I think there is an important reason why Jesus chose common people for His disciples, not the most learned or witty.

It really comes down to what is in your heart. You can't fool God by saying you believed something to be right and good when your heart knew otherwise. Consider how Jesus shamed the men who accused the woman caught in adultery.

She was guilty by the letter of the law, but Jesus spoke to hearts. Conversely, some of the temple merchants would likely claim they broke no law, but Jesus drove them out with more than a bit of rope.

If someone truly wants to seek Christ, he or she will learn Christ truly and find their path through faith and hope and love. If someone wants to make themselves feel important by pretending they have perfect doctrine while someone else is worthless, well Jesus said a lot about people like that as well.

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

But I'm not going to claim I have any standing to judge someone who is trying to follow Christ. Christ will speak to His sheep, and if someone thinks they are fooling Christ, that will play out to their shame, but is someone, however poorly, is trying to grow in Christ's service, I don't want to be guilty of tripping them up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I think there is an important reason why Jesus chose common people for His disciples, not the most learned or witty.

It really comes down to what is in your heart. You can't fool God by saying you believed something to be right and good when your heart knew otherwise. Consider how Jesus shamed the men who accused the woman caught in adultery.

She was guilty by the letter of the law, but Jesus spoke to hearts. Conversely, some of the temple merchants would likely claim they broke no law, but Jesus drove them out with more than a bit of rope.

If someone truly wants to seek Christ, he or she will learn Christ truly and find their path through faith and hope and love. If someone wants to make themselves feel important by pretending they have perfect doctrine while someone else is worthless, well Jesus said a lot about people like that as well.

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

But I'm not going to claim I have any standing to judge someone who is trying to follow Christ. Christ will speak to His sheep, and if someone thinks they are fooling Christ, that will play out to their shame, but is someone, however poorly, is trying to grow in Christ's service, I don't want to be guilty of tripping them up.

---

If someone is following false doctrine and unbiblical beliefs and practices, can they truly be "seeking and following Christ", and "growing in Christ's service"?

And if you are a Christian, and you KNOW this, but you don't call it out - aren't you contributing to "tripping them up"?

If a Christian knows something is unbiblical, even heretical and idolatrous, but does not stand for the truth...... can they be truly following Christ?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The reason why the modern versions (ESV, NIV, Berean, NLV, etc) are the most accurate is because they are the result of utilizing ALL the available Greek texts of the New Testament and employing the scientific process of textual criticism, a process which most accurately determines what the original Greek text actually said. These bibles were based on critical texts, while the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims were not. Based on textual criticism, it is determined that Luke 7:28 in the original Greek likely did not contain the word "prophet" ().

---

Your position grows weaker with every post. It's just not a tenable position to support the idea of the church invisible in combination with sola scriptura when Karl Lachman's critical New Testament wasn't published until the early 1800s. Heck it wasn't until the 1700s that the German textual criticis started to question the TR and classify texts.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The reason why the modern versions (ESV, NIV, Berean, NLV, etc) are the most accurate is because they are the result of utilizing ALL the available Greek texts of the New Testament and employing the scientific process of textual criticism, a process which most accurately determines what the original Greek text actually said. These bibles were based on critical texts, while the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims were not. Based on textual criticism, it is determined that Luke 7:28 in the original Greek likely did not contain the word "prophet" ().

---

Your position grows weaker with every post. It's just not a tenable position to support the idea of the church invisible in combination with sola scriptura when Karl Lachman's critical New Testament wasn't published until the early 1800s. Heck it wasn't until the 1700s that the German textual criticis started to question the TR and classify texts.

---

You just don't seem to understand what sola scriptura is or means. Or how textual criticism relates to it, either.

Sola scriptura does NOT depend on every generation of Christians throughout history having Scripture that was a 100% accurate copy of the original. It is merely the principle that scripture should be the only infallible rule of faith for the church, since it is the only thing the church has that we know came from divinely inspired, original apostolic tradition. Now, if the copies of Scripture had been corrupted throughout time to a significant degree, then the principle of sola scriptura would certainly have a significant weakness.

But, what the science of textual criticism has revealed, 1700 years later, after being able to compare ALL the thousands and thousands of available copies (a miracle in itself that a work of antiquity was preserved to that degree) was that throughout church history, the New Testament has been kept nearly identical to the original. Most importantly, virtually none of the differences affected central Christian doctrine at all. The "church invisible" was never separated from God's true word, hence sola scriptura was never at any point invalid or an "untenable position".

Try This Link:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

Had no idea that you were a textual criticism supporter. Not even those in your camp go down that road.

https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/17/the-weakness-of-evidence-based-textual-criticism-the-received-text/

"The single most impactful cause of changes in modern bibles is reinterpretation of data. That is because modern textual criticism views evidence as the source material to reconstruct a text that has been lost. One generation, the church may deem a manuscript or reading of little value, and the next, the most valuable text available. We have seen this practically implemented by the introduction of various brackets, footnotes, and omissions in modern Greek texts and translations made from them. This is inevitable with evidence based approaches, because the shape of the text is driven by whichever theory is in vogue that is used to evaluate the evidence. While the transmission of the New Testament was guarded from such significant changes by virtue of churches using these handwritten manuscripts and lack of technology for mass distribution, the modern church is not guarded by such a mechanism. The lack of church oversight in the creation of modern texts also plays into the ability for the Bible to shift year by year at such a quick rate. If a change is made in one place of Scripture today, it can be distributed in thousands of copies, essentially overnight, without consulting a single pastor. This should concern the people of God, but this has unfortunately become standard practice,"

Joel Osteen is wrong if his riches came from the Church. Sometimes a Pastor will have money before they go into the Ministry and people falsely accuse them of getting rich off of the people. Not sure how Osteen got his money. I do believe that he claimed a lot of it came from selling books, which I don't have a problem with. I don't believe that a Pastor should take a salary higher than the average of his membership. Or if he does, it shouldn't be some crazy high amount. I left the Church for 12 years because of Legalistic, rude and arrogant Leaders. I never stopped being a believer. But during that time in my 20s, God made me completely miserable. He taught that He wants me in Church, even with their flaws. Believers in Christ are not supposed to forsake the Assembly of ourselves together according to Paul. As far as women being treated badly, some Churches may, but most don't. God does have rules of the order in the Church and Home. God created us with different roles, but that doesn't mean that Men are any better than Women. Most Churches value their women very highly. Not sure what type of Church you went to.

When I went back to Church, I had a deep experience with God that changed my life. At that moment, I realized that everything I had ever believed was true and that God really was real. He knew everything I had ever done. We don't to Church for the people, we go to Church for God and to serve Him.

Realitybites said:

---

Had no idea that you were a textual criticism supporter. Not even those in your camp go down that road.

https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/17/the-weakness-of-evidence-based-textual-criticism-the-received-text/

"The single most impactful cause of changes in modern bibles is reinterpretation of data. That is because modern textual criticism views evidence as the source material to reconstruct a text that has been lost. One generation, the church may deem a manuscript or reading of little value, and the next, the most valuable text available. We have seen this practically implemented by the introduction of various brackets, footnotes, and omissions in modern Greek texts and translations made from them. This is inevitable with evidence based approaches, because the shape of the text is driven by whichever theory is in vogue that is used to evaluate the evidence. While the transmission of the New Testament was guarded from such significant changes by virtue of churches using these handwritten manuscripts and lack of technology for mass distribution, the modern church is not guarded by such a mechanism. The lack of church oversight in the creation of modern texts also plays into the ability for the Bible to shift year by year at such a quick rate. If a change is made in one place of Scripture today, it can be distributed in thousands of copies, essentially overnight, without consulting a single pastor. This should concern the people of God, but this has unfortunately become standard practice,"

---

Of course I'm a supporter of textual criticism. Anyone who supports logical reasoning using actual historical facts in order to understand history, would be.

Anyone who does not, would be like the person who wrote the above excerpt you referenced. This is the argument of the "King James Only" (or Textus Receptus Only) supporters who believe the KJV is the only true divine word of God for English speaking people. In order to hold to this view, they essentially must reject historical evidence or minimize it's significance to a large degree. Did you actually read what this person said?? He is actually criticizing the use of "evidence as the source material to reconstruct a text". He is criticizing evidence-based reasoning. Oh my gosh, far be if from us that we are using actual historical EVIDENCE to understand a text from ancient history!! That comment alone from this particular blogger should have alerted you to the problem behind his view. And it's probably why he's just a blogger and not doing scholarly work (I'm presuming).

The undeniable fact from history is this: the original writings of the New Testament are lost to antiquity. We are only left with copies made by man, who is capable of error. Even if you believe that "God wouldn't allow that" in the transmission of His word, the simple fact remains is that there ARE textual differences between copies. If you believe this to mean that God's providence over His word was lost, then I say that's a very uneccessary view to take, given that it can perfectly be within God's will for such variations to occur through time.

Another undeniable fact from history, and a rather inconvenient one for the King James Only movement, is that Erasmus' Textus Receptus, from which the KJV is sourced, relied only on 5 to 12 Greek manuscripts of the NT dated as late as the 11th century. Since Erasmus' time, there has been a discovery of over 5700 Greek manuscripts of the NT - hundreds of which, maybe thousands, that predate Erasmus' source material by centuries. Erasmus simply did not have access to this broad a base of source material in his time. If you do not recognize the significance of having thousands and thousands of manuscripts, many which are much, much older and thus closer to the originals than that handful of only 5 to 12 manuscripts from the 11th century used by Erasmus, in being able to better determine what the originals most likely contained.... well, then, there's just nothing I can say to you or to this blogger. Enjoy your time as a history and logic denier.

Finally, it's important to note that this blogger is vastly mischaracterizing the situation regarding textual criticism, calling it an effort to "reconstruct a text that has been lost", and vastly exaggerating it's effect on the church. NO, the text was never "lost"; the variations have never been significant enough to warrant a doomsday view for the church; and it does not result in errors being amplified through mass printing. What textual criticism has revealed, rather, is that the New Testament has been remarkably, even miraculously, preserved throughout the entirety of church history. ALL the manuscripts from history we have today, over 5 thousand of them, are in vast agreement - to illustrate, if you had 500 pages of text, then all the differences would amount to just half of a page. And of those differences, NONE change central or major doctrine. Textual criticism has been the single greatest tool in proving the reliability of the New Testament. It gives believers today every reason to trust that God's word is essentially the same today as it was originally. Sola Scriptura was NEVER invalid or untenable. The gospel of Jesus has never been lost; it has been preached throughout history, and many have been saved, whether by using the Latin Vulgate, Textus Receptus, King James, NIV, or ESV, etc.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your comments are all so frustrating to read, because they are almost always so wrong. And the lengths you go to defend the indefensibly illogical and unscriptural is absolutely ridiculous.

---

If I have provided illogical arguments, then I will work to be better. But is it possible that you simply reject the logic and scripture basis due to your bias?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

First of all you're not even getting the quote right. It's not "of those born among women", it's "among those born of women". As I already pointed out, this is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all humans who ever existed".

---

My apologies for adding the preposition "of".

You are failing to understand the concept of -the universe of discourse which mean everything that person has in mind a set of things (a universe) about which he is talking (discoursing). Simply put, anything that is part of that set is in his universe of discourse. Anything that is not part of that set is not.

I have stated that Luke was referring to the prophets. You state that is referring to "ALL humans who ever existed. I disagree with your assertion. Which will be demonstrated below …

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To separate out "those" to be referring to a certain subset of people would make the rest of the phrase "born of women" to be nonsensical and superfluous. All Jesus had to say was "among all the prophets" if that's what he meant. It'd be like saying "of all the dentists born of women, he's the best". What dentist is not going to be born of a woman? It's completely unnecessary to say that. And it ignores the meaning of the whole of the Hebrew idiomatic expression "those born of women" as explained. And it doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage. There is no reason to think Jesus was only comparing him to all the other prophets.

---

As I stated earlier, Luke (and Matthew 11:11) are referring to the prophets.

Lets look at some other translations of the same passage:

KJV - For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

NKJV - For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

Jubilee 2000 - For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

Wycliff bible - Certainly I say to you, there is no man a more prophet among the children of women, than is John Baptist.

As I stated Jesus is discussing the Prophets in this passage, NOT "all humans who ever existed". Jesus was referring to the Old Testament prophets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And don't you Catholics consider Mary a prophet? So even if you take Jesus to mean "of all the prophets" you've defeated your own argument.

---

You man have left off the second half of Luke 7:28

NKJV - For I say to you, among those born of women there is [a]not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

The kingdom of God refers to the Christian age, to the Church that Jesus will found. John was killed before the Church was founded. Mary was NOT part of the Old Testament prophets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is no way to know if Mary was the "greatest of all women born". It's not even necessary that Mary be the greatest in order to give birth to Jesus. She was "highly favored" by God, no doubt, and truly blessed as the chosen earthly mother of Jesus, and for that she is to be highly respected. But to say she was the greatest woman to ever exist is way beyond our knowledge. We simply can't claim that, and there is NOTHING in Scripture which even approaches making that proclamation. You repeatedly claim that your beliefs come from the early church fathers - ok then, which early church father believed Mary was the greatest woman ever?

---

Would you agree that the Mother of God would be the greatest woman ever born?

Gregory the Wonderworker 262 AD - ""For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David."

Methodius 305 AD - "While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled"

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away"

I could list many more.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For example, what is incorrect about my logic that if "eating Jesus' flesh" is literal, then in light of Jesus' statements in John 6:53-54 it makes salvation entirely relegated to the act of eating something, which is obviously false? If it's literal, then how was the thief on the cross saved? If it's literal, then how can there be "mortal sin" after one has taken the Eucharist? If drinking Jesus' blood is literal, then how could Jesus have commanded his disciples to break the Law, and thus be a sinner for doing so? If it's literal, then why not just give everyone Eucharist bread and wine in order to save them, regardless of their beliefs?

---

John 6:53-54 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day".

You are conflating Salvation and Eternal life as one thing. They are interconnected but distinct concepts in Catholic theology.

"Salvation refers to the process by which we are saved from sin and its consequences through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12)."

"It begins with initial justification, often through baptism, where we are transformed by God's grace (CCC 1989-92). This is a lifelong journey of growing in holiness, known as sanctification" (Matt. 5:43-48).

"Eternal life, on the other hand, is the ultimate reward for those who have been saved and have persevered in faith and good works (Rom 2:6-7). It is the fullness of life with God, promised to those who obey His commands and live a life of faith working through love" (Gal 5:6).

I apologize for not explaining this theological concept better much earlier. Just giving "everyone Eucharist bread and wine in order to save them" will NOT save them. That's not what Jesus meant.

I'm sure you would agree that Salvation and Eternal life are a free gift of God. We can choose to reject that gift. Just like Bart Ehrman, who was a devout Christian, youth pastor, PH.D in Divinity, and respected NT scholar, has chosen to reject that free gift.

Salvation is a process. Not a one-and-done shot.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You actually have used ad hominem, maybe in a couple of instances. But that's beside the point. I wasn't accusing you of anything, the point was that when someone starts doing that instead of providing a cogent logical answer to a question, then it usually is an indicator who is correct and who isn't. What I have said to you is not ad hominem. I said you were engaged in idolatry and heresy, and you are not a Christian because you met the definition idolater and heretic, and your beliefs are demonstrably non-Christian. I have provided the reasons and evidence. Discernment of what is true and declaring it, is not an ad hominem attack.

---

Idolatry is the "worship of a statue or image as a god". I do not worship any statue or icon as God.
Heresy is the "obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith." I accept all the teaching of the Church.
A Christian is "someone who follows Jesus Christ and believes in His teachings as revealed in the Bible." I do.
A Christian is "baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, becoming a member of the Body of Christ, the Church." I have been.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It is incredible that even now, after all that I've discussed, you still make the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has the same beliefs as the early church. The early church looked NOTHING like the RCC today. From the differences in canon, to the beliefs and practices on Mary, praying to Mary and the saints, veneration of icons, the papacy, and many more - these are all accretions and additions that took place over time and have NO basis in original apostolic authority. And most of these additions are straight up evil, hence straight from the devil.

---

I'm not going to respond to your Gish gallop fallacy here. I'm happy to discuss any one of those points (that we've certainly discussed ad nauseum.) Peter was the undeniable leader of the Church. Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church has been in existence since 33 AD. Please cite a reference such as Wiki, Google, Encyclopedia Britanica, etc. that states otherwise. You can make all the false claims that you want, but it doesn't make them true.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism is a *******ization of true Christianity, having incorporated millenia-old pagan god and goddess worship. It is unbelievable how blind and deceived you are to this.

---

I've read the Catechism of the Catholic Church about three times in full. We only worship one God.

You won't claim a specific belief or denomination other than to say that it is "from the bible." You've completely made up your belief system from an amalgamation of other Protestant beliefs. You have made yourself "pope" of your own church. Who created your church, if not you?

I stand firmly on the ground of the Jesus and the Church he created.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The King James and New King James version are based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament that was compiled by Erasmus, who only used a handful of greek manuscripts that were available to him at the time, and did his translation/compilation quickly in order to beat others to the press. This Greek version is not considered by scholars to be the most accurate version for these reasons as there were many errors. The Douay-Rheims bible is just a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English - it's not a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.

The reason why the modern versions (ESV, NIV, Berean, NLV, etc) are the most accurate is because they are the result of utilizing ALL the available Greek texts of the New Testament and employing the scientific process of textual criticism, a process which most accurately determines what the original Greek text actually said. These bibles were based on critical texts, while the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims were not. Based on textual criticism, it is determined that Luke 7:28 in the original Greek likely did not contain the word "prophet" ().

---

Ask yourself, "WHY" did the KVJ and Douay-Rheims "add" the word "Prophet". Did they try to change scripture or clarify it?

Most would argue that they were (if really added) clarifying it. So the premise is still the same, that Jesus was referring to the prophets of the OT.

This is why it is important to understand the concept of universe of discourse.

Your beliefs are clouding your judgement of the true intent of this passage of scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

---

Given Matthew 22:32, when Jesus said that God is "not God of the dead, but of the living", are the saints in heaven alive or dead?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

---

Given Matthew 22:32, when Jesus said that God is "not God of the dead, but of the living", are the saints in heaven alive or dead?

---

Context matters, sir.

And praying to any human, however you word it, is far from anything Christ ever commanded His followers to do or did Himself.

It's out of bounds, plain and clear.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

---

Given Matthew 22:32, when Jesus said that God is "not God of the dead, but of the living", are the saints in heaven alive or dead?

---

Context matters, sir.

And praying to any human, however you word it, is far from anything Christ ever commanded His followers to do or did Himself.

It's out of bounds, plain and clear.

---

What do you mean by "praying to any human"?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your comments are all so frustrating to read, because they are almost always so wrong. And the lengths you go to defend the indefensibly illogical and unscriptural is absolutely ridiculous.

---

If I have provided illogical arguments, then I will work to be better. But is it possible that you simply reject the logic and scripture basis due to your bias?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

First of all you're not even getting the quote right. It's not "of those born among women", it's "among those born of women". As I already pointed out, this is a Hebrew idiomatic phrase that means "among all humans who ever existed".

---

My apologies for adding the preposition "of".

You are failing to understand the concept of -the universe of discourse which mean everything that person has in mind a set of things (a universe) about which he is talking (discoursing). Simply put, anything that is part of that set is in his universe of discourse. Anything that is not part of that set is not.

I have stated that Luke was referring to the prophets. You state that is referring to "ALL humans who ever existed. I disagree with your assertion. Which will be demonstrated below …

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To separate out "those" to be referring to a certain subset of people would make the rest of the phrase "born of women" to be nonsensical and superfluous. All Jesus had to say was "among all the prophets" if that's what he meant. It'd be like saying "of all the dentists born of women, he's the best". What dentist is not going to be born of a woman? It's completely unnecessary to say that. And it ignores the meaning of the whole of the Hebrew idiomatic expression "those born of women" as explained. And it doesn't even make sense in the context of the passage. There is no reason to think Jesus was only comparing him to all the other prophets.

---

As I stated earlier, Luke (and Matthew 11:11) are referring to the prophets.

Lets look at some other translations of the same passage:

KJV - For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

NKJV - For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

Jubilee 2000 - For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist

Wycliff bible - Certainly I say to you, there is no man a more prophet among the children of women, than is John Baptist.

As I stated Jesus is discussing the Prophets in this passage, NOT "all humans who ever existed". Jesus was referring to the Old Testament prophets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And don't you Catholics consider Mary a prophet? So even if you take Jesus to mean "of all the prophets" you've defeated your own argument.

---

You man have left off the second half of Luke 7:28

NKJV - For I say to you, among those born of women there is [a]not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

The kingdom of God refers to the Christian age, to the Church that Jesus will found. John was killed before the Church was founded. Mary was NOT part of the Old Testament prophets.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is no way to know if Mary was the "greatest of all women born". It's not even necessary that Mary be the greatest in order to give birth to Jesus. She was "highly favored" by God, no doubt, and truly blessed as the chosen earthly mother of Jesus, and for that she is to be highly respected. But to say she was the greatest woman to ever exist is way beyond our knowledge. We simply can't claim that, and there is NOTHING in Scripture which even approaches making that proclamation. You repeatedly claim that your beliefs come from the early church fathers - ok then, which early church father believed Mary was the greatest woman ever?

---

Would you agree that the Mother of God would be the greatest woman ever born?

Gregory the Wonderworker 262 AD - ""For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David."

Methodius 305 AD - "While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled"

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away"

I could list many more.

---

The NT versions which do not include the word "prophet" are from critical texts that are more likely to be closer to the original according the majority of New Testament scholars. See my comments about textual criticism.

Jesus' "universe of discourse" was made clear - "among those born of women", a Hebrew idiomatic phrase which means "all those in human existence". The "set" is all people that existed up until that time, which included Mary. Again, if he meant only prophets, the use of this idiomatic phrase doesn't make sense.

Jesus didn't say "among all the Old Testament prophets". Even if you go by the KJV or NKJV texts, he is quoted as only saying "prophets". If Catholics consider Mary to have been a prophet before this declaration by Jesus, then she is included. The latter half of Luke 7:28 doesn't really change the argument. It's a real hard case to make that Jesus, knowing that John and Mary were contemporaries, would say that John was the greatest if it truly was Mary.

"Would you agree that the Mother of God would be the greatest woman ever born?" God has no mother. Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus. But Jesus, who is one with God, existed before Mary. It is not necessary for Mary to have been the "greatest woman ever born" to have given birth to Jesus (Rahab the prostitute was chosen to be in the lineage of Jesus) so there just isn't any reason to believe it. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that tells us it is so. Obviously, God does not consider it important to rank women and tell us who came out on top. Why is it so important to Catholics? Obviously, Roman Catholicism is establishing a pretext on which to justify worshiping Mary. You are taking part in something rooted in ancient pagan goddess worship.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

---

Given Matthew 22:32, when Jesus said that God is "not God of the dead, but of the living", are the saints in heaven alive or dead?

---

Context matters, sir.

And praying to any human, however you word it, is far from anything Christ ever commanded His followers to do or did Himself.

It's out of bounds, plain and clear.

---

Is "praying to" different from worship?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Would you agree that the Mother of God would be the greatest woman ever born?

---

Gregory the Wonderworker 262 AD - ""For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David."

Methodius 305 AD - "While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled"

"Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away"

I could list many more.

---

Gregory the Wonderworker isn't saying that Mary is the greatest woman.

Regarding Methodius' quote - from wikipedia:

"Methodius's "Oration on Simeon and Anna" is sometimes quoted as an example of early Christian veneration of Mary as the ever-virgin Mother of God. Unfortunately the work is not genuine, but belongs to the 5-6th century AD.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodius_of_Olympus#cite_note-16][16][/url]"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

For example, what is incorrect about my logic that if "eating Jesus' flesh" is literal, then in light of Jesus' statements in John 6:53-54 it makes salvation entirely relegated to the act of eating something, which is obviously false? If it's literal, then how was the thief on the cross saved? If it's literal, then how can there be "mortal sin" after one has taken the Eucharist? If drinking Jesus' blood is literal, then how could Jesus have commanded his disciples to break the Law, and thus be a sinner for doing so? If it's literal, then why not just give everyone Eucharist bread and wine in order to save them, regardless of their beliefs?

---

John 6:53-54 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day".

You are conflating Salvation and Eternal life as one thing. They are interconnected but distinct concepts in Catholic theology.

"Salvation refers to the process by which we are saved from sin and its consequences through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12)."

"It begins with initial justification, often through baptism, where we are transformed by God's grace (CCC 1989-92). This is a lifelong journey of growing in holiness, known as sanctification" (Matt. 5:43-48).

"Eternal life, on the other hand, is the ultimate reward for those who have been saved and have persevered in faith and good works (Rom 2:6-7). It is the fullness of life with God, promised to those who obey His commands and live a life of faith working through love" (Gal 5:6).

I apologize for not explaining this theological concept better much earlier. Just giving "everyone Eucharist bread and wine in order to save them" will NOT save them. That's not what Jesus meant.

I'm sure you would agree that Salvation and Eternal life are a free gift of God. We can choose to reject that gift. Just like Bart Ehrman, who was a devout Christian, youth pastor, PH.D in Divinity, and respected NT scholar, has chosen to reject that free gift.

Salvation is a process. Not a one-and-done shot.

---

It doesn't matter how you choose to separate "salvation" from "eternal life". If you are saved, you will have eternal life. If you have eternal life, it necessarily means you have been saved. Effectively, you can not separate the two. Your problem still remains - you still have to explain how the thief on the cross was saved to eternal life, if he did not literally eat Jesus' flesh. You still have yet to explain how the literal interpretation doesn't mean salvation is relegated to the mere act of eating, or how there can be mortal sin even after taking the Eucharist, or how Jesus isn't a sinner for commanding his disciples to break the Law. You aren't facing any of this, you're completely avoiding it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that all creeds are the same in God's eyes, or that God would ever condone sin. I have told Coke Bear plainly that praying to any human is a very, very bad idea, even if you think it's just like talking to a living person here on Earth, for example.

---

Given Matthew 22:32, when Jesus said that God is "not God of the dead, but of the living", are the saints in heaven alive or dead?

---

Context matters, sir.

And praying to any human, however you word it, is far from anything Christ ever commanded His followers to do or did Himself.

It's out of bounds, plain and clear.

---

What do you mean by "praying to any human"?

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't matter how you choose to separate "salvation" from "eternal life". If you are saved, you will have eternal life. If you have eternal life, it necessarily means you have been saved. Effectively, you can not separate the two. Your problem still remains - you still have to explain how the thief on the cross was saved to eternal life, if he did not literally eat Jesus' flesh. You still have yet to explain how the literal interpretation doesn't mean salvation is relegated to the mere act of eating, or how there can be mortal sin even after taking the Eucharist, or how Jesus isn't a sinner for commanding his disciples to break the Law. You aren't facing any of this, you're completely avoiding it.

---

No, sadly what you're avoiding is the fact that I've logically laid out that one can lose salvation/eternal life.

People give that gift away all the time. Once saved, always saved is not founded in the bible or Church history.

Thief on the cross - I've said it a 1000 times that God can work outside the sacraments. How did Moses get to heaven? Or Abraham? Or King David? What about 14th century Native Americans who have no knowledge of Jesus or God? Did any of them say the sinner's prayer or answer an altar call? How do they get to heaven? It's thru the mercy of God.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

---

Show me where Jesus spoke to, say, Noah or Abraham or David in the way you "speak" to Mary?


Now to your examples, in both cases the prayers are sent TO GOD, not another believer or saint or angel.

Do not give to Man what belongs to God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The NT versions which do not include the word "prophet" are from critical texts that are more likely to be closer to the original according the majority of New Testament scholars. See my comments about textual criticism.

Jesus' "universe of discourse" was made clear - "among those born of women", a Hebrew idiomatic phrase which means "all those in human existence". The "set" is all people that existed up until that time, which included Mary. Again, if he meant only prophets, the use of this idiomatic phrase doesn't make sense.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree here. It's abundantly clear that Jesus was referring to the prophets in this passage. Your biases won't allow for that. The set (in the universe of discourse) that Jesus refers to in the entire passage is the prophets of the OT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus didn't say "among all the Old Testament prophets". Even if you go by the KJV or NKJV texts, he is quoted as only saying "prophets". If Catholics consider Mary to have been a prophet before this declaration by Jesus, then she is included. The latter half of Luke 7:28 doesn't really change the argument. It's a real hard case to make that Jesus, knowing that John and Mary were contemporaries, would say that John was the greatest if it truly was Mary.

---

When Jesus uses the phrase, "The kingdom of heaven" refers to the Christian age. Jesus' universe of discourse at this point is limited by another factor: time. John didn't live until the Christian age.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Would you agree that the Mother of God would be the greatest woman ever born?" God has no mother. Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus. But Jesus, who is one with God, existed before Mary. It is not necessary for Mary to have been the "greatest woman ever born" to have given birth to Jesus (Rahab the prostitute was chosen to be in the lineage of Jesus) so there just isn't any reason to believe it. There is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that tells us it is so. Obviously, God does not consider it important to rank women and tell us who came out on top. Why is it so important to Catholics? Obviously, Roman Catholicism is establishing a pretext on which to justify worshiping Mary. You are taking part in something rooted in ancient pagan goddess worship.

---

First, you are trying to argue using Sola Scriptura with is actually self-refuting and unbiblical.

Second, Jesus could have came into the world any way God wanted to. He could have incarnated as a fully grown man or he could have been born from a reigning king or he could have been born of a prostitute like Rahab. But he wasn't. God chose to him to be born of a perfect woman.

Third, having read the Catechism, Catholics don't worship Mary. Worship involves sacrifice. No Catholic Church offers sacrifice to Mary. The only sacrifice that we offer is to God.

Finally, you don't understand salvation history or the OT. According to Genesis, Eve came from Adam (woman from man). They were both born sinless until they fell. Fast forward to the incarnation, now Jesus comes from Mary (now man from woman). Jesus is the new ADAM. Mary is the new

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

---

Show me where Jesus spoke to, say, Noah or Abraham or David in the way you "speak" to Mary?


Now to your examples, in both cases the prayers are sent TO GOD, not another believer or saint or angel.

Do not give to Man what belongs to God.

---

If I recall correctly, Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

---

Show me where Jesus spoke to, say, Noah or Abraham or David in the way you "speak" to Mary?


Now to your examples, in both cases the prayers are sent TO GOD, not another believer or saint or angel.

Do not give to Man what belongs to God.

---

If I recall correctly, Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.

---

In person.

Not with bowed head, and not with phrases like "Hail Moses, full of Grace" or "Hail Elijah, blessed are thou among men"

Jesus never prayed to anyone but God, and we were never meant to do different.

I just want to encourage everyone who hasn't yet to read this first post before you discuss the topic. Thank you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

---

Show me where Jesus spoke to, say, Noah or Abraham or David in the way you "speak" to Mary?


Now to your examples, in both cases the prayers are sent TO GOD, not another believer or saint or angel.

Do not give to Man what belongs to God.

---

If I recall correctly, Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.

---

In person.

Not with bowed head, and not with phrases like "Hail Moses, full of Grace" or "Hail Elijah, blessed are thou among men"

Jesus never prayed to anyone but God, and we were never meant to do different.

---

Luke 1

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


46And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

Once again, what do you think "pray" means?

Coke Bear said:

---

Once again, what do you think "pray" means?

---

How are you speaking to Mary if not by prayer?

And show me even one place where God told a living person to reach out to a person who had passed into the afterlife.

(Witch of Endor says hi if you want a reminder that we don't reach out to those who have passed).

It's not about whether someone is living in Heaven, it's what God tells us we may and may not do.

And why is it that the "Hail Mary" is most commonly referred to as a prayer, if you contact her by some spiritual cell phone never mentioned before?

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You're not calling by phone or texting, right?

You're not sending a letter, right?

---

I can only guess that you are trying to state that the saints' CANT hear or are aware of our prayers?

In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders, who appear to represent the leaders of the people of God in heaven, offer incense to God. We are told that the incense is "the prayers of the saints." In Revelation 8:34, an angel offers incense that is mingled with "the prayers of all the saints."

James 5:16 says that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." Are they any more righteous than those in heaven?

---

Show me where Jesus spoke to, say, Noah or Abraham or David in the way you "speak" to Mary?


Now to your examples, in both cases the prayers are sent TO GOD, not another believer or saint or angel.

Do not give to Man what belongs to God.

---

If I recall correctly, Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.

---

In person.

Not with bowed head, and not with phrases like "Hail Moses, full of Grace" or "Hail Elijah, blessed are thou among men"

Jesus never prayed to anyone but God, and we were never meant to do different.

---

Luke 1

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.


46And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

---

Nowhere does this say Mary is suddenly a deific personage, much less someone to pray to.

Consider the 3rd Chapter of Mark, by the way, when Mary gets a little big on herself and expected Jesus to leave His teaching to see what she wanted (verse 31).

'Christ replied "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:33-35, also Matthew 12:48-50)

Do not give to any human what belongs to God alone.

Prayer is a form of Worship. We only pray to the Lord . With that said, I have at times talked to my dead loved ones, not lke a prayer r anything though.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It doesn't matter how you choose to separate "salvation" from "eternal life". If you are saved, you will have eternal life. If you have eternal life, it necessarily means you have been saved. Effectively, you can not separate the two. Your problem still remains - you still have to explain how the thief on the cross was saved to eternal life, if he did not literally eat Jesus' flesh. You still have yet to explain how the literal interpretation doesn't mean salvation is relegated to the mere act of eating, or how there can be mortal sin even after taking the Eucharist, or how Jesus isn't a sinner for commanding his disciples to break the Law. You aren't facing any of this, you're completely avoiding it.

---

No, sadly what you're avoiding is the fact that I've logically laid out that one can lose salvation/eternal life.

People give that gift away all the time. Once saved, always saved is not founded in the bible or Church history.

Thief on the cross - I've said it a 1000 times that God can work outside the sacraments. How did Moses get to heaven? Or Abraham? Or King David? What about 14th century Native Americans who have no knowledge of Jesus or God? Did any of them say the sinner's prayer or answer an altar call? How do they get to heaven? It's thru the mercy of God.

---

Sorry, you have not "logically" laid anything out. Once someone "HAS" eternal life, it can not be lost, otherwise it means their life is gonna end, which means their life was NOT eternal, which means they never had it to begin with. It would make Jesus false and a liar. You actually are going against logic here (and denying the literalist interpretation!) How do you not see this?

And according to your belief in the literal interpretation, anyone who does lose their salvation/eternal life can just gain it back again by eating the Eucharist bread again, right? And back and forth they go. They don't have to believe anything about Jesus at all, as long as right before their death they can eat the Eucharist bread, then they'll be saved to eternal life...even as a Satanist! According to the literal interpretation, right?

And the "1000's of times" you've said God can work outside the sacraments is 1000's of times you're saying that Jesus is false, and a liar. Jesus literally said that unless one eats his flesh, he has NO LIFE within them. If you're denying that Jesus is false here, then you're denying the literal interpretation. You can't have it both ways.

This "God can work outside the sacraments" stuff is incoherent Roman Catholic double talk: "it's required, but then it's not required". How do you not see all this? (I think that you do.)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The King James and New King James version are based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament that was compiled by Erasmus, who only used a handful of greek manuscripts that were available to him at the time, and did his translation/compilation quickly in order to beat others to the press. This Greek version is not considered by scholars to be the most accurate version for these reasons as there were many errors. The Douay-Rheims bible is just a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English - it's not a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.

The reason why the modern versions (ESV, NIV, Berean, NLV, etc) are the most accurate is because they are the result of utilizing ALL the available Greek texts of the New Testament and employing the scientific process of textual criticism, a process which most accurately determines what the original Greek text actually said. These bibles were based on critical texts, while the KJV, NKJV, and Douay-Rheims were not. Based on textual criticism, it is determined that Luke 7:28 in the original Greek likely did not contain the word "prophet" ().

---

Ask yourself, "WHY" did the KVJ and Douay-Rheims "add" the word "Prophet". Did they try to change scripture or clarify it?

Most would argue that they were (if really added) clarifying it. So the premise is still the same, that Jesus was referring to the prophets of the OT.

This is why it is important to understand the concept of universe of discourse.

Your beliefs are clouding your judgement of the true intent of this passage of scripture.

---

Should we even be ADDING anything to the original Scripture?? Or should we take the words as God has given them?

Thank you, though, for admitting that words have to be added to Scripture in order to get the meaning that you want.

Quote:

---

We'll have to agree to disagree here. It's abundantly clear that Jesus was referring to the prophets in this passage. Your biases won't allow for that. The set (in the universe of discourse) that Jesus refers to in the entire passage is the prophets of the OT.

---

It would be abundantly clear, if Jesus had actually said that, instead of the idiomatic phrase that means "all humans". You sure I'm the one with the bias?? Suppose someone said this:

"Dr. Jones is a dentist. He is not like other dentists. Among all humans to have existed, Dr. Jones is the greatest."

Did that person say Dr. Jones is the greatest "dentist", or greatest human? You have to INSERT "dentist" in there, because your bias says that's what he meant. But that's NOT what he actually said. Accordingly, one of us is taking the words in Luke 7:28 as they are said, and one of us is ADDING to those words.

Quote:

---

When Jesus uses the phrase, "The kingdom of heaven" refers to the Christian age. Jesus' universe of discourse at this point is limited by another factor: time. John didn't live until the Christian age.

---

John and Mary were contemporaries within the same time period. It's a hard case to make that Mary is the greatest human, when Jesus said that about John, not Mary.

Your argument now has to be that AFTER John the Baptist died, between that time and now in the present day Mary was the greatest Christian, above all the Christians who were ever to exist after that point - even greater than John, who is in the kingdom as well, remember. Not only is there no way to know that, there is absolutely nothing divinely inspired that tell us that this is so. Bottom line is, you've not been able to provide this kind of proof. In believing this, one would have to be trying to artificially elevate Mary to deity as a reason to worship her on the same level as Jesus. This is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done. Roman Catholicism is clearly ancient pagan goddess worship reawakened. You're just so blind to it. It's amazing, but heartbreaking.