How do we answer Muslim assertions that St. Paul the Apostle was a false prophet?

[thephilosopher6]

In what world is that reasoning valid? Coming from a Catholic no less. That there was supposedly no written document from the 1st century discrediting Paul, in a largely oral world, means that no one discredited him? Time to abandon oral tradition Mr. Catholic! You say that there are no 1st century sources to discredit, but use modern sources to who use Paul to prove Paul, right…

If you’re going use a possible aspect about the personal lives of the early Fathers to prove your point, then examine all aspects of their lives. Use your head, why is it that the ancient manuscripts of Irenaeus are either in Latin or Armenian, rather than Greek, the language he actually wrote in? Because he believed in chiliasm, a belief that came to be widely rejected as heretical especially in the Greek churches.

See now you’re just side stepping the issue and manipulating it into a completely different one. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Muslim, historians actually need evidence to verify things in history, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard the terms “reason” and “logic” and “evidence” before, but here’s an introductory to them just in case! The fact of the matter is, modern scholars, as I have already demonstrated in the above post, do not doubt Paul. The evidence of Paul is there and it’s in favor of the Christian view. You have provided absolutely nothing for your support. You are now entirely changing the subject to something else to avoid any discussion of it because you have no good argument. To be frank, I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at here now. Just mindless Muslim ranting I suppose that has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you have no argument.

The fact of the matter with early Islam is that Paul was accepted as an apostle/and or a good follow of Christ. Early Muslims were also sympathetic to the actual crucifixion and death of Jesus (though they don’t profess a resurrection), but many of the Hadith traditions later changed that and it became Muslim orthodoxy to deny Christ’s death. It later became Muslim orthodoxy to deny Paul as well a few centuries down the line when Muslims started to realize, “Hey, our book doesn’t match up with their book. I guess it’s corrupted and Paul is a false prophet.” Why don’t you actually use your mind instead of running off of baseless speculation?

 

[LtTony]

What I also said:

Acts is said to have been written by Luke, a companion of Paul. Details about the Apostolic Fathers are not 100% certain, from what I’ve seen, it’s often said that such and such Apostolic Father is ‘likely’ or ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ connected to such and such disciple of Isa ibn Maryam (A).

Yet you follow a fellow who came along 600 years later who has zero connection to Jesus.

 

[LtTony]

In what world is that reasoning valid? Coming from a Catholic no less. That there was supposedly no written document from the 1st century discrediting Paul, in a largely oral world, means that no one discredited him? Time to abandon oral tradition Mr. Catholic! You say that there are no 1st century sources to discredit, but use modern sources to who use Paul to prove Paul, right…

If you’re going use a possible aspect about the personal lives of the early Fathers to prove your point, then examine all aspects of their lives. Use your head, why is it that the ancient manuscripts of Irenaeus are either in Latin or Armenian, rather than Greek, the language he actually wrote in? Because he believed in chiliasm, a belief that came to be widely rejected as heretical especially in the Greek churches.

See now you’re just side stepping the issue and manipulating it into a completely different one. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Muslim, historians actually need evidence to verify things in history, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard the terms “reason” and “logic” and “evidence” before, but here’s an introductory to them just in case! The fact of the matter is, modern scholars, as I have already demonstrated in the above post, do not doubt Paul. The evidence of Paul is there and it’s in favor of the Christian view. You have provided absolutely nothing for your support. You are now entirely changing the subject to something else to avoid any discussion of it because you have no good argument. To be frank, I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at here now. Just mindless Muslim ranting I suppose that has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you have no argument.

Exactly, philosopher.

"That there was supposedly no written document from the 1st century discrediting Paul, in a largely oral world, means that no one discredited him? "

So what are you basing your criticism on, Salam?

 

[LtTony]

Muslims assert this simply because the doctrine he taught was false, even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups and was claimed by many of the gnostic dualists as being one of their own. The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt, may lend support to the claims of the gnostic dualists. I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

As Reuben wrote: *"However, this is not an official teaching of Islam. Actually this is quite a recent trend among Muslims vis-à-vis Christianity. Thus not all Muslims would go along this line in rebutting Christianity. But you would nevertheless meet many of them who jump at the bandwagon in demonizing Paul.

Perhaps that is the easy way to dismiss Christianity outright and not to put weight on it for a serious intellectual or theological discussion. I have the feeling that those Muslims who purposely use this line of argument know that they are not going to make any serious or factual representation in their argument and therefore a futile one.

Thus the accusation against Paul is not a genuine attempt at honest discussion but rather a tactic in the debate itself. By creating bogeymen in Paul, by default they do not have to answer much of the reference in the Bible; and those reference to Paul’s epistles would be completely ignored outright."

• “even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups…”

Sources please.

“The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt…”

Sources please.

I hope Salam returns. I would like to discuss these things with him. After all, in the other thread he wrote, “If you’ve seen my previous posts on this forum, you’d know that I hate arguing, and I believe arguing to be a sign of ignorance. I did tend to argue a lot when I was an ex Muslim (which you can also find on this forum), and yet I returned to Islam anyway, Alhamdulillah.”

 

[thephilosopher6]

See now you’re just side stepping the issue and manipulating it into a completely different one. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Muslim, historians actually need evidence to verify things in history, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard the terms “reason” and “logic” and “evidence” before, but here’s an introductory to them just in case! The fact of the matter is, modern scholars, as I have already demonstrated in the above post, do not doubt Paul. The evidence of Paul is there and it’s in favor of the Christian view. You have provided absolutely nothing for your support. You are now entirely changing the subject to something else to avoid any discussion of it because you have no good argument. To be frank, I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at here now. Just mindless Muslim ranting I suppose that has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you have no argument.

The fact of the matter with early Islam is that Paul was accepted as an apostle/and or a good follow of Christ. Early Muslims were also sympathetic to the actual crucifixion and death of Jesus (though they don’t profess a resurrection), but many of the Hadith traditions later changed that and it became Muslim orthodoxy to deny Christ’s death. It later became Muslim orthodoxy to deny Paul as well a few centuries down the line when Muslims started to realize, “Hey, our book doesn’t match up with their book. I guess it’s corrupted and Paul is a false prophet.” Why don’t you actually use your mind instead of running off of baseless speculation?

Now, I briefly hit upon the topic of Millennialism that you brought forth. I see it as a way for you to avoid the actual subject at hand because you have no good argument. But I feel compelled to briefly address it, I will not further respond to any argument about it since it deviates from the topic at hand.

Yes, Millennialism was a popular belief in the early Church, though not universal. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho shows this:

“I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [of Millennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” - Dialogue with Trypho, The opinion of Justin with regard to the reign of a thousand years. Several Catholics reject it [Chapter 80] (165 A.D).

It was a popular but not official belief, and that’s fine. There were different opinions regarding the Immaculate Conception before it became dogma, St. Thomas Aquinas notably held an opinion of it contrary to the dogma of today. These were opinions of the time though and perfectly compatible before more formal doctrine was reached. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit came to guide the Church to the true opinion of which it was adopted as formal doctrine in both of these cases.

Even today there are different theological opinions, like that of the Assumption of Mary. Did she die before she was assumed, or was she still alive? Nobody really knows, and there are different opinions about this. Who knows, maybe in a hundred years the Church will reach a formal decision on it guided by the Holy Spirit? Maybe the Church will never reach a formal decision on it. There is no problem here.

 

[Reuben_J]

As Reuben wrote: *"However, this is not an official teaching of Islam. Actually this is quite a recent trend among Muslims vis-à-vis Christianity. Thus not all Muslims would go along this line in rebutting Christianity. But you would nevertheless meet many of them who jump at the bandwagon in demonizing Paul.

Perhaps that is the easy way to dismiss Christianity outright and not to put weight on it for a serious intellectual or theological discussion. I have the feeling that those Muslims who purposely use this line of argument know that they are not going to make any serious or factual representation in their argument and therefore a futile one.

Thus the accusation against Paul is not a genuine attempt at honest discussion but rather a tactic in the debate itself. By creating bogeymen in Paul, by default they do not have to answer much of the reference in the Bible; and those reference to Paul’s epistles would be completely ignored outright."

• “even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups…”

Sources please.

“The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt…”

Sources please.

I hope Salam returns. I would like to discuss these things with him. After all, in the other thread he wrote,** “If you’ve seen my previous posts on this forum, you’d know that I hate arguing, and I believe arguing to be a sign of ignorance**. I did tend to argue a lot when I was an ex Muslim (which you can also find on this forum), and yet I returned to Islam anyway, Alhamdulillah.”

On another note, I would welcome Muslims who would want to discuss objectively and perhaps intellectually. Otherwise, not many do I am afraid to say, and such thread tends to deteriorate into ‘my religion is better and truer than your religion’.

Though I am somewhat ratified, Salam was honest enough to admit that arguing to be a sign of ignorance. Perhaps about Paul and Christianity.

 

[Nicea325]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

Ahhhh…key word: Christianity.

How is Paul responsible?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

I also discovered a few months ago, there are so many letters and writings ascribed to Saint Paul that there is actually absolutely no dispute about the fact many of these writings do not even belong to him, rather from anonymous writers. So technically, if ignorant Muslim Scholars would assert Saint Paul started Christianity, they should be the first one to understand that many of these letters that were send forth even came from numerous authors, not just a single one.

Same thing for the Quran. Mohammad obviously did not write the Quran. It is from an anonymous source. What is known though is, Saint Paul and Mohammad were great teachers who were were fascinated about the character of Jesus. So I guess all three of them are brothers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St. Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ witnessed the resurrected Jesus, while Saul (later known as Paul) is persecuting the body of Christ =Jesus, by order of the Jewish leaders.

Saul a respected Pharisee Roman citizen (Lawyer of the Jewish Law) converts to Christianity. It is here where Saul of Tarsus changes his name to Paul and becomes known as a Jewish traitor, Jewish apostate, false Jewish teacher etc. so much so, that some Jews vowed never to eat and drink again until Saul = Paul is dead.

Paul the Christian apostle of Jesus Christ is never known as a false prophet or founder of Christianity. Paul was very influential in Jewish and Gentile converts. His teachings are unchallenged throughout Christian history.

Until Islam comes along 600 years later. **Islam’s foundation is based on an Angel from heaven by the name Gabriel who brings to the prophet Muhammad a new gospel=truth

Paul who preaches and teaches a prophetic message against any new divine revelation in the form of a new gospel = truth is accursed by God.

Galatians 1:8
.But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

Because St. Paul is respected in all of Christian history as an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul’s prophetic message against all new gospels that will come by either a leader of the Church or an angel from heaven, is accursed by God.

Muslims have no choice but to refute St. Paul’s message as a false prophet, traitor, apostate and founder of a different Christian gospel other than Jesus Gospel. **

Maybe Paul is the reason the Christian bible is outlawed in Muslim countries?

So which Gospel = Truth is truly from God or Allah? Muhammad’s new Gospel =Truth which comes 600 years after St.Paul’s prophetic message against any new gospel from any angel? Or St. Paul’s Gospel which he received from Jesus Christ confirmed by St.Peter? To which Muslims in later centuries who never knew Paul, would call Paul a false prophet.

Peace be with you

 

[Faith1960]

If they are a type with an enquiring mind, they need to be left with clues.

If they are determined to, they will take - and need - time and trouble to follow them up. You will need to supply Scripture references from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

Yesu’ (not 'Isa) said the only sign He will give this generation is the sign of Yunus son of Amittai.

What is probably the tomb of Yunus was found recently.
.

Is Yunus the same person we call Jonah, who was in the belly of a whale?

 

[Reuben_J]

So which Gospel = Truth is truly from God or Allah? Muhammad’s new Gospel =Truth which comes 600 years after St.Paul’s prophetic message against any new gospel from any angel? Or St. Paul’s Gospel which he received from Jesus Christ confirmed by St.Peter? To which Muslims in later centuries who never knew Paul, would call Paul a false prophet.

Peace be with you

The choice boils down to Paul or Muhammad?

Do we take Paul’s word that anyone or even angels who contradicted the Gospels that they preached would be false prophets? Which made Muhammad the false prophet since his gospel contradict the earlier Gospel.

So the choice is pretty simple, it is either Paul or Muhammad.

 

[ericc]

Muslims assert this simply because the doctrine he taught was false, even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups and was claimed by many of the gnostic dualists as being one of their own. The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt, may lend support to the claims of the gnostic dualists. I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

Since Islam appeared much later 500 yrs thereabout, how is it possible they (Muslims) know what true Christianity is and that Paul’s version was “false”? On what basis they could determine “true” vs “false”?

 

[ericc]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

If they have taken the time to read Acts, they would have discovered that Saul attempted to persecute Christians. So logically it is not possible for Paul to “start” Christianity.

 

[ericc]

In a sense, they’re right, in that he was a vigorous missionary and founded numerous churches. But the accusation that Paul founded Christianity as we know it is not new, nor unique to Muslims. Did he change the church theologically? Here is their argument:

Paul, of course, was the one who insisted that there was no need to follow Torah nor the Mosaic Law. In his letter to the Galatians we learn that Paul is disappointed that they have listened to someone else, preachers who came after Paul and told the Galatians they did need to attend to the Mosaic Law and get circumcised. Who were these teachers? Apparently from the Jerusalem church, and ones who also were supposed pillars of that church. Paul mentions those who came down from Jerusalem and from James (James, the kinsman, the brother, of Jesus no less!) and taught Paul’s converts they needed to become Jews first, and be circumcised. These were the dreaded Judaizers, pillars of the original Jerusalem Church.

But wouldn’t one think that the original, purest, form of Christianity would be found in the Jerusalem Church? That’s logical. But that is not the form of Christianity that survived. Pauline Christianity did. All of Christianity is Pauline, either Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. Hence, Paul founded Christianity. Only the Pauline form of Christianity survived.

What happened then to the Church in Jerusalem? Well, as we know, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. So the original church in Jerusalem ceased to exist. It is also said, however, that the Christians in Jerusalem escaped across the Jordan river. These apparently became what became known as the Ebionites, Christians who adhered to the Mosaic Law. They persisted for awhile as an heretical sect.

Of course, this group certainly did not accept Paul as a prophet nor apostle, nor accept his writings as scripture.

So, this is a brief outline of the reasoning of those who do not believe in Paul as an apostle and do not believe his writings are scripture.

That kind of reasoning is faulty. Peter and Paul had an arrangement that Peter will focus on the Jews and Paul on the Gentiles. Unfortunately, Peter had to go on the run and ended up in Rome. Paul is preaching to a Gentile crowd which which will never be accepted into a synagogue nor temple. Christianity does not require worship in the synagogue nor temple. The requirements of the Judaism faith will also not apply to Gentiles since they are not of the 12 tribes anyway. Peter was actually first to go non-kosher where in Acts 10 he was prodded to consume unclean foods. . The Church in Jerusalem accepted that Gentiles need not follow Judaistic rituals. Gentiles are simply not Jews and do not share Jewish history. Following Judaism rituals achieve nothing because the Gentiles are converting to Christianity and not Judaism. The Mosaic Passover would mean nothing to a Gentile for example.

Was Paul preaching a different Christianity? Not according to Peter. Peter admit Paul’s teachings are deep but accepted as wisdom given to him. 2 Peter 3:15,16. Since the audiences for Peter and Paul are different, it is possible that the preaching would focus on different aspects. It is not different gospels. Paul verified his teachings with the apostles and got a green light. Of course there were attempts by gnostics to hijack Paul’s teachings and try to count him as one their own. But that is a different issue entirely. Paul’s teachings are revealed by Jesus to him. The Apostles are taught by Jesus. We should leave it at that.

There is no necessity to segregate Christianity by Petrine, Pauline nor Johannine. It is the same, just different people sharing the same Good News. Each with their own manner of preaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Reuben J;14892736]The choice boils down to Paul or Muhammad?

I agree with you, to include discernment of the Spirits is required here;

When Jesus appears before Saul, Saul is blinded by Jesus Glorious Lighted presence and falls off his horse and is blind for three days. During the apparition of Jesus, Jesus reveals His Gospel message to Saul and calls Saul to be an apostle of His Gospel. Jesus commands Saul to go into the city (Damascus) to visit one of Jesus many disciples Ananias. Ananias reluctantly obeyed his Master because Saul was a dangerous man to Jesus disciples.

The Angel Gabriel beats Muhammad three times to Quran =recite a new Gospel from an Angel the Quran labels by name Gabriel.

Do we take Paul’s word that anyone or even angels who contradicted the Gospels that they preached would be false prophets? Which made Muhammad the false prophet since his gospel contradict the earlier Gospel.

What is interesting St. Paul writing to the Galatians repeats his emphatic, prophetic message.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so** now I say again:** If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Here are more scriptures which support St. Paul’s prophetic message;

1Cor.11 3But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.…13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 **No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. **15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Now comes the Master who speaks. Are True Christians living in these days again as did the apostles?

Matthew 24:4And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5“For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6“You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7“For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8“But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10“At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11“Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12“Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. 13“But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

So the choice is pretty simple, it is either Paul or Muhammad

.
How can one be deceived, when one is forewarned by God and His apostles who write about it?

Our Master has not left us orphans in these days. My Master Jesus Christ strengthens me by His Word, when Jesus says; Matthew 14;27… “Don’t be afraid,” he said. “Take courage. I am here!”…

Peace be with you

 

[Faith1960]

Is Yunus the same person we call Jonah, who was in the belly of a whale?

Anyone? Please?

 

[GKC]

Anyone? Please?

Yes.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That kind of reasoning is faulty. Peter and Paul had an arrangement that Peter will focus on the Jews and Paul on the Gentiles. Unfortunately, Peter had to go on the run and ended up in Rome. Paul is preaching to a Gentile crowd which which will never be accepted into a synagogue nor temple. Christianity does not require worship in the synagogue nor temple. The requirements of the Judaism faith will also not apply to Gentiles since they are not of the 12 tribes anyway. Peter was actually first to go non-kosher where in Acts 10 he was prodded to consume unclean foods. . The Church in Jerusalem accepted that Gentiles need not follow Judaistic rituals. Gentiles are simply not Jews and do not share Jewish history. Following Judaism rituals achieve nothing because the Gentiles are converting to Christianity and not Judaism. The Mosaic Passover would mean nothing to a Gentile for example.

Was Paul preaching a different Christianity? Not according to Peter. Peter admit Paul’s teachings are deep but accepted as wisdom given to him. 2 Peter 3:15,16. Since the audiences for Peter and Paul are different, it is possible that the preaching would focus on different aspects. It is not different gospels. Paul verified his teachings with the apostles and got a green light. Of course there were attempts by gnostics to hijack Paul’s teachings and try to count him as one their own. But that is a different issue entirely. Paul’s teachings are revealed by Jesus to him. The Apostles are taught by Jesus. We should leave it at that.

There is no necessity to segregate Christianity by Petrine, Pauline nor Johannine. It is the same, just different people sharing the same Good News. Each with their own manner of preaching.

You’re right of course.

But apparently not all of the Jerusalem church accepted the council of Jerusalem, because Ignatius of Antioch in his letters still warns against Judaizers, even as late as 110 AD. So they were still around. Where did they get their opinions? Supposedly from the original Jerusalem Christians, which would be a different gospel from Paul’s.

Did Paul immediately go to the apostles? Acts says he did, Paul himself says he didn’t right away. So there is a discrepancy. Acts was written by Luke, Paul’s companion and friend, so it would be natural for Luke to make Paul look as good as possible.

Then the ones who would argue that Paul was a false prophet and the founder of the Christianity that survived, would not accept 2 Peter as genuine, but written by someone else in the 2nd century.

So, much of it depends upon what is accepted as scripture. What is canon.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What is canon.

Canon is a measuring rod or Measuring standard used by the Catholic Church to determine which books are inspired of God and which do not meet the canon.

Without the canon of the Catholic Church, we would not have an authentic bible today.

Non-catholic s and or non-christian s do not realize how difficult it is for a miracle, saint, doctrine or bible book to become accepted by the Catholic Church. Her scrutiny surpasses any worldly committee could ever authenticate one of the above.

Thank God for the Keys, which Jesus gives to Peter and the Church in order to give assurance what is of God and what is not. What is most compelling is when all the bishops of the world are united with Peter= the Pope’s to come to such a conclusion which is an infallible act without error, amen.

Peace be with you

 

[ericc]

But apparently not all of the Jerusalem church accepted the council of Jerusalem, because Ignatius of Antioch in his letters still warns against Judaizers, even as late as 110 AD. So they were still around. Where did they get their opinions? Supposedly from the original Jerusalem Christians, which would be a different gospel from Paul’s.

If they act contrary to the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, the Judaizers will be teaching the wrong gospel, not Paul.

Did Paul immediately go to the apostles? Acts says he did, Paul himself says he didn’t right away. So there is a discrepancy. Acts was written by Luke, Paul’s companion and friend, so it would be natural for Luke to make Paul look as good as possible.

Acts did not say Paul immediately went to see the apostles. Acts 9:25 transition to Acts 9:26 did not mention the time span. So there is no necessity to assume an immediate departure from Damascus to Jerusalem.

Then the ones who would argue that Paul was a false prophet and the founder of the Christianity that survived, would not accept 2 Peter as genuine, but written by someone else in the 2nd century.

Doesn’t matter who agree or disagree. The Church has decided 300+ years later what the NT canon is to be. I am sure there were many other books vying for inclusion into the list. Shepherd of Hermas didn’t make it although popular. Paul didn’t call himself a prophet nor consider himself the founder of Christianity. So that is just silly talk.