A case in the Bible, where a person received healing and then lost it

Posted by Библията Тв in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

Do you know of a case in the Bible, where a person received healing and then lost it? Rick Wadholm Jr Daniel Rushing Pack Rat Charles Page

Daniel Rushing [04/20/2015 2:39 PM]
Lazarus. Sort of.

Pack Rat [04/20/2015 2:57 PM]
9 out of 10m lepers, kind of, sort of…

Pack Rat [04/20/2015 3:00 PM]
many Jews were not healed because of their unbelief, but no one that I know of received healing and lost it. Deliverance on the other hand is a different question….

John Kissinger [04/20/2015 3:04 PM]
So, basically NO?

Pack Rat [04/20/2015 3:58 PM]

Rick Wadholm Jr [04/20/2015 4:14 PM]
Only every person…because not one of them is alive still. 🙂

John Kissinger [04/20/2015 4:36 PM]
That’s beyond the premise of the question of course. If we counted every healing as resurrection and every loss of healing as death, then well…

Pack Rat [04/20/2015 4:39 PM]
Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

John Kissinger [04/20/2015 4:40 PM]
more proverbial than exemplifying…

Charles Page [04/20/2015 4:46 PM]
Hezekiah?

Pack Rat [04/20/2015 5:08 PM]
While it is not a lost of a healing for a person in the bible. Many illnesses were cured by deliverance from demons. In theory a healed person whom returns to sin, becomes many times worst. Again I can not remember an example in the scripture, but in ministry this is often the case.

Daniel Rushing [04/20/2015 5:39 PM]
I have personally seen instances where a spiritual experience may cause an ailment to cease for a moment, without a complete healing happening. My Dad, for instance, cannot walk more than a fee steps due to a stroke. However, once in a worship service, he was so overcome by the Spirit that he walked around the church. After the experience, the strength left and he was not completely healed.

Jeffrey D. Madison [04/20/2015 6:44 PM]
This teaching comes from John chapter 5. Here Jesus warns a man who he healed at the pool of Bethesda that something worse will happen to him if he does not stop sinning. Scripture does not mention the sin, it only confirms that sin can cause one to lose their healing: v.14; “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (NIV). Sin in this case “could” have been a hard heart. Scripture says that the man went to the Jewish leaders to tell them that it was Jesus who healed him. This goes against Jesus’ instruction about his concealment while he was on earth (Mark 7:36). When he was with us Jesus would receive praise and worship, but he did not want the Jewish leaders to know that it was him who was doing the miracles. (He did not want them to crown him king before it was his time (John 6:15), he also wanted to be able to mingle with the people without the crowds pressing on him (Mark 1:43-45).

John Kissinger [04/20/2015 6:49 PM]
While this seem like a valid example, the expression “something worse” is hard to related to sickness again, but perhaps something worse like death. For sickness again would have not been exactly something worse, but rather more of the same. Also while there’s a stated warning, there’s no record of the sickness returning again to the man.

Jeffrey D. Madison [04/20/2015 8:06 PM]
Here two things should be considered. The first is the character of God. In that he is GOOD all the time! In his benevolent mercy he seems to prevent immediate death for regurgitated sins, just like he did with Adam in Eve’s original sin. Scripture does not have an example of an immediate death after someone is healed and then sins. Second, Scripture does provide an example of what happens when demons are cast out and a person continues to sin (Luke 11:20-26). Considering that infirmity was considered a demonic oppression (Luke 13:11-16; Matthew 9:32-33), it is highly possible that John is implying to what is already known about the matter due to Luke’s text. This correlates with 1 John ch. 3. Scripture is clear in confessing that Satan and his demonic horde are indeed the author of sin and death. Scripture is also clear in stating that Jesus came to drive them out. (Acts 10:38, 1 John 3). By connecting Luke 11:20-26 with infirmity, it is clear that one can regain their infirmity or have something worse happen to them. However, as mentioned, death due to sinning after being healed is not mentioned in the text. Getting the infirmity back is implied. With that being said, if you or someone you know is worried about loosing their healing due to sin, please know that God loves you (them) and does not cause anyone to loose their healing. Grace be with you!

John Kissinger [04/21/2015 6:02 AM]
Agreed, but all I am saying is thou there was a valid warning, there’s no actual records of happening. My original inquiry was for example where healing was actually lost and sickness returned

Pack Rat [04/21/2015 7:54 AM]
Having no biblical examples neither proves or disproves the curse. but if your intention was to make us think, well done!

John Kissinger [04/21/2015 7:56 AM]
OK then, so here’s the theological dilemma: if sickness can get back in a healed person, what is to stop a demon to get back into a saved person?

Pack Rat [04/21/2015 8:19 AM]
The variable here is not Almighty God, or demons, or that persons salvation; the variable is sin, willingly or unwilling sinning.

I have been totally healed by God of cancer, which has been verified with a bone marrow test and 28 monthly blood test.

However if I allow the sin of fear to grip me, or continue in bad health habits, cancer could again attack. I know to avoid sugar, which feeds cancer cells. So it is within my free will to sin against my own body…

Jeffrey D. Madison [04/21/2015 4:22 PM]
TB: Yes, the exegesis that I provided highlights a persons free will to fall back into sin, along with the possible consequences. When it comes to the supernatural, not every doctrine is spelled out word for word in the Bible. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, and Jesus’ divinity, we have to piece things together in prayer and in community. As a result of this strange phenomenon we search the Scriptures for the reasons why. Pack’s example of sin is a good one because we are commanded not to fear. Worry, doubt, and fear are actions that give rise to Biblical examples of sin. Theologically, I would label this as demonic trickery (as seen in the temptation of Christ: Matt. 4:1-11). Here the enemy uses fear, worry, and doubt as manipulators that take over our thinking patterns. It is at this point that demonic oppression takes place. The general consensus among Pentecostals is that it is demonic oppression that causes one to lose their healing, not their salvation. In my opinion, Demonic possession can happen only if the Christian willingly walks away from God to serve Satan or demonic entities. Hebrews 6:4-8 speaks of the reality of losing salvation. However, for this to happen one would have to completely walk away from Christ. Here they would have to publicly disown Christ (Matt. 10:33). At this point I am sure that they would be open for demonic possession. Regardless, it is not easy for humans to be demon possessed. In that God’s prevenient grace is deployed to protect humanity from Satan.

34 Comments

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Good discussion by Daniel Rushing and @pack rat

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    Jesus cautioned them against receiving an even worse thing.
    John 5:12-14
    Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Since some sickness is caused by demons does this mean that a demon could return back in a person healed by the Lord? Robert Borders

    • Reply December 5, 2016

      Robert Borders

      The same people including pastors went through weekly deliverance at Win Worley’s church and barfed up demons into paper sacks.

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    Depends on what Jesus ment by “a worse thing”.

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    Also, maybe why Jesus said this,
    Mark 9:25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    So which one of all these may be(s) it is?

  • Reply December 5, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    Troy Day
    Each situation is different.
    I do not deal in maybe(s).

    Have you dealt with any that were possessed (truly possessed)?

    So which maybe would it be?

  • Reply December 6, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    David Lewayne Porter seems like there’s no case in the Bible, where a person received healing and then lost it?

    • Reply December 6, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      Troy
      Here is one for you,
      Are you ready?
      Saul persecuted the church.
      He was blinded by Jesus with Him being brighter than the noonday sun.
      Ananias prayed for him and as it were scales fell from his eyes.
      And then yet Paul says this later,
      Galatians 4:13-15
      Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

      So then what think ye?

    • Reply December 6, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      Did Saul had a demon? – a messenger from Satan?

    • Reply December 6, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      You jump to the conclusion others do that the messenger of satan, the thorn in his flesh was his eyes.

      We do know that the thorn was a messenger of satan (no more, no less).
      I guess with all of his visions and spiritual enlightenment he would have known if it was a demon.

      He never called it a demon or devil, nor did any of his contemporaries?

    • Reply December 6, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      A messenger of Satan in the eyes? Do you mean in his physical body because that sure sounds like a demon entering the body of a Spirit filled believer Robert Borders

    • Reply December 6, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      There we go again jumping to conclusions that the messenger of satan, the thorn in the flesh was his eyes.

      So Troy
      Are you playing on words?
      Is it sicknesses in the body, or possessing the person’s spirit?

      You need to research,
      (s)pirit – lower case s
      infirmity
      sickness
      verses
      devil (s)
      Possessed
      Casted out

      When dealing with spirits of sickness or infirmities within the body (bodily) it does not control them to the place or level of making them do things against their will.
      Now devils the like of legion (that controls the person and has them do its bidding against their will) which is a spiritual issue.

      The two are not the same.
      Notice the command of power usage Jesus gave to the disciples and the charge of how to use it;
      Matthew 10:1
      And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
      Matthew 10:8
      Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
      Luke 13:32
      And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

  • Reply December 6, 2016

    Jim Price

    Unless we think of Lazarus who was healed from death and the later died.

  • Reply December 7, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Lazarus’ sickness was not unto death

    • Reply December 8, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      But it was a sickness, was it not?

    • Reply December 8, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      But not unto death – makes whole lots of difference

    • Reply December 8, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      Did he die?
      Did Jesus say
      John 11:14
      Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

      ?
      He was not to stay dead inorder to show Christ had power over death.
      But he did die.
      It was sickness.
      It require the attention, touch, and power of Jesus.

      Your (makes a whole of difference) only in your theology.

  • Reply December 8, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    LoL,
    Not the first time. ..
    Is Lazarus still walking around with us in his fleshly body?

  • Reply December 8, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Some say Lazarus and John were one and the same

    • Reply December 8, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      Some are crazy.
      Sounds like the fellow trying to say Michael the arch angel is Jesus.

      You gonna believe a man?

  • Reply December 8, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    Were Mary and Martha Johns sisters?

    Was John from bethany?
    Did it not say the disciples were with Jesus?
    Did Jesus call John forth from the tomb/grave?

    I will trust the scriptures.

  • Reply December 8, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    Was Lazarus or John whom Jesus loved?
    Was Lazarus or John whom Jesus resurrected and wanted him to remain alive until His return in John 21:22?

    Read more:

    The biblical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt John was not the “other disciple” because:

    The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved”, but they often refer to John by name – and yet all of those events where John was referenced by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that the one whom “Jesus loved” wrote.

    The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence John ever avoided using his own name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against the idea that the same man wrote both books.

    “The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This can’t be said of John, and the three times that Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having that relationship.

    On the night that Jesus was arrested, John and the “other disciple” behaved differently. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. In contrast, the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus, and we only see him leave at a time well into the next day, when Jesus reassigned him.

    The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on the false assumption that this author was one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at the supper promote this error. But the details in scripture show Jesus and “the twelve” were not alone at that event, like the fact they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself indicates he was not one of “the twelve” but, rather, he was one of the additional loyal disciples who also followed Jesus. (See Appendix for more proof he was not one of “the twelve”.)

    If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the Lord’s Table and opens with the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again”.

    The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus, and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John.

    The author’s anonymity argues against the John idea. At the end of this author’s gospel, he listed “the sons of Zebedee” at the same time that he listed two “other” disciples and called himself the one whom “Jesus loved”. He grouped John in with the apostles but he referred to himself anonymously at that point.

    A preponderance of the evidence in scripture indicates Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:

    They had the identical relationship with Jesus. “Jesus loved” the one “whom Jesus loved” and “Jesus loved” Lazarus – and they were unique in this regard. They were the only men who associated with Jesus during his ministry that were also singled out in scripture as being “loved” by Jesus (the key relationship).

    The other three gospel writers treat these two alike. They do not tell us that Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, or that Lazarus had supper with Jesus, or even that Lazarus was raised from the dead! Likewise, they never mention “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, and they totally ignore his unique role in the key events of the closing days of Jesus’ life.

    The anonymous author treats Lazarus and himself in a parallel manner in his gospel. Lazarus suddenly appears late in the text and he is only referenced a few times. In a highly similar way, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” also suddenly appears late in the gospel and he too is only referenced a few times.

    One seems to replace the other in the gospel. The last mention of Lazarus occurs before the first mention of the one whom “Jesus loved”. The author ceased all references to Lazarus in the text and it was only after he did so that the author began referring to himself as the one whom “Jesus loved”.

    The suddenly famous one disappears, and then the anonymous one suddenly appears. Right after the public’s desire to see Lazarus is recounted, a transition occurs: he vanishes from the text and the term “Jesus loved”, which had only been used regarding Lazarus, then begins to be used by the author in anonymous references to himself – “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, etc.

    The experiences of Lazarus would produce the behavior exhibited by “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Jesus gave a one-of-a-kind gift to Lazarus when he raised him from the dead. After that, Lazarus was different from the rest of Jesus’ followers, and he would have been different from the man that he had been prior to that miracle. Jesus’ relationship to the one whom “Jesus loved” and the behavior of this “other disciple” befit what one would expect if he was the raised-from-the-dead Lazarus.

    The Bible reveals that both sat with Jesus. The last time Lazarus is seen in the Bible he is sitting with Jesus at a table. Similarly, the first time the one whom “Jesus loved” is seen he is leaning on Jesus at a table.

    When confronted with the “linen” evidence, the “other disciple” became the first one who “believed”. This reaction befits Lazarus – the one person in scripture who was most likely to be profoundly moved by the sight of the “linen clothes” and the “napkin”, since he had been wearing similar wrappings for four days at the time he was raised from the dead.

    The “not die” rumor about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” points to Lazarus. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Jesus said, “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” just prior to raising him. Knowing either fact might cause a rush to judgment about Jesus’ words, “If I will that he tarry till I come” and result in the rumor that was inferred from them (especially if it was known he “believed” first).

    The “other disciple” was anonymous and Lazarus had a motive to become anonymous. When the people came “not for Jesus’ sake only” but to “see Lazarus also”, surely Lazarus knew that the focus belonged on Jesus and not on him. Likewise, the author’s intent was to lead people to Jesus and he concealed his identity, thus, he apparently felt this was needed in order to achieve that objective.

    When Peter’s death was foretold he turned to “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. This could be because he associated “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with the issue of death, a topic that would undeniably be forever associated with Lazarus by all those who knew him.

    The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus and was known to the high priest; both fit Lazarus. He was a “friend” of Jesus and the apostles. Upon his death “many of the Jews” turned out, some still weeping four days later. When Lazarus was raised the “chief priests” sought to kill Jesus but thereafter many Jews “came not for Jesus sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also”. So the “chief priests” conspired to kill Lazarus too because “by reason of him many of the Jews” believed on Jesus.

  • Reply December 8, 2016

    Tony Conger

    everyone eventually loses their healing

  • Reply December 9, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    John 21:22
    You miss understood what you read.
    John 21:23
    Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:
    yet Jesus said NOT unto him, *He shall not die*;
    but, If I will that he tarry till I come,
    what is that to thee?

    Jesus said that to say (end of verse 23) what business is it of yours..
    Not that he would live until Jesus came back.

    As far as Jesus loving Lazarus or John;
    How about “Jesus loved them both”.
    Did you not read what is said about Jesus,
    John 13:1
    Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world,
    He *loved them* unto the end.

    Responding to you by point::;

    The biblical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt John was not the “other disciple” because:
    * Reasonable doubt – then why did you say, “Troy Day Some say Lazarus and John were one and the same”
    You did not say all, so there is still doubt because only some say it).
    You may believe that, or just be trolling but there is still doubt that is more than reasonable.

    The gospel writers treated them like different people. The first three gospels totally omit the one whom “Jesus loved”, but they often refer to John by name – and yet all of those events where John was referenced by name in the first three gospels are missing from the book that the one whom “Jesus loved” wrote.
    * The 4 gospels were written by 4 different men to show 4 different sides of Christ;
    Matthew = Christ as King
    Mark (the Gospel of Peter, written by Mark his sidekick) = Christ the Devine
    Luke = Christ the Messiah/Saviour (kind to the weak and suffering
    John = Christ the Son of God.

    The one whom “Jesus loved” wrote his gospel without identifying himself by name, but there is no evidence John ever avoided using his own name. In fact, John identified himself by name repeatedly in the Book of Revelation, and this difference in behavior argues against the idea that the same man wrote both books.
    * You seem to overlook that the Gospel of John is written in 3rd person and ends this way;
    John 21:24
    This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true
    Revelation is written in 1st person.
    That is a simple lesson in basic English.

    “The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This can’t be said of John, and the three times that Jesus took John aside with Peter and James do not single John out as having that relationship.
    * Peter was also one that laid on Jesus breasts at the last supper John 13:24&25. That in addition to him be taken as part of the there shows he was also of a special bond. Show where Jesus took any one disciple a side separately on a regular basis.

    On the night that Jesus was arrested, John and the “other disciple” behaved differently. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times. In contrast, the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus, and we only see him leave at a time well into the next day, when Jesus reassigned him.
    * The other disciple – the high priest wanted to kill Lazarus – does not make much since for him to go before the high priest during Jesus’ mock trial. John 12:10-11
    But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

    The idea that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John relies on the false assumption that this author was one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at the supper promote this error. But the details in scripture show Jesus and “the twelve” were not alone at that event, like the fact they were guests in someone’s home. Besides this, the phrase “other disciple” itself indicates he was not one of “the twelve” but, rather, he was one of the additional loyal disciples who also followed Jesus. (See Appendix for more proof he was not one of “the twelve”.)
    * did Lazarus have a brother named James?… Matt 17:1
    It is not recorded as James`, Mary’s, and Martha’s house when Jesus would frequent their home.
    Was Lazarus the son of Zebedee?
    Yes Jesus had more than 12, still weak to try to make Lazarus the beloved.

    If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the Lord’s Table and opens with the foot washing, after which Jesus sat down “again”.
    * you use if as a base for your presumption – that shows your doubt.
    The difference of the Lord’s supper narrative is easily explained the same as any two witnesses at the same accident gives differing accounts due to their stations and vantage point.

    The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus, and he was known to the high priest. But John was not known to the high priest. It was only after Pentecost that the high priest first became acquainted with John.
    * so the other disciple was known to the high priest
    Again, Lazarus could not have entered the high priest area during the mock trial
    John 12:10-11
    But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

    The author’s anonymity argues against the John idea. At the end of this author’s gospel, he listed “the sons of Zebedee” at the same time that he listed two “other” disciples and called himself the one whom “Jesus loved”. He grouped John in with the apostles but he referred to himself anonymously at that point.
    * again, 3rd person, a simple literary style used by many writers.

    A preponderance of the evidence in scripture indicates Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:
    * you used a lot of “ifs” for it to be so clear cut.
    And you did say “some” say this, not all.
    Indicates doubt.

    They had the identical relationship with Jesus. “Jesus loved” the one “whom Jesus loved” and “Jesus loved” Lazarus – and they were unique in this regard. They were the only men who associated with Jesus during his ministry that were also singled out in scripture as being “loved” by Jesus (the key relationship).
    * again, Jesus loved them all – John 13:1.

    * There are many things in one or two gospels, but not in all;
    Parables in Matthew are omitted from Mark and Luke, miracles also.

    I believe I leave you with more to examine due to doubt and (if), and only “some” saying it.

  • Reply December 9, 2016

    David Lewayne Porter

    I had more but Facebook limited me to 8,000 words.

  • Reply December 9, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    What exactly do you mean?

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      Are you saying the you personally believe Lazarus and John are the same people?

      If so, I’ll just let you read and concentrate on my replies until they sink in.

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      There’s a valid study that the beloved disciple and author of the 4th Gospel is indeed Lazarus. Have you not read about that in your studies?

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      That was not my question.
      Do you believe it?

      I do not ascribe to that thought.
      I also do not just accept just any person and their thoughts on scripture.

      Must people can’t rightly divide the Word (of Truth).

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      It’s normal I dont believe things like you do or feel things like Ricky Grimsley feels. But we simply look at the Biblical evidence and there is indeed compelling Biblical and historic evidence

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      David Lewayne Porter

      Compelling, hardly.
      Worth looking at , maybe, but far from convincing.

    • Reply December 9, 2016

      Varnel Watson

      What are the implications, if any, if Ἀλφαῖος and Κλωπᾶς are indeed the same individual?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.