empty tomb (4), the burial (5), and several of Jesus’ miracles (6). That’s really good historical information in any historian’s book.

Secondly, again the conclusion just does not follow. Because the gospels rely on second-hand testimony does not mean that the testimony is unreliable. The real question is whether or not the historical traditions the gospel authors make use of is worthy of consideration or not. Most historians would say that we should consider the testimony of the gospel authors. According to Bart Ehrman, Christianity’s biggest critic in historical scholarship, to accept the historical nature of the gospels “is not for religious or theological reasons… these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple” (7). This is because historians have a criteria through which they judge the reliability of historical texts. And when we vet the New Testament texts through this process they are as good as any other historical evidence, and oftentimes in the context of earliness and manuscript attestation, far better. And besides that second hand testimony is actually not bad testimony since it is evidently testimony that is very close to the original. Historians are able to confidently reconstruct historical events that are based upon third, fourth and so on hand testimony. First hand testimony is always the best but it isn’t the only standard for measuring reliability.

4. “…claims that we cannot verify.”

I suspect Dillahunty is promoting a naive empiricism in the way he is equating the historical method with scientific certainty. If so, then he is really contrasting apples and oranges. Historiography is very much grounded upon probability. Unlike a scientific experiment historians cannot repeat events of the past. Instead, they have to make sense of evidence of another kind that comes down to them through history. In this way it is a question that touches on the philosophy of history especially in the context of “the problem of historical knowledge.” But that might derail us if we go further down that trail. However, on one hand I actually agree with Dillahunty. When we approach history, and especially Jesus’ resurrection, we cannot set it up again, observe it, and then empirically verify it. However, what we do have is historical textual evidence that we need to consider. In this way it comes down to probability concerning that evidence. Although we cannot achieve absolute certainty we can obtain a high or a good degree of probability. My contention then is that it is far more probable, given the historical evidence at our disposal, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. It is thus no good for Dillahunty to merely dismiss this evidence because it cannot be scientifically verified.

5. The Biblical texts are “non originals.”

Dillahunty is seemingly naive when it comes to history if this is the argument he wishes to use. Nearly no autographs (the first text/document penned by an original author as opposed to a copyist) from the ancient world exists for historians to use. Instead, historians look at the manuscript evidence and from there try to determine what the original documents would have said. We have this manuscript attestation in abundance for the New Testament. For instance, we have over 5000 copies in the original language of Greek (8) which surpasses anything else we have from other ancient Greco-Roman works. Habermas captures this well, “What is usually meant is that the New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing…In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn’t guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text” (9). So, that’s the real question, namely, can we reconstruct what the original autographs would have said? Historians will say that we can. So it isn’t a problem that we do not have the originals.


1. Craig, W. 2012. Stephen Law on the Non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Available.

2. Early Christian Writings. The Passion Narrative.

3. Craig, W. 2011. Pre-Markan Source and the Resurrection of Jesus.

4. Craig, W. 2009. Independent Sources For Jesus Burial and Empty Tomb.

5. Craig, W. Doctrine of Christ (part 18).

6. Meier, P. 1991. A Marginal Jew. p. 620.

7. Ehrman, Bart. 2008. The New Testament. p. 229.

8.  Elliott, K. & Moir, I. 2000. Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament. p. 1.

9. Habermas, G. Dr. Habermas Answers Important Questions.

3 responses to “Responding to Matt Dillahunty on Jesus’ Resurrection.

  1. All of your counter-arguments are incredibly weak.
    1) While the fact that the stories are in the Bible certainly don’t make the claims false, neither do they make the claims true. Yes, there are multiple stories about Jesus’ resurrection, but as you’re aware, several of those (the Synoptic Gospels) are widely agreed as being derived from a common origin. Hence those redundant derivations add nothing.

    The rest of the stories disagree on a variety of points (e.g. what were Jesus’ last words?) and/or make no logical sense in some cases (e.g. why did the women go to the tomb for the purpose of anointing the body, given that they knew the tomb was sealed by a stone?). So the stories sound a great deal like what one would get as a result of the normal sorts of embellishment that occurs when stories are passed orally from person to person (in this case, for decades, before they were actually written down).

    So the fact that there are multiple, sometimes inconsistent stories, written by members of the Jesus cult, could be explained in either of two ways:
    a) It really happened, mostly as told in the stories, or
    b) The stories (which were written years after the supposed events) are nothing more than the eventual documentation of urban legends that grew in scope over several decades.

    Occam’s razor would indicate option b as the most likely answer. We have had many reported sightings of Elvis since his death. No rational person believes them.

    2) I understand why you wish to reject the standard that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, but it is a valid standard nonetheless. If I were to claim that I can fly, and if I had written affidavits from three friends who said they had seen me fly, would you accept that I can fly?

    You criticize Dillahunty’s standard as being too subjective, yet your “sufficient evidence” standard is even more subjective, because at least with the “extraordinary evidence” bar, we know the bar is set very high. The “sufficient evidence” bar could be set extremely low for one person, and at an extraordinary height for another. So to use your own words, “Who is the arbitrator? Who gets to decide?”

    And you misstate the minimal facts. It is NOT a fact that the majority of independent scholars agree on those supposed facts. That’s only true of Christian scholars. Therefore the only true “minimal facts” we have are that the biblical stories describe the events you listed. And because your probability analysis is founded on false assumptions, the conclusions are invalid.

    3) While I would agree that the anonymity of the texts doesn’t invalidate the stories, it DOES degrade the credibility. ANY rational person (including historians) will assign different credibility to a story depending on who authored it. With an anonymous story, one normally has to assume the worst, since there is no basis to assume any special credibility of the author.

    You also err in your criticism of Dillahunty’s observation that the gospel accounts are based on “non-eyewitnesses of claims”. The existence of a pre-Markan narrative doesn’t change the fact that the WRITTEN stories themselves were not written by eyewitnesses. They are therefore hearsay. Being hearsay doesn’t make them wrong, but again, it is inappropriate to assign a high credibility to them. Our courts normally reject hearsay evidence for that reason.

    4) The whole point of Dillahunty’s “claims that we cannot verify” is tied back to the “extraordinary evidence” criterion. Your comparison to normal historiography standards are inappropriate, since they do not normally demand extraordinary evidence.

    5) And the fact that they are non-originals does not disqualify them, but it does further detract from the credibility of the stories (like it or not), and therefore contributes to the conclusion that they fall far short of the “extraordinary evidence” criterion. Comparing the number of copies to the classics is a meaningless comparison, since nobody is making extraordinary claims based on those same classics.

    • 1 – I don’t follow why you think Markan priority must be an issue of which you insinuate. It doesn’t follow that Matthew and Luke do not get their information from earlier independent sources such as Q and their respective unique materials (L and M). If we consider L and M then the resurrection appearances are embedded in all our gospel sources (the synoptics and John, as well as Paul).

      I disagree. The gospel accounts concerning the empty tomb are remarkably unapologetic, un-embellished, and read like primitive eyewitness accounts. Apparently according to you a group of women are incapable of moving a stone? The way entrances to the tomb were designed was for stones to be rolled down the groove of a decline.

      I wonder if you’ve ever considered the pre-gospel sources. Sources like Q, L, M and pre-Mark, as well as creeds and hymns, that get very close to the original purported events. In other words, the gospel traditions are grounded on early sources and thus cannot be explained away as “urban legends.”

      Then you propose a false dichotomy. It’s either an all or nothing approach that skeptics so commonly propose. Either you contend everything happened as the gospel accounts purport them to have happened or they are just “urban legends.” No historian takes this either-or line. Why can’t our gospel authors receive the same grace that skeptics would forward to other ancient writers? Is it not possible to have both legend and history? I don’t see why not, in other words, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if i grant you your argument that there are legends in the texts. Then you appeal to Occam’s razor is unwarranted. Firstly, as WLC has shown, the resurrection hypothesis far surpasses other contrived naturalistic hypotheses in simplicity and ad hocness. If we’d go with the simplest explanation then we should all become Christians. Then that you’d compare the evidence presented, and the facts widely accepted by contemporary historians, to Elvis sightings shows that you’re either very unfamiliar with modern scholarship or that your hyper-skpeticism has impaired your ability to consider evidence. So your appeal to Occam’s razor is hardly and argument in your favour.

      2 – I disagree that the “extraordinary evidence” standard is a “valid” one. For example, your analogy to yourself flying, and that being witnessed, is hardly analogous to the resurrection evidence. Simply put, the resurrection was experienced by a diverse number of people, disciples, enemies (Paul), skeptics (James), and even up to 500 people according to our early Creed in 1 Cor 15. That a whole movement, clearly antithetical to the Jewish worldview of these early witnesses, was founded on a resurrection is persuasive evidence. Did your claim to fly spawn an entire movement, convince enemies and skeptics alike, was witnessed by different groups of people on different occasions? Have scholars somehow become convinced of the facts surrounding your story? Do scholars accept your alleged claim that you were [1] seen on the ground, and [2] subsequently seen in the air? much like scholars affirm Jesus’ empty tomb was [1] discovered empty and that [2] his earliest followers, enemies and skeptics alike experienced resurrection appearances? When this happens then we can talk about evidence.

      It is further revealing when you say that “with the “extraordinary evidence” bar, we know the bar is set very high.” Essentially, you seem more than content to set the bar “very high” so that your standard undermines evidence to the contrary. You essentially sweep evidence under the carpet and pretend that it isn’t there. And when that evidence does rear its head you simply say it isn’t extraordinary enough. That’s too easy and thus hardly rational in engaging evidence.

      Regarding the Minimal Facts you’re wrong. According to Habermas, the very mind behind the discovery, the Minimal Facts “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.” That you say the Minimal Facts is “only true of Christian scholars” is therefore a patent falsity; what else from Habermas or within your statements have you deliberately skewed? The facts thus remain.

      3 – No, anonymity doesn’t degrade their credibility. As I argued we can know a lot about the authors to the extent that their names are irrelevant. In fact, I would argue that it is far superior to know about the authors (background, audiences, motives etc.) than to only know their names. You didn’t reply to that so I think it stands. I further contend that you don’t understand how historians deal with anonymity. Then your line that “one normally has to assume the worst” is revealing. In other words, you take the opposite approach to competent historians who don’t assume your unwarranted “guilty until proven innocent” approach. In other words, you simply impose skepticism on the texts before you’ve even begun engaging them.

      Regarding my erring on my observation of Dillahunty’s claim you misinterpret my intention. Dillahunty claimed that “no” gospel traditions are based on eyewitness testimony. I countered that he was simply wrong on at least one front where it is very probable that we have at least one eyewitness testimony in the pre-markan narrative. It is therefore not whether the stories were written by eyewitnesses themselves. Moreover, your claim that second hand testimony is merely “hearsay” is somewhat irresponsible. Second hand testimony, I contend, is decent testimony that is worthy of consideration. Your appeal is to simply throw out that testimony by defining it as hearsay. Again, no historian takes this line particularly because they prize evidence.

      Since your appeal to courts, no detective throws out the testimony of a mother whose daughter witnessed a homicide and who relayed the events to her mother. If a detective doesn’t dismiss that nor should we do that when focusing on second hand testimony from historical texts. To do so would just be irresponsible. And that the gospel second hand testimony actually agrees with other second hand testimony from another independent gospel suggests they’re getting it right.

      4 – I contend that it is a result of Dillahunty’s naive empiricism. In other words, Dillahunty wants to undermine evidence of which cannot be empirically verified. To Dillahunty the “extraordinary evidence challenge” is therefore constructed upon an irrational scientistic worldview.

      5 – I’ve already argued that the extraordinary evidence standard you are operating beneath is unwarranted. Secondly, I won’t rehash what i’ve already argued in the article regarding manuscript attestation.

      • 1) The problem with your claimed independence of sources, is that we really don’t know whether the stories are independent or not. And just like countless stories that we see in today’s media (including social media), I think it is very likely that the core elements of many/all of the stories (related to the resurrection) all originated from a common source, that could easily have started with an event similar to a modern day Elvis sighting, which then became embellished with each retelling over the succeeding decades.

        You have made multiple references to pre-Markan sources. I won’t pretend for a moment to be a Bible scholar, but as I understand it, there is no mention of post resurrection appearances in the oldes copies of The Gospel of Mark. Given the importance of the resurrection to Christian theology, that omission is significant.

        So the fact that the earliest records document only that the body was gone, and that a man (not an angel) claimed he was resurrected, a reasonable possibility is that some of his followers stole the body, and then claimed his resurrection, to add fuel to the movement.

        The later additions of post-resurrection accounts is suspicious, and hints at either outright fabrication (not unlike the creative editing of Mark, and of Josephus’ reports by early Christians), or possibly to the urban legend hypothesis.

        I made no such either/or assertion as to the gospels. But obviously when it comes to the resurrection itself, it can only be an either/or situation. Either the resurrection happened or it didn’t.

        As for moving the stone, from everything I’ve read, moving the stone into place would be difficult, but could be done by two men (rolling it down the incline). Moving the stone back (up the incline) would have been much more difficult. So yes, it seems unlikely that a few women would have been able to move it.

        As for your comments on Occam’s razor, it is a huge distortion, to consider ANY supernatural event to be the simplest answer, without substantially more evidence, that precludes any natural explanation. Using your approach, we should all conclude that every trick performed by a magician is truly magical.

        2) Re the 500 witnesses, we don’t have reports from 500 witnesses. We have a single report, claiming there were 500 witnesses. You didn’t like my flying analogy. Would you like it better if my friends said that there were 500 other people there, who also witnessed it?

        According to the gospels, the resurrection did NOT spawn a movement. The Jesus cult already existed. The resurrection story contributed to the continuation of the movement. The Book of Mormon and the Quran both spawned movements, and have scholars who will attest to all sorts of claims, no doubt using standards similar to your own. Likewise thousands of other religions stake their own claims to “truth”, pointing to their own sacred texts, often with their own miracles. If we are to use your standards, then surely they are all true.

        You claim that I dismiss evidence. That’s true, but only because there are any number of other possible explanations that are entirely natural. You arbitrarily dismiss those possibilities, applying the bizarre claim that a supernatural event is a more likely answer. I’m quite certain, however, that if we were talking about ANY religion but your own, you’d be far more skeptical, and would demand extraordinary evidence, dismissing all the ordinary evidence in the process.

        I don’t understand your assertion that my statement is false that the minimal facts is only true of Christian Scholars. My point was that you set a standard for “minimal facts” such that they are granted by nearly every scholar, including skeptical ones. Your 4th claimed fact – that various people had post-resurrection encounters with Jesus is NOT granted by secular scholars

        3) My lack of a prior response notwithstanding, I do not agree with your assertion that the authors’ anonymity is unimportant, nor do I think you’ll find many secular historians who would agree with you. You suggest that we know a lot about their background, audience, motives, etc. on the latter two items, we can certainly surmise that the authors were Christians, writing FOR Christians, or were aiming to help convert others to Christianity. Assuming so, they cannot be viewed as impartial. And we cannot rule out the possibility that they either overtly embellished stories, or willingly took vague rumors, and documented them as purported facts (if perhaps for no other reason, than that they wanted to believe them). Take a look at what happens today in social media in the U.S. People routinely post some egregious lie about one political party or another. Countless people accept the lie, for no other reason than that they want to believe it. And then they pass the lie onto others.

        And I disagree on your claims as to how historians view anonymous sources. Certainly if the information is of an ordinary sort (e.g. A civil war soldier describe life during the war), the information would be compared against what we already knew about that topic, and if it was generally consistent, it would likely be treated as a valid source. But if the anonymous source described something extraordinary (e.g. An anonymous report that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were lovers,
        And met for weekly trysts), well such reports would be viewed with intense skepticism. But if those same reports came from multiple named, credible sources, it would be an entirely different matter. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        When my mother was still living (and suffering from Alzheimer’s) she told multiple people, with utter conviction (including a number of fairly specific details) that she and a friend attended Ronald Reagan’s funeral. For a variety of reasons (including the fact that the funeral was thousands of miles away) we were all pretty certain that she was confused. But because of her certainty, and the detailed nature of her story, we confirmed with her friend that it never happened. Under other circumstances, Occam’s razor might lead to the conclusion that her relatively ordinary story was true. But for multiple reasons, we judged her story to be somewhat extraordinary, and effectively demanded more evidence. You, Dr Craig, and other apologists routinely, and arbitrarily dismiss the numerous other possible ordinary explanations for the resurrection stories, in favor of a truly extraordinary explanation.

        I didn’t throw out the hearsay. I merely pointed out that it is inherently less reliable than firsthand reports. Once again, in the case of the gospels, the fact that multiple 2nd hand reports agree on certain items, only suggests that the stories had similar origins. To use your own example, if a girl tells her parents and three friends that she witnessed a homicide, and those five people all testify to that, the only thing we can reasonably conclude for sure is that the girl claims to have seen a homicide.

        4) You then dismiss Dillahunty’s views as being rooted in his “naive empiricism”. Please explain how impiricism is “naive”. I would submit that your reliance on limited amounts of subjective evidence, that is poorly corroborated, is the height of naiveté. You take the biblical stories at face value, which you would never do for the stories of some other religion.

        5) Yes you already explained why you reject the extraordinary evidence criterion. But independent of that, I made a specific point as to why your comparison to the number of copies of the classics was a meaningless comparison – due to the nature of the claims themselves (not because of any extraordinary evidence criterion). Shall I take your silence as a concession to that point?

Let me know your thoughts!

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

You are commenting using your 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