the right religion

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He contended with Judaism's highest priests. He even ended the entire covenant given to them originally. I am at a loss to account for what you are claiming. Did you think I meant some type of debate in a forum or something. It was not even Judaism that was the subject. Someone mentioned using Jewish tradition and interpretation to interpret what Christ had said. I mentioned that Jesus above and beyond any other group rejected and criticized Jewish leadership in theological positions. I do not mean Jesus came to say all of Judaism was wrong just that their practicing of it and traditions and interpretations of it had gone horribly off track. Keep the purpose my statement was made for in mind as I do see how confusion is hard to avoid here. Let me try and clarify once more. Jesus refuted the opinion of even the Jews in the highest authority positions over their understandings. He did not come to debate against their faith as God had revealed it.

He aimed at the leaders and even left his judgement of the Essenes out of it another group at the time. Seems that he had an issue with those claiming authority not the values or traditions, more so it's a focus on their hypocrisy, constantly we see him being presented as pointing out how they are hypocrites...the general consensus now seems to be that he was saying they didn't interpret things correctly, an idea not truly supported. So all in all Jesus was a Jew who valued Jewish tradition if he did not he would have condemned Judaism as a whole which he did not do and even after his passing his disciples remained Jews.

 

[s2a]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I have offered an answer to that, here.

 

[1robin]

He aimed at the leaders and even left his judgement of the Essenes out of it another group at the time. Seems that he had an issue with those claiming authority not the values or traditions, more so it's a focus on their hypocrisy, constantly we see him being presented as pointing out how they are hypocrites...the general consensus now seems to be that he was saying they didn't interpret things correctly, an idea not truly supported. So all in all Jesus was a Jew who valued Jewish tradition if he did not he would have condemned Judaism as a whole which he did not do and even after his passing his disciples remained Jews.

Why would he have not liked authority. It was the abuse of authority he did not like. The leaders of his fathers revelation were distorting and abusing it. I granted that I may not have been specific enough. I never meant to suggest Jesus was against Judaism as it was revealed by God. He did seem to be offended with man's positing of additional things to it. Tradition would have been one of the worst. Catholicism shows us that man has some strange desire to let their own traditions and understanding trump God's own word. The definition of "son of man" and "son of God" would be among them. Unless you find those terms specifically defined in what God revealed then what the Jews interpreted them as is irrelevant. Only what Jesus meant is important. He never condemned Judaism as revealed by his father but he did completely replace it as a covenant that fault had been found in. The most common idea about what the fault was is that man could not uphold his part and that he distorted and added to it. Again nothing but what Jesus meant by those terms is relevant no matter the truth about Judaism.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why would he have not liked authority. It was the abuse of authority he did not like. The leaders of his fathers revelation were distorting and abusing it. I granted that I may not have been specific enough. I never meant to suggest Jesus was against Judaism as it was revealed by God. He did seem to be offended with man's positing of additional things to it. Tradition would have been one of the worst. Catholicism shows us that man has some strange desire to let their own traditions and understanding trump God's own word. The definition of "son of man" and "son of God" would be among them. Unless you find those terms specifically defined in what God revealed then what the Jews interpreted them as is irrelevant. Only what Jesus meant is important. He never condemned Judaism as revealed by his father but he did completely replace it as a covenant that fault had been found in. The most common idea about what the fault was is that man could not uphold his part and that he distorted and added to it. Again nothing but what Jesus meant by those terms is relevant no matter the truth about Judaism.

Which covenant was replaced the one that was put into mans hearts? What proof do you have besides the teachings of Paul that Jesus replaced the covenant? If anything Jesus makes the claim to have come to fulfill it. Yes he had problem with those particular authorities. Again he does not mention anything against the Essenes, he talks to several teachers of the law, it would appear that those who he does rage against are the hypocritical one. Again those who would say one thing and proceed to do another, those who thought themselves overly righteous, those who forsook the poor, those who forsook the orphans, and yet considered themselves the top. Jesus's message was about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, probably more so the Sadducees as they had little belief of an afterlife, or the resurrection, or fate or anything like that. They were fixated on the Temple life.

The phrases son of man and son of God has value because Jesus was jewish, when he would use those terms they had meanings to them that those living in his time would understand what was meant when he said it. To others they may simply be declarations, to the Jews it would have a more than average significance.

 

[1robin]

Which covenant was replaced the one that was put into mans hearts? What proof do you have besides the teachings of Paul that Jesus replaced the covenant? If anything Jesus makes the claim to have come to fulfill it. Yes he had problem with those particular authorities. Again he does not mention anything against the Essenes, he talks to several teachers of the law, it would appear that those who he does rage against are the hypocritical one. Again those who would say one thing and proceed to do another, those who thought themselves overly righteous, those who forsook the poor, those who forsook the orphans, and yet considered themselves the top. Jesus's message was about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, probably more so the Sadducees as they had little belief of an afterlife, or the resurrection, or fate or anything like that. They were fixated on the Temple life.

The old testament or covenant was replaced by the new. Covenants were always ratified in blood. That took place at Calvary and was pointed by the blood of the new covenant. Yes the writing on our hearts is part of it but is not it its self. We like to call the old covenant the one of law and the new the one of grace but I am unsure if that was what God actually called it. Jesus himself claimed many things about the new and old covenants but why would Paul alone not be enough? To someone who does not like what is claimed the standard is always whatever evidence you have plus more.

The phrases son of man and son of God has value because Jesus was jewish, when he would use those terms they had meanings to them that those living in his time would understand what was meant when he said it. To others they may simply be declarations, to the Jews it would have a more than average significance.

I do not think Jesus race dictated what he meant. He has been called the greatest revolutionary in history. It is hard to revolt if you agree with what it is you belong to. There is no reason I can think of to claim what he meant was impacted at all by what racial stock he was halfway of. If he was speaking things so obvious to the Hebrews why were they constantly put off, confused, and dumbfounded by them, especially those that knew the most about Judaism? He was in constant conflict with those that knew more about Judaism than most and in usual harmony with those that knew the least. The Hebrews in mass wished him to be killed, I do not think they were on the same page. I am being very short with all this as I have little time. Each point needs at least its own post to be meaningful but this is the best I can do currently.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The old testament or covenant was replaced by the new. Covenants were always ratified in blood. That took place at Calvary and was pointed by the blood of the new covenant. Yes the writing on our hearts is part of it but is not it its self. We like to call the old covenant the one of law and the new the one of grace but I am unsure if that was what God actually called it. Jesus himself claimed many things about the new and old covenants but why would Paul alone not be enough? To someone who does not like what is claimed the standard is always whatever evidence you have plus more.

I do not think Jesus race dictated what he meant. He has been called the greatest revolutionary in history. It is hard to revolt if you agree with what it is you belong to. There is no reason I can think of to claim what he meant was impacted at all by what racial stock he was halfway of. If he was speaking things so obvious to the Hebrews why were they constantly put off, confused, and dumbfounded by them, especially those that knew the most about Judaism? He was in constant conflict with those that knew more about Judaism than most and in usual harmony with those that knew the least. The Hebrews in mass wished him to be killed, I do not think they were on the same page. I am being very short with all this as I have little time. Each point needs at least its own post to be meaningful but this is the best I can do currently.

The Hebrews in Mass wished for him to be killed? Is that historically sound or are you just going by what is said the bible? Judaism isn't just a race it's also a culture, and at the time it had a wide range of various teachers, beliefs, cults and groups that made it up. Because no one makes the claim outside of Paul in the Bible that a new covenant has been made, especially when prior God specifically says that the Covenant that he has made with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with David will not be removed...then later in Jeremiah it is said that the covenant will be written in the hearts of Israel. Not the Gentiles, but israel.

Jesus himself makes the claim that it was on Peter the church would be built not Paul, yet majority of Christianity is built on Paul...having abandoned the leadership of Peter and James.

 

[1robin]

The Hebrews in Mass wished for him to be killed? Is that historically sound or are you just going by what is said the bible?

Both (this is one of a very few facts that NT scholars on both sides almost all agree occurred), BTW I do not mean Israel at large was yelling kill him. I meant a sufficient number and cross-section of Hebrew society did do this to extrapolate the attitude in general.

Judaism isn't just a race it's also a culture, and at the time it had a wide range of various teachers, beliefs, cults and groups that made it up.

I have no reason to disagree but what is the relevance. This would make what Hebrew tradition claims even less relevant BTW.

Because no one makes the claim outside of Paul in the Bible that a new covenant has been made, especially when prior God specifically says that the Covenant that he has made with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with David will not be removed...then later in Jeremiah it is said that the covenant will be written in the hearts of Israel. Not the Gentiles, but Israel.

Jesus is said to have by other authors.

Jesus himself makes the claim that it was on Peter the church would be built not Paul, yet majority of Christianity is built on Paul...having abandoned the leadership of Peter and James.

That is not true. He said (in English) Peter you are the small stone but on your statement of faith (the large stone) I will build me church. It was what Peter confessed about Christ, not on Peter that Christ built the Church. That correlates with Christ being the cornerstone, etc... Peter and Paul had a few disagreements and Paul prevailed in every single one. Peter acknowledged Paul's apostleship and it was Peter who is recorded to have misunderstood Christ the most and made the most mistakes. There is nothing concerning Paul that would allow his being placed after Peter in reliability or knowledge and a great amount that would place him above Peter.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Both (this is one of a very few facts that NT scholars on both sides almost all agree occurred), BTW I do not mean Israel at large was yelling kill him. I meant a sufficient number and cross-section of Hebrew society did do this to extrapolate the attitude in general.

I have no reason to disagree but what is the relevance. This would make what Hebrew tradition claims even less relevant BTW.

Jesus is said to have by other authors.

That is not true. He said (in English) Peter you are the small stone but on your statement of faith (the large stone) I will build me church. It was what Peter confessed about Christ, not on Peter that Christ built the Church. That correlates with Christ being the cornerstone, etc... Peter and Paul had a few disagreements and Paul prevailed in every single one. Peter acknowledged Paul's apostleship and it was Peter who is recorded to have misunderstood Christ the most and made the most mistakes. There is nothing concerning Paul that would allow his being placed after Peter in reliability or knowledge and a great amount that would place him above Peter.

In English it says "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" The name Peter or Petros in Greek means Stone.

Paul Prevailed in everyone? Is that why he had to go to the Temple and follow the traditions to show that he was not "showing the gentiles another way?"

Large cross-section of Hebrews? Who were they? Can you tell me from what towns the gathered? What historical evidence outside of the Gospels written by men who did not know Jesus defend this? Much of "who was the cause of Jesus's death" has been disputed over and over again.

IT would not make their claims less relevant, it would give a very Good glimpse into what was going on at the time, historically 4 sects are presented by Josephus, Pharisees (Those closer to the common people), The Sadducees (The elite priesthood), the Essenes (who were a political) and the Zealots (those who wanted out from the thumb or Roman rule).

Jesus focused on the elite (which would have been the Sadducees more so than the Pharisees--not to mention Paul has been theorized to have been a Pharisee himself), yet makes little to no mention of the Zealots or Essenes (two other well known sects), which is why you do get some mention that his teachings originate from there.

But to discount their relevance is to miss what Jesus was talking about when he spoke to them. You remove the historical context that things are spoken of and start making unsubstantiated assumptions when one does that. But that's just my view.

 

[1robin]

In English it says "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" The name Peter or Petros in Greek means Stone.

I was trying to keep from having to get into this to this depth because I am lazy. I will try once more but will go get all the information if needed. It uses two different terms for Peter and what Christ will build the church on. One means stone and one means large stone. Christ made it a point to refute any claims about which apostle was the greatest and it goes against his entire ministry to build a church on a human.

Paul Prevailed in everyone? Is that why he had to go to the Temple and follow the traditions to show that he was not "showing the gentiles another way?"

I do not know what he went through. What he proposed was adopted and he was usually contending with Peter.

Large cross-section of Hebrews? Who were they? Can you tell me from what towns the gathered?

Jerusalem was a market and meeting place. Even without a case history of every Hebrew there it is logical that a large cross section of the average cultural Hebrew was present.

What historical evidence outside of the Gospels written by men who did not know Jesus defend this? Much of "who was the cause of Jesus's death" has been disputed over and over again.

Like I said for anyone who does not like a claim the evidence needed to prove it is always a little more than whatever we have. I did not even understand the question but why do I need more than 4 eyewitnesses or those that interviewed eyewitnesses. There are three important facts almost every NT scholar agrees on. One of those is that the Jews turned Christ over and encouraged the death penalty and the Romans crucified him.

IT would not make their claims less relevant, it would give a very Good glimpse into what was going on at the time, historically 4 sects are presented by Josephus, Pharisees (Those closer to the common people), The Sadducees (The elite priesthood), the Essenes (who were a political) and the Zealots (those who wanted out from the thumb or Roman rule).

Unless you can show that two or more of them agree on the interpretation for son of X then you do not even have a majority of the people I have no reason to inquire from about what Christ meant.

Jesus focused on the elite (which would have been the Sadducees more so than the Pharisees--not to mention Paul has been theorized to have been a Pharisee himself), yet makes little to no mention of the Zealots or Essenes (two other well known sects), which is why you do get some mention that his teachings originate from there.

He focused on those that had more education and knowledge concerning Judaism than any other group. Yes Paul made no secret he was lost and betraying God when called. He was as educated on the law as anyone in Israel and yet spoke more on grace than anyone. Makes it more reliable according to legal testimonial methods.

But to discount their relevance is to miss what Jesus was talking about when he spoke to them. You remove the historical context that things are spoken of and start making unsubstantiated assumptions when one does that. But that's just my view.

I am lost here. Discount who? In any other field I would agree that historical context is important because man is a product of his times. Jesus is anything but dependent on time. If he came to fix or add to knowledge why would traditions by binding on Jesus. Of any man that ever existed should be taken in only his own context it was Christ. I take it you are either a Jewish person or have adopted Judaism. Can you answer something for me. How do Jews account for their handing Christ over to the Romans and being a party in his death. You may disagree how much part they had but we both know they are culpable in his death. How do they account for it in Judaism out of curiosity? How do you explain away a role in a great man's death who could potentially be God himself and at the very least was from God? I am not making an argument I am only asking a question in it's most likely context. I am leaving soon have a good weekend.

 

[metis]

There is nothing extraordinary or problematic about variance. Now if you show unresolvable conflict you may be onto something but as each gospel was written for different purposes and to different audiences I would far more surprised if they were identical and then people would say they all copied each other.

What I posted in regards to the difference of how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where he/they were located, and what he/they said, simply cannot be accounted for by saying "different purposes to different audiences". "Different purposes" does not account for these variations, nor does different audiences.

I know of many problems and mistakes in the Bible (about 5%) but if a variance is resolved with no violation of integrity or the historical method I am justified in saying it does not conflict. This will never get anywhere until a specific example is examined.

I fully agree that the vast majority of the time the variations really don't amount to a hill of beans, but I'm glad you see that there can be errors.

If you make no judgment about it then to what purpose was it mentioned? People do not usually bring up neutral things in a debate. You bring up many things but seem to shy away from resolution. I am the opposite where possible. I would need an example to resolve this one. If not that is certainly your right.

My "purpose" is objectivity versus some sort of blind faith. I have no idea what happened at the tomb, nor do believe everything found in any specific scripture are some sort of slam-dunk facts. My experience is that blind faith often leads to the "my way or the highway" approach, which is so often one of the main causes on conflict and even death.

I am in no way anti-religion, but I am against the strutting around supposedly having all the important "answers" while at the same time condemning other faiths. BTW, in saying this, I'm not implying you or specifically anyone else here does this. And this is not to say that people shouldn't have beliefs, so please do not take me to the opposite extreme, which I don't believe in as well.

 

[1robin]

What I posted in regards to the difference of how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where he/they were located, and what he/they said, simply cannot be accounted for by saying "different purposes to different audiences". "Different purposes" does not account for these variations, nor does different audiences.

I guarantee you there are a least a dozen harmonies the resolve how many angels were where without any discrepancies or violations of textual integrity. Do you deny this?

I fully agree that the vast majority of the time the variations really don't amount to a hill of beans, but I'm glad you see that there can be errors.

Of course errors exist. 400,000 of them as Mr Ehrman would point out. What he doesn't tell you is that that is over the entire textual tradition which is composed of hundreds of millions of words. When all is said and done about 5% scribal error exists but the textual tradition is so rich they know and indicate them all in every Bible these days. Even Ehrman would tell you that 99% of them make no difference at all and not one exists in essential doctrine. However I do not think the Angels at the tomb are mistakes to begin with and are easily accounted for. The vast majority of errors are spelling punctuation, and orders of magnitude.

My "purpose" is objectivity versus some sort of blind faith. I have no idea what happened at the tomb, nor do believe everything found in any specific scripture are some sort of slam-dunk facts. My experience is that blind faith often leads to the "my way or the highway" approach, which is so often one of the main causes on conflict and even death.

Christianity does not require anything close to blind faith. I am unsure why a person who adopted Judaism and Buddhism would even bring up that concept.

I am in no way anti-religion, but I am against the strutting around supposedly having all the important "answers" while at the same time condemning other faiths. BTW, in saying this, I'm not implying you or specifically anyone else here does this. And this is not to say that people shouldn't have beliefs, so please do not take me to the opposite extreme, which I don't believe in as well.

Reading between the lines it appears you resent anyone being sure if you are not. Unlike all other faiths Christianity promises and demands every single follower of Christ have a personal experience with God. I have had it and while I can't say what happened in Genesis per se I can know that the path the Gospels lay out leads us to God and he in known by Christians to exist. I usually do not bring that up because people who have not experienced God resent others claiming to have done so and so think of anything they can to dispel that claim. I only do it here to suggest that it is theoretically possible to "Known" a certain amount concerning God's existence and the path to him. Outside of path and existence I almost never claim to know anything and seldom do for those subjects. I do however claim which "revelation" appears to be most consistent with the known facts. I make probabilistic argument not proof claims.

 

[metis]

I guarantee you there are a least a dozen harmonies the resolve how many angels were where without any discrepancies or violations of textual integrity. Do you deny this?

Of course there's been attempts, but the point is that there are variations to begin with, and in most cases we simply cannot conclude whether there's any thread that can connect them. To put it another way, neither you or I can objectively conclude whether they are actually contradictions or not.

Of course errors exist. 400,000 of them as Mr Ehrman would point out. What he doesn't tell you is that that is over the entire textual tradition which is composed of hundreds of millions of words. When all is said and done about 5% scribal error exists but the textual tradition is so rich they know and indicate them all in every Bible these days. Even Ehrman would tell you that 99% of them make no difference at all and not one exists in essential doctrine. However I do not think the Angels at the tomb are mistakes to begin with and are easily accounted for. The vast majority of errors are spelling punctuation, and orders of magnitude.

Why would you believe as such? Why is it supposedly so necessary to do so? I don't believe they contradict, but neither do I believe they're compatible. I just don't jump to a conclusion one way or another.

Christianity does not require anything close to blind faith. I am unsure why a person who adopted Judaism and Buddhism would even bring up that concept.
Reading between the lines it appears you resent anyone being sure if you are not. Unlike all other faiths Christianity promises and demands every single follower of Christ have a personal experience with God. I have had it and while I can't say what happened in Genesis per se I can know that the path the Gospels lay out leads us to God and he in known by Christians to exist. I usually do not bring that up because people who have not experienced God resent others claiming to have done so and so think of anything they can to dispel that claim. I only do it here to suggest that it is theoretically possible to "Known" a certain amount concerning God's existence and the path to him. Outside of path and existence I almost never claim to know anything and seldom do for those subjects. I do however claim which "revelation" appears to be most consistent with the known facts. I make probabilistic argument not proof claims.

I have no problem one iota if the above works for you, and I mean it. Again, even though our approaches differ and that I don't share your beliefs, I am not in any way anti-Christian or anti-religion. Many people take the "my way or the highway" approach, but I am not one of them.

I am unsure why a person who adopted Judaism and Buddhism would even bring up that concept.
Reading between the lines it appears you resent anyone being sure if you are not.

Buddhism is much more of a philosophy than a religion, so the "rules" differ significantly. I would have to explain my Judaism for it to be clear as to my approach, and I'll probably do that at some time.

And finally, I certainly don't at all resent your approach or your religion. The purpose of this website in general is for us to exchange ideas, and I am doing just that as you are.

 

[1robin]

Of course there's been attempts, but the point is that there are variations to begin with, and in most cases we simply cannot conclude whether there's any thread that can connect them. To put it another way, neither you or I can objectively conclude whether they are actually contradictions or not.

I really have to disagree. Things are objectively contradictory or not. I do not find anything contradictory about the Angels at the tomb. I have no way of knowing if any of the stories are true but I can easily see if they contradict.

Why would you believe as such? Why is it supposedly so necessary to do so?

Believe what as such? To do so what? I made many claims which ones are you asking about.

I don't believe they contradict, but neither do I believe they're compatible. I just don't jump to a conclusion one way or another.

Truth in historical claims is not available. Contradiction is. I see no reason to think they are contradictory only different the same way a stadium full of reporters would all have different aspects they concentrate on yet describe the same game. Claiming one won and also that the other one is easy to prove contradictory. Claiming one won or that the other lost is different but not contradictory.

I have no problem one iota if the above works for you, and I mean it. Again, even though our approaches differ and that I don't share your beliefs, I am not in any way anti-Christian or anti-religion. Many people take the "my way or the highway" approach, but I am not one of them.

Then you are indeed in a rare and small crowd. I take the one way is true concept because truth of all kind is usually exclusive but am tolerant and sympathetic to every other view that allows me to be and Judaism is one that does.

Buddhism is much more of a philosophy than a religion, so the "rules" differ significantly. I would have to explain my Judaism for it to be clear as to my approach, and I'll probably do that at some time.

Very well.

And finally, I certainly don't at all resent your approach or your religion. The purpose of this website in general is for us to exchange ideas, and I am doing just that as you are.

You must admit it is uncommon to find a Judaism/Buddhist and that invites confusion even if the confusion is mistaken. However I believe it was your unconcern about Heaven\Hell type issues that threw me off if I am not mistaken.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I really have to disagree. Things are objectively contradictory or not.

As I suggested to you earlier, I'm pretty sure you're confused about contradiction. If only you'd been able to address the example I gave, rather than ignoring it, maybe you would have a better understanding now.

Tell me, is the following claim contradictory or not?

Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is hot.

If you can't see that the claim is both contradictory and non-contradictory at once... well, I doubt you have any chance at all of understanding the Bible -- at least not so well as those of us who are familiar with language and how it works.

The Bible is written in human language, after all.

 

[psychoslice]

The right religion is your religion, not someone else's, not borrowed from the past or second-hand.

 

[Muffled]

"God's Spirit" is mentioned in the Tanakh with the teaching that we should be open to it, and I think we can assume that the prophets were.

I believe you know being open to the Spirit is not the same thing as having the indwelling Spirit.

 

[Muffled]

The right religion is your religion, not someone else's, not borrowed from the past or second-hand.

I believe people have the wrong religion because it is their religion. I believe the only right religion is the religion that God gives.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe people have the wrong religion because it is their religion. I believe the only right religion is the religion that God gives.

I think religion most of the time means adherence to dogmas, rules, traditions, and pre-set beliefs. A true religion would be the one where a person connect (re-connects) with God him/herself, on a personal level, and not through proxy. (With proxy I mean to have belief based on someone else's belief and opinions, like believing in the Bible version of God just because it's written in a book by some mysterious men in ancient times.) It's better to find God on your own, than to find God of someone else.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe people have the wrong religion because it is their religion. I believe the only right religion is the religion that God gives.

Given that the right religion is said by James to be the one that helps the widows the orphans and attempts to be faultless before God...I would say that those who try to live good lives (I.e. follow the laws) and help those around them...are the ones of the pure/right religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think religion most of the time means adherence to dogmas, rules, traditions, and pre-set beliefs. A true religion would be the one where a person connect (re-connects) with God him/herself, on a personal level, and not through proxy. (With proxy I mean to have belief based on someone else's belief and opinions, like believing in the Bible version of God just because it's written in a book by some mysterious men in ancient times.) It's better to find God on your own, than to find God of someone else.

Yeah. I have no reason to believe that any other person knows more about God than I do.

That just doesn't make sense.