Where is this taught in the bible?

[Brian_Culliton]

Alow me to iterject if I may?

The Pilar of the Church is the absolute and complete TRUTH [SINGULAR] on all matters of both Faith and Morals.

John 14: 16-17 “And [JESUS] I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”

**John 17: 14-19 “I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I [JESUS]consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”
**

No other church, no other faith, no other religion can make factually this claim!

The “ground” of this Church is of course the Apostles whom Christ choose precisely for this task…

Eph. 4: 4 -8“There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [One Triune God] one faith, One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock singular] I will build my singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. singular] 19 I God singular] will give you singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

*** built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone***, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit".]

Those verses refer to all of us who are faithful to Christ; they do not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Your church demands we believe things that were not taught by the apostles and are contrary to their doctrine.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Well, I did not refer to the Bible for my answer but to the teachings of the Church. As for the “Gospel and Spirit of life”…who is this referring to except Jesus Christ from which all flowed…the Gospel or Gospels and the Spirit of life…so Jesus is the still the answer for without Him, there is no Gospel and Spirit of Life.

True, but your answer comes from the Bible whether you know it or not.

 

[wmscott]

Those verses refer to all of us who are faithful to Christ; they do not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Your church demands we believe things that were not taught by the apostles and are contrary to their doctrine.

Brian do you believe that whatever the Catholic Church teaches that is not in the Bible is not of value or merit. That it does not follow Gods will and is somehow less when it comes to our spirituality.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Those verses refer to all of us who are faithful to Christ; they do not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Your church demands we believe things that were not taught by the apostles and are contrary to their doctrine.

Are churches who condone abortion faithful to Christ?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If the Gospel of Christ that has come down to us in these four writings is the true Gospel and tradition supports it, why should anyone listen to your leadership that tells us to believe things that are not supported by those writings?

QUOTE]

And just what Docturine of the Church is not supported by Scripture?
I have found non.

 

[steve_b]

Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority,

Protestants might back away from the Protestant label and prefer to be called Christian. But they are Protestant and Protestants teach SS.
j:

and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter.

There is no Protestant Church.
j:

I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.

Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…

Sola scriptura as also sola fide, are inventions of men in the 16th century who left the Church…

The HS doesn’t lead men away from His Church. Nor would an apostle. In fact dissent and division from the Church is condemned in scripture.

 

[wmscott]

Those verses refer to all of us who are faithful to Christ; they do not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Your church demands we believe things that were not taught by the apostles and are contrary to their doctrine.

So tell me what the Bible says about Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell research, or for that matter the Most Holy Trinity. Please do not quote passages and say this or that is what the Bible is talking about when trying to answer the question. Show me specifically where is says the words Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell, or Trinity. The simple answer is you can’t.

Now tell me how many Protestant churches allow abortion or same sex marriage in direct conflict with God’s word. What about Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research, how many Protestant churches see nothing wrong with these two practices?
What you are failing to see is that when the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals, it is always in line with Sacred Scripture and God’s plan.

 

[pablope]

True, but your answer comes from the Bible whether you know it or not.

Actually, taught by the Church, in conjunction with the Bible and the Traditions or teachings of the Apostles. All three together, not just one.

If this already was in the Bible, how come you had to quote Iraneus first?

 

[wmscott]

Actually, taught by the Church, in conjunction with the Bible and the Traditions or teachings of the Apostles. All three together, not just one.

If this already was in the Bible, how come you had to quote Iraneus first?

See the attached word doc, I like the three legged stool analogy. Remove one leg, then it falls.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;7199119]Hi Pat,
The answer would, of course, be certainly the patriarchates of Orthodoxy can, and as Lutherans we trace our roots to Pentecost through our common history with the rest of the Church Militant.
My point was that the CC was and is a central part of the Church Militant. This is indesputable. But His Church, that was unified prior to schism and division, remains so today, so I’m left with the Lutheran confessions statement that the Church is the comgregation of believers. You will find the Church where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

THANKS JON,

The Orthodox was a schism with a great deal of common beleif held on too. It would seem unfair to consider what Luther did [more of a revolutation than schism] in the same light.

While it is true that Luter did take [or attempt too] the sacraments with him; his seperation from the CC was sadly complete and total. So much so, that Lutherns ought not to consider Apolostolic Succesion as still being vaild within there ranks.

And Jon, it is one thing to practice the sacraments and quite another to do so validy and licitly.

I pray for untification and just One Church [one Faith] as Christ desires.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Brian_Culliton]

So tell me what the Bible says about Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell research, or for that matter the Most Holy Trinity. Please do not quote passages and say this or that is what the Bible is talking about when trying to answer the question. Show me specifically where is says the words Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell, or Trinity. The simple answer is you can’t.

Now tell me how many Protestant churches allow abortion or same sex marriage in direct conflict with God’s word. What about Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research, how many Protestant churches see nothing wrong with these two practices?
What you are failing to see is that when the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals, it is always in line with Sacred Scripture and God’s plan.

What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics in order to justify supporting such things? I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have no more to do with what some churches believe than you do with what liberal Catholics believe.

Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

 

[SyCarl]

Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone, (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded by the Spirit of Christ in the Prophets and the Apostles.

Where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…

First off, sola scriptura does not deny authority to the church but such authority must be exercised subject to verification by scripture. The church cannot define anything as necessary that is not found in scripture. Many things can be taught, believed or practiced that are not in scripture, but they cannot be contrary to scripture or required for belief.

There are a number of passages that make teaching and practice subject to scrutiny by individuals.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

(Act 17:11 NASB)

Here the Apostle Paul was teaching but the people are praised for verifying his teachings with scripture, even if it was just the Old Testament.

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

(1Co 4:6 NASB)

Here it is seen that the written word places boundaries on what can be done.

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.

(1Th 5:19-22 NASB)

What need would there be for us to examine everything carefully if we could just rely on the church to tell us?

"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.

(Heb 8:10-11 NASB)

God has written on our hearts and we have no need for someone to teach us.

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

(1Jn 2:27 NASB)

God’s annointing teaches us all and we don’t need a teacher.

 

[fbl9]

First off, sola scriptura does not deny authority to the church but such authority must be exercised subject to verification by scripture. The church cannot define anything as necessary that is not found in scripture. Many things can be taught, believed or practiced that are not in scripture, but they cannot be contrary to scripture or required for belief.

There are a number of passages that make teaching and practice subject to scrutiny by individuals.

(Act 17:11 NASB)

Here the Apostle Paul was teaching but the people are praised for verifying his teachings with scripture, even if it was just the Old Testament.

So you understood and knew all without touching a piece of paper?

some of this sure looks like an addtion to what is written
.
Did everybody have a copy of the O.T. in their back pocket? No they didn’t, so one can be sure those that studied scripture were already knowledgable with what was written.

 

[pablope]

What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

My Bible only brethen…have you come across this verse: John 21:

25 **But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. **

or: 2 Thes 2: 15… 15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

I will not say anything further as it is clear as day as to what they mean.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

pablope:
My Bible only brethen…have you come across this verse: John 21:

25 **But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. **

or: 2 Thes 2: 15… 15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

I will not say anything further as it is clear as day as to what they mean.

This is where you should say something. This is your opportunity to connect your “Sacred Traditions” to the apostles. Please tell us, what are the traditions and what else did Jesus teach that we cannot get from the Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

This is where you should say something. This is your opportunity to connect your “Sacred Traditions” to the apostles. Please tell us, what are the traditions and what else did Jesus teach that we cannot get from the Bible?

Well first you must understand difference between the terms Traditions and [t]raditions.

 

[Nicea325]

Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

Here is some information:

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

Mary’s Cooperation

Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say “yes” to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Well first you must understand difference between the terms Traditions and [t]raditions.

I do; and you have [T]raditions that you claim were handed down from the apostles. I would just like for you to acknowledge the fact that none of them can actually be traced to the apostles.

 

[wmscott]

What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics in order to justify supporting such things? I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have no more to do with what some churches believe than you do with what liberal Catholics believe.

Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.

So you are going to dodge the question and try and paint me as hypocritical and then assert that many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research, that many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics, and finally evoke the liberal Catholics as if THEY have any position or power to determine Catholic doctrine or to teach as the Magisterium does on faith and morals. By your own statement “What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe” all too clearly illustrates the disunity in Protestantism. Praise the Lord that there are Christian religions out there that are wise enough to remain faithful to God and His Word. But what about the many “Christian” religions who do see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research, where are they finding their justification in the Bible to believe this way? In the Catholic Church, there is a singularity of truth and a single purpose. All of the “Catholics” that you try to hold up as examples have moved away from the truth and the Church and the Church has even called them out on it. So this is a weak argument.

But you did not answer my question, the Catholic Church teaches that human cloning is wrong, embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and where is the word Trinity in the Bible. I will answer it for you… it is not, the Catholic Church and the teaching authority gave it to us. This is just three examples I have given you and yet you confirm that many other Protestant churches teach the same thing.

Let me ask another question, how is the Blessed Mother being assumed into heaven not in line with Sacred Scripture? Is the Bible silent on anyone ever being assumed into heaven? I am interested in your answer.

Lastly what has the Catholic Church in your mind taught that is evil or heretical, show me how anything the Catholic Church has taught takes me away from God and leads me down the path of destruction.

 

[wmscott]

Here is some information:

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

Mary’s Cooperation

Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say “yes” to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.

Oh Dang Nicea, now you have given Brian the answer to the question I had for him on the assumption. Just as well maybe it will sink in a bit. If not for him then maybe a lurker or two.