Man - 'Created in the image of God'

[Thief]

a spirit can not have a "son". as in god's case, he can create beings, angels or whatever but for something to be called "a son?"

Physically?...really?

How about I call my son as such because he hears my voice when I call....
and makes no practice of ignoring me.
I say to my son what he needs to hear and he abides accordingly.

There was a time when relationships had hard lines drawn....
a rending of garment from collar to hem.

And if you have recited the Lord's Prayer...with heart felt earnest...
have you not declared yourself a son of God?

Our Father?....your father?...my father?...brothers are we?

And the angels heard you when said it.
So too the devil.

 

[Ben Masada]

a spirit can not have a "son". as in god's case, he can create beings, angels or whatever but for something to be called "a son?"

Thanks for the help, Sniper.
Ben

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well sorry it meant for you to read Genesis 2:7.

I read it, that's why I asked the question.

 

[james2ko]

You are entitled to go for anything you please. But remember that in the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the Well of Jacob Jesus declared that God is Spirit,

I agree this scripture plainly states that God is Spirit, but the verse does not define what "spirit" is in reference to God. It says nothing at all about form, shape, or composition. One must look elsewhere in the Bible to find information concerning His form and shape.

and that the only way to relate to Him is in a spiritual manner. (John 4:24)

Here Jesus is simply emphasizing the worship of God cannot be confined to a particular location. Earlier, Jesus says, "Neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" (vs21). Meaning God is not confined to any one place, nor is the worship of Him confined to any one place. In other words, since God is spirit, He can be everywhere and be worshipped anywhere. This passage is not at all referring to the lack of God's image or likeness.

A Spirit has no "toar" or physical form, neither "tselem" in the way you understand of raw shape or with the outline of a person. To admit such a thing of God, you must discard what Jesus had in mind, as he did not see things the way you do. Ben

You are right. He sees things much clearer than I ever will. Notice what He points out:

In John 14:7, Jesus states, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Then in vs 8 Philip asked, Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. Notice Philip did not ask how can we know the Father. This statement was made towards the end of Jesus' ministry. Jesus had already made known to Philip and the rest of His disciples the Father's spiritual qualities now Phillip wanted Jesus to show him the Father's physical qualities.

Scholars agree, (see Clarke, Gill, Henry's commentary on this verse) Philip was making the same request Moses made in Ex 33:18. They both wanted physical, literal manifestations of God. So what was Jesus' answer to Philip's request?

"Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father! So why are you asking Me to show Him to you?" (John 14:9 NLT). In other words, Jesus is confirming what many scriptures indicate--- that God's spiritual body resembles our physical one.

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

I agree this scripture plainly states that God is Spirit, but the verse does not define what "spirit" is in reference to God. It says nothing at all about form, shape, or composition. One must look elsewhere in the Bible to find information concerning His form and shape.



Here Jesus is simply emphasizing the worship of God cannot be confined to a particular location. Earlier, Jesus says, "Neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" (vs21). Meaning God is not confined to any one place, nor is the worship of Him confined to any one place. In other words, since God is spirit, He can be everywhere and be worshipped anywhere. This passage is not at all referring to the lack of God's image or likeness.



You are right. He sees things much clearer than I ever will. Notice what He points out:

In John 14:7, Jesus states, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Then in vs 8 Philip asked, Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. Notice Philip did not ask how can we know the Father. This statement was made towards the end of Jesus' ministry. Jesus had already made known to Philip and the rest of His disciples the Father's spiritual qualities now Phillip wanted Jesus to show him the Father's physical qualities.

Scholars agree, (see Clarke, Gill, Henry's commentary on this verse) Philip was making the same request Moses made in Ex 33:18. They both wanted physical, literal manifestations of God. So what was Jesus' answer to Philip's request?

"Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father! So why are you asking Me to show Him to you?" (John 14:9 NLT). In other words, Jesus is confirming what many scriptures indicate--- that God's spiritual body resembles our physical one.

I love your answers! It simply amazes me, how some 'idea' begins, and somehow, becomes the 'ultimate final' belief. Scriptures are ignored/broken but it does not seem to matter. It is the same with Rev chpt 4. It cannot be 'The Father' sitting on the throne. It has to be 'The Son', reconciling His kingdom, as is written in other N/T scripture. There must be a difference between The Son as 'The Lord God Almighty' and The Son as 'Son of Man (Lamb of God)'. Even scripture tells us, that no man has seen GOD (The Father....The Almighty God) and that no man has seen The Father, at any time. It appears, that The Son is OUR FATHER in heaven, and we are under HIm, partaking of His Throne through Christ. The way to 'The Father' is only through 'The Son'.

 

[free spirit]

sandy whitelinger;

I

read it, that's why I asked the question.

Genesis 2:7, "Then the lord Go formed ,man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." As I was saying in the other post The ability to speak is the breath of life which has made us in the image of God.

 

[james2ko]

I love your answers! It simply amazes me, how some 'idea' begins, and somehow, becomes the 'ultimate final' belief. Scriptures are ignored/broken but it does not seem to matter. It is the same with Rev chpt 4. It cannot be 'The Father' sitting on the throne. It has to be 'The Son', reconciling His kingdom, as is written in other N/T scripture. There must be a difference between The Son as 'The Lord God Almighty' and The Son as 'Son of Man (Lamb of God)'. Even scripture tells us, that no man has seen GOD (The Father....The Almighty God) and that no man has seen The Father, at any time. It appears, that The Son is OUR FATHER in heaven, and we are under HIm, partaking of His Throne through Christ. The way to 'The Father' is only through 'The Son'.

Indeed. The Word of God should always be interpreted literally, until proven otherwise. Why would God allow His word to be subject to our powerfully creative human imagination? We have figuratively and metaphorically spiritualized away the literal meaning of His image as well as many other doctrines. Hence, the doctrinal "Babylon" we see today.

Interesting comment about the Son being our Father. Perhaps we can amicably discuss Rev 4 another time.

 

[Ben Masada]

I agree this scripture plainly states that God is Spirit, but the verse does not define what "spirit" is in reference to God. It says nothing at all about form, shape, or composition. One must look elsewhere in the Bible to find information concerning His form and shape.



Here Jesus is simply emphasizing the worship of God cannot be confined to a particular location. Earlier, Jesus says, "Neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" (vs21). Meaning God is not confined to any one place, nor is the worship of Him confined to any one place. In other words, since God is spirit, He can be everywhere and be worshipped anywhere. This passage is not at all referring to the lack of God's image or likeness.



You are right. He sees things much clearer than I ever will. Notice what He points out:

In John 14:7, Jesus states, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." Then in vs 8 Philip asked, Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. Notice Philip did not ask how can we know the Father. This statement was made towards the end of Jesus' ministry. Jesus had already made known to Philip and the rest of His disciples the Father's spiritual qualities now Phillip wanted Jesus to show him the Father's physical qualities.

Scholars agree, (see Clarke, Gill, Henry's commentary on this verse) Philip was making the same request Moses made in Ex 33:18. They both wanted physical, literal manifestations of God. So what was Jesus' answer to Philip's request?

"Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father! So why are you asking Me to show Him to you?" (John 14:9 NLT). In other words, Jesus is confirming what many scriptures indicate--- that God's spiritual body resembles our physical one.

This is what the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels had to say. Their credibility means less than zero among Monotheistic Jews. Mose Maimonides in his opus prima, "The Guide for the Perplexed" says that even to think of God as a corporeal being, is no different from being an idolatrous.
Ben

 

[james2ko]

This is what the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels had to say. Their credibility means less than zero among Monotheistic Jews. Mose Maimonides in his opus prima, "The Guide for the Perplexed" says that even to think of God as a corporeal being, is no different from being an idolatrous.
Ben

Yet you quoted them in post# 279 to try and prove your point? Now that's perplexing to me

You can go right ahead and continue to be "Perplexed by Your Guide" and I'll just continue to be enlightened by mine..

 

[free spirit]

Originally Posted by sniper762

a spirit can not have a "son". as in god's case, he can create beings, angels or whatever but for something to be called "a son?"

The word is spirit and God created all things with his Word: but then the Word Himsef become flesh and so you have a Son of God.
Because, God is God and nothing is impossible to Him.

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

Indeed. The Word of God should always be interpreted literally, until proven otherwise. Why would God allow His word to be subject to our powerfully creative human imagination? We have figuratively and metaphorically spiritualized away the literal meaning of His image as well as many other doctrines. Hence, the doctrinal "Babylon" we see today.

Interesting comment about the Son being our Father. Perhaps we can amicably discuss Rev 4 another time.

I would like you to consider the following ;

1) Isaiah 44:6 has only two figures....The Father and The Son, equal to 'GOD'.
2) The Holy Ghost proceedeth from The Father.
3) The Son created everything, and it was for His pleasure that all things were created.
4) The Son must reconcile HIS KINGDOM before submitting Himself and His kingdom unto The Father.
5) No man has ever seen God The Father at any time.
6) Revelation refers to 'The Word of God', which we know, is The Son (John chpt 1).
7) Man (including The Son of Man, who is 'our brother') is 'below the angels'.
8) Jesus said that He was looking forward to returning to the glory that He had before the world was......part of The Godhead...The Father's Son, without being begotten of woman.
9) He who is sitting on the throne in Rev chpt 4,.....CREATED ALL THINGS (The Son created all things.).

If we are part of The Son's kingdom, from the beginning, then it is He, who we 'report to'. It must have been The Son who visited Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden. Numbers 12:6 must also refer to The Son. All communications between man and God, must refer to The Son, as part of The Godhead, 'taking care of business'. It would appear, that the only time that The Father became the direct contact, was when The Son was made flesh and dwelt among us. It also appears, that The Son became 'two figures', when He ascended up to heaven.

 

[james2ko]

I would like you to consider the following ;

1) Isaiah 44:6 has only two figures....The Father and The Son, equal to 'GOD'.
2) The Holy Ghost proceedeth from The Father.
3) The Son created everything, and it was for His pleasure that all things were created.
4) The Son must reconcile HIS KINGDOM before submitting Himself and His kingdom unto The Father.
5) No man has ever seen God The Father at any time.
6) Revelation refers to 'The Word of God', which we know, is The Son (John chpt 1).
7) Man (including The Son of Man, who is 'our brother') is 'below the angels'.
8) Jesus said that He was looking forward to returning to the glory that He had before the world was......part of The Godhead...The Father's Son, without being begotten of woman.
9) He who is sitting on the throne in Rev chpt 4,.....CREATED ALL THINGS (The Son created all things.).

If we are part of The Son's kingdom, from the beginning, then it is He, who we 'report to'. It must have been The Son who visited Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden. Numbers 12:6 must also refer to The Son. All communications between man and God, must refer to The Son, as part of The Godhead, 'taking care of business'. It would appear, that the only time that The Father became the direct contact, was when The Son was made flesh and dwelt among us. It also appears, that The Son became 'two figures', when He ascended up to heaven.

The Father and Son are and always will be two separate beings. In John's vision in Revelation 4 , he saw the Father sitting on the throne, not the Son. Notice how Rev 5 is a continuous account of Revelation 4. In Rev 5:7, John witnesses the Father handing the scroll to the Son (lamb). John saw both the Father and the Son.

That contradicts 1 John 4:12 right?

"No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us"​

And it also contradicts the words of Jesus in John 6:46:

(Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen Him.)​

A vision is not equivalent to the actual experience. Ever had a dream that felt like the real thing? A vision can seem real to the one who sees it, but it is still a vision. Remember when Christ was transfigured before Peter, James and John? Mat 17:1-9 in v9 Christ told them "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead." Look how real this vision was to Peter:

(Mat 17:4) "Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."​

Notice how Paul described his vision of the third heaven, the place of God's Throne.

2Co 12:2-4 I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don't know—only God knows. 3 Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know 4 that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell. NLT
​

So Peter, James, John and Paul all saw something of God's glory but it was only in vision, Although it seemed and felt quite real to them.

 

[Thorwald Johansen]

The Father and Son are and always will be two separate beings. In John's vision in Revelation 4 , he saw the Father sitting on the throne, not the Son. Notice how Rev 5 is a continuous account of Revelation 4. In Rev 5:7, John witnesses the Father handing the scroll to the Son (lamb). John saw both the Father and the Son.

That contradicts 1 John 4:12 right?

"No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us"
​

And it also contradicts the words of Jesus in John 6:46:

(Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen Him.)
​

A vision is not equivalent to the actual experience. Ever had a dream that felt like the real thing? A vision can seem real to the one who sees it, but it is still a vision. Remember when Christ was transfigured before Peter, James and John? Mat 17:1-9 in v9 Christ told them "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead." Look how real this vision was to Peter:

(Mat 17:4) "Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
​

Notice how Paul described his vision of the third heaven, the place of God's Throne.

2Co 12:2-4 I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don't know—only God knows. 3 Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know 4 that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell. NLT
​

So Peter, James, John and Paul all saw something of God's glory but it was only in vision, Although it seemed and felt quite real to them.

If Rev chpt 4 tells us that the 'figure' sitting on the throne 'created everything', and we are told by other N/T scripture, that The Son created everything, then if it is The Father sitting on the throne in Rev chpt 4, the other N/T scripture is false.

We are also told in scripture (Psalms) that man has seen Christ sitting on the right hand of God. If no man has ever seen The Father AT ANY TIME, then The Son as part of The Godhead must have been who man saw.

In my second vision, I was not allowed to see The Father or The Holy Ghost. It was made known unto me, that they were at the end of a channel going up from me to it seemed, eternity. Two figures had appeared on the right side of this channel, standing in pure white clouds. I recognized Christ right away, but was confused by the second 'identical' figure. Both stood in full subjection to The Father, in the vision. The whole vision was controlled by The Father. Remember, that Isaiah saw the Lord of Hosts (The Son). The Son had not taken on the 'job' of being Christ at that time. It was forecasted, that a child would be born....etc., in Isaiah 9:6. The Son is the reconciler (as part of The Godhead), and also, the reconciliation (as Christ).

The Son did not lose His status as being part of The Godhead, when He was made flesh. He did, however, gain a second status, as Son of Man. If God had chosen another human being to become 'Christ', would this other person cause The Son as The Lord God Almighty to 'disappear' in the way that you are doing? Also, have you ever 'wondered' about Rev 1:6? Read it very closely.

 

[james2ko]

If Rev chpt 4 tells us that the 'figure' sitting on the throne 'created everything', and we are told by other N/T scripture, that The Son created everything, then if it is The Father sitting on the throne in Rev chpt 4, the other N/T scripture is false.

Doesn't Gen 1:1 indicate the Father was also involved in the creation? The Hebrew word used for God is "Elohim" the plural form of Eloah.

We are also told in scripture (Psalms) that man has seen Christ sitting on the right hand of God. If no man has ever seen The Father AT ANY TIME, then The Son as part of The Godhead must have been who man saw.

John saw the Father sitting on the throne in a vision. A vision or dream is not equivalent to a physical manifestation. As explained in a previous post.

In my second vision, I was not allowed to see The Father or The Holy Ghost. It was made known unto me, that they were at the end of a channel going up from me to it seemed, eternity. Two figures had appeared on the right side of this channel, standing in pure white clouds. I recognized Christ right away, but was confused by the second 'identical' figure. Both stood in full subjection to The Father, in the vision. The whole vision was controlled by The Father. Remember, that Isaiah saw the Lord of Hosts (The Son). The Son had not taken on the 'job' of being Christ at that time. It was forecasted, that a child would be born....etc., in Isaiah 9:6. The Son is the reconciler (as part of The Godhead), and also, the reconciliation (as Christ).

Please be careful in interpreting God's Word based on a personal vision.

The Son did not lose His status as being part of The Godhead, when He was made flesh. He did, however, gain a second status, as Son of Man. If God had chosen another human being to become 'Christ', would this other person cause The Son as The Lord God Almighty to 'disappear' in the way that you are doing?

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. The focus of my post was not to imply the Son was missing but to prove it was the Father sitting on the throne. The text clearly indicates the Son was also present. He is symbolically referred to as a lamb (Rev 5:6) which will be the only One worthy to open the scroll (Rev 5:4-9).

Also, have you ever 'wondered' about Rev 1:6? Read it very closely.

That's an inspiring one. I scrutinized it very carefully and based on biblical evidence have come to the conclusion John was reminding the 7 churches of their reward in the kingdom or government of God which will be set up on earth immediately following the return of Christ. See Rev 1:7 (Rev 5:10; 20:6; Dan 7:18,27) and many others.

 

[waitasec]

We know that we are created above all other living things on this earth... What are your thoughts?

in gods image...
the bible says "...every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" genesis 9:21

"For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts" mark 7:21

there we have it folks...god is evil

 

[Thief]

in gods image...
the bible says "...every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" genesis 9:21

"For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts" mark 7:21

there we have it folks...god is evil

Nice play on words...well done.

But what if entry into this life reduces our ability to be the 'perfect' reflection?
....and therefore we are evil?

"no one is good but the Father."

The human condition is induced at birth...by birth.

The next question you should ask ....should be....why not make everyone perfect?

Because that would be like a photocopier....with plenty of ink and paper.
All of the copies would be the same.

 

[waitasec]

Nice play on words...well done.

But what if entry into this life reduces our ability to be the 'perfect' reflection?
....and therefore we are evil?

"no one is good but the Father."

The human condition is induced at birth...by birth.

The next question you should ask ....should be....why not make everyone perfect?

Because that would be like a photocopier....with plenty of ink and paper.
All of the copies would be the same.

this might be something of interest; "we share all but 0.01% of identical genetic sequences. we are all virtually identical at the level of our genes"
-jill bolte taylor from my stroke of insight

maybe the human condition is induced by the consequences of life...

 

[Thief]

this might be something of interest; "we share all but 0.01% of identical genetic sequences. we are all virtually identical at the level of our genes"
-jill bolte taylor from my stroke of insight

maybe the human condition is induced by the consequences of life...

okay...it looks like we are on the same page...just different words.

 

[Ben Masada]

In Genesis, it is written that God created man in His own image. The ministers that I have talked to, do not take this statement as meaning, "We look like God, or God looks like us". They interpret it as spiritual (ie. "holy", etc.). We know that we are created above all other living things on this earth. In the scriptures, angels appeared in similar form to humans. We know that Christ said, "If you see me, you see my father." If I just apply general logic, and look at the whole animal kingdom as well as man, and even call the young of animals 'sons/daughters', the young look the same as their 'parents' (ie. a newborn fish doesn't change into a turtle). If angels are 'sons of God', and we can become 'equal unto the angels', and angels look like man, then God must look like us????????? What are your thoughts?

Here is the truth about whose image was man created by God in:

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

 

[james2ko]

Here is the truth about whose image was man created by God in:

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but you posted the identical message back in post #264. I thought we discussed this in post #278 thru 289?