Did You Kill Jesus?

Many religious songs have those who sing them confess themselves as “maggots” for having put Christ on the cross. But I question this sentimentality. First, if we all put Christ on the cross, then Christ died for all sinners, and that is the false gospel.

Second, nobody but God has the ultimate power to put Christ on the cross. If we all are supposed to feel bad about crucifying Christ, then is the Triune God also to apologise? May it never be! Acts 2:23-24, “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

The Bible teaches that God’s sovereignty does not eliminate the accountability  of sinners. Certain specific lawless men killed Christ. But also, God gave Christ up to die for the sins of the elect alone. God and not man determined for whom Christ would die.

Christ purposed that He would die. The Triune God purposed that Christ would die.

This does not eliminate the accountability of “the lawless men”, even if they were soldiers, or of the “you” Peter is addressing in Acts 2.  Troops should not be supported, when they refuse God’s standards.

Specific humans 2000 years ago purposed that Christ would die. This means that not all humans purposed that Christ would die. His mother Mary, for example, did not kill or intend to kill Christ.

We did not  ourselves put Christ on the cross,  because we are not the imputers. We do not get to decide when and if we put our sins on Christ. We do not get the opportunity to contribute our sins so that then Christ contributes His righteousness. Neither election nor non-election is conditioned on our sins.

Although believers are commanded to reckon what God has already reckoned, we can never be the original reckoners (imputers).

Yes, those specific lawless men were guilty of what they did. Even though they did not know what they were doing, they could be forgiven for that sin without being justified and forgiven of all their sins.

The cross is not what condemns. Good news for the elect, the gospel is not what condemns the non-elect. Rejecting the cross is not what condemns the non-elect, because we are all already condemned in Adam . The false gospel which says that Jesus Christ died for every sinner is not gospel. The false gospel turns a supposedly universal death into guilt for those who don’t meet  conditions which supposedly make that death effective.

Explore posts in the same categories: atonement


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

20 Comments on “Did You Kill Jesus?”



    In the course of his excellent critique of Forde’s view of law (and atonement) on p170, Kilcrease makes a point I like to make against all those sentimental hymns (Paul Gerhardt is not the only one) which accuse Christians of having “killed Jesus”.

    Forde of course denies that God the Trinity killed Jesus and says “we did it”. But God did, and some humans did. Unlike Lutherans, I would say that we didn’t all kill Jesus because Jesus didn’t die for everybody’s sins. But I do like what Kilcrease writes: “of the whole human race, only a very small number was actually present at the crucifixion. To say to a sinner that, hypothetically, he would have killed Jesus may very well be true, but it does not solve the problem of how this sinful attitude is manifest in the sinner’s own life….Such a hypothetical makes one’s sin into an abstraction….

    “by exercising a kind of purely civil righteousness, the sinner might very well have not wished Jesus dead….’

    mark: Exactly so, and notice that he didn’t have to call it a good work to say this, didn’t even have to say ‘common grace”, didn’t have to say “covenant creature”!!!!

    “purely civil righteousness”

    yes, it’s an abstraction, but an interesting theory….

    Not all sin is unbelief of the gospel. Not all sin is works-righteousness.

    But sin against God’s law is still sin, even for those who never hear the gospel.

    And sin against God’s law is still sin, even for those who are justified and who will never be condemned because of that sin.


    Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

  3. markmcculley Says:

    John Newton, The Look

    Thus while his death my sin displays
    For all the world to view
    (Such is the mystery of grace)
    It seals my pardon too
    With pleasing grief and mournful joy
    My spirit is now filled
    That I should such a life destroy
    Yet live by Him I killed

  4. markmcculley Says:

    i like the part of “how deep the Father’s Love for us” which says, His dying love has brought me life, I know that it is finished”

    But I question the part which says “Ashamed I hear my mocking voice call out my among the scoffers. It was my sin that held him there.”

    I think this tends toward the confusion of law and gospel. We must not define sin as only being that which is against grace. Those sinners for whom God has no grace or love are still sinners–against the law. There are many who sin against God who sis not have their sins imputed by God to Christ.

  5. markmcculley Says:




    allowing the disciples to keep two swords among the 11 for self-defense (since they were still in the world).” is
    1. itself a political statement and an alignment with a political cause.
    2. ignoring the context of the “two swords”. Were two swords indeed sufficient for “self-defense”? Is that what Jesus Christ meant when He said “enough”? Was Peter supposed to use a sword to slice off ears only in order to defend Himself and not to defend His friend? Is it a ‘vile thing” not to kill your enemies for the sake of showing your wife that you are both male and sovereign?
    I am not advocating that we go back to the Augustinian conception of “the two swords” as endorsed by the Magisterial Reformers. But it is only one more kind of Constantinianism to say that the example of Jesus is not relevant when it comes to our self-defense in this age and in this world. The Lord Jesus Himself lived in this age and in this world. His example is not the gospel but it is the Law.
    I Peter 2: 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sin, live to righteousness. http://jamesmcgahey.blogspot.com/…/jesus-and-two-swords-jus…

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Tianqi Wu Many Lutherans make our “dying” (sacramental experience) more important than the one finished death of Christ for the elect alone. They turn even “death” into a work-therapy for sinners. This is ironic, given that they boast in their “theology of cross”. When I was in the snare of universal atonement, I felt guilty for “killing” “Jesus” trying to save me and “wasting” his blood for me by not trusting enough in it to make it work for myself. I was all about “low anthropology”, about us murdering God showing our total depravity and need for Jesus… But the irony, or contradiction inherent in all this “theology of cross” of mine is that I never actually believed in total depravity (and thus never believed in need for Jesus). I was merely refining partial depravity over and over again – since whatever degree of depravity I admitted, I made my confession of that depravity my righteousness, so that though Christ died for all, the death worked for me because I finally confessed my depravity (killing Jesus) while others did not. I made my supposed lack of self-righteousness my righteousness. How dumb I was! It’s only in the gospel that I for the first time faced the reality of sin – God had chosen an elect to display his unconditional grace and Christ came with their sins imputed and died for their sins alone, and that sin-taking-away death was THE reason (alone, sufficient) that they are justified before the holy God. No more “theology of cross”, here is the real cross, one that does not depend on the sinner, but is wholly of God. Not our “dying”, not our apology for “killing Jesus”, not preaching “killing and making alive” now, not our “exchanging sins” – but God punishing the God-man with death for the sins of God’s elect, happened and finished outside all sinners.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    We say that the Psalm Sunday crowd got it wrong because they were wanting freedom in this world and in this age, and then we who either love the status quo or think nothing will change say that Jesus was offering only spiritual freedom, a kingdom after we die. a death which is not really death. Instead of Passover and resurrection, we teach an inherent immortality that claims that all humans are eternal.

    That way we can say the kingdom is in our hearts. Instead of obeying the King who was standing among the disciples and who is coming back to earth, we can say that the Sermon on the Mount is only for after we die, and now go out and buy our guns. All we need to do is be careful not to buy those guns as a church but as individuals.

    Hauerwas—-“If Jesus is all about getting us to love one another, then why did everyone reject him? They did so, I think, because when Jesus was told by the devil that he would be given the power to turn stones to bread, he refused; when Jesus was offered authority over all the kingdoms of this world, he refused; when he was offered the possibility he would not die, he refused. Jesus refused these goods because God’s kingdom cannot be forced into existence using the means of the devil.

    Hauerwas—Jesus’s refusal to play the devil’s game does not mean that the kingdom he proclaims is not political. Jesus refuses to use the violence of the world to achieve “peace.” But that does not mean he is any less political or that he is not about the securing of peace. His arrest is often thought to represent the apolitical character of Jesus because he commands Peter to put away the sword Peter had used to cut off the ear of the priest’s slave. Jesus rebukes Peter, but he does so because that is not the “cup” the Father has given him. But the cup from which Jesus must drink is no less political for being nonviolent.

    Hauerwas—The character of Jesus’s politics is manifest in his response to the high priest who questions Jesus about his teachings in John 18.19-24. That he is questioned by the high priest may suggest that his mission was “religious” rather than political, but such an account cannot be sustained for no other reason than Jesus’s answer: “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.”

    Hauerwas—They tell me that you are the King of Jews. Is that true?” Pilate’s question is meant to see if Jesus is “political.” Jesus responds by asking if Pilate came up with such a view on his own or did others tell him such was the case. “I am not a Jew, am I?” replies Pilate.. “If my kingdom were FROM this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over. ” This is a response used often to deny that Jesus was political. But Pilate rightly saw that Jesus’ denial that his kingship was not of this world is not the denial that Jesus is king. Jesus denied that his kingdom was just another form of Rome.

  8. markmcculley Says:

    the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death a for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.”

    So, yes, it was human injustice that killed Jesus, but no matter because it was divine justice behind that, and also His death was voluntary, but Jesus did that so that none of his disciples would have to (or want to) die “voluntary death” and thus only die while trying to kill as many as possible.

    only cowards don’t carry guns–soundbites from those who refuse to take up a cross

    violent response to any violence I have provoked is not on me because the one who got provoked is to blame.

    Since you are required to protect your wife from being raped, you are required to know that there is no other way to do that but to buy a gun. Prayer is not going to work in that situation.

    People who won’t buy a gun have a “malfunction” and live in some “academic bubble”

    If you would not kill to protect yourself, then you do not love yourself.

    If you try to take up the cross instead of killing people who threaten you, then you are denying yourself and your God given rights to “self-preservation”.

    Killing is permitted by the equity of the old covenant law, which no longer demands tithing, but which still requires males to look like males and males to kill anybody trying to steal their stuff.

    Killing is permitted by the equity of the old covenant, and God does not change, and therefore we need to keep the sabbath on the seventh day, because God does not change, and if it was good enough for God back then it’s still good enough for God now, and Jesus has nothing to do with it.

    Jesus is the redeemer, but God the Father is the creator, and so we need to ignore what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in order to avoid being red letter unitarians. If we want to be trinitarians and face up to the evil in the world (like the Niebuhrs did) we will play our part in the creation-kingdom where Jesus has nothing to do with and redemption has nothing to do with it. And we put to death some of creation for the sake of the rest of creation.

    Males who don’t own guns are metrosexuals.


    Take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a theology of self-defense. Focus on the Christ who suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws.

  9. markmcculley Says:

    interpretation of “The Temple
    Cleansing” that attributes to Jesus violence against the
    money-changers. This view is typically put forth as an objection to
    Christian pacifism, and a moral justification for violence. The
    proponents of this view are very sure Jesus whipped human beings in
    the account. For them, it is plainly evident in the text itself. In
    point of fact, this is precisely not the case at all. There is
    absolutely no reason to understand Jesus whipping people in this
    account, outside of a bias in favor of conceptualizing Jesus as
    violent. And this is precisely what drives this interpretation. There
    is a strand of Christianity, that is popular in America, which refuses
    to picture Jesus as “weak” or “defenseless,” and prefers to
    re-conceptualize Jesus as a macho, divine, ultimate-fighter.

    Mark Driscoll embodies this sentiment perfectly:

    “There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some
    emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a
    dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made
    pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. Without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians,

    Here’s the problem with the Macho Jesus theology: It’s a false Jesus. The biblical Jesus does lay down his life, and does not whip people. If a person is unable to worship a Jesus who chooses self-sacrificial love over judgment or wrath, then that person cannot follow the true Jesus.

  10. markmcculley Says:

    sinners punish other sinners
    God saves us from sinners by means of sinners

    Psalm 17: deliver me from sinners WHO ARE YOUR SWORD

    14 From men WHO ARE YOUR HAND

    save me from men…

    whose portion is in this life:
    You fill their bellies with treasure;
    their sons are SATISFIED,
    and they leave their surplus to their children.
    15 But I will see Your face in righteousness;
    when I awake, I will be SATISFIED with Your presence

    Romans 1: 4 Therefore God handed over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 25 They handed over the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.26 This is why God handed them over to degrading passions. For even their females handed over natural sexual relations[ for unnatural ones. 27 The males in the same way also handed over natural relations with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another…28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God handed them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.

    • markmcculley Says:

      we sin in response to other people’s sin

      but does our sin result in God’s wrath

      or does God’s wrath result in our sinning

      or, if sin is both cause and result, which is first?

      chicken or egg?

      is a hand out the same thing as a hand over?

      Romans 1: 18 For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, 19 since what can be known about God is evident among them,because God has shown it to them. 20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. 21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and HANDED OVER the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

      24 Therefore God HANDED THEM OVER in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves.25 They HANDED OVER the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator….26 This is why God HANDED THEM OVER to degrading passions. For even their females HANDED OVER natural sexual relations[p for unnatural ones…

      28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God HANDED THEM OVER to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.

      Romans 8: 32 God did not even spare His own Son
      but HANDED HIM OVER for us

      where there is no sin, there is no wrath

      where there is no sin, there is no grace

      where there is sin, there must be wrath

      where there is sin but also grace, there must be wrath on the Son

      where there is wrath on the Son, and the Son’s death is imputed to the sinner, there must be no wrath on the sinner

      where there is sin but no grace, there must be wrath on the sinner

      where there is sin, there is nothing about God which says there must be grace

      where there is sin, there might not be grace

      where there is sin and no grace, there will be wrath on the sinner

      • markmcculley Says:

        what does it mean to say “The Father is God as God in Himself”

        Is the Son after His incarnation not God as God is in HImself?

        Did God the Father give His Son or did God the Father give Himself as He is Himself?

        maybe the Son as Creator is our Lawgiver, but is the Son as Redeemer our lawgiver?

        I Peter 1: 15 But as the One who called you is holy, you also are to be holy in all your conduct; 16 for it is written, Be holy, because I am holy. 17 Address as Father the One who judges impartially based on each one’s work, you are to conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your temporary residence.

        John 5: 22 The Father, in fact, judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son…

        John 5: 30 “I can do nothing on My own. I judge only as I hear

        John 12:47″As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words. That very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

        John 3:1 7 For God did not send His Son into the world in order to condemn the world, but in order that the world be saved through Him.18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

        Acts 17: 30-31 God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

        Romans 2: 2 We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is based on the truth. 3 Do you really think—anyone of you who judges those who do such things yet do the same—that you will escape God’s judgment?

        Romans 2: 16 There will be the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

        2 Timothy 4:1 “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom”

        “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10).

  11. markmcculley Says:

    The righteousness of God is different from the righteousness of man (even the sinless man Adam was not also God)

    The death of Christ is the righteousness of God

    The human sinner is imputed (declared to be what they are) with sins, and must die

    Christ, God human, imputed with sins (legally shared from sinners and then declared under the law , must die

    Christ sovereignly deciding exactly when to die (give up my breath when I lay it down) is unique, different from a human pacifist, not using a gun to kill the other person before the other person can kill him.

    Unlike the two thieves, Christ died exactly when he wanted to, died as He pleased

    I will lay it down, and I will take it up again

    the “take it up again” part is difficult, because the resurrection seems to demand the action of the Trinity, of the Holy Spirit and the Father. (but so did the death and everything else) Without even getting into the difficult question of Christ’s human spirit, we know that His dead body continued to be “united to” God (His own deity, the trinity) Acts 2

    But the “I lay it down” part seems simpler—Christ’s death, unlike ours, is an active act of His will

    Sure the Father is the priest who “hands him over” to be sacrificed —Romans 8:32

    but also, Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Ephesians 5:32

    unlike us, Christ died when he wanted to, because He wanted to, He wasn’t a baby, He wasn’t merely a mature adult, He was also God and died on purpose, as an “accomplishment” (the discussion on the mount of glorification). As God, unlike us, Christ had sovereignty over His own life and death.

    Psalm 31: 5 Into your hand I WILL hand over my spirit;

    Isaiah 53: 12 He poured out His blood (soul. life) unto death

  12. markmcculley Says:

    Acts 3: 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you. 15 You killed the source of life, whom God raised from the dead; we are witnesses of this.

    Acts 5: 40 After they called in the apostles and had them flogged, they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them. 41 Then they went out from the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonored on behalf of the Name.

    Conservatives want to hold on to what they have, but they will include more people, if the extra people will conform to conservative control.

    Look at what the “dead sinners” did in Luke 4–there were certainly many widows in Israel in Elijah’s days, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months while a great famine came over all the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them—only to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 And in the prophet Elisha’s time, there were many in Israel who had serious skin diseases, yet NOT ONE OF THEM WAS HEALED—only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, everyone in the synagogue was enraged. 29 They got up, drove Him out of town, and brought Him to the edge of the hill that their town was built on, intending to hurl Him over the cliff
    Did you ever hear paedos complain about “narrowing of the covenant”? The “new perspective” also wants to add gentiles to the mix, but without talking about many Jews not being elect. Paedos want to add baptists to the mix, but without talking about many infants not being elect or in the new covenant. In Luke 4, the objection is not only to gentiles being added, but to jews not being included.
    –will we exclude from the new covenant those who were in the Abrahamic covenant, or only “include more” ( now females and unmarried males)
    –will we include the spouse and the slaves and the teenage children of a father, or even the grandchildren of those with parents who were cut off from the covenant?
    All or nothing–if we want to include instead of exclude, why not let’s water everybody (not only infants from some families) , including all the adults who come our way–then we can begin to teach them the commands of the covenant (how could we teach anybody God’s law until after they were in the covenant?) and thus we can teach these included disciples that God has promised all of them them saving faith….less narrow, more generous and capacious—-sarcasm alert

  13. markmcculley Says:


    God’s wrath is not an expression of God’s love. God’s wrath is not a response to human bad response to God’s grace. Those who are justified are no longer under God’s wrath. And those still under God’s wrath were born condemned, already under God’s wrath. God’s wrath for the non-elect is not subject to change

  14. markmcculley Says:

    are we trying to defend Jesus so nobody notices that we don’t like Jesus either?
    stay unprepared, don’t try to defend yourself by defending Jesus
    Jesus was lifted up the cross for the forgiveness of our sins
    Luke 21: 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you. They will hand you over to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of My name. 13 It will lead to an opportunity for you to witness. 14 Therefore make up your minds NOT TO PREPARE ahead of time, 15 for I will give you such words and a wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will even be betrayed by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends. They will kill some of you. 17 You will be HATED BY EVERYONE because of My name

    And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,

    And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

    If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (Luke 4:5-7)

    “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from the world.” – John 18:36

    The worldview of many the religious is that the present magistrates need to be replaced with other magistrates more to his liking. But when somebody
    has a kingdom, and then somebody else says he has a different kingdom, isn’t that a statement that there is more than one kind of political kingdom?

    In John 18:36, Jesus doesn’t simply says that his church doesn’t fight. Jesus says that his servants don’t fight. Jesus does NOT deny that his servants are in the world. But Jesus insists that the power of His kingdom comes not from this world. The power of the heavenly kingdom in this world is from heaven.

    Jesus does not deny that His presence (or that of His kingdom servants) is “political”. Why are Roman politicians killing him? Was the only problem a failure to communicate? No, since Jesus was not attempting to replace existing magistrates with other magistrates, we know that His kingdom on earth is a different kind of kingdom.

  15. markmcculley Says:

    It seemed to Luther that God had deserted the Jews, leaving them to wander homeless without a land or temple of their own. And if this was God’s attitude, then one might with good conscience ignore the Jews. Why would God desert his own people if he did not despair of them

  16. markmcculley Says:


    Ted Grimsrud–. I believe that Jesus’s execution was the act of the political and religious institutions. That is, the powers-that-be killed Jesus…. Jesus’s death was some kind of event for which “all of humanity” was responsible. The cross exposes the powers that in their idolatrous dynamics pretend to act in service of God. But by killing God’s Son they are shown to be God’s enemies

    To blame “all of humanity” for Jesus’s death is actually to blame nobody for the actual act. This failure to hold the political and religious powers responsible lets the Powers off the hook, keeps their idolatry intact (as we see later when Christians embrace the Emperor Constantine

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: