Book of John

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

As I said, orthodox catholic teachings. I do not see "days" since the spirit is not governed by them. The flesh is.

To not "taste" death, one is "spiritually resurrected" first. The Jews tasted death. A Christ does not. Unless you die first, the resurrection (spiritual) hasn't occurred. Jesus never judged by the flesh and neither do I.

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.- Philip

The words Jesus spoke were a seed. The Holy Spirit is the fertile soil. (not the Bible). The Catholics created the Bible, not God.

He who has knowledge of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for "He who sins is the slave of sin" (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called "free" by the world. Knowledge of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, "it makes them free" mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world. But "Love builds up" (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through knowledge, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of knowledge. Knowledge makes them capable of becoming free. - Philip

Those who created this Bible of theirs (catholic orthodoxy) became so arrogant, they resorted to murder to force their doctrine on man. Knowledge (gnosis) defines the true love, the way of the (Holy) Spirit, and the gift it offers. This is what "free" means. Once the knowledge is understood (from the Spirit given by Jesus), the Acts of Jesus (canon gospels) shows how Jesus became Christ and that we become Christ as well.

But the priests returned to take back the knowledge, and use it as power over the flesh. Unless one see's this, he follows the world, and dies.

"Become zealous about the Word. For the Word's first condition is faith; the second is love; the third is works. Now from these comes life. For the Word is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it.- Secret James

Unless you seek what is hidden, you cannot find it.

(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."- Thomas

Jesus opened the gate of knowledge (veil) and the priests rose again to close it (Nicaea).

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."- Thomas

Ink is of the world, and can be easily manipulative. Jesus warned us of the scribes. As well as priests (celestial leaders).

. Revelation 20:5, 6 refers to the resurrection of those who will reign with Christ as “the first resurrection.” The apostle Paul speaks of this first resurrection also as “the earlier resurrection from the dead [literally, the out-resurrection the out of dead (ones)].” (Php 3:11), On the expression Paul uses here, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931, Vol. IV, p. 454) says: “Apparently Paul is thinking here only of the resurrection of believers out from the dead and so double ex [out] (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Paul is not denying a general resurrection by this language, but emphasizing that of believers.” Charles Ellicott’s Commentaries (1865, Vol. II, p. 87) remarks on Philippians 3:11: “‘The resurrection from the dead;’ i.e., as the context suggests, the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s coming the dead in Him shall rise first (1 Thessalon. iv. 16), and the quick be caught up to meet Him in the clouds (1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time . . . Any reference here to a merely ethical resurrection is wholly out of the question.” One of the basic meanings of the word e·xa·na′sta·sis is getting up from bed in the morning; thus it can well represent a resurrection occurring early, otherwise called “the first resurrection.” Rotherham’s translation of Philippians 3:11 reads: “If by any means I may advance to the earlier resurrection which is from among the dead.”

This can't be called the first or earlier resurrection if there were those who were resurrected at the time of Jesus death can it?So are you saying the scriptures are lying to us?

The apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Why didn't he mention a resurrection that had already happened at the time Jesus was put to death if people had actually seen (literally)these holy ones.It seems to me they,meaning those used to write the scriptures would remind people of this resurrection if they were teaching people about how they could have faith in the resurrection.They write about Jesus resurrection,but none of the writers mention a resurrection when Jesus was put to death,the only resurrection they mention that had already happened was only Jesus resurrection. It seems to me they would continue to remind people of this resurrection that happened before Jesus,but none of them do,why?

You can call this a catholic teaching all you want,but i can see the teaching you believe doesn't go along with scripture,and as long as it does that, you can call it want you want to.

When do you think people will be resurrected?— Think back to when Lazarus died and Jesus promised his sister Martha: “Your brother will rise.” Martha replied: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:23, 24) What did Martha mean when she said that Lazarus would rise on “the last day”?—
Well, Martha had heard about Jesus’ promise: ‘All those in the memorial tombs will come out.’ (John 5:28, 29) So “the last day” is when all those in God’s memory will be brought back to life.

 

[Phantasman]

. Revelation 20:5, 6 refers to the resurrection of those who will reign with Christ as “the first resurrection.” The apostle Paul speaks of this first resurrection also as “the earlier resurrection from the dead [literally, the out-resurrection the out of dead (ones)].” (Php 3:11), On the expression Paul uses here, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931, Vol. IV, p. 454) says: “Apparently Paul is thinking here only of the resurrection of believers out from the dead and so double ex [out] (ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Paul is not denying a general resurrection by this language, but emphasizing that of believers.” Charles Ellicott’s Commentaries (1865, Vol. II, p. 87) remarks on Philippians 3:11: “‘The resurrection from the dead;’ i.e., as the context suggests, the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s coming the dead in Him shall rise first (1 Thessalon. iv. 16), and the quick be caught up to meet Him in the clouds (1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time . . . Any reference here to a merely ethical resurrection is wholly out of the question.” One of the basic meanings of the word e·xa·na′sta·sis is getting up from bed in the morning; thus it can well represent a resurrection occurring early, otherwise called “the first resurrection.” Rotherham’s translation of Philippians 3:11 reads: “If by any means I may advance to the earlier resurrection which is from among the dead.”

This can't be called the first or earlier resurrection if there were those who were resurrected at the time of Jesus death can it?So are you saying the scriptures are lying to us?

The apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Why didn't he mention a resurrection that had already happened at the time Jesus was put to death if people had actually seen (literally)these holy ones.It seems to me they,meaning those used to write the scriptures would remind people of this resurrection if they were teaching people about how they could have faith in the resurrection.They write about Jesus resurrection,but none of the writers mention a resurrection when Jesus was put to death,the only resurrection they mention that had already happened was only Jesus resurrection. It seems to me they would continue to remind people of this resurrection that happened before Jesus,but none of them do,why?

You can call this a catholic teaching all you want,but i can see the teaching you believe doesn't go along with scripture,and as long as it does that, you can call it want you want to.

When do you think people will be resurrected?— Think back to when Lazarus died and Jesus promised his sister Martha: “Your brother will rise.” Martha replied: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:23, 24) What did Martha mean when she said that Lazarus would rise on “the last day”?—
Well, Martha had heard about Jesus’ promise: ‘All those in the memorial tombs will come out.’ (John 5:28, 29) So “the last day” is when all those in God’s memory will be brought back to life.

First, like the early Christians, I don't see Revelations as part of the Gospel message. It is neither an oracle or a prophesy.

Second, I do not see the Bible as the word of God. And yes, the scriptures aren't inerrant. There is error and truth. Only the Holy Spirit reveals all truth (to the seeker). Not the church, not the Bible, nor any man.

1 John:
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The Bible mentions "spirit of error" one time. You are seeing it. Gnosis shows it in detail many times. Without this knowledge, the catholic priests became celestial authority over man.

After 40 years of extensive study and seeking, even beyond the Canon, the pattern emerges why the early priests tried to pervert the gospel.

Galatians 1:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Those of the circumcision perverted the gospel, turning it from spirit to flesh.

With knowledge from the Spirit, it becomes clear. Paul saw it. So did John.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

First, like the early Christians, I don't see Revelations as part of the Gospel message. It is neither an oracle or a prophesy.

Second, I do not see the Bible as the word of God. And yes, the scriptures aren't inerrant. There is error and truth. Only the Holy Spirit reveals all truth (to the seeker). Not the church, not the Bible, nor any man.

1 John:
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The Bible mentions "spirit of error" one time. You are seeing it. Gnosis shows it in detail many times. Without this knowledge, the catholic priests became celestial authority over man.

After 40 years of extensive study and seeking, even beyond the Canon, the pattern emerges why the early priests tried to pervert the gospel.

Galatians 1:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Those of the circumcision perverted the gospel, turning it from spirit to flesh.

With knowledge from the Spirit, it becomes clear. Paul saw it. So did John.

you said:First, like the early Christians, I don't see Revelations as part of the Gospel message. It is neither an oracle or a prophesy.

I believe Revelation to be scripture belonging to the Bible.
Sometimes the canonicity of small books such as James, Jude, Second and Third John, and Second Peter is questioned on the grounds that these books are quoted very little by early writers. However, they make up all together only one thirty-sixth of the Christian Greek Scriptures and were therefore less likely to be referred to. In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, “Irenaeus Against Heresies”) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.So just because you don't see revelation as part of the message from the Bible doesn't really impress me,you have the right to believe what you wish.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Moreover, brothers, we do not want YOU to be ignorant concerning those who are sleeping [in death]; that YOU may not sorrow just as the rest also do who have no hope. 14 For if our faith is that Jesus died and rose again, so, too, those who have fallen asleep [in death] through Jesus God will bring with him. 15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. 18 Consequently keep comforting one another with these words.
The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time


We also have to remember that when Jesus spoke of the resurrection he said at
John 5:28, 29: “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [the voice of Christ the King] and come out.

Colossians 1:17 He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything.

Acts 26:22 However, because I have obtained the help that is from God I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, but saying nothing except things the Prophets as well as Moses stated were going to take place, 23 that the Christ was to suffer and, as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to publish light both to this people and to the nations

 

[Phantasman]

you said:First, like the early Christians, I don't see Revelations as part of the Gospel message. It is neither an oracle or a prophesy.

I believe Revelation to be scripture belonging to the Bible.
Sometimes the canonicity of small books such as James, Jude, Second and Third John, and Second Peter is questioned on the grounds that these books are quoted very little by early writers. However, they make up all together only one thirty-sixth of the Christian Greek Scriptures and were therefore less likely to be referred to. In this connection it may be observed that Second Peter is quoted by Irenaeus as bearing the same evidence of canonicity as the rest of the Greek Scriptures. The same is true of Second John. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 551, 557, 341, 443, “Irenaeus Against Heresies”) Revelation, also rejected by some, was attested to by many early commentators, including Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenaeus.So just because you don't see revelation as part of the message from the Bible doesn't really impress me,you have the right to believe what you wish.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 Moreover, brothers, we do not want YOU to be ignorant concerning those who are sleeping [in death]; that YOU may not sorrow just as the rest also do who have no hope. 14 For if our faith is that Jesus died and rose again, so, too, those who have fallen asleep [in death] through Jesus God will bring with him. 15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. 18 Consequently keep comforting one another with these words.
The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time


We also have to remember that when Jesus spoke of the resurrection he said at
John 5:28, 29: “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [the voice of Christ the King] and come out.

Colossians 1:17 He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything.

Acts 26:22 However, because I have obtained the help that is from God I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, but saying nothing except things the Prophets as well as Moses stated were going to take place, 23 that the Christ was to suffer and, as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to publish light both to this people and to the nations

The church fathers wrote of the church they wanted (and created). Just because those like Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. didn't mention books of gnosis (Thomas, Secret John and James,) doesn't mean they weren't followed by early Christians. The schizm of the church started almost immediately by the circumcised (Pharisee's) that wanted the gospel as an addition to their power and control that was taken from them at the tearing of the veil.

Paul wrote of the attack by writing Galatians. 1 John wrote of the attack calling it "anti" Christ. Immediately, those who followed the different teachings of the apostles started arguing the differences over the common theme. This was made fuel on the fire when the emerging catholics was trying to incorporate the Jews tenet into the Gospel when Christ clearly said "teach the Gospel" and not the books that made up the Bible (that came later through "doctrines of men").

You are correct. I follow what God gave me to spirit to seek Spirit. If I listen to men, then I follow men (like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian). If I follow JW, then I am under their doctrine. Catholic, another doctrine. And so on.

I studied the many before seeing the more narrow path. To give God a name makes him man made, for names are given to things created. To follow a religion (group of one mind through a man or men leading it) removes the "freedom" one achieves through spiritual understanding of the definition of what Christ is, and means. The sword (or Christ) separates.

If one asks me why I do not follow a certain doctrine, I will give an answer and the scripture citing it. Then we debate to find the spiritual truth, not what the "Bible" says. The Gospel has been tainted by men who wanted the power it gave. Even Origen said as much by the time it reached him. Christ said to not trust man, especially the scribes, who copied and arranged the written word.

2 Corinth:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The Spirit will reveal "all truth". Read everything, seek everywhere.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The church fathers wrote of the church they wanted (and created). Just because those like Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. didn't mention books of gnosis (Thomas, Secret John and James,) doesn't mean they weren't followed by early Christians. The schizm of the church started almost immediately by the circumcised (Pharisee's) that wanted the gospel as an addition to their power and control that was taken from them at the tearing of the veil.

Paul wrote of the attack by writing Galatians. 1 John wrote of the attack calling it "anti" Christ. Immediately, those who followed the different teachings of the apostles started arguing the differences over the common theme. This was made fuel on the fire when the emerging catholics was trying to incorporate the Jews tenet into the Gospel when Christ clearly said "teach the Gospel" and not the books that made up the Bible (that came later through "doctrines of men").

You are correct. I follow what God gave me to spirit to seek Spirit. If I listen to men, then I follow men (like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian). If I follow JW, then I am under their doctrine. Catholic, another doctrine. And so on.

I studied the many before seeing the more narrow path. To give God a name makes him man made, for names are given to things created. To follow a religion (group of one mind through a man or men leading it) removes the "freedom" one achieves through spiritual understanding of the definition of what Christ is, and means. The sword (or Christ) separates.

If one asks me why I do not follow a certain doctrine, I will give an answer and the scripture citing it. Then we debate to find the spiritual truth, not what the "Bible" says. The Gospel has been tainted by men who wanted the power it gave. Even Origen said as much by the time it reached him. Christ said to not trust man, especially the scribes, who copied and arranged the written word.

2 Corinth:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The Spirit will reveal "all truth". Read everything, seek everywhere.

The church fathers wrote of the church they wanted (and created). Just because those like Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. didn't mention books of gnosis (Thomas, Secret John and James,) doesn't mean they weren't followed by early Christians. The schizm of the church started almost immediately by the circumcised (Pharisee's) that wanted the gospel as an addition to their power and control that was taken from them at the tearing of the veil.

Paul wrote of the attack by writing Galatians. 1 John wrote of the attack calling it "anti" Christ. Immediately, those who followed the different teachings of the apostles started arguing the differences over the common theme. This was made fuel on the fire when the emerging catholics was trying to incorporate the Jews tenet into the Gospel when Christ clearly said "teach the Gospel" and not the books that made up the Bible (that came later through "doctrines of men").

You are correct. I follow what God gave me to spirit to seek Spirit. If I listen to men, then I follow men (like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian). If I follow JW, then I am under their doctrine. Catholic, another doctrine. And so on.

I studied the many before seeing the more narrow path. To give God a name makes him man made, for names are given to things created. To follow a religion (group of one mind through a man or men leading it) removes the "freedom" one achieves through spiritual understanding of the definition of what Christ is, and means. The sword (or Christ) separates.

If one asks me why I do not follow a certain doctrine, I will give an answer and the scripture citing it. Then we debate to find the spiritual truth, not what the "Bible" says. The Gospel has been tainted by men who wanted the power it gave. Even Origen said as much by the time it reached him. Christ said to not trust man, especially the scribes, who copied and arranged the written word.

2 Corinth:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The Spirit will reveal "all truth". Read everything, seek everywhere.

The problem with what you are saying here is that you are just a man too and if people listen to you they will be listening to a man.I choose to believe the Bible is Gods word not mans,you have the right to believe differently but i stand by God word the Bible.

 

[Phantasman]

The problem with what you are saying here is that you are just a man too and if people listen to you they will be listening to a man.I choose to believe the Bible is Gods word not mans,you have the right to believe differently but i stand by God word the Bible.

No one has to listen to me, and I don't expect anyone to follow me. I only present my perspective that comes from 40 years of seeking, nothing more. Does man find Christ (Word) in only the Bible? How did the early Christians find Christ? Why didn't the Jews see him when he came?

There are other ways to find Christ. Marcion and Valentinus had followers that were as many as the orthodox.

Mark 9:
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Different paths can lead to the same place. The religion doesn't save anyone. The church is those who's hearts are lead by the Spirit, not the religion. Religions create slaves, the Spirit creates freedom. Religions teach you where the kingdom is, the Spirit says it's everywhere.

Luke says:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

1 Corinthians:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

John:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Then,

Thomas says:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

It's the same, but the knowledge is greater. We become sons of God.

Perspective.

 

[allright]

the angels sitting one at each end represent that Jesus is the real mercy sit which covered the ark of the covenant where in was the law
which Jesus delivers from.

 

[Hawkins]

In the book of John 20: 9-12.

Verse 9-"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead"

Ok, So who's the dead here?

It's an ancient Jewish concept back then. They believed that sheol or Hades is a place holding the souls of all men died.


The Works of Flavius Josephus:

This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead, not procuring a transmigration of souls from one body to another, but raising again those very bodies, which you Greeks, seeing to be dissolved, do not believe [their resurrection].

In the scriptures, what are the two angels revealing by the way they are sitting ?

There may not be any significance of their sitting positions.

Some commentaries may explain that this means the gospel will be preached from east to west. Some others may say that it represents Jesus is the beginning and He's the end.

To me, it simply means that they are there guarding the location from any other entities (spirits) from approaching.