Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Lutheran Church is based on nearly all teachings and traditions of the CC, but with the exclusion of teachings not supported by Biblical evidence. Biblical evidence is the most important thing in the Lutheran church.

Where does the Lutheran Church receive it’s authority to interpret scriptures, assuring a correct Biblical evidence?

There are many Bible Churches that make the same claims, yet their interpretation differs from the Catholic, and Lutheran Church.

Before one can stand behind ‘Biblical evidence’, one has to show that their interpretation is correct over others. Would you please cite Biblical evidence that makes the scriptures the final authority and where it gives each and every individual the authority to interpret for themselves?

I am also interested in hearing a logical explanation on how the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, gives different truths to different people and how those different truths remain truth.

True. I don’t mean to over-generalize here…but the corruption was coming largely out of the Papal office…the visible head of the CC…

Corruption is sin. Are the leaders of the Lutheran Church without sin? Of course not, yet most Lutherans use the sins of an individual to condemn the entire Catholic Church. In my honest opinion, there is a clear double standard here.

Adding to the text? which texts? What did he add? The only changes Luther made were to declare the Apocrypha as uninspired, and he translated the Bible into German so that it could be read by the people. I’ve never heard anything about Luther adding to the Bible…

Didn’t Martin Luther have qualms with the book of James, calling it the epistle of straw? However Martin Luther meant it, it was clearly placing his own writing styles as superior over the author of the book of James. Either we accept every word is God inspired, or none of it can be considered as such. No matter what style the author used it was acceptable to God.

I think that any church that at least holds to those is on the right path.

Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Where does the Bible state there are ‘essentials’ and the rest is not important? This reminds me of your first sentence, ‘The Lutheran Church is based on nearly all teachings and traditions of the CC, but with the exclusion of teachings not supported by Biblical evidence.’ The emphasis is mine.

Again, it appears that some Lutherans have placed their interpretation of scriptures as superior to anyone else, including the Church that defined the canon of the New Testament, and preserved scriptures for hundreds of years for Martin Luther, and even you and I, to have in our possession.

In defining the canon, interpretation played a major role in the end result, just as the oral tradition did. Those that wrote the scriptures, surely explained those scriptures to others before they died, and so on and so on. 1500 years later someone claimed to know them better than the very Church that kept them sacred through generation after generation. That just doesn’t make sense to me. If the Catholic Church was wrong, how can scriptures be trusted, certainly more liberties could have taken place than just ‘spinning’ an interpretation.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rinnie: I have a question on that if I may. Specifically the encounter between Paul and Jesus. Is there any record as to who the witnesses to that event were? I have heard some interesting speculation about Paul, and was wondering who (other than Paul) saw the event where Paul was changed by an encounter with Jesus from a persecutor of Christians to a leader within the Christian movement.

Thanks for your help.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon, if you go to acts 9:1 you can read the encounter. Now yes there were Men traveling with him, because in 9:7 it says they stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but could see no one.

Now my guess would be the People who Saul worked with. You have to remember that Saul was a very Educated Man and had alot of Power in Jerusalem. He was probally like someone today that was up very high in the Police force or Secret Service or something like that. Because he had alot of power given to him to arrest people.

If you read that part of the bible you will also see that Ananias was thinking What is God telling me to do. Because Ananias knew what he was like. Now put yourself in Ananias’ shoes he is asked to lay his hands on a man who has done evil things to the Holy Ones of Christ.

Now laying of hands Sufjon means make him a Priest So you could only imagine what Ananias was thinking. But he did what God told him to do. He layed his hands on Paul and made him a Catholic Bishop!!

Now the Apostles didn’t trust him at first, and then the Jews wanted to kill him also. I am sure to them he looked like a Traitor or something.

I think that is why Paul said alot in the bible he worked the hardest at times. And I believe he did because he was asked alot from God.Not that the others were not also. But Paul had Power, he was quite up in the Ranks in his Job and very well respected by the Jews.

Then he turned around and instead of arresting the People who claimed the good news, became one of them.

 

[Juliebug108]

Where does the Lutheran Church receive it’s authority to interpret scriptures, assuring a correct Biblical evidence?

Hmm…you seem to sound as though you are saying that the only reliable people to interpret the Bible are Catholic Theologians. That is SO not the case. There have been many interdenominational contributions to Biblical interpretation and history, and the Catholic church is not the end all, be all of Biblical authority.

There are many Bible Churches that make the same claims, yet their interpretation differs from the Catholic, and Lutheran Church.

The different denominations tend to agree on more than they do disagree when it comes to the Bible itself. Disagreements seem more prevalent in the area of tradition and practice. At least, that has been my observation. We all agree on the importance of Baptism, but we disagree on when/how it should be done, for example. We all agree that sin is bad, and that we need to repent, but we disagree on how that works out in practice. We all agree about the virgin birth, but we disagree about adoration and devotion to Mary.

Would you please cite Biblical evidence that makes the scriptures the final authority and where it gives each and every individual the authority to interpret for themselves?

On making scripture the final authority, I cannot. I’ll concede on that point.

I am also interested in hearing a logical explanation on how the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, gives different truths to different people and how those different truths remain truth.

I’ll answer that as soon as one of you answers my question about how the Pope was being protected from error by the Holy Spirit when he instituted the practice of people buying their way out of sin aka indulgences. I can come up with MANY scriptural references that would condemn such a doctrine.

Corruption is sin. Are the leaders of the Lutheran Church without sin? Of course not, yet most Lutherans use the sins of an individual to condemn the entire Catholic Church. In my honest opinion, there is a clear double standard here.

No double standards. The leader of NO church body or denomination is without sin. I’m not talking about the individual sins of the Pope during the reformation or before. I am talking about the Pope instituting sinful/corrupt DOCTRINE. That’s totally different.

Didn’t Martin Luther have qualms with the book of James, calling it the epistle of straw? However Martin Luther meant it, it was clearly placing his own writing styles as superior over the author of the book of James. Either we accept every word is God inspired, or none of it can be considered as such. No matter what style the author used it was acceptable to God.

The issue has nothing to do with how he viewed the book of James. Upon researching the issue of him adding to the bible, here’s what I found:

Luther added an extra word to his Bible:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law.
He added the word alone apparently to Romans 3:28.

In defining the canon, interpretation played a major role in the end result, just as the oral tradition did. Those that wrote the scriptures, surely explained those scriptures to others before they died, and so on and so on. 1500 years later someone claimed to know them better than the very Church that kept them sacred through generation after generation. That just doesn’t make sense to me. If the Catholic Church was wrong, how can scriptures be trusted, certainly more liberties could have taken place than just ‘spinning’ an interpretation.

Hmm. I don’t really know how to respond to that. You make good points. I’m not trying to say that the Catholic church is all wrong about everything, and totally corrupt. That is not AT ALL how I feel about the Catholic Church. Honestly, the only issue that I really have serious issue with is Papal infallibility and Apostolic succession. The rest is not so hard to grasp. My point in all of this is not to say that the Catholic church is wrong. I’m more just calling out the issues that don’t make sense to me, and trying to get some of you to maybe relax with the “we’re right and you’re wrong” attitude towards protestants.

It is my strong opinion that we are ALL one in Christ, that God is much bigger than our small human minds can even hope to understand, and we should focus more on what we have in COMMON rather than pointing out errors.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hmm…you seem to sound as though you are saying that the only reliable people to interpret the Bible are Catholic Theologians. That is SO not the case. There have been many interdenominational contributions to Biblical interpretation and history, and the Catholic church is not the end all, be all of Biblical authority.

The different denominations tend to agree on more than they do disagree when it comes to the Bible itself. Disagreements seem more prevalent in the area of tradition and practice. At least, that has been my observation. We all agree on the importance of Baptism, but we disagree on when/how it should be done, for example. We all agree that sin is bad, and that we need to repent, but we disagree on how that works out in practice. We all agree about the virgin birth, but we disagree about adoration and devotion to Mary.

Let’s look at baptism. Some, as Catholics, believe in infant baptism, others do not. Now we have disagreement on a sacrament. Who is correct? Who has the authority to state which is correct?

Is tending to agree on more than what is disagreed on being of the same mind and judgment? Is having Churches with numerous disagreements the same as every wind of doctrine?

**1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive. **

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ll answer that as soon as one of you answers my question about how the Pope was being protected from error by the Holy Spirit when he instituted the practice of people buying their way out of sin aka indulgences. I can come up with MANY scriptural references that would condemn such a doctrine.

No double standards. The leader of NO church body or denomination is without sin. I’m not talking about the individual sins of the Pope during the reformation or before. I am talking about the Pope instituting sinful/corrupt DOCTRINE. That’s totally different.

There are no sinful/corrupt doctrines. In the matter of faith and morals, there is no error.

Even though it was practiced in that period, the selling of indulgences is not and never was dogma/doctrine.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The issue has nothing to do with how he viewed the book of James. Upon researching the issue of him adding to the bible, here’s what I found:

Luther added an extra word to his Bible:

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law.
He added the word alone apparently to Romans 3:28.

Ok, let’s accept the adding of one word. Why is that acceptable?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hmm. I don’t really know how to respond to that. You make good points. I’m not trying to say that the Catholic church is all wrong about everything, and totally corrupt. That is not AT ALL how I feel about the Catholic Church. Honestly, the only issue that I really have serious issue with is Papal infallibility and Apostolic succession. The rest is not so hard to grasp. My point in all of this is not to say that the Catholic church is wrong. I’m more just calling out the issues that don’t make sense to me, and trying to get some of you to maybe relax with the “we’re right and you’re wrong” attitude towards protestants.

It is my strong opinion that we are ALL one in Christ, that God is much bigger than our small human minds can even hope to understand, and we should focus more on what we have in COMMON rather than pointing out errors.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

Don’t get me pointing out differences as if I’m separating anyone that believes in Christ from being one in Christ.

If all we had to do was believe in Him, why do we have the rest of the New Testament? I feel there’s much more to it or we would only have John 3:16 as a New Testament. This is evident through many of Paul’s writings; be of the same mind and judgment, avoid dissension, avoid division, and on and on to prevent us from being as children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

It seems to me that, according to scriptures, the Church was meant to be one.

**Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that you be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment.

Rom 15:5 Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards another, according to Jesus Christ:
Rom 15:6 That with one mind and with one mouth you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. **

Jesus prayed for us to be one.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me.
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

The Churches written about in scriptures was one Church in many locations. Evident by what’s written in scriptures, they were all taught the same things and I don’t see any exceptions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We all agree about the virgin birth, but we disagree about adoration and devotion to Mary.

Why did some of that change over the years, from what Martin Luther preached, and evidently believed himself?


Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

The above is a Catholic website, but if you know of where Martin taught differently than what is depicted on that website I’d be interested in reading it.

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon, if you go to acts 9:1 you can read the encounter. Now yes there were Men traveling with him, because in 9:7 it says they stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but could see no one.

Now my guess would be the People who Saul worked with. You have to remember that Saul was a very Educated Man and had alot of Power in Jerusalem. He was probally like someone today that was up very high in the Police force or Secret Service or something like that. Because he had alot of power given to him to arrest people.

If you read that part of the bible you will also see that Ananias was thinking What is God telling me to do. Because Ananias knew what he was like. Now put yourself in Ananias’ shoes he is asked to lay his hands on a man who has done evil things to the Holy Ones of Christ.

Now laying of hands Sufjon means make him a Priest So you could only imagine what Ananias was thinking. But he did what God told him to do. He layed his hands on Paul and made him a Catholic Bishop!!

Now the Apostles didn’t trust him at first, and then the Jews wanted to kill him also. I am sure to them he looked like a Traitor or something.

I think that is why Paul said alot in the bible he worked the hardest at times. And I believe he did because he was asked alot from God.Not that the others were not also. But Paul had Power, he was quite up in the Ranks in his Job and very well respected by the Jews.

Then he turned around and instead of arresting the People who claimed the good news, became one of them.

Thanks very much Rinnie. That’s a great explanation, and I appreciate the time you took to go over it with me.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Nicea325]

The Lutheran Church is based on nearly all teachings and traditions of the CC, but with the exclusion of teachings not supported by Biblical evidence. Biblical evidence is the most important thing in the Lutheran church.

May you kindly tell me what Catholic teachings are not supported by the Bible?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Do you answer all questions with questions? oops, I did it now.

Peter was singled out, not only at Caesarea Philippi but again in the Gospel of John.

Binding and loosing is making decisions. Here is a small copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia that explains the cultural meaning known to them at the time Christ spoke it. Some of today’s explanations are creative, but seem to be biased to support a particular view.

The prelates are of apostolic succession, in my honest opinion. This is based on the fact that no one appointed themselves or was appointed by someone without the proper authority in scriptures. Also, I do not believe that God left hundreds of years of people without the proper authority, in the apostolic succession. That’s something that no one has proven on these forums, specifically of any other Churches to exist prior to the reformation, not counting the great schism in 1054 since both East and West have apostolic succession.

Just a suggestion, it gives more validity to respond to questions than hide behind a big list of questions.

I like questions, for the search for truth starts there.

In the future, if you believe I am hiding, please don’t come looking.

I prefer the dark, if the light means to view like you do.

 

[Sylvan]

I have been reading all these various quotes and am reminded that the basis of this discussion is the question "what do protestants think of Matthew 16:18? It seems that actually protestants have a variety of interpretations, as there are so many flavors of protestantism. But, I think it is safe to conclude that Matthew 16:18 is not a slam dunk for protestants to accept the hereditary authrority of the pope. And, in fact, it is not so for catholics either.

In fact, that is only one verse that we base that authority on. We ourselves back that up with many supporting verses showing Peter as having primacy amongst the apostles. The accumulation of them, convinces us that there is an office at the head of the Church, which sets policy, settles disputes and rules on matters of faith - including the excluding of various heresies, etc.

 

[Juliebug108]

May you kindly tell me what Catholic teachings are not supported by the Bible?

Indulgences. Not a single person has yet to defend or even attempt to explain this to me.

Also, the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible.
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

The teachings about purgatory.

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Assumption of Mary.

That Mary and the Saints can intercede in redemption.

The teaching that salvation is through good works.

Papal Infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

When Jesus said to Peter - as you indicate, singularly - " You are Kephas and upon this Kephas, I will build My Church " did He mean that the Church would be built upon Peter, singularly?

Obviously his individuality was important. That does not mean Peter was "alone’.

vWas it Peter, his person, upon which Jesus would build His Church?

Yes.

Or was it upon Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question that He would build His Church?

Yes

Ddoes history attest to Peter being the singular aspect of the growth of the Church?

History shows a powerful role for him as an individual, just as it does for Paul.

 

[Pitcharan]

Your’e incorrigible and a habitual distorter. Get this clearly into your head: “the main institution for salvation” does not mean there are other institutions established by Jesus. I neither said nor implied such a thing which you made up because of your habit of perverting others’ statements to make false allegations. I’ve already seen this behavior pattern among all Feenyites on this forum. This only goes to prove that Feenyism is a heretic cult.

Now coming to the meaning of “the main institution for salvation”, this only means that God can bring about salvation through other ways too. When He established the ONLY church as an instrument for salvation He did NOT forfeit His prerogative to save humans through other ways. Feenyites cannot limit God’s love

I’m no Feeneyite.

If you claim that you are NOT a Feenyite then how do you allege that I called you a heretic. In my post I merely said that Feenyism is a heretic cult

I realize that God can and DOES save some that are not in the Church. And I have already pointed that out to you, but you refuse to listen.

On what basis do you say that I refused to listen? Is it your habit to make false allegations

Your problem is in the use of the term MAIN institution for salvation. This implies that there are others - and there AREN’T.

That is your own make-up. And you want to insist falsely what my statement implies even after I have clarified amply

By calling me a heretic - you are simply trying to cover up *your *blunder.

My post is reproduced above; show me where I have said that you are a heretic? Don’t make false allegations

Perhaps it’s because English isn’t your first language - or perhaps you simply worded your posts wrongly.

No one has found fault with my english. Even if it is imperfect, atleast unlike you, I do not distort others’ statements and then claim linguistic superiority to cover my lie

Whatever the case - the words you chose were a patently false representation of Church teaching.

Even if you repeat that false allegation countless times, it will not cover your blatant distortions

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**

Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

Stop bickering and stay on the topic of the OP.**

 

[rinnie]

Indulgences. Not a single person has yet to defend or even attempt to explain this to me.

Also, the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible.
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

The teachings about purgatory.

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Assumption of Mary.

That Mary and the Saints can intercede in redemption.

The teaching that salvation is through good works.

Papal Infallibility.

Hi Juliebug, I will take a quick stab at what you are asking.

Indulgences is not a bad thing. What they were in the past was a way to repent ones sin. Say that you were very rich and maybe abused alcohol. So when you confessed your sin and was forgiven and was told to do something to make amends for that sin, say you not only worked helping others like AA say you donated money to keep the meetings going. Something like that. But what happned it got out of hand so now money cannot change hands anymore. Which is sad because it could really help alot of people.

But the bottom line is we stil have them today. Actually Stations of the Cross are on Friday and I offer them up every Lent for my Dad And Brother. All an indulgence is, is doing something extra for God and offering that up for another.

As far as the Blessed Mother whats to say, She is Virgin, Was asked by God to have a Son, obeyed God and never had any other kids. She was what we would call a Nun today. She took a vow to God and kept it. The only difference is she was saved from all sin at the moment of her birth by God and by his love and Power of the Holy Spirit kept her free from sin by her free will to obey him. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. God can do anything And at her death she was assumed up into heaven body and soul.

Salvation through works is quite simple. Because of the Grace that we get from God and by using that Grace given to us by him if we obey him, and do his work we are one of his and as he promised us he will call us home on the last day. We are simply put here to do his work. That is our whole reason of being. Thats pretty simple. Faith without works are fruitless as the bible will tell you. A tree that does not produce good fruit is dead, and a soul that does not do good works of Christ is dead. But there is no Salvation without Gods grace so salvation through good works is not a teaching of the CC. It is Salvation through Jesus Christ by his Grace poured upon us helps us to produce good fruit.

Do you Pray? Do you feel that your prayers are listened by God and he hears them and can answer them? Do you pray for others? If you do what makes you think he will hear and answer your prayers but not his Mothers or the Saints who have gvien up their life in this world for him? Or do you put bounds on God and when and where he can hear prayers:shrug:

And last by not least. My Favorite who said the Pope in Infallible? He is human like the rest of us. Oh but if you are asking how do we know when he teaches in the Name of Christ his teaching is. That is simple. Jesus told us that. He said when you teach in my name it is in my VOICE you will speak. SO who promised us the Pope cannot lead us astray when he teaches in the Name of Christ. Simple Jesus did. He sent the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Pope and the Bishops into all truth. He said You are Peter…and hades will never prevail. That is quite simple there the devil will never take over the Holy Spirit in the teachings of the CC when they speak in Gods name. Again all of this is in the bible. Do yourself a favor and find it yourself. I have learned if you do it yourself you will believe it better.

And then Purgatory. I have been really praying on this one myself this last month. Simple Purgatory is the final cleansing we receive before we can meet Christ. It is also in the bible. But I also learned its not a place like I even thought myself it is a process. Read it, its in the bible also. I will even show it to you in the bible the rest you should do. 1 Cor 3:15 But is someones work is burned up that one will suffer loss the person will be saved but only as through fire. That is the PROCESS we call Purgatory. What does you Church call this process? Does you CHurch deny this scripture or what?

 

[rinnie]

May you kindly tell me what Catholic teachings are not supported by the Bible?

I, Like you have asked this question thousands of times and never got an answer. Do you think it could possibly be because the Bible is based on Catholic teachings, not Catholic teachings based on the bible

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I like questions, for the search for truth starts there.

In the future, if you believe I am hiding, please don’t come looking.

I prefer the dark, if the light means to view like you do.

I addressed several of your questions, on the post you quoted in your post the above. Instead of discussing those points you continue avoiding the discussion by responding directly to those points raised. What part my view in those points raised do you find offensive enough to prefer dark?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Indulgences. Not a single person has yet to defend or even attempt to explain this to me.

Also, the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible.
bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm

The teachings about purgatory.

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Assumption of Mary.

That Mary and the Saints can intercede in redemption.

The teaching that salvation is through good works.

Papal Infallibility.

Julie,

Please start threads for each topic listed, so we avoid going off topic on this thread. You are welcome to private message me with the link to each thread and I’ll join in.