Did Paul Corrupt Christianity?

[Phantasman]

I do not think it is a question if Paul, and the Greek and Roman Church Fathers influenced Christianity and Christian theology with Hellenist and Roman philosophy, but to what degree. The following reference is the first that discusses this influence. This reference pis actually mild concerning the influence. More to follow . . .

From: What is Hellenism, and how did it influence the early church?
Question: "What is Hellenism, and how did it influence the early church?"

Answer: Hellenism is the term used to describe the influence of Greek culture on the peoples the Greek andRoman Empires conquered or interacted with. Upon the Jews' return from exile in Babylon, they endeavored to protect their national identity by following the law closely. This led to the rise of the hyper-conservative Pharisees and their added, unnecessary laws. About one hundred years after the Jews returned, Alexander the Great swept across western Asia, extending his territory from his native Greece, down into Egypt, and east to the border of India. The influence of the Greek culture continued past the first century B.C., when the Roman Empire took control of Israel. The Pharisees' rival sect, the Sadducees, welcomed the Greek influence. The Sadducees were wealthy, powerful Jewish aristocrats who openly worked with their Gentile rulers to maintain peace and ensure a measure of political clout. All Jews were influenced by Greek culture, however. The Greek language was as well known as the native Aramaic, the Jewish leadership changed from the God-ordained priesthood to the Sadducee-controlled Sanhedrin, and the law of the land more closely reflected Grecian laws than those given through Moses. Hellenism also expressed itself in minor ways, such as Saul taking the name Paul. Hellenism had a great influence during the early years of Christianity. Sometimes the influence was felt indirectly (safe roads for the missionaries) and sometimes directly (theological synergism). Here are a few ways Hellenism affected Christianity:

Actually, the Sadducee's died out due to the first Jewish revolt, and council at Jerusalem. It was through the Pharisee's that the OT was adopted into the gospel message.Something that Paul rejected (Incident at Antioch) as well as Marcion and Valentinus. This was the creation of the schism of early Christianity. Lasting until the 4th century, when the orthodox ideology became the Roman Empires church, and all others eliminated.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No Jews killed Jesus. Romans did.

No it was first the Unbelieving Jews who first put Jesus on trial, then those Unbelieving Jews turned Jesus over to the Roman empire to be tried. But yet the Roman emperor Pilate couldn't find that Jesus did anything wrong. And it was the Unbelieving Jews who kept yelling to crucify him.
The Jews being under Roman Authority could not put anyone to death, But had to take them to the Emperor of Rome Pilate to be tried.


Even if they had all supported him, Jesus was essentially executed by the Romans as a religious terrorist. More followers wouldn't change the charges.

It was the Emperor of Rome Pilate that said he couldn't find any wrong in Jesus, and wanted to set Jesus free. But it was the Unbelieving Jews who kept yelling to crucify him. So rather to cause an out break, Pilate then had Jesus whipped and then nailed to the cross.

"But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barnabas, and destroy Jesus"
Matthew 27:20

So Emperor Pilate had Jesus nailed to the cross. Because of the Unbelieving Jews wanted Jesus nailed to the cross.


Like millennia of blaming Jews for what Romans did.

 

[Faithofchristian]

As previously referenced the Jews did not kill Jesus. He was executed as a traitor and rebel against Rome under Roman Law.

If to what you say is right, Then why was it, that Emperor Pilate wanted to free Jesus ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The ignorance of Judaism attempted to kill Christ (gospel). They only succeeded in killing Jesus. Christ was martyred (glorified), as the Father said he would be.

Not all Jews wanted to kill Jesus, only the Unbelieving Jews wanted to kill Jesus.

 

[shunyadragon]

If to what you say is right, Then why was it, that Emperor Pilate wanted to free Jesus ?

No Pilate gave the people a choice, which is a questionable story, regardless Jesus Christ was convicted of treason and a rebel under Roman Law.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No Pilate gave the people a choice, which is a questionable story, regardless Jesus Christ was convicted of treason and a rebel under Roman Law.

But before Pilate wanted to release Jesus but then the people wanted Jesus to be crucified, So Pilate gave into the people and then Jesus was nailed to the cross.

 

[shunyadragon]

But before Pilate wanted to release Jesus but then the people wanted Jesus to be crucified, So Pilate gave into the people and then Jesus was nailed to the cross.

Again, Pilate never indicated he 'wanted' to free Jesus. He was convicted of crimes where the penalty was execution by crucifixion. He may (questionable story) offered the people a choice, the people chose and Jesus was crucified under Roman Law.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, the Sadducee's died out due to the first Jewish revolt, and council at Jerusalem. It was through the Pharisee's that the OT was adopted into the gospel message.Something that Paul rejected (Incident at Antioch) as well as Marcion and Valentinus. This was the creation of the schism of early Christianity. Lasting until the 4th century, when the orthodox ideology became the Roman Empires church, and all others eliminated.

. . . and this represents the Hellenist Roman version we have today

 

[Phantasman]

Not all Jews wanted to kill Jesus, only the Unbelieving Jews wanted to kill Jesus.

Maybe, maybe not.

John 8:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Read between the lines. As the Jews were being taught the truth (that they were following the wrong (path to) God), by the end, the "believing Jews" fell back and tried to stone Jesus.

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It was difficult to take the Jews (who followed dead men) and make them see him as true life.

The words in John 8 were not in the former synoptic gospels, which is why they were important. The gospel of John aligns with non canon gnosis in greater detail and so does Paul and 1 John.

 

[Phantasman]

No Pilate gave the people a choice, which is a questionable story, regardless Jesus Christ was convicted of treason and a rebel under Roman Law.

I find the Gospel of Nicodemus (aka Acts of Pilate) a better spiritual understanding of the event that led to the Crucifixion.

The trial was more in detail and it was clear that Pilate was afraid, after hearing the news of Jesus bringing back Lazarus. Pilate only appeased the Jews according to their laws, that Rome honored, to keep peace.

It also used to surprise me that in Canon, Jesus never answered the question "What is truth?" from Pilate. Not trusting those who controlled the ink of the gospel for 800 years, I find Nicodemus more reliable in truth by Jesus' answer that appears, than the silence in Canon. Silence opens the door for returning to priests (as truth), when Jesus answer clearly shuts it.

2 And Pilate went in again into the judgement hall and called Jesus apart and said unto him: Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered and said to Pilate: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered Jesus: Am I also a Jew? thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; for if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have striven that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate said unto him: Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered him: Thou sayest that I am a king; for this cause was I born and am come, that every one that is of the truth should hear my voice. Pilate saith unto him: What is truth? Jesus saith unto him: Truth is of heaven. Pilate saith: Is there not truth upon earth? Jesus saith unto Pilate: Thou seest how that they which speak the truth are judged of them that have authority upon earth.- Acts of Pilate Part 3

The Gospel of Nicodemus

 

[Faithofchristian]

Maybe, maybe not.

John 8:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Read between the lines. As the Jews were being taught the truth (that they were following the wrong (path to) God), by the end, the "believing Jews" fell back and tried to stone Jesus.

Those were not the believing Jews, But the Unbelieving Jews. Which were the children of the devil, Satan, If you read John 8:44,
You would haved seen, Jesus put those Unbelieving Jews in their place, Telling them that their father is the devil,Satan.

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It was difficult to take the Jews (who followed dead men) and make them see him as true life.

The words in John 8 were not in the former synoptic gospels, which is why they were important. The gospel of John aligns with non canon gnosis in greater detail and so does Paul and 1 John.

 

[Shaul]

People forget that the Apostle Paul was also the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus who studied under the teacher Gamaliel. Paul was a scholar, a Pharisee, and a devout Jew whose writings brought the events surrounding Jesus into an Old Testament context that would have been readily understood by the Jews of his day, but is difficult for us due to that lack of context and difficulties imposed by translation and culture. Michael Heiser's "Unseen Realm" addresses many of the cultural, contextual and translational difficulties we experience. And, IMO, we get a much richer understanding of Christianity from Paul's writings.

No. Paul claimed these things but his own testimony belies these as false. Paul was not a Jewish scribe and certainly no scholar. His frequent mangling of basic Hebrew texts shows he was either misunderstanding clear texts or deliberately on misinterpreting them. As for being a student of Gamaliel it is clear he wasn’t. Gamaliel taught to leave the Christians alone (according to Acts), while Saul (later Paul) sought to kill them. So was Paul such a great student that he tried to do the opposite of his teacher?

 

[Phantasman]

That's just too funny.

The scripture says "those Jews which believed on him" and you say that they were "unbelieving Jews".

Which one should I see? Hmm. I'll take the scripture. John 8:44 is Jesus telling the "Jews that SAID they believed on him, that:
1, they weren't free John 8:36
2. that Abraham didn't give them truth from God the Father John 8:40
3. that they were following the devil John 8:44
4. they were ignorant of the Spirit that was speaking in him John 8:43
5. Jesus was "In the beginning" (Holy Spirit within him) John 8:58

When Jesus made himself above Abraham, the Jews turned on him to stone him. John 8:59

Jesus wanted them to leave Abrahamic ideology, because Abraham didn't get his "bread" (knowledge) from heaven. The Holy Spirit (truth) that was within Jesus was never within any man before Jesus. Only after Jesus (arisen). Gnosis is knowledge of/from the Spirit. It never spoke until it entered Jesus, the Christ. If they (Jews) listen to Abraham and Moses instead of Jesus, they were following the "angel of light" rather than the "true light" that Jesus was. Darkness and Light. Ignorance and Knowledge. Flesh and Spirit. God and mammon.

I cannot make it much clearer than that.

And the priests get wealthy and powerful from this.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That's just too funny.

The scripture says "those Jews which believed on him" and you say that they were "unbelieving Jews".

If you read John 8:31--"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him"

So you have two groups of Jews there, One group that believed on him and the other group who didn't believe on him.

Verse 31, does say, (Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him) Meaning there were Jews also there, who didn't believe on him. For Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him.

Notice in Verse 33, They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest you, You shall be made free"

If these Jews had any knowledge at all, They would haved known they were in bondage in Egypt four hundred years.
But yet they say, they were never in bondage to any man. But yet in bondage four hundred years in Egypt.


Which one should I see? Hmm. I'll take the scripture. John 8:44 is Jesus telling the "Jews that SAID they believed on him, that:
1, they weren't free John 8:36
2. that Abraham didn't give them truth from God the Father John 8:40
3. that they were following the devil John 8:44
4. they were ignorant of the Spirit that was speaking in him John 8:43
5. Jesus was "In the beginning" (Holy Spirit within him) John 8:58

Seeing how you skipped right over Verse 31, Which say, ( Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him) Meaning there were Jews also there, which didn't believe on him? For Jesus said to those Jews who believed on him?
I've found many Pastors, Preachers, that will do this very same thing, Skip right over Verse's.
When the Verse they should haved read, would haved showed them their error. Like what you did by skipping over Verse 31.would haved showed you, there were two groups of Jews that Jesus was speaking to.

Note there are two groups of Jews there, One group which Jesus spoke to and the other group which did not believe on him.

When Jesus made himself above Abraham, the Jews turned on him to stone him. John 8:59

No Jesus did not making himself above Abraham, but making himself God. To say
( Before ) Abraham was (I am,) Jesus professing to be the Almighty God.
Who do you suppose was before Abraham, if it wasn't God?
Therefore Jesus professing to be ( I Am)
Meaning that Jesus professing to be the Almighty God.
Back in the book of Exodus 3:14 --"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am"
Thereby Jesus saying, I Am,
Jesus professing to be the Almighty God. Which was before Abraham.


Jesus wanted them to leave Abrahamic ideology, because Abraham didn't get his "bread" (knowledge) from heaven. The Holy Spirit (truth) that was within Jesus was never within any man before Jesus. Only after Jesus (arisen). Gnosis is knowledge of/from the Spirit. It never spoke until it entered Jesus, the Christ. If they (Jews) listen to Abraham and Moses instead of Jesus, they were following the "angel of light" rather than the "true light" that Jesus was. Darkness and Light. Ignorance and Knowledge. Flesh and Spirit. God and mammon.

I cannot make it much clearer than that.

And the priests get wealthy and powerful from this.

 

[Phantasman]

"I am" was neither Jesus or the Father. Jesus always referred to himself as the "son" and God as "our/the Father". You take "i am" once in the OT and once in "John" and make a false connection of two words. How many times did Jesus say that he "was" I am. None. He didn't say "before Abraham was, I was", then that would mean he "was" and not "is".

"I am" brought destruction and murder. The Father and Son brought neither.

You "want" to live in ignorance of Spirit. What little truth the Jews had, was taken from them and given to the world. Christianity was a path to save the world, while Judaism was the Jews religion to save the Jews.

John 7:
34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

You just don't see that it. You move yourself back into the Judaism that will never find Christ. You seek him, you think you know who he is, (a fleshly storybook character).

Galatians 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:


Until you separate yourself yourself from your mothers womb, you are of the flesh, and the Spirit evades you.

Paul left the Jews to teach to the heathen (Gentiles) as the Spirit of God revealed Christ within him.

The Jews are gone. Judaism is gone. The OT is gone. Only Christ is truth. To go backward, is to enter the womb (flesh), not be free, and not find the Son. Leaving the Gospel to believe in the OT is spiritual suicide. There is nothing there of value. The Father never spoke to anyone and the Holy Spirit hadn't been given. That's Jesus words, not mine.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"I am" was neither Jesus or the Father. Jesus always referred to himself as the "son" and God as "our/the Father". You take "i am" once in the OT and once in "John" and make a false connection of two words. How many times did Jesus say that he "was" I am. None. He didn't say "before Abraham was, I was", then that would mean he "was" and not "is".

"I am" brought destruction and murder. The Father and Son brought neither.

You "want" to live in ignorance of Spirit. What little truth the Jews had, was taken from them and given to the world. Christianity was a path to save the world, while Judaism was the Jews religion to save the Jews.

John 7:
34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

You just don't see that it. You move yourself back into the Judaism that will never find Christ. You seek him, you think you know who he is, (a fleshly storybook character).

Galatians 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:


Until you separate yourself yourself from your mothers womb, you are of the flesh, and the Spirit evades you.

Paul left the Jews to teach to the heathen (Gentiles) as the Spirit of God revealed Christ within him.

The Jews are gone. Judaism is gone. The OT is gone. Only Christ is truth. To go backward, is to enter the womb (flesh), not be free, and not find the Son. Leaving the Gospel to believe in the OT is spiritual suicide. There is nothing there of value. The Father never spoke to anyone and the Holy Spirit hadn't been given. That's Jesus words, not mine.

So you say, doesn't mean a thing, You just show your lack of knowledge of understanding. When Jesus said, before Abraham was I Am, Jesus was proclaiming to be the Almighty God.
That's why those Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus. Because Jesus was claiming to be God.

Even Mary the mother of Jesus said in
Luke 1:47--"And my spirit hath rejoiced in
God my Saviour"

Therefore even Mary profess God as Saviour, Which Christ Jesus is Saviour and God.

 

[Phantasman]

So you say, doesn't mean a thing, You just show your lack of knowledge of understanding. When Jesus said, before Abraham was I Am, Jesus was proclaiming to be the Almighty God.
That's why those Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus. Because Jesus was claiming to be God.

Even Mary the mother of Jesus said in
Luke 1:47--"And my spirit hath rejoiced in
God my Saviour"

Therefore even Mary profess God as Saviour, Which Christ Jesus is Saviour and God.

Luke 1:
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

John:
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Which is it? How could Elizabeth (John the Baptists mother) be filled with the Holy Ghost if Jesus hadn't even given it? Luke never walked with Jesus. John did. The words are corrupted. It's one reason Marcion trimmed Luke to remove any attachment to Jewish analogies.

Galatians:
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.

The Canon is of the corrupt world. Without spiritual gnosis, you are blind, believing that the Bible is every word of God.

It's filled with truth and error. And without the Spirit, "all truth" will evade you, and you follow the men who created this abomination.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Luke 1:
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

John:
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Which is it? How could Elizabeth (John the Baptists mother) be filled with the Holy Ghost if Jesus hadn't even given it? Luke never walked with Jesus. John did. The words are corrupted. It's one reason Marcion trimmed Luke to remove any attachment to Jewish analogies.

Had you read the Verse more carefully, you would haved seen, That of Luke 1:41, Saying, "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit"

God can give his Spirit to anyone at any time. As God did with Elizabeth. There's nothing saying that God can not give his Spirit until such and such a time.
God can and will give his Spirit to whom he chooses. There's nothing limiting God in giving his Spirit to anyone.

Galatians:
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.

The Canon is of the corrupt world. Without spiritual gnosis, you are blind, believing that the Bible is every word of God.

It's filled with truth and error. And without the Spirit, "all truth" will evade you, and you follow the men who created this abomination.

What I would like you to do, is explain just how exactly those people back at the time, when Jesus was here on earth, how they could haved went by the New Testament, When in fact,
the New Testament hadn't even been written yet.

Therefore those people back there, only had the Old Testament to go by.The New Testament had not been written yet.
So when you refer to those people back there, remember they only had the Old Testament to go by.

The New Testament had Not been written, until about 70 years after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No it was first the Unbelieving Jews who first put Jesus on trial, then those Unbelieving Jews turned Jesus over to the Roman empire to be tried. But yet the Roman emperor Pilate couldn't find that Jesus did anything wrong. And it was the Unbelieving Jews who kept yelling to crucify him.

No, what Jews wanted was irrelevant because they had little to no power. This is all to cover up for the fact that Christianity turned to the gentiles and the gentiles killed Jesus. Historical Pilate was so evil that the Roman Empire, itself an evil empire, banished him for being a jerk. Well, and he couldn't keep Jews under control, so there's that, too. The reality is that Jesus got swept up in Roman crackdowns. That's it. He was executed as a religious/political terrorist, a charge not completely unjustified after Jesus' little tantrum in the Temple. He went around like ISIS, bragging about how the evil empire was gonna cut him down because they hate God or something, and Romans were only too happy to oblige because they are willing to line entire roads with crosses.

It was the Emperor of Rome Pilate that said he couldn't find any wrong in Jesus, and wanted to set Jesus free. But it was the Unbelieving Jews who kept yelling to crucify him. So rather to cause an out break, Pilate then had Jesus whipped and then nailed to the cross.

This is out of character for the historical Pilate, who had no issues with killing anyone he wanted. And Pilate wasn't even emperor, just some two-bit governor. Tiberius was emperor.

If to what you say is right, Then why was it, that Emperor Pilate wanted to free Jesus ?

Pro-Roman Christian propaganda. We have too many things from Rome's own documentation to suggest Pilate was a nice guy. THEY hated him.

Not all Jews wanted to kill Jesus, only the Unbelieving Jews wanted to kill Jesus.

Do you believe in any of the messiahs running around the internet nowadays? If not, why not?

Would be messiahs were a dime a dozen in Roman Judea. You wouldn't have believed him automatically either.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, what Jews wanted was irrelevant because they had little to no power. This is all to cover up for the fact that Christianity turned to the gentiles and the gentiles killed Jesus. Historical Pilate was so evil that the Roman Empire, itself an evil empire, banished him for being a jerk. Well, and he couldn't keep Jews under control, so there's that, too. The reality is that Jesus got swept up in Roman crackdowns. That's it. He was executed as a religious/political terrorist, a charge not completely unjustified after Jesus' little tantrum in the Temple. He went around like ISIS, bragging about how the evil empire was gonna cut him down because they hate God or something, and Romans were only too happy to oblige because they are willing to line entire roads with crosses.

As to how do you come by Christians, When in fact Christianity were no where around at the time Christ Jesus.
Christianity didn't come to be for some 60 to 70 years after Jesus was nailed to the he cross.
Nice try, but try again.

This is out of character for the historical Pilate, who had no issues with killing anyone he wanted. And Pilate wasn't even emperor, just some two-bit governor. Tiberius was emperor.


Pro-Roman Christian propaganda. We have too many things from Rome's own documentation to suggest Pilate was a nice guy. THEY hated him.


Do you believe in any of the messiahs running around the internet nowadays? If not, why not?

Would be messiahs were a dime a dozen in Roman Judea. You wouldn't have believed him automatically either.