was jesus real

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The real essence of this argument which cuts to the core is whether you believe, or whether there is evidence that the Bible and its writers were 'inspired', by God to record the things that they did. The Bible makes the claim that 'all scripture is inspired by God', " 2 Timothy 3:16,17. This word 'inspired', is very interesting, and comes from a G ...[text shortened]... erally means god-breathed and is the same word used for when God breathed life into Adam.

Even more interesting is the word 'scripture' which is not another word for "the Bible".

Does anyone here know whether any Hebrew writings other than those currently contained in a typical Bible would have been considered scripture at the time that 2 Timothy was written?

But most importantly, if that one verse was not inspired and happens to be wrong or simply misinterpreted, then the whole argument falls over.

Now the question is, is there evidence that the scriptures were/are inspired? Ask yourself the question, how could a book, written over an extensive period by 66 different authors contain a unified and internal harmony?
Are you claiming that the Bible is such a book? Have you actually read it? Are you sane?

How could prophesy uttered centuries before find its fulfillment hundreds of years later in incredible accuracy?
I will answer that when you give me evidence that it has ever happened. What do you mean by "incredible accuracy"? I hope we are not discussing Nostradamus.

these are questions that many atheists find disturbing and difficult to answer and are not readily rebuffed with skepticism over dates and events as many of them are historical facts, established beyond doubt both by secular historical sources, archeological and scientific.
I am not one of those atheists who find it disturbing, and I am yet to meet a single atheist who does. Can you give me one proven example of an atheist who does? Or are you lying?

the hundreds of Messianic prophecies relating to Christ, his manner of death and resurrection.
This particular one is the subject of this thread. If Jesus didn't exist or at least did not die on a cross and be resurrected, then the prophesies are not fulfilled.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That there were slaves in Egypt is not new information - and proves nothing whatsoever. Unless you say the writing was in Hebrew (something you did not state).

[b]Additionally, they found evidence for a Hebrew influence in the Egyptian royalty via a ring found in an Egyptian palace with a Hebrew inscription written upon it.
One ring with Hebrew wr ented conspiracy theory to try and explain why there is no evidence for the Biblical account.[/b]

Here is a web site that explains the findings a little better.

http://varnam.org/blog/archives/2006/08/exodus_decoded_1.php

He speculates that the Israeli exodus occurred during the reign of Ahmose 1. He was a pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who reigned from 1550-1525 BC. During his reign a group of people referred to by the Egyptians as the "Hyksos", who were a group of Semites, were said to have been expelled from Egypt. The documentary starts with a look at the Ahmose Stele stored in the Cairo Museum which records tremendous catastrophe that struck Egypt which involved rain, thunder, periods of darkness, and storm which were unusual for that part of the world. In addition, the Stele states that we get the name of the Pharaoh as Ahmose which means brother of Moses in Hebrew.

The Hysksos ruled from the capital city called Avaris which was off limits by the Egyptian government until his crew was allowed in. They find a tomb at Beni Hasan which shows evidence for the entry of Western Semitic people into Egypt. The hieroglyphics call them Amo, which means Gods people. It also records that one of the migrants rose to the highest power and his name was Joseph, son of Yakov (Jacob). Joseph wore on his fingers the seal of royal authority and the Simcha shows such seals which were found through archeology. They also find a slave inscription in a cave which reads, "El, save me". This is significant because the writings were not in Hieroglyphics, rather, they were in Hebrew form. In addition, the God "El" is synonymous and unique to the Hebrew people.

Of course, not of this "proves" that the Biblical count is accurate verbatim, however, it appears there is more truth there than you give it credit for.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even more interesting is the word 'scripture' which is not another word for "the Bible".

Does anyone here know whether any Hebrew writings other than those currently contained in a typical Bible would have been considered scripture at the time that 2 Timothy was written?

But most importantly, if that one verse was not inspired and happens to be wron t least did not die on a cross and be resurrected, then the prophesies are not fulfilled.

Ok, lets take your first statement, have i read the Bible , yes, am i sane, well that's relative to your interpretation of sanity, which is not the theme of this discussion and i would appreciate it very much if you refrained from getting personal as it diverts the arguments and lines of reasoning and tends to bring the discussion to a personal level, and as a result clouds the real issues.

if you look at the verse in question again, it states clearly and explicitly that 'ALL SCRIPTURE', is inspired of God, therefore what scriptures are we talking about other than the words that have been preserved through the ages and which are now in the form of the sixty six little books that make up the Biblical cannon, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Actually it was forty different writers , my mistake. and while it may suit your argument, i would be very pleased to discuss what is actually in the biblical cannon at present rather than what is not.

as to whether the verse needs interpretation, it is quite customary for skeptics to site an interpretation when none exists, for example you yourself are trying it, ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of god for example, what is there to interpret, nothing, you either have evidence for this or you don't, its quite simple really.

as to the internal Harmony i thought that this was well established from the book of genesis right through to the book of revelation, that God would produce a 'seed', Gen 3:15, that would eventually undo the effects, (death, sickness and imperfection), of the Satanic rebellion in the garden of Eden, that this 'seed', would come through the line of Abraham, through the nation of Israel, Issac specifically, through Judah, through the line of David etc etc. and eventually reestablish Gods right to rule, his universal sovereignty if you like, Gods Kingdom specifically, which was called into question in the garden of Eden.

Just one prophecy i think should suffice, although this is usually never enough, so lets take the one that i sited, Alexander the great and his over throw of the Island of Tyre. read Zechariah 9:3,4,

Nearly 200 years after Zechariah’s prophecy was given, it was fulfilled. In 332 B.C.E. Alexander the Great marched his army across Asia Minor and, in his sweep southward, paused long enough to give his attention to Tyre. When the city refused to open its gates, Alexander in his rage had his army scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and throw it into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city, all of this in fulfillment of another prophecy. Ezekiel 26:4 this time, with his naval forces holding the Tyrian ships bottled up in their harbor, Alexander set about constructing the highest siege towers ever used in ancient wars. Finally, after seven months the 46-m-high (150 ft) walls were breached. In addition to the 8,000 military men killed in battle, 2,000 prominent leaders were killed as a reprisal, and 30,000 inhabitants were sold into slavery and the city torched, interesting is it not?

As to your third question as to whether i am a liar, i do not consent to given this any attention, you are getting personal and i will having nothing to do with it, please refrain, it was my personal opinion based on my experience not yours.

and lastly, with reference to whether Christ came, lived, died a sacrificial death, the converse is also true, if he did then the prophecies were fulfilled, of which there are many, infact I cannot think of a single reference which states that Christ did not exist, that he was not a historical personage, infact it seems almost incredible to believe that a humble carpenter from a city of no repute could have influenced his own time and beyond to such an extent, I don't think there is any precedent either, to believe otherwise takes a greater leap of faith than does the reality, if you pardon the pun.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The real essence of this argument which cuts to the core is whether you believe, or whether there is evidence that the Bible and its writers were 'inspired', by God to record the things that they did. The Bible makes the claim that 'all scripture is inspired by God', " 2 Timothy 3:16,17. This word 'inspired', is very interesting, and comes from a G ...[text shortened]... r 70 and the terrible carnage prophesied by Christ and recorded by Josephus, etc etc etc.

Having just dropped in after a month’s respite from here, first off I want to say that I have enjoyed reading some of your posts. With regard to this one, I just want to make a few points:

(1) The Timothy verses you cite do not say (in the original Greek) that “all scripture is inspired by God”.

There is no verb at all in verse 16 (no “is&rdquo😉, so verse 16 refers back to verse 15, referencing those writings that Timothy (the “you” in verse 15 is in the singular) would have known “in childhood”. This, of course, refers to the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no such claim in the Bible concerning the NT texts.

Note, for example, Young’s Literal Translation, with the missing verbs in brackets—

—every Writing {is} God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that {is} in righteousness,

You can quite clearly see that verse 16 makes perfect sense as a continuation from verse 15, without trying to expand what it actually says by inserting non-existent verbs.


(2) The word for “breathed into” used in Genesis 2:7, in the Greek Septuagint, is enephusesen, from emphusao, to “blow in; to play the flute” (Liddel-Scott lexicon), to “breathe on” (Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary), to “breathe into or on someone, as a spiritually creative act conveying God’s power or blessing” (Friberg Lexicon). The original Hebrew is naphash: to take breath or refresh oneself, related to the Hebrew noun nephesh, breath or soul (the basic animating breath/soul that is not restricted to humans).

Although this is the same Greek word used in John 20:22, it appears to be not even a cognate of pneuma (breath/wind/spirit) or empneo (to breathe [on]); therefore, I do not think that you can say that theopneustos from 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the same verb that is used “for when God breathed life into Adam”. I don’t know who told you that, but it isn’t accurate linguistically.*

At the very least, that is a theological/interpretive (highly interpretive, to my mind—which is not something that I always object to, as long as it is made clear) claim, not one based strictly on the language itself. So far as I know, based on my searching so far, pneuma (or any of its cognates) is never used to translate the Hebrew nephesh.

So far as I can tell, the Timothy verse is the only instance of the word theopneustos in the whole Biblical corpus.

(3) Theologians and other Christians have debated, likely for centuries, over what being “inspired” actually entails for the texts themselves—particularly over the question of “inerrancy”, and the extent of any such inerrancy: e.g., inerrancy in all matters (physical, biological, historical, etc.), or simply inerrancy in matters spiritual (e.g., the existence and nature of God).

There has also been the question of “degrees” of inspiration (on the receiving end, and subsequent articulation, at least). For example, this seems to be the basis for the church (both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox—though the canon was set long before that split) including the deuterocanconical (“second canon” ) books from the beginning of a settled canon until Protestant reformers decided to exclude them (16th century?). That is, do all the books (or all the parts of all the books) reflect the same degree of inspiration, and articulation of received inspiration, on the part of the authors?

* NOTE: There are various Greek words that can be used to translate the various Hebrew words that can mean breath or soul or spirit. I haven’t done a complete search. The Hebrew words nephesh, neshamah and ruach are not synonymous.

_____________________________________________

I would take theopneustos to be a metaphorical term that can admit of a broad range of interpretation as to what, exactly, it might entail for the texts themselves. The reading of any text is an interpretive process, and different readers employ different hermeneutical criteria (which may also vary from text to text: e.g., the Psalms, as poetry, might require a different literary hermeneutic than, say, Kings, or Job, or ...). Most readings are therefore arguable—and the fact that I might tend to agree with some of yours does not render them less arguable.

[Some people claim that their readings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore must be universally correct (or they make that claim for some other exegete they have read). But this just lends itself to an equally indemonstrable counter-claim by someone who has a different understanding that they believe to be so inspired.]

________________________________________

With regard to a “unified and internal harmony”—well, the nature of that harmony, again, depends on interpretation. In arriving at different unified, harmonious readings, people use different texts to contextualize others, for example. Internal consistency—“a unified and internal harmony”—is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. A reading (or readings) that is unified and harmonious can still be based on faulty underlying assumptions.

___________________________________________

Since you mentioned the prophecy about Tyre, you might be interested in reading a good debate between bbarr and Epiphenehas which begins here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=96558&page=10.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok, lets take your first statement, have i read the Bible , yes, am i sane, well that's relative to your interpretation of sanity, which is not the theme of this discussion and i would appreciate it very much if you refrained from getting personal as it diverts the arguments and lines of reasoning and tends to bring the discussion to a personal level, and as a result clouds the real issues.

My insanity comment was not intended as a personal attack. I was rather trying to express my incredulity that anyone who has actually read the Bible would choose to describe it as containing "a unified and internal harmony".

if you look at the verse in question again, it states clearly and explicitly that 'ALL SCRIPTURE', is inspired of God, therefore what scriptures are we talking about other than the words that have been preserved through the ages and which are now in the form of the sixty six little books that make up the Biblical cannon, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Well, the 66 books you mention would certainly not have been my first guess. I can think of many other 'scriptures' that could be included including other books that have been included in the past or even the Qu'ran. I can also think of some which could be excluded, as pointed out by vistesd the New Testament was probably not intended to be included.

as to whether the verse needs interpretation, it is quite customary for skeptics to site an interpretation when none exists, for example you yourself are trying it, ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of god for example, what is there to interpret, nothing, you either have evidence for this or you don't, its quite simple really.
I think vistesd has done an admirable job of showing that you are interpreting and that your interpretation is not the default one.

as to the internal Harmony i thought that this was well established from the book of genesis right through to the book of revelation, that God would produce a 'seed', Gen 3:15, that would eventually undo the effects, (death, sickness and imperfection), of the Satanic rebellion in the garden of Eden, that this 'seed', would come through the line of Abraham, through the nation of Israel, Issac specifically, through Judah, through the line of David etc etc. and eventually reestablish Gods right to rule, his universal sovereignty if you like, Gods Kingdom specifically, which was called into question in the garden of Eden.
What you consider 'well established' is probably only believed by yourself and members of your particular denomination, so think twice before pronouncing it as fact to atheists.

Just one prophecy i think should suffice, although this is usually never enough,
That prophesy has been discussed before as mentioned by vistesd, and I for one was far from convinced. The prophesy is wide open to interpretation, and when new historical details are discovered, people who once claimed that there was one and only one possible interpretations suddenly change their interpretation to fit the new facts.

As to your third question as to whether i am a liar, i do not consent to given this any attention, you are getting personal and i will having nothing to do with it, please refrain, it was my personal opinion based on my experience not yours.
I did not say you were a liar, I asked you whether you could back up your claim. You obviously cannot. So will you now admit that it is not based on your personal experience, but rather on mere conjecture, or a desire that it is so?

and lastly, with reference to whether Christ came, lived, died a sacrificial death, the converse is also true, if he did then the prophecies were fulfilled, of which there are many, infact I cannot think of a single reference which states that Christ did not exist, that he was not a historical personage, infact it seems almost incredible to believe that a humble carpenter from a city of no repute could have influenced his own time and beyond to such an extent,
I fully agree. If the Gospels are accurate and Jesus lived and was resurrected then it would imply that a number of prophesies in the Old Testament would hold more weight. However, it is quite obvious that I do not believe that Jesus was resurrected, so the point holds no real value.

I don't think there is any precedent either,
Maybe not, but there is always a first. There is however a second, in the person of Mohamed. And lets not forget the Buddha, Ghandi and Mandela.
And since you specified "in his own time" you must realize that Jesus' influence during his lifetime was relatively minor. (12 followers is quite pathetic actually). Other personages have made empires spanning continents within their lifetimes, or had major global influences (Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Hitler, various Romans etc).

to believe otherwise takes a greater leap of faith than does the reality, if you pardon the pun.
That may be so, depending on what information you have available to you and how you have analyzed it. The information that is available to me, points strongly towards the likelihood that Jesus either did not exist, or if he did, only did a small fraction of the things attributed to him.
So merely stating that you are convinced without providing an argument or information, really holds no water whatsoever.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My insanity comment was not intended as a personal attack. I was rather trying to express my incredulity that anyone who has actually read the Bible would choose to describe it as containing "a unified and internal harmony".

[b]if you look at the verse in question again, it states clearly and explicitly that 'ALL SCRIPTURE', is inspired of God, therefo ithout providing an argument or information, really holds no water whatsoever.

the substance of what you are saying and the references that you have provided are nothing more than your own personal opinion, which admittedly given the rather scant and almost incredulous lack of anything else in your argument best remain as such, personal to you. i myself will give them no more consideration unless there is something of substance to consider - regards Robert.

Originally posted by vistesd
Having just dropped in after a month’s respite from here, first off I want to say that I have enjoyed reading some of your posts. With regard to this one, I just want to make a few points:

(1) The Timothy verses you cite do [b]not say (in the original Greek) that “all scripture is inspired by God”.

There is no verb at all in verse 16 (no “ ...[text shortened]... s which begins here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=96558&page=10.[/b]

Hi i really appreciate these comments although i really do think the reference to second timothy that you mention the absence of the verb (is), is really being pedantic to an excessive degree. it is not that i cannot give a defense for my assertions but i have neither the energy nor the appetite. it was a mistake to come here in the first place, i knew it before but curiosity got the better and i am sorry that i did, its the futility of debates about semantics and events, it is truly taxing and unproductive and i have had enough, regards to all - Robert.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi i really appreciate these comments although i really do think the reference to second timothy that you mention the absence of the verb (is), is really being pedantic to an excessive degree. it is not that i cannot give a defense for my assertions but i have neither the energy nor the appetite. it was a mistake to come here in the first place, i ...[text shortened]... and events, it is truly taxing and unproductive and i have had enough, regards to all - Robert.

There aren't many posters here (or in any forum I participate in) that are more constructive in his discussions than vistesd.

Calling him pedantic and not worthy of discussion is really a sin (hamartia).

Good riddance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hi i really appreciate these comments although i really do think the reference to second timothy that you mention the absence of the verb (is), is really being pedantic to an excessive degree. it is not that i cannot give a defense for my assertions but i have neither the energy nor the appetite. it was a mistake to come here in the first place, i ...[text shortened]... and events, it is truly taxing and unproductive and i have had enough, regards to all - Robert.

Hey rob pal,
we have to be accurate in order to commit not a blunder -otherwise the game is lost for us. And this conversation is almost as big as life, with too much room for mistakes and too many chances for us to learn a thing or two;

vistesd has a point, the rest is all up to you -but his quote is accurate. As usually.

Originally posted by vistesd
Having just dropped in after a month’s respite from here, first off I want to say that I have enjoyed reading some of your posts. With regard to this one, I just want to make a few points:

(1) The Timothy verses you cite do [b]not say (in the original Greek) that “all scripture is inspired by God”.

There is no verb at all in verse 16 (no “ ...[text shortened]... s which begins here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=96558&page=10.[/b]

The biblical text states in the original Greek and i quote from the original Westcott and Hort text, first published in 1881, ALL SCRIPTURE, GOD- BREATHED AND BENEFICIAL TOWARD TEACHING, TOWARD REPROVING, TOWARD STRAIGHTENING UP UPON, TOWARD DISCIPLINE IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS'.

it is very plain and exceptionally clear and simple that the adjective 'god-breathed', is with reference to the object in this instance scripture, whether there is the Greek equivalent of is or not, to say otherwise is Pedantic. If for example the reference to god-breathed is not with respect to scripture then it certainly seems to be out of place in the text and one must ask why is it there in the first place, with reference to what? but its exactly this type of fruitless debate that i wish to avoid.

whether the scripture in this instance refers to the original Hebrew writings or to those of Greek text is not stated, nor can one say that it was exclusively meant to have been with reference to the Hebrew scriptures only as there were many writings extant during Paul's own lifetime and which he himself no doubt circulated, for example, Mathews gospel completed in 41, Romans completed in 56, 1 and 2 Corinthians completed in 55, 1 and 2 Thessalonians completed in 50,51 respectively, whereas 2 timothy was completed in 65, much later, this is naturally further compounded by the fact that many of the Hebrew scriptures are quoted in the so called, 'new testament', suggesting that the whole text is meant to be understood as being harmonious.

if we are to say otherwise is speculative and cannot be inferred from the immediate context nor any other, infact the opposite is true, as it is well documented in scripture that Timothy spent a considerable amount of time with Paul on his visits to the different congregations and would have known Paul's own writings which have entered into the inspired cannon, are we therefore to conclude now that timothy, to whom Paul was writing as an older person, (about thirty years of age), that Paul no longer counts his own writings nor those of other Gospel writers as being inspired? To do so is absurd, is it not?

as to the 'debate about god breathed', and its meaning of inspiration or otherwise i will leave that until these other matters have been addressed. I really never meant to reply to this but the gauntlet had been thrown and the question of truth verses speculation had to be addressed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the substance of what you are saying and the references that you have provided are nothing more than your own personal opinion, which admittedly given the rather scant and almost incredulous lack of anything else in your argument best remain as such, personal to you.

I could say the same about everything you wrote. The difference is I am willing to discuss and argue anything I have said, whereas you clearly wish to back out without admitting that you are wrong.

The claim that all the books of the Bible are the word of God based solely on the argument that one verse (when interpreted in a specific way) says so, is simply laughable. If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone other than a fellow Christian who already believes it to be true, then you need to put up a better argument than you have done. The same applies to the rest of your claims.

Remember it is you making the claim and not me. Mine is the default position. If I was to tell you that the Qu'ran was the word of God, wouldn't you expect me to back up my argument rather than simply saying that anyone who disagrees with me should keep their opinions to themselves?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The real essence of this argument which cuts to the core is whether you believe, or whether there is evidence that the Bible and its writers were 'inspired', by God to record the things that they did. The Bible makes the claim that 'all scripture is inspired by God', " 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

No. The real essence of my argument comes down to how we interpret texts in order to assess
their historical reliability. Nothing I say hinges on whether or not the writers were inspired, since
I am not asking questions that pertain to any supernatural quality Jesus may or may not have had.

The question was 'Was Jesus Real?,' and that is the only question I sought to answer.

As for your quotation from II Timothy, you, like every other Christian, always leave out the preceding
verses:

But you [readers], remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know
from whom you have learned it, and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures,
which are capable of givin you wasdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture
is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The term 'Scripture' used by the author (whom I'm sure you take to be St Paul, but no serious
scholar does) has nothing to do with the Christian canon, because those texts weren't deemed
as Scripture until the fourth century, and weren't collected in proto-canonical groups until the
second century, decades after this text was even written. Indeed, if you believe St Paul wrote
II Timothy, he must have written it before he died around 68 CE, which is before any of the
Gospels had even been penned; indeed, it was only ~31 years after Jesus' death.

Furthermore, by definition, II Timothy couldn't be regarded as Scripture because none of the
original readers obviously could have known it in their infancy. Therefore, its claims cannot be
inspired themselves. Therefore, its contents cannot be used to make dogmatic claims. Therefore,
one cannot believe that the complete contents of the Bible is inspired by God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
No. The real essence of my argument comes down to how we interpret texts in order to assess
their historical reliability. Nothing I say hinges on whether or not the writers were inspired, since
I am not asking questions that pertain to any supernatural quality Jesus may or may not have had.

The question was 'Was Jesus Real?,' and that is the only ques e cannot believe that the complete contents of the Bible is inspired by God.

Nemesio

this confession of yours really betrays how much you actually don't know about the Christian Greek scriptures, it is logical, it is fundamental to the argument about the existence of Christ as to whether he was a real personage or otherwise because the majority of what we know is contained in the Gospel accounts, is it not? therefore if we can prove the integrity of the scriptures on the basis of their inspiration then we can have confidence in the existence of Christ, the gospels being the reference based on their integrity.

As to your rather purile, basless and frankly erroneous assertions that the letters written by Paul were not of his own hand i have nothing to say, but get a life. The scriptures themselves indicate this in context and elsewhere, i do not entertain the ideas of so called, 'serious scholars', because there arguments, like yours are founded on baseless principles and arguments about semantics (like the meaning of scriptures, or there is a non existent is???) and dates etc. The Scriptures, i.e. the Christian Greek scriptures themselves, and i keep harking back to this point, and their integrity are the reference points, not the rather fanciful and baseless comments of so called secular scholars, who have contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of scripture because they fail to get the understanding themselves because they approach with preconceptions and prejudice. And please do not refer to me as a Christian, you know nothing of my bearing, motives or beliefs.

As to timothy, he learned Christianity from his parents, his mother and grandmother were Christian converts, his father was a Greek. Timothy was not an infant when Paul wrote the letter to him was he? and as i have already stated many of the writings of the Christan Greek scriptures were extant and in use by the time Paul penned his letter, i hope i will not need to remind you of the references that i have already given.