# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[michaelsmth626]

PC:

But consider the definition of the word:

ambiguity

am·bi·gu·i·ty àmbi gy ətee ] (plural am·bi·gu·i·ties)

noun
Definition:

1. doubt about meaning: a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended
2. statement with more than one meaning: an expression or statement that has more than one meaning

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/asshat-22713.jpg
​

I would like to point to a classic example.
Their is no punctuation in Greek until at least the 2nd century.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
OR place the comma after today
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Did Jesus and the Thief go to heaven that day or was the statement made that day.
You be the Judge, I will remind you that Jesus said to Mary, don’t "hang all over Me " I have not yet ascended to the Father. Three days after the cross John 20:17. I find it hard myself to believe that Jesus went to Heaven that day and the Father was not waiting for Him at the Gate.

ambiguity can be both intentional and unintentional.
Buy looking at other statement from the same author “the HS” and process of elimination we can make an intelligent decision. But this to depends on your understanding of the other verses and what you believe about them being accurate.

C/P
I heard a story of a farmer and his wife driving down a dirt road in the old pickup truck. The farmer’s wife let out a loud sigh. “What’s wrong?” he asked. “Well,” she said, “I was just thinking that we don’t sit as close together as we used to.” The farmer kept looking down the road and driving in silence. Then, as if a light came on, he said, “Well I’m sittin’ where I’ve always sat.”

I told that story to make a point. The point is that God is immutable, which means, He doesn’t change. In fact, God said in Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not.” Not only is God immutable, but His Word is immutable as well.
God doesn’t change and His Word will not change, so if there is a discrepancy between the church and the Word of God, it is because the church has moved away from the precepts of God’s Word. Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’ll comment on this {“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”}
There is no evidence that the bread transfigured or took on the flesh of Jesus. In light of that fact, it is like us playing a game of monopoly. Now if you chose the dog to represent you and placed it on the board and said this is me. Would you presume that that [A]everyone present knew that this was a symbol representing you or ** would you expect them to believe that your very being, body and soul was present in the metal dog? Without testimony from the 12 that were present may depiction of the monopoly game and option ** is equally ridiculous.

---

Yes, i hear what you are saying, Michael. And i’m glad to have you here so i can hear it!



I also like to use the example of Shrek holding up an onion and saying the onion is himself. Obviously the beloved ogre was speaking figuratively–even the idiot Donkey knew that! And if i were to hold up a loaf of bread and say, “This is me,” i suppose you’d think i was speaking figuratively, or perhaps out of my mind. But Jesus is not me, you see. If He wanted to make the bread He held in His hands Himself, who could stop Him? What i’m trying to figure out, and what you are trying to disprove, is not could He (of course He could) but *did *He? Did He somehow make the loaf in His hands His flesh, or did He speak figuratively? That’s another ambiguity–both in what He said, and in what He did. Scripture is unclear. Even John 6 is ambiguous, if one understands the meaning of the Old Testament metaphor to eat one’s flesh means to be one’s enemy. (But that’s a topic of another discussion thread.)
michaelsmth626;5718466:

I understand comparing Scripture with Scripture is not a place you or catholics want to go.

It’s a place i’ve often gone over the past 20 years, and where i feel quite at home. What two Scriptures do you want to compare with me?

Just as I have pointed out that Jesus founding the church on Peter contradicts every new and old testament passage about the foundation of the church. If that is what Jesus meant, we might as well throw the whole of scripture out, because Jesus just contradicted it from Gen to Rev. Ambiguous is the life blood of catholic teaching. The more ambiguous the scripture becomes the more relevant the catholic message is, and the more irrelevant having a personal relationship threw the HS becomes. There is a reflection of this statement in your conversation with VociMike.

Which statement do you find more clear? This one?**c. **“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
Or this one?c5. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [which is me] I will build my church…”
Or this one?c6. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [which is the truth you spoke] I will build my church…"It seems to me that even Protestants, who are certain Christ did not mean Peter is the rock, are divided on whether He meant (c5) or (c6). Why the division? Could it be because His words *are indeed *ambiguous? But if Christ had said (c5) or (c6) there would be no need for division, for His meaning would not longer be unclear. Don’t you think?

Reminds me of that Pink Floyd song.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It’s alright we told you what to dream.

You dreamed of a big star,
He played a mean gituar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar.
He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the Machine.

But was the big star a heavenly body, or a man? Hmmmm.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t know.

Well, i don’t know, either! (That’s why i’m asking you, Brian.) But we don’t have any good thing to lose by putting our heads together to figure it out, i think. As Socrates said to his friend:We will certainly lose something; by discovering what we are looking for now, we will lose our ignorance about it!

(Philebus 34)


So if you are willing, let’s please put our heads together and think this through: Do you think God does anything haphazardly, or do you think He has a good purpose for every thing He thinks, says and does?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would like to point to a classic example.
Their is no punctuation in Greek until at least the 2nd century.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
OR place the comma after today
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Did Jesus and the Thief go to heaven that day or was the statement made that day.
You be the Judge, …

OK, let’s you and i both be the judge. Of all the many, many times Jesus says, “Assuredly I say to you …” or “Verily I say to you …” or “I tell you the truth …” (or however one’s Bible translates His words), how many times, in all those times, does He add the word today?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Of course I recognize this. But if there are one or more correct meanings, and all other meanings are incorrect, then we must have a method of determining the correct meaning(s). And I’m asking the poster what that method is, from his perspective or faith tradition.

Do you mean you are asking me? I so, i don’t know. Maybe you can help me know!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You have a good point. It’s one thing for Protestants to disagree with the Catholic understanding of those words, but its another to feign astonishment that Catholics could possibly understand those words the way they do.

When i discovered how one might possibly see what Catholics see in the Bible, i assure you that i did not feign astonishment. I was genuinely astonished that i myself was so ignorant!

And I’m sure the same could be said of certain passages with the Protestant and Catholic positions reversed.

So again we’re left to ask, how then can we know the correct meaning(s) and reject the incorrect meanings?

Thank you for asking me the questions. I hope you have more! We’ll, Scripture tells me this:If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

And that gives me hope, for James does not say if any Apostolic Successor lacks wisdom, rather he says if anyone lacks wisdom, and i’m an anyone. And James also says that God gives wisdom generously, without finding fault, so there’s more hope for me, for there is much fault He could find in me!

So my first answer to your question is that the first step to receiving wisdom about the true meaning of Jesus words is to ask God to give this wisdom generously, without finding any fault with me.

What’s your next question?

 

[michaelsmth626]

Catholics have no problem comparing scripture to scripture. All scripture is consistent with itself and with Catholic Theology. We’ve shown you a bunch of times how many scriptural verses show Peter’s leadership. Yet, you will not acknowledge this. I can only assume that you are not ready to hear it yet.

paul, paul ,paul, then why is it that you insist when Jesus said [And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,] “on this rock I will build My church” you insist that it’s in reference to Peter. When every other passage of scripture says that the rock is Jesus and that Jesus is the foundation the church sits on. Not Peter. Jesus did not change scripture. But rather you use this passage and your interpretation of it, to view the rest of scripture. Paul said he built on Jesus not Peter 1 Cor 3. Peter built on Jesus not himself. Trying to move away from this point and focusing on Peters work in the field for Jesus does not prove that Peter is the foundation the true church sits on. Nor is their evidence to prove that others received the commission of presenting the original Gospel message except the 12 that Jesus appointed. In fact their is a warning about excepting another Gospel not taught by them. I believe that scripture contains it “the Gospel” in its entirety. As Paul said about such conversation about who is greater, just grow up, I’m done replying to you in this thread out of respect for Socrates4Jesus. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

S4J, perhaps this is a good time to reiterate the fact that the Catholic Church does not look to scripture to discover God’s teachings. Rather, she has received God’s teachings directly, and in scripture she finds many of those teachings reflected by the scripture writers.

Then perhaps this is a good time to ask that if i cannot look to Sacred Scripture to find the truth from the original Apostles, then how should i hope to find the truth by looking to their successors, instead?

 

[fhansen]

C/P
I heard a story of a farmer and his wife driving down a dirt road in the old pickup truck. The farmer’s wife let out a loud sigh. “What’s wrong?” he asked. “Well,” she said, “I was just thinking that we don’t sit as close together as we used to.” The farmer kept looking down the road and driving in silence. Then, as if a light came on, he said, “Well I’m sittin’ where I’ve always sat.”

I told that story to make a point. The point is that God is immutable, which means, He doesn’t change. In fact, God said in Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not.” Not only is God immutable, but His Word is immutable as well.
God doesn’t change and His Word will not change, so if there is a discrepancy between the church and the Word of God, it is because the church has moved away from the precepts of God’s Word. Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Today 6:29 pm

But this is the question. Who’s to determine whether or not the church-any church-has moved away from the precepts of Gods’ word?

 

[Pax]

paul, paul ,paul, then why is it that you insist when Jesus said [And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,] “on this rock I will build My church” you insist that it’s in reference to Peter. When every other passage of scripture says that the rock is Jesus and that Jesus is the foundation the church sits on. Not Peter. Jesus did not change scripture. But rather you use this passage and your interpretation of it, to view the rest of scripture. Paul said he built on Jesus not Peter 1 Cor 3. Peter built on Jesus not himself. Trying to move away from this point and focusing on Peters work in the field for Jesus does not prove that Peter is the foundation the true church sits on. Nor is their evidence to prove that others received the commission of presenting the original Gospel message except the 12 that Jesus appointed. In fact their is a warning about excepting another Gospel not taught by them. I believe that scripture contains it “the Gospel” in its entirety. As Paul said about such conversation about who is greater, just grow up, I’m done replying to you in this thread out of respect for Socrates4Jesus. Lets just agree to disagree.

michaelsmth in Christ,

The reason Paul and the other Catholics on this thread believe it is because that is what it means. When Jesus says that he will build his Church upon Peter and his profession of faith, Jesus is acting as the architect of that which will remain once he ascends into heaven. This does not preclude Jesus from being the cornerstone.

You are making a fundamental error in logic and exegesis. If your view is true, then scripture simply contradicts itself multiple times. Let me illustrate this with examples related to what you cite in 1 Cor 3.

In scripture we read the following about Jesus.

Heb 10:30 …and the Lord will judge his people.
Acts 10:42 …he is the one ordained by God to judge the living and the dead.
Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge

1Cor 3:11 one foundation Christ

Now compare those statements to the following:

Eph 2:19-20 household of God built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone.

Rev 21:14 twelve foundations, the apostles

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Scripture says there is one foundation. Scripture also says there are other foundations including twelve foundations, the apostles.

Scripture says there is one judge Jesus. Scripture also says that there are twelve judges that are the apostles sitting on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Catholics do reconcile scripture to scripture. Is it possible that your doctrinal view precludes reconciling the true meaning of Matthew 16:18 with the other scriptures? Or is it at least possible that the Catholic explanation is at the very least as reasonable as your explanation?

God bless.

 

[michaelsmth626]

OK, let’s you and i both be the judge. Of all the many, many times Jesus says, “Assuredly I say to you …” or “Verily I say to you …” or “I tell you the truth …” (or however one’s Bible translates His words), how many times, in all those times, does He add the word today?

I thought you were not interested in comparing scripture with scripture
Without comparing scripture with scripture you can make the bible say most anything you wish, protestant ministers are as guilty of that as any snake oil sales man.

Im sure you dont want to open a conversation about whether we sleep or are we immediately taken to heaven, Or is hell torment forever or just until those held there are destroyed. Which many christian critics refer to as God being a nasty hateful God, tormenting forever that is. As others have noted and perhaps questioned your sincerity in the line of questions and statements that are now approaching 5000, you replied as if you had an definite opinion. Endless deliberation on the elephants tail, ears, feet, trunk ect and refusing to combine the information or make a determined observation is nothing more than what Socrates and Plato did with there whole life’s. Entertained in the wonderment of the chase but never desiring to reach the conclusion. To reach a conclusion would cease to be one pondering the truth and its the pondering that you truly love. What Socrates and Plato believed is as much a mystery today as what you believe. So lets be truthful and call a spade a spade ok. Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Socrates is just as the name implies ever wondering and questioning but never having a clear opinion.

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth in Christ,

The reason Paul and the other Catholics on this thread believe it is because that is what it means. When Jesus says that he will build his Church upon Peter and his profession of faith, Jesus is acting as the architect of that which will remain once he ascends into heaven. This does not preclude Jesus from being the cornerstone.

You are making a fundamental error in logic and exegesis. If your view is true, then scripture simply contradicts itself multiple times. Let me illustrate this with examples related to what you cite in 1 Cor 3.

In scripture we read the following about Jesus.

Heb 10:30 …and the Lord will judge his people.
Acts 10:42 …he is the one ordained by God to judge the living and the dead.
Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge

1Cor 3:11 one foundation Christ

Now compare those statements to the following:

Eph 2:19-20 household of God built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone.

Rev 21:14 twelve foundations, the apostles

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Scripture says there is one foundation. Scripture also says there are other foundations including twelve foundations, the apostles.

Scripture says there is one judge Jesus. Scripture also says that there are twelve judges that are the apostles sitting on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Catholics do reconcile scripture to scripture. Is it possible that your doctrinal view precludes reconciling the true meaning of Matthew 16:18 with the other scriptures? Or is it at least possible that the Catholic explanation is at the very least as reasonable as your explanation?

God bless.

I’ve been all threw this in socks old thread. I was and still will argue the point about their were only 12 but the catholic church now seats what? the 265th Peter. Does not the pope claim authority over all churches threw the susesion of Peter? Or rather Jesus building His church on Peter. A simple yes or no will suffice, that the church is acting as an Apostle today, defining doctrine and holding the door to salvation. Not building on the message of Christ but ruling as Peters successor of the church that was established threw Peter.

 

[michaelsmth626]

But this is the question. Who’s to determine whether or not the church-any church-has moved away from the precepts of Gods’ word?

Why thats the answer to the near 5000 questions and remarks Socrates4Jesus has been looking for.
I’ll tell you something, the only one that can tell you that is you.

 

[fhansen]

Why thats the answer to the near 5000 questions and remarks Socrates4Jesus has been looking for.
I’ll tell you something, the only one that can tell you that is you.

I know the answer. What’s yours?

 

[VociMike]

But if there are one or more correct meanings, and all other meanings are incorrect, then we must have a method of determining the correct meaning(s). And I’m asking the poster what that method is, from his perspective or faith tradition.

But surely every Christian must have an answer to this question, or else of what value is scripture?

 

[VociMike]

Then perhaps this is a good time to ask that if i cannot look to Sacred Scripture to find the truth from the original Apostles, then how should i hope to find the truth by looking to their successors, instead?

Ahh, but you are not the Church. You did not sit at the very feet of Christ. You were not present in the upper room at Pentecost. You did not receive the faith complete and without error before a word of the NT was written. So you must not compare your situation with that of the Church. There is no question that scripture can lead you to some truth (as can a great many things in this world), but can it lead you to all truth? If so, what is the sum total of all truth, and why hasn’t every person who reads the bible outside the light of the Church been led to all truth?

 

[Eucharisted]

To understand Jesus’ teachings, you must understand His humor. Jesus is man, and man has a sense of humor. Jesus is God, and God is joy itself. So as man, He experieced the Beatific Vision - seeing God face-to-face - and this would cause His Humanity great joy. So you can see where His humor would come from. Unfortunately, most of Jesus’ humor is lost on the modern readers, and, it must be noted that while He was a very witty man, He did not crack jokes all of the time - just most of the time.

Some examples of His humor:
The Beatitudes: He wasn’t just saying God rewards the humble and punishes the proud, He was giving people a summary of who He was.
The parable of the vineyard: This harkens back to the joyous vineyard song Isaiah sang during the same feast many years ago, but this time there is a twist: the tenants (Jewish leaders) are punished for rejecting God and God is going to grow a new vineyard (new Israel).
The raising of the daughter: When Jesus says “She is sleeping,” it’s not just meant to teach people about God’s power; it’s also meant to teach people to not worry and lighten up.
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” A Jew would pray during death, and the Psalms were the most famous prayers for Jews - but more than that, Jesus was telling His enemies (when you read the full psalm of which His quote is the first line) that while they thought they had triumphed, their killing of Him was actually His triumph over them.

And [Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

In this passage, Jesus is again using humor to teach His Apostles. He is basically telling the Apostles, “I have made this bread into Myself and now I give Myself to you, so you can eat Me in remembrance of Me.” Saint Augustine came the closest to understanding Jesus’ humor when he wrote, “He held Himself in His own hands.”

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

(John 19:25-27)

Another funny passage! In Jewish culture, if a son died and the mother had no husband to support her, she would be supported by one of her relatives (Jews had large families, given their extreme pro-family stance). Mary was by now a widow, and she had no relatives to take care of her. So who dose Jesus give her to? Why the Apostle who knew her the least: John!

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:13-19)

Again, we see that Jesus makes use of the least likey of souls to accomplish His work. He loves paradoxes! This is one of my favorite funny verses, too. The joke this time is actually at Peter’s lack of faith; he is the one who has the least faith among the Apostles, although he has the most love of God among them. When the Apostles each told Jesus who they thought He was, they were all very smug about it, thinking “I am so clever!” Than Peter’s turn rolled around and everyone was thinking “Oh boy, this is going to be painful.” But than he gave the confession, which would have shocked the other Apostles - not only because He was calling Jesus God and Messiah but also because it was unlike him to talk that way - and Jesus only shocked the Apostles even more when He told Peter that, yes, he was correct. And than He gave Peter the keys to the doors of the Kingdom of God, i.e., He appointed him as leader of His Church, which was to be founded on Peter’s faith. This is very funny because, of all the Apostles, as I said, Peter had the least amount of faith. This passage actually ties in with the parable of the mustard seed: the least faith will grow into the greatest faith and the smallest kingdom will grow into the most greatest Kingdom and the Church that is plagued the most with heresy, schism, and persecution will grow into the holiest Church.

 

[michaelsmth626]

I know the answer. What’s yours?

The question is, Who’s to determine whether or not the church-any church-has moved away from the precepts of Gods’ word?

In the first place you have changed Mal 3:6 from I do not change, to, “away from the precepts of Gods’ word”.

; pre·cept
1 : a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action
2 : an order issued by legally constituted authority to a subordinate official

Not a very fitting definition of Gods unchanging nature or word, “a general rule of action”

That answer as I told you above can only be know by you.
So for me my first clue would be a church that makes statements like this.
As we see the general rule of action “precepts” is applied in the statement below, underlined.

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

[VociMike]

When i discovered how one might possibly see what Catholics see in the Bible, i assure you that i did not feign astonishment. I was genuinely astonished that i myself was so ignorant!



Thank you for asking me the questions. I hope you have more! We’ll, Scripture tells me this:If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

And that gives me hope, for James does not say if any Apostolic Successor lacks wisdom, rather he says if anyone lacks wisdom, and i’m an anyone. And James also says that God gives wisdom generously, without finding fault, so there’s more hope for me, for there is much fault He could find in me!

So my first answer to your question is that the first step to receiving wisdom about the true meaning of Jesus words is to ask God to give this wisdom generously, without finding any fault with me.

What’s your next question?

So how will you know if you have received that wisdom? And does receiving that wisdom mean you have received the full revelation contained in scripture? At what point will you know that you possess the full revelation contained in scripture? Unless you can answer those questions, where are you? You cannot now know if you are near the beginning of your journey or near the end, and what’s more you can never know.

And BTW, is the full revelation contained in scripture even the full revelation given to us by God? Hmm…

 

[michaelsmth626]

So how will you know if you have received that wisdom? And does receiving that wisdom mean you have received the full revelation contained in scripture? At what point will you know that you possess the full revelation contained in scripture? Unless you can answer those questions, where are you? You cannot now know if you are near the beginning of your journey or near the end, and what’s more you can never know.

And BTW, is the full revelation contained in scripture even the full revelation given to us by God? Hmm…

Socrates, I told you that ambiguous is the nectar that is presented to support catholic doctrine.

Ambiguous is the life blood of catholic teaching. The more ambiguous the scripture becomes the more relevant the catholic message is, and the more irrelevant having a personal relationship threw the HS becomes. There is a reflection of this statement in your conversation with VociMike.