Transubstantiation and John 6

[spockrates]

Would you not believe in something you understand? Come on spockrates apply your mind!

I will do my best! Just want to make sure I’m understanding Augustine, correctly. Next question: Does Augustine say faith is only an act of believing that which we do not understand? Or is faith also an act of believing that which we do understand?

 

[Cinette]

I will do my best! Just want to make sure I’m understanding Augustine, correctly. Next question: Does Augustine say faith is only an act of believing that which we do not understand? Or is faith also an act of believing that which we do understand?

Augustine said you DO NOT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO BELIEVE BUT BELIEVE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND!!! When I understood that I never bothered anyone again with countless questions. I just knew that I believed - pronto! I did not need to understand!

:yup:

Do you understand everything you believe? :ehh: ?

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

Glad you are interested in St. Augustine - you know… he was quite devoted to the Real Presence. In fact all of the Early Church Fathers that came before Augustine were quite devoted to the Eurcharist. Actually - here is a link that on many of the more well know Catholics who wrote about their devotion to the Eucharist. And, no, it was not a mere symbol in the mind of these truly great Friends of God.

Here is a link you may enjoy: childrenofhope.org/childrenadore/quotes.htm

Give it a read and let me know what you think.

God bless

I think this one is both early and clearly Catholic in understanding:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

• St. Justin Martyr, 2nd Century

Is this the only quote from the second century, or before?

 

[MollyMac]

**In response to jim1130. Sorry I havent taken the time to learn how to multiquote. It is something on my To-Do list.
You said,*****I do not think so. You seemed to be saying a metaphor was being created. I was giving you examples of metaphors that are WELL understood to be metaphors. “Vine, “gate, “light” etc. were examples of metaphors understood by the Jews at that time (and even us). ***
Bread cannot be used as a metaphor?

I should have asked for you to clarify that, at the time Jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood, what did the Jews understand it to mean? For that you would have had to visit the OT. Sorry.
I did that in a couple posts (?) Visited the OT- “Eating His body and drinking His blood which because they took Him literally, they believed He was asking them to break the Levitical Law” Eating another person or your own child was something the Jews understood as an act they as “God’s chosen people” were not permitted to do. It’s something their enemies did.

We know that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively, because to the Jews of his day “eating someone’s flesh and drinking his blood” was the idiomatic phrase synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder.
I don’t disagree with you. Eating someone’s flesh to the Jews was cannibalism. Persecution, violence, etc…are the acts that lead to it or are the act themselves, yes.

***And I showed you examples where Jesus corrected misunderstanding. Where were the corrections to the misunderstandings this time? None. Christ has corrected misunderstandings before (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3: 3, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6) so if Jesus was NOT to be understood as speaking literally then why did he not clarify and correct any misunderstanding? ***
I believe I gave my answer to this. St. John 6:36-40.

***Christ confirms their literal acceptance at the risk He will lose some or all of them. ***
John 17:12- While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.
There wasn’t a “risk”. Christ confirms that in verses 36 and 37.

I think this portion of your answer truly answers all of my questions. All non-Catholics use John 6:35-36 as the big scale tipper. No surprise there. The fact that you opted to skim to verse 60 shows me that you would rather avoid the verses since it does not align with your opinion. By skipping over the verses you deprive yourself of what was intended. It is like having a cinematic climax in the middle of the movie rather than the end.

 

[MollyMac]

My post continued…

Jim, I was simply answering your question with the Bible. I did not “skim” over that part in order to ignore it. I do not ignore parts God’s word that seem to be contrary to what I believe. I dig further. I have a thirst for the knowledge that is offered from God. I strive to find answers in the Book He blessed us with. I may understand it differently than you or the person down the street, but I do not “avoid verses”. The reason I did not add verses 40-59 was b/c I was answering your question*-“why did not Christ call back those who walked away to explain that He was NOT speaking literally? That they misunderstood?” *I felt the verses I gave answered your question.

After all, he clarified other moments of confusion (see: Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21 John 3: 3, John 4: 32-34, and Matthew 16:6).
These are wonderful passages where Christ does allow for those around Him to understand His meaning. I believe Christ answers your question to me in verses 63 and 64 of John 6. As I proved with His words in my previous posts, in this passage Christ knew the ones who believed and the ones who did not. There was no need to explain. I would go even as far as to say (which I am sure we both can agree on) Christ had these words inspirationally written in these passages for certain reasons.

Lastly, look at where the word “is” is placed in Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25. Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say that this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Like I posted before, the Passover feast points directly to Christ. Christ was celebrating the Passover feast with His disciples. In particular verses in the passages above, Christ contrasts the blood of the covenant Moses gave in Exodus24:8 with His blood. He establishes the NEW covenant in HIS blood. He replaces the Passover feast with the Lord’s Supper. The wine the Jews drank was not blood. It was a symbol of the blood sprinkled on the door posts. Just an added point, in the verses after your suggested verses, Christ calls the wine “the fruit of the vine”. (Matt26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18)

Your post #294 is what I thought you meant, but I thought I had explained my answer in previous posts.

Jim, thank you for causing me to look further into this very important subject. It is such a serious matter and I think there are so many that do not understand that eating and drinking the bread and cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner causes them to be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1Corinthians11:24-25) I still believe Christ was replacing the Passover feast with the feast He established on the night in which He was betrayed. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant and established the Passover for God and Jesus was the Mediator of the New Covenant and established it on the night He instructed the disciples in the first Lord’s Supper. I believe when reading the contexts of these passages we’ve discussed and reading the Bible as a whole, I’ve been lead to the conclusion that the bread and wine are bread and wine and are used as symbols of Christ shed blood and broken body. When I partake of these elements, I receive Christ in my soul through the working of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who gives life. There are things I am unsure about and I trust looking into them will allow me to be sure and certain through the working of the blessed Holy Spirit. I am continuing my study on this subject off the record (forum). Allow me to express my gratitude for your time and patience. Thank you.

 

[spockrates]

Augustine said you DO NOT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO BELIEVE BUT BELIEVE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND!!! When I understood that I never bothered anyone again with countless questions. I just knew that I believed - pronto! I did not need to understand!

:yup:

Do you understand everything you believe? :ehh: ?

Very good. Yes, I understand that one can trust in what one does not understand, but I wonder if that is what Augustine wants for everyone, or if there is a better kind of faith. So what would Augustine say is better–to have a faith in what one understands, or to have faith in what one has no understanding about?

 

[Cinette]

Very good. Yes, I understand that one can trust in what one does not understand, but I wonder if that is what Augustine wants for everyone, or if there is a better kind of faith. So what would Augustine say is better–to have a faith in what one understands, or to have faith in what one has no understanding about?

But you see there are different understandings. I believe with an understanding that is a kind of acceptance. I am sure of my belief. It is not an understanding I can explain but I understand because I am sure of my belief! :whacky::whacky:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

And … quoting Justin Martyr is, “…what you think…” ?

Ah, just kind of game are you in to right now. I provided you with a substantial group of quotes from many recognized saints - all proclaiming that the Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ… and you provide one from Justin Martyr that says the same - and you want mroe evidence?

Seriously, you are swinging back and forth on your posts so far, it is difficult - at least for me to even guess where you will position yourself for the next post. I sent you the link I did because you appear to be doubting the Real Presence. It would seem that from what you reponded that you do believe - ah - but, that would obviously be to clear and candid - because you then cloud the water with some type of doubt.

I really would appreciate you telling me which way you believe concerning the Real Presence. And just to be very clear in my statement - I do truly believe Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Here is a link that will provide the officia teaching of the Catholic Church specific to not ony the Eucharist, but to the other 6 Sacraments, too. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

God bless

I think this one is both early and clearly Catholic in understanding:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

• St. Justin Martyr, 2nd Century

Is this the only quote from the second century, or before?

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Spockrates,

And … quoting Justin Martyr is, “…what you think…” ?

Ah, just kind of game are you in to right now. I provided you with a substantial group of quotes from many recognized saints - all proclaiming that the Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ… and you provide one from Justin Martyr that says the same - and you want mroe evidence?

Seriously, you are swinging back and forth on your posts so far, it is difficult - at least for me to even guess where you will position yourself for the next post. I sent you the link I did because you appear to be doubting the Real Presence. It would seem that from what you reponded that you do believe - ah - but, that would obviously be to clear and candid - because you then cloud the water with some type of doubt.

I really would appreciate you telling me which way you believe concerning the Real Presence. And just to be very clear in my statement - I do truly believe Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Here is a link that will provide the officia teaching of the Catholic Church specific to not ony the Eucharist, but to the other 6 Sacraments, too. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

God bless

I think our friend is playing devil’s advocate. :whacky::banghead:

 

[Cinette]

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
whoever eats me will live because of me. *
Just as Jesus repeated himself we on this thread have repeated ourselves. While we cannot claim to fully understand the Real Presence, we see how Peter reacted “Lord to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life”. Peter and the Apostles had witnessed Jesus’ actions and received his instructions and teachings – it is said that one could not record everything Jesus said and did as it was too much for books to contain. So they yielded because they loved, trusted and believed in Jesus.

We see how the Apostles were affected by Jesus and how the Holy Spirit transformed them to the extent they were prepared to die for their Faith and for the exception of John they were all martyred. We see the Church Fathers who believed in the Real Presence. In fact the Church taught this for 1600 years and the faithful believed.

Luther, Zwingly and Calvin all believed in the Real Presence.

So,upon reflection, how can non-Catholics they still hold on to the watered down beliefs which began as a result of the reformation?
*

 

[spockrates]

But you see there are different understandings. I believe with an understanding that is a kind of acceptance. I am sure of my belief. It is not an understanding I can explain but I understand because I am sure of my belief! :whacky::whacky:

Yes, I agree there are varying degrees of faith. Faith can be absent, weak, strong, or extremely strong, for example. Jesus, it seems to me, chastised his disciples on several occasions for their degree of faith. For instance:

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

(Matthew 14:31)

It seems, then (and I think you and Augustine would agree) that a stronger faith is much better than a weaker one–but if I’m putting words in your mouth, please correct me.

The next question, then is this: Since Augustine must agree with Christ that you and I should have a greater faith, what is more likely to increase our faith–understanding why we believe what we believe, or trying to remain ignorant about why we believe?

 

[spockrates]

I think our friend is playing devil’s advocate. :whacky::banghead:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yes, I suppose someone must, as the one who started the discussion is absent, and many Protestants have good questions that deserve good answers.

 

[spockrates]

Hi, Spockrates,

And … quoting Justin Martyr is, “…what you think…” ?

Ah, just kind of game are you in to right now. I provided you with a substantial group of quotes from many recognized saints - all proclaiming that the Consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ… and you provide one from Justin Martyr that says the same - and you want mroe evidence?

Seriously, you are swinging back and forth on your posts so far, it is difficult - at least for me to even guess where you will position yourself for the next post. I sent you the link I did because you appear to be doubting the Real Presence. It would seem that from what you reponded that you do believe - ah - but, that would obviously be to clear and candid - because you then cloud the water with some type of doubt.

I really would appreciate you telling me which way you believe concerning the Real Presence. And just to be very clear in my statement - I do truly believe Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Here is a link that will provide the officia teaching of the Catholic Church specific to not ony the Eucharist, but to the other 6 Sacraments, too. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

God bless

I’d say I have faith in what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the topic, but it could be stronger. Better knowing why I should believe in the Real Presence would help me be sure my faith is in the correct object.

 

[Cinette]

Yes, I agree there are varying degrees of faith. Faith can be absent, weak, strong, or extremely strong, for example. Jesus, it seems to me, chastised his disciples on several occasions for their degree of faith. For instance:

Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

(Matthew 14:31)

It seems, then (and I think you and Augustine would agree) that a stronger faith is much better than a weaker one–but if I’m putting words in your mouth, please correct me.

The next question, then is this: Since Augustine must agree with Christ that you and I should have a greater faith, what is more likely to increase our faith–understanding why we believe what we believe, or trying to remain ignorant about why we believe?

*The opposite of “greater faith” need not be ignorant/weak/poor faith. What about the acceptance of a child? I often admire parishioners who love God with total abandon. They do not know the theology but they are totally committed in their belief. They have a strong dedication.

*

 

[spockrates]

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
whoever eats me will live because of me. *
Just as Jesus repeated himself we on this thread have repeated ourselves. While we cannot claim to fully understand the Real Presence, we see how Peter reacted “Lord to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life”. Peter and the Apostles had witnessed Jesus’ actions and received his instructions and teachings – it is said that one could not record everything Jesus said and did as it was too much for books to contain. So they yielded because they loved, trusted and believed in Jesus.

We see how the Apostles were affected by Jesus and how the Holy Spirit transformed them to the extent they were prepared to die for their Faith and for the exception of John they were all martyred. We see the Church Fathers who believed in the Real Presence. In fact the Church taught this for 1600 years and the faithful believed.

Luther, Zwingly and Calvin all believed in the Real Presence.

So,upon reflection, how can non-Catholics they still hold on to the watered down beliefs which began as a result of the reformation?
*

Luther and Calvin did not believe in the same Real Presence you do, did they? Luther taught that Jesus was present only spiritually in the bread and wine. Calvin taught that the bread and wine is nothing more that that, but Christ is really present spiritually when we gather together to remember what the bread and wine represent. I don’t think these beliefs are identical to Transubstantiation, but do you?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

OK, let’s work from there. By the way, I liked your ‘devilishly good’ graphic…

There is no problem with wanting to learn more - God gave us good minds and expects us to use them - and, on a regular basis - to give Him honor and glory.

You posed an interesting question to Cinette, allow me to offer an explantion. Scientists may have ‘faith’ in science in general and their discipline in particular. They want to learn all they can about the natural causes of what makes things happen - and spend much of their lives in learning what has been discovered and seeking to contribute to the body of knowledge. While mastering every element of a discipline is probably not possible - it is within the realm of at least a remote possibility. So, the more you know the more you will understand and the less there is a need for ‘faith’.

God is totally different from a physical scientists - and theologians, while attempting to provide us with a greater understanding will never grasp the infinite. There is room for the development of ever greater Faith.

Now, in an effort to help you with your understanding of the Eurcharist, I have included a very interesting link:

michaeljournal.org/eucharist.htm

And, I would recommend this for your Protestant friends who are lurking on this thread watching to see what happens as this topic develops. After you read it, let me know what you think … maybe with more then a one-liner, eh?

God bless

I’d say I have faith in what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the topic, but it could be stronger. Better knowing why I should believe in the Real Presence would help me be sure my faith is in the correct object.

 

[Cinette]

Luther and Calvin did not believe in the same Real Presence you do, did they? Luther taught that Jesus was present only spiritually in the bread and wine. Calvin taught that the bread and wine is nothing more that that, but Christ is really present spiritually when we gather together to remember what the bread and wine represent. I don’t think these beliefs are identical to Transubstantiation, but do you?

*I must be mistaken then. I once had a link to something written by Luther and I remember reading through it and I got the impression that Luther did believe in Transubstantiation. In that same text they also mentioned that he believed Mary to be the Mother of God. I don’t have the link anymore. Maybe Tom knows because he also referred to Luther and the others believing in the Real Presence. *

 

[spockrates]

*The opposite of “greater faith” need not be ignorant/weak/poor faith. What about the acceptance of a child? I often admire parishioners who love God with total abandon. They do not know the theology but they are totally committed in their belief. They have a strong dedication.

*

Yes, I think it is important for one to have the humility of a child and avoid the arrogance of thinking Jesus does not speak the truth. For he said:

3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

(Matthew 18)

So, yes I should trust that what Jesus says is true, and I do. But this is different from discerning what Jesus meant by what he says. Knowing the true meaning of his words takes more than the faith of a child–it takes the maturity of wisdom. So the writer of Hebrews tells us:

13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

(Hebrews 5)

And Saint Paul the Apostel tells us:

4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

(1 Corinthians 2)

So a child-like faith is a good start, but not the place to stay. I want to not merely have faith in Christ, but to also receive more and more of the wisdom of Christ, so that I might:

…reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

(Ephesians 4:13)

My thinking, then is that I’m not so arrogant as to think I know more than the wise Saint Augustine. So he must surely know the same–we should have the faith of a child, but seek the understanding of a mature saint. Does this sound mature and wise to you, or am I showing my immaturity, lack of understanding and the wisdom of a child?

 

[Cinette]

Yes, I think it is important for one to have the humility of a child and avoid the arrogance of thinking Jesus does not speak the truth. For he said:

3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

(Matthew 18)

So, yes I should trust that what Jesus says is true, and I do. But this is different from discerning what Jesus meant by what he says. Knowing the true meaning of his words takes more than the faith of a child–it takes the maturity of wisdom. So the writer of Hebrews tells us:

13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

(Hebrews 5)

And Saint Paul the Apostel tells us:

4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

(1 Corinthians 2)

So a child-like faith is a good start, but not the place to stay. I want to not merely have faith in Christ, but to also receive more and more of the wisdom of Christ, so that I might:

…reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

(Ephesians 4:13)

My thinking, then is that I’m not so arrogant as to think I know more than the wise Saint Augustine. So he must surely know the same–we should have the faith of a child, but seek the understanding of a mature saint. Does this sound mature and wise to you, or am I showing my immaturity, lack of understanding and the wisdom of a child?

*St Augustine, the Church Fathers and Christians for the first 1600 years after Jesus believed in Transubstantiation.

So you believe in what Jesus said (repeating himself 6 times in succession) but you doubt what he meant! :whacky::whacky:*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Spockrates,

Why am I not surprised

It must be very difficult to change positions with every post - personally, you may really need just to find one position and clearly say what you mean and mean what you say. This does not seem to be difficult for anyone else on this thread.

So, yes I should trust that what Jesus says is true, and I do. But this is different from discerning what Jesus meant by what he says. Knowing the true meaning of his words takes more than the faith of a child–it takes the maturity of wisdom.

I gather you have not yet had time to look at that encyclical from JP II? I really think it would cut through these games. To believe one’s words but doubt their intent - is meaningless
Christ identified that there is a Hell, that it last forever, and it is a place of constant torment - yet there are those who claim to follow Christ who doubt the meaning of any of this and claim that God is too good and merciful to allow for eternal suffering. Those who claim to believe Christ words actually believe their meaning, too! And, the way we know His Meaning is to listen to the Church He founded on Peter, believe that the Gates of Hell will not prevail and that His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) can not teach error. And it is as simple as that.

As you plow through the writings of St. Augustine - there is no evidence of this ‘double-speak’: to believe the words but to insert one’s own meaning to make the words now believable. Actually, none of the ECF were ambiguous about the Real Presence - they believed it totally and without reservation. So, it makes no sense to me that you are waving the banner of the ECFs yet doubting what they meant. And this is just what you are presenting.

And, in thinking about what the founder of the Protestant revolt had to say about the Real Presence - check out this site: bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/

Concerning Luther’s believe in Mary being the Mother of God and her perpetual virginity - check out this site: orthodoxyforlutherans.blogspot.com/2010/09/martin-luther-on-mother-of-god.html

Seriously, I am begining to fatigue of these games you are plalying. I suggest you engage, identify what you believe and provide some references that actually back up your position. Note, you have been given an abundane of sites to look at, read, study and meditate upon. There is no evidence that any of this actual work has taken place. So, I conclude you are not serious about this very Sacred Topic. The ball is in your court and I suspect that you will just dribble for the remainder of this thread.

God bless