In this segment, Paul Williams informs us of the role of Mary, who is referred to as Maryam in the Qur’an, may Allah be pleased with her, Ameen! What was Mary’s role according to the Bible? and why does her role contradict itself in the bible? FIND OUT in sh’Allah
If you like the work we do, then please do kindly consider subscribing to our channel, Dawah Digital, for more. We intend to bring you only the most original content. Made by Muslims, for Muslims.
Peace be with you,
The Dawah Digital Team
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, History, Quran
Blogging Theology 
My question to Christians: Do you agree that Luke corrects Mark’s portrait of Mary as an unbeliever?
LikeLike
Mark doesn’t portray mary as an unbeliever – circular arguments make you look like a charlatan.
That aside – do you agree that the infancy gospel is a forgery that somehow ended up in the quran because mohammed was the greatest religious charlatan in history?
LikeLike
The bitter truth hurts. Christians loves only part of the bible where it talks about “” love & mercy””. The church thrives off of speaking half truth & concealing other parts. Pastors & preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the bible because they present a message of hate & love. Try asking questions in the church, they will tell you to just believe in the faith & not to worry about trifling details.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, honestly, discussing the treatment of Mary in Mark 3:21,32-35 is a bit like discussing the treatment of Mary in Luke 11:27-28. While you say Luke does not portray her negatively, the way Mark (allegedly) does, there are those who read the Lucan text similar to how you read the latter portion of the Marcan text (and there are translations which seem to reflect such a view). I, however, read the Lucan text positively, and think the Marcan text might be read positively as well.
I’ll return to the Lucan text, below, but would like to comment on the Marcan text, here. When Mark 3:21 states that they went to take him, I have to wonder if κρατησαι can’t be read in a more positive light, like when Mark uses the nearly identical κρατησας when describing Jesus taking the hand of Simon’s mother in law (Mark 1:31 [we find a similar locution in Mark 5:41, which I will mention below]). I realize the latter is in the participle while the former is in the indicative, but I still think that the ‘taking’ need not be akin to an arrest (which is how it can be used), but rather a gentle, protective holding, akin to Jesus grabbing an old woman’s (or little girl’s) hand.
This takes us, of course, to εξεστη, at the end of 3:21. Many read that as meaning they took him to be crazy, but that need not be the only possible meaning. For example, the exact same verb (only in the plural, εξεστησαν) is employed in the above-mentioned Mark 5:41, to describe the surprise at a girl being healed/rasied. The Septuagint uses εξεστη in Exodus 19:18 to describe the astonishment of the folk when God enveloped the mountain in smoke. Perhaps most potentially relevant, the Septuagint uses the same verb in 1 Samuel 28:5 to describe the fear and heart trembling of Saul upon seeing the Philistine forces. [On a barely related side note, the Septuagint uses the verb in Exodus 18:9 to describe Jethro being moved in a positive sense (I share this only to show that the semantic range is broad).]
With all this in mind, note the considerable crowds mentioned in Mark 3:20. Ergo, it seems to me it is possible to understand verse 21 as alluding to his family coming to aid him, perhaps even protect him, out of concern that he may be overwhelmed (whether physically or emotionally) by the oncoming masses.
Now we can turn to Mark 3:32-35. Before doing so, I wish to return to the aforementioned Luke 11:27-28. In that text, a woman says to Jesus (slightly paraphrasing) “blessed is the woman who birthed you and nursed you”. Christ responses “μενουν,” and then says blessed are those who keeps God’s word. The text comes up a lot in anti-Catholic polemics pushed by some Protestants, as μενουν can be read adversatively, as if Christ is saying “rather than bless my mother, bless those who keep the word of God”. Some Catholic apologists ask, do you really think Christ excluded His mother from among those who heed God’s word? Well, μενουν can also be read affirmatively, as if Christ were expanding from the individual to a set which includes her (i.e. blessed is Mary, indeed, blessed are all those who heed God’s word [tacitly: including her]).
So, with Luke 11:27-28 in mind, I would propose that Mark 3:32-35 can be read similarly (i.e. alternatively as excluding Mary or including her). That is to say, the statement in Mark need not be read as hostile. He could be understood as (like in the Lucan text) using the opportunity as a teachable moment. His family is outside. But who is His family? Those who do the will of God (thus His family includes those inside with Him). Just as in Luke, it can include His mother.
So, the short answer is that I am not convinced that Luke depicts Mary significantly differently from how Mark does, as far as these texts are concerned.
LikeLike
thank you Denis. I find the Roman Catholic study I cite to be compelling and persuasive. Have you read it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings Paul.
Are you referring to Brown, et al’s, “Mary in the New Testament”? If so, no, I have not read the book itself (but I did read the portion below, which I understand comes from the book?). [Quick note: I came across the book years ago, and was interested in checking it out, but I wound up never doing so, and then I totally forgot about it, so I thank you for bringing it back to my attention.]
Regarding what you shared below, I think Luke 11:27-28 remains relevant (thus I stand by what I wrote above). I think this Lucan text creates problems for that sort of speculation about Luke’s motives. I would propose that there are two ways to read Luke 11:27-28…
(A) Exclusively, which is to say we read μενουν adversatively, and thus as making a distinction between Mary and those who heed God’s word. On this view, it becomes hard to think Luke found Mark 3:32-35 embarrassing, as seemingly the same sort of text would be in his own work.
(B) Inclusively, which is we read μενουν as an affirmation bringing about a transition from the individual (Mary) to a larger set which includes her (those who keep God’s word). On this view, I still find it far from clear that Luke would be embarrassed by Mark 3:32-35, because if his own text can be intended positively, that Marcan parallel of sorts could likewise be read positively.
***
Beyond that, however, I have to wonder: while I don’t agree with the approach to Mark, what if, for the sake of argument, we did assume such? If we were to read Mark 3 as portraying Mary negatively, and Luke as portraying Mary positively, what might the implications be? Should we assume the more “embarrassing” text (i.e. the negative Marcan text) is more likely to be historical, and the more positive Lucan text is a later development?
If so, note that sūrat Āl `Imrān, in the Qur’ān, seems to parallel Luke (even putting the annunciation after the muting of Zechariah). In fact, sūrat Āl `Imrān 3:42 is quite similar to Luke 1:28. But if the historical Jesus excluded His mother from among those who do the will of God (as per a negative interpretation of Mark 3:32-35), might we say the Qur’ānic text, which has Mary purified and chosen above all women, was influenced by the later development (via those who sided with it)?
Now, of course, I don’t actually take that view, but I share such a thought experiment as an example of where the speculations of critical scholars may lead us.
LikeLike
Dennis,
“If so, note that sūrat Āl `Imrān, in the Qur’ān, seems to parallel Luke (even putting the annunciation after the muting of Zechariah). In fact, sūrat Āl `Imrān 3:42 is quite similar to Luke 1:28. But if the historical Jesus excluded His mother from among those who do the will of God (as per a negative interpretation of Mark 3:32-35), might we say the Qur’ānic text, which has Mary purified and chosen above all women, was influenced by the later development (via those who sided with it)?”
OR we could say that none of the Gospels was entirely correct, and that the Qur’an was not influenced by any of them, but rather that it independently sets the record straight (being influence by God alone). Unlike the OT and NT which tied to the hip with each other, the Qur’an is a stand alone book, even though it is based in the Abrahamic tradition.
LikeLike
Greetings Ibn Issam,
Indeed, that is another possibility. However, I think choosing that precise possibility is likely to be a faith-based choice. That’s fine, though it would seem we would likely be diverging from the approach of the scholars more classical, conservative Christians are being invited to follow (that is to say, I don’t think Raymond Brown starts from a position of presupposing the Qur’an and then checking what fits with that).
Recall that in the thought experiment proposed, we start from the position that (a) Mark is earlier, and (b) Mark has the historical Jesus as listing Mary as not among those who keep God’s word, and then (c) Luke comes along with a later, more positive view of Mary. Now, that’s not a postition I actually hold, but if one is to work in that paradigm, what conclusion might one following the secular scholars reach? Perhaps that the purportedly earlier and more “embarrassing” depiction is the more historical one, and Luke’s depiction is a later development (read: fiction)? Is that a fair possibility within this paradigm? If so, what might one conclude about the Qur’an, which seems to agree with the Lucan depiction? [Assuming one is not presupposing the Qur’anic narrative as axiomatic.]
As I said previously, I’m not actually endorsing that scenario as reflecting reality. It is a thought experiment to show that the speculations of the relevant scholars can have implications for both our faiths.
LikeLike
Dennis,
I understood your original point, but wanted to show how, as you said, an “axiomatic” view of the Qur’an, and its position as a stand alone book, easily evades such a proposition from secular scholars. However, I don’t think that the same approach can be used for the Gospel Narrative, given the contradictions within the Bible, including the Gospels themselves, not to mention the irremediable connections between OT/NT. Also I am sure that a more knowledgeable scholar of the Qur’an than I might have more to say in response to your proposed conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings again, Ibn Issam
Part of the point of these sorts of thought experiments is that it shows how quickly it is proposed that we appeal to the supernatural, or at least jettison some of the naturalistic approaches of the relevant scholars. But more importantly, we see the reasoning of those scholars being (tacitly, perhaps unwittingly) undermined.
For example, in another thread it was noted that secular scholars often attempt to measure the historicity of John based in part on how it differs from the Synoptics. It was also noted that the Qur’anic narrative about Jesus also differs from the Synoptics. If that is treated as irrelevant to the historicity of the Qur’an, then the methodology itself is undermined (i.e. we arrive at a rule of thumb: differing from the Synoptics does not mean a text is therefore unhistorical, thereby undermining an argument against John).
Similarly, here, there are implications to what you are proposing. For example, while I don’t actually assume Mark and Luke are at odds on the subject of Mary, let’s assume they are (i.e. assume Mark has a negative depiction while Luke has a positive one). If the Lucan narrative (affirmed by the Qur’an in some respects) is the historical one, that would seem to entail that the Lucan narrative is actually earlier than the Marcan narrative (i.e. in order for Luke to include a historically true tradition, it has to in some way go all the way back to the fact of the matter, while Mark’s allegedly unhistorical depiction would have to be a later development). But this would beg a question: if Luke has earlier material than Mark here, where else might Luke be earlier than Mark? And how can others assert so confidently that Luke is later than Mark (simply because apparently misguided scholars said so?)? If the argument is that Luke used Mark because they have common material, could it not be the case that they simply used a similar third source (especially if it is conceded that Luke is capable of employing sources earlier than Mark?)?
That’s just a small line of reasoning (many other questions could be asked), but it seems the axiomatic approach can result in Marcan primacy being second guessed. Muslims might shrug their shoulders, but it has relevance for the approach often pushed on this blog: some of the lines of reasoning behind arguments used against Christians aren’t actually embraced by Muslims (i.e. Muslims feel free to reject those lines of reasoning, which then begs the question, why should Christians simply accept them?).
And this is precisely why I prefer to explore arguments rather than just jumpt to what scholars have concluded.
LikeLike
Dennis,
Again, I understand what you are repetitively saying. However, I think that the first problem you have here is the false assumption that the Qur’an affirms either Mark or Luke. The Qur’an does not really affirm any of the Gospels as we have them, nor the NT/OT as a whole. The Qur’ans legitimacy does not depend upon the Bible. It simply sets the record straight from an independent position within the Abrahamic faith.
Secondly, the Qur’an does not always address every narrative detail in minutiae. For instance in regard to the Qur’ans depiction of Mary in Imran 3:42, it relates that the Angels purified her, but it doesn’t state WHEN they purified her, which still leaves room for Markan Primacy.
You said, “some of the lines of reasoning behind arguments used against Christians aren’t actually embraced by Muslims (i.e. Muslims feel free to reject those lines of reasoning, which then begs the question, why should Christians simply accept them?).”
In some cases what you said may be true, but in most cases the lines of reasoning behind arguments is based upon facts and findings of modern biblical scholarship. So Christians do indeed need to finally embrace these arguments, because they are based in a critical study of the Bible itself. Again since the Qur’an is not directly related to the OT/NT not every argument that is made against the Bible, will at the same time make sense when argued against the Qur’an. These are two different things.
Ultimately, the question of which Gospel is earlier, or more historically accurate, is a problem that is strictly within the confines of the Biblical studies. And that, I think, is why Muslims feel free to reject your approach to the Qur’an. Sure, you can make such propositions all day long in relation to the Qur’an but in the end analysis you are still are on weak ground, and there is little to no effect on core Islamic theology.
Salaam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greetings again, Ibn Issam
Ibn Issam wrote:
«Dennis»
Forgive this small quibble, but just for clarification’s sake, my name is spelled with one ‘n’ (and is not pronounced like the English Dennis, but rather the French equivalent).
Ibn Issam wrote:
«I think that the first problem you have here is the false assumption that the Qur’an affirms either Mark or Luk.e»
Certainly not in toto. I’m proposing that on select details in this hypothetical dispute between Mark and Luke, the Qur’an agrees with the latter. That’s not to say, however, that it endorses the entire corpus.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«in regard to the Qur’ans depiction of Mary in Imran 3:42, it relates that the Angels purified her, but it doesn’t state WHEN they purified her, which still leaves room for Markan Primacy.»
Well, it would seem the relevant purification happened before Christ was born (as it is being conveyed to her in the perfect tense at the annunication). The negative interpretation of Mark 3 would have her placed outside the set of those who keep God’s word while Christ is an adult. Presumably, from the Qur’anic narrative, she remained pure and above women, right? Otherwise, if, by the time of her son’s adulthood, she wasn’t even keeping God’s word, we seem to be at risk of accusing her of quite the fall (perhaps even of teetering on apostasy?).
Regarding Marcan primacy, I appreciate at least the transition from confident declarations of such (common in these circles) to the more careful statement that there’s still room for it (i.e. it is not a foregone conclusion; rather it is a possibility). So let’s explore this some more.
Consider another thought experiment: as was mentioned before, there are similarities between surat Al `Imran and the opening chapter of Luke. One easy naturalistic hypothesis could be that Luke had some influence on surat Al `Inmran (not so much that the author of the latter used the former directly, but rather that the latter was composed in an environment which included people familiar with, and perhaps even paraphrasing, the former). If a Muslim were to dispute that, the question would have to be asked: how do you explain the similarities –the points of agreement– between Luke and surat Al `Imran? One answer could be that those points of agreement come from a third source. That sets a valuable rule of thumb: similarities between two texts need not entail one copied the other; rather their common material could draw from a common third source, even if said source is not extant or apparent.
Now, one might object “we already know that rule; it is at least tacitly employed in the Q-source hypothesis,” but let’s apply it consistently. How do we “know” Luke (allegedly) used Mark as a source? The answer cannot be “because scholars say so”. There has to be an actual argument. Pointing to common material between the two is not sufficient, as it is possible they simply draw from a common source (especially since a presupposition of the Qur’an implies that at least some material in Luke predates Mark, insofar that it goes all the way back to the fact of the matter). This sort of discussion seems to put Marcan primacy on less sure footing.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«In some cases what you said may be true, but in most cases the lines of reasoning behind arguments is based upon facts and findings of modern biblical scholarship.»
Well, at the very least, I would say that it is not the case that if one or two arguments from secular scholars are questionable upon closer inspection, then all their arguments have to fall away. On the contrary, each argument should be examined on its own merits, on a case by case basis.
Nonetheless, this approach is helpful to Muslim-Christian dialogue, for two reasons: (a) it shows why we should be examining arguments rather than merely jumping to popular scholarly conclusions, and (b) it helps to establish agreed upon rules which can provide both sides [i.e. Muslims and Christians] firmer common ground on which they can discuss those conclusions. For example, I would propose that we already have two rules which Muslims and Christians might agree upon:
(1) The historicity of a text is not necessarily measurable based on to what extent its material is corroborated by the Synoptics.
(2) If two texts have material in common, that need not entail one copied the other; rather there can be tertiary sources (even if they are not currently extant or apparent).
Those are two examples (and, from experience discussing these things with others, I am confident that if we bothered to go through the arguments carefully, exploring their implications, quite a few other rules could be reached as well). Such rules can make it more clear why some Christians are reluctant to just accept certain conclusions popular among certain scholars.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«Christians do indeed need to finally embrace these arguments»
It would depend on which arguments. As I have said before, individual arguments themselves should be examined and explored.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«since the Qur’an is not directly related to the OT/NT not every argument that is made against the Bible, will at the same time make sense when argued against the Qur’an»
I certainly agree that not every argument applied to the New Testament text is going to apply to the Qur’an. But I have found that when exploring the lines of reasoning within certain arguments, if those lines of reasoning are applied to the Qur’an, I sometimes find my Muslim friends more receptive to rules which undermine those arguments.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«there is little to no effect on core Islamic theology.»
There is often little effect on an Islamic position when Muslims adopt a line of reasoning which also happens to undermine certain secular arguments. One of my goals is to dig out those lines of reasoning, so that we might have more common ground when exploring this scholarly literature.
LikeLike
The Virgin Mary in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
On a first reading of the gospels it is tempting to take these stories at face value: here are
ancient texts that tell us what Mary the Mother of Jesus said and did. Their reliability and
facticity is usually assumed without question. And this way of reading of the gospels has
been ubiquitous in the Christian churches for much of the last 2000 years.
Today, however, such a reading of the gospels is no longer possible. As we have seen
there are four gospels, and each has a different picture of Jesus and his teaching. It is
illuminating to apply the same methodology to the Gospel portraits of Mary that we have
employed with such powerful effect concerning the gospel portraits of Jesus.
I want to examine how the gospel writers depict Mary the mother of Jesus.
The earliest surviving gospel, that of Mark, portrays Mary (along with Jesus’ brothers) in
a negative light, placing them literally outside the crowded circle of those who make up
his eschatological family – which is based on faith.
Mark 3:20-35 reads:
‘…and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. When his family
heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his
mind.’ And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebul, and by
the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’ And he called them to him, and spoke to
them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself,
that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be
able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand,
but his end has come. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his
property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.
‘Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they
utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin’— for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’
Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called
him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers
and sisters are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my
brothers?’ And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my
brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’
The scholarly consensus is that Mark was the first to be written. Matthew and Luke then
used Mark as a source, as well as a hypothetical sayings source known as Q. I think this is
the most plausible explanation (though a few scholars disagree). So Matthew relies on
Mark as one of his sources. But he clearly thought Mark was inadequate and incomplete.
Sometimes Matthew paraphrases Mark, sometimes he deliberately alters Mark. This
shows us that for Matthew ‘facts’ could be changed to enhance his message. A good
example of this change is to note how Matthew improves the negative portrayal of Jesus’
mother and brothers in Mark: in the latter they are shown as outsiders who think Jesus is
mad and they repeatedly fail to understand Jesus’ message.
Matthew has a very different positive picture: perhaps wanting to show the disciples as
good role models for Christians, he is happy to change the facts of history to fit his viewpoint.
He omits Mark’s negative story where Mary (and Jesus’ brothers) all try to ‘restrain’ Jesus because they thought he was ‘out of his mind’. So it is clear that there has been a development in the way Mary is presented in the Gospels. In Matthew’s gospel Mark’s negative portrayal is eliminated.
Luke (unlike Mark) also presents a highly positive portrait of Mary. In the scene parallel to
Mark’s (with the brothers in the house) she is now included in the eschatological family –
those who hear the word of God and do it (see Luke 8:19-21). Luke, like Matthew, omits
the embarrassing and offensive passage (Mark 3: 20-21).
In a ground-breaking ecumenical study a team of Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant scholars collaborated in producing an agreed statement on Mary in the New Testament (Mary in the New Testament A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars published by Paulist Press 1978, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and others.)
In reference to Mark’s gospel chapter 3, verse 21, the study concludes:
We understand the verse to mean: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him; for they were saying, ‘He is beside himself.’”
Concerning Matthew 12:46-50 (equivalent to Mark 3:31-35) the scholars comment,
‘The Matthean form of the passage is not very different from Mark’s. However, it is not so
much in the passage itself that Matthew differs from Mark but in the context. The
introductory scene [Mark 3: 20-21] in which “his own” think he is beside himself
is completely absent. Presumably the omission was deliberate, and it can be
understood if Matthew interpreted Mark’s “his own” to include Jesus’ mother.’
p. 99 (emphasis added).
The study concludes with this assessment of the Synoptic gospels depiction of Mary:
‘We have spoken of a “negative portrait” of Mary in the Gospel of Mark. The principal text which leads to that designation is Mark 3:20-35.
The Matthean and Lucan parallels to Mark 3:20-35 (Matt 12:24-50; Luke 8: 19-21) give a
rather different picture, largely by modification of the Marcan text. Both evangelists have
dropped the harsh introduction in Mark 3:20-21. Luke goes further in softening the Marcan
picture by eliminating also the question of Jesus, “Who are my mother and brothers?” and
by transferring the Beelzebul controversy to another place (11:14-23).
Thus, in the Synoptic depiction of Mary during Jesus’ ministry, we have a development from the negative estimation of Mark to the positive one of Luke, with Matthew representing the middle term.’
pp. 286-287.
*
So what is the truth about Mary? With the gospel writers contradicting each other (Matthew
and Luke contradict/disagree with Mark) what has God reliably told us about the Mother of
Jesus? Unfortunately the New Testament gospels are not a reliable source of information at this point.
As Muslims we hold Mary in the highest regard. A chapter in the Holy Qur’an is named after her: Surah Maryam.
Surah 3:42 states,
‘The angels said to Mary: ‘Mary, God has chosen you and made you pure: He has truly chosen you above all women.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!
Yawn. Where’s your evidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Trey
the evidence and discussion are all in my article.
Did you read it?
Btw how old are you?
You behave like a 10 year old child.
Does your mummy know you are up so late?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Trey,
Mr. Williams cited biblical verses and scholarly opinion and you think after all that you’d look smart if you ask for evidence.
Congratulations, you played yourself for a fool and a heretic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Importantly Jesus teaches in earliest and most historically reliable Gospel, Mark, that (as Paul W. said) “those who make up his eschatological family – which is based on faith” are those who abide by the divine Law, and obey the commandments, Or as Marks Jesus states, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’
It should be clearly pointed out that this is in agreement with Islamic teachings, while at the same time diametrically opposed to Paul of Tarsus’s faith based redemption of the cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL, Trey is obviously living in a fantasy world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
I just want to let you know that I really enjoy seeing and listening to you on “The Paul Williams Show.” It is nicely produced, educational with good content, and with interesting, thoughtful discussion. Please convey our thanks to Dawah Digital for helping to produce the show. it is a great educational service! Many Thanks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
alhamdulillah. I have passed on your kind words to Dawah Digital .
LikeLike
Shukran!!
LikeLike
Subhaanallah! !! ALLAHU AKBAR…
I’m a revert… and this work that u doing brother is really amazing and something close to my own heart….
If u need any assistance in any of ur social media or if u have a team… i would kindly like to be part of it in shaa Allah… subhaanallah
#IslamIs4TruthOrSilence
Follow me @ruqiyajannathi
LikeLike
Salam, Paul. I wonder if it’s a good idea to have a separate page for the videos of the Paul Williams show.
Thanks for your work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks but the project has been a very small success with few hits and views on youtube.
LikeLike
I count over 15k views on Youtube and it’s only been 2 weeks since you published the first part.
It’s definitely a success. Planting one seed is a success. If Hatun and Lizzie as seems to be the case are successful in helping people find the righteous path, then imagine the good you do through these videos.
LikeLiked by 1 person