WHO IS GOD'S TRUE ISRAEL IN THE NEW COVENANT?

[Ebionite]

You have been corrected on this many times.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Hebrew word Elohim (אלהים) has the masculine plural yud-mem suffix. While it's true that the grammar for Elohim typically would apply as for a singular word, this doesn't change the fact that context always supports a plurality of beings.

There are related words which do refer to a singular being and are also translated as "God", but they don't have a plural suffix:

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
And God spake all these words, saying,
I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus 19:25-20:2, KJV

וירד משה אל העם ויאמר אלהם
וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר
אנכי יהוה אלהיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים

 

[3rdAngel]

Only I can have misunderstandings.

According to the scriptures, If we acknowledge and repent of our sins and confess them to God we can receive Gods forgiveness of our sins as we choose to believe and obey what Gods Word says see Proverbs 28:13; Acts 3:19; 1 John 1:9. God then promises to give us His Spirit to guide us and to teach us His Word which is a part of Gods new covenant promise (see John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; 1 John 2:27 and Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-36. However, according to the scriptures, if we do not repent of our sins of unbelief and disobedience to Gods law then we are still in our sins and will die in our sins it we reject the gift of Gods dear son and will be in danger of the judgement to come and the wrath of God abides on us. (see John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31; Ezekiel 18:4 and Romans 6:23).

I see some of your posts and how you expect all the scriptures to spin together like gears in a well oiled machine. I can see all the efforts you are making to get those gears to align and the compassionate attempts are impressive, yet these are not gears and do not spin together.

If you disagree with anything I have posted here or elsewhere, I would invite you to tell me exactly what it is you believe is not supported by the scriptures I have posted and to help me to see any errors in my posts proving your claims from the scriptures. I believe we should not be afraid to come to the light of Gods Word and to test what we believe and examine our selves to see if we are truly in the faith or not in the faith as this is what the scriptures teach (see John 3:19-21; 2 Corinthians 13:5 and 2 Timothy 3:16). It is better for us to find now that we are in error about something we believe in the scriptures that are leading us away from God and His Word into sin and unbelief, then to find out when it is too late only to hear the words of Jesus "Depart from me you who work iniquity, I never knew you" at the second coming *Matthew 7:21-23. So lets discuss dear friend. What is it that you believe I have shared from the scriptures that you disagree with and prove to me why you disagree with anything I have posted in any of my OPs from the scripture. If you cannot what is your disagreement? You have none but are simply in unbelief which is sin according to the bible.

The three scriptures provided show that he lies.

Actually the three scriptures you provided do not show that Jesus lied as proven in my last post to you in the scripture context that you missed in quoting John 2:19. If you read up just a little further in John 2:21 it clearly states verbatim "But he spoke of the temple of his body." Sin is defined in the scriptures as the transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4 so if Jesus according to you sinned then He would be a sinner just like you and me and everyone in Christianity would be lost. The bible does not teach this. As posted earlier to you according to the scriptures, Jesus did not sin therefore he did not break Gods law and did not lie. So the bible is in disagreement with you here. Hebrew 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin to salvation.1 Peter 2:21-22 21, For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: 22, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.

Someone then claims in another scripture that he never lies which is a contradiction, but it is not an evil contradiction.

As shown above it is not a contradiction of the scriptures. It is a contradiction to your understanding of the scriptures because you disregarded the following scripture context that defined what Jesus was talking about in John 2:21 you did not read and the rest of the bible that proves Jesus was sinless.

We should leave it at "Jesus is quoted as saying such and such" and judge for ourselves if what he is saying is good. We should not say "The bible says" or "Jesus says" or "God says."

The bible does say, Jesus said and God said. I believe the scriptures are Gods Word. If you read the scriptures that I share here what is quoted is stated verbatim in the scriptures. So there is nothing wrong with saying the bible says, Jesus says or God says if that is what is written in the scriptures because that is what is written.

[Heb 5:8-9 NIV] 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. Here in Hebrews it claims Jesus must learn obedience and become perfected through suffering and death. In other words he does die for his own sins, since it says he is perfected in death. This seems the likely origin of the trinity by-the-way. The human denies himself becoming divine and the first among many brothers. We also, if we would follow Jesus, must become nothing. It is really hard, but Jesus calls it easy. "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30). That is not a lie, but it is turning the universe inside out to call the hardest thing easy.

For me you are reading into the scriptures what the scriptures do not say. There is no where in Hebrews 5 that states anywhere that Jesus is a sinner. Your interpretation of reading into the scriptures what is not written in the scriptures has your understanding of the bible in contradiction to what the bible actually says about Jesus being sinless and without sin and with no sin. Jesus being without and sin is actually stated word for word by the same author of Hebrews in Hebrew 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin so even the same author of Hebrews is in disagreement with you here. 1 Peter 2:21-22 21, For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: 22, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Hebrews 5 does not state anywhere that Jesus sinned. That interpretation is you reading this into the scriptures and is in contradiction to scripture and the rest of the bible as demonstrated above. For me Hebrews 5 and its context is talking about Christs obedience tested through his trials and sufferings makes Him qualified to be our great high Priest because he was obedient unto death. His obedience was tested through His suffering and was found faithful to God even unto death. He has been tested and found obedient to God unto death. He was tested through suffering and did no sin. "Hebrews 5:8 He learned obedience καίπερ ὢν υἱός: “this is stated to obviate the very idea of assumption on his part”. Perhaps, therefore, we should translate, with a context to Hebrews 5:5, “although He was Son”. Although Son and therefore possessed of Divine love and in sympathy with the Divine purpose, He had yet to learn that perfect submission which is only acquired by obeying in painful, terrifying circumstances. He made deeper and deeper experience of what obedience is and costs. And the particular obedience [τὴν ὑπακ.] which was required of Him in the days of His flesh was that which at once gave Him perfect entrance into the Divine love and human need. It is when the child is told to do something which pains him, and which he shrinks from, that he learns obedience, learns to submit to another will." (Expositor's Greek Testament). These scriptures are teaching that Jesus was tested and learned perfect obedience through His trials and temptations even unto death. Hebrews teaches word for word that Jesus was sinless and without sin.

This part of your post seems to point out the origin of the word 'Christian'. Each person is expected to deny themselves. This is the ideal which allows Jesus prayer in John 17 to (someday) be answered: that all of his disciples will be one as he and the Father are one. 1 Peter is particularly special, because he explains how converts ought to be made. It is not through talk but patient endurance. Many people read about preaching and "The foolishness of preaching" and somehow think it means that complex arguments and proofs lead to conversions.

Well the reason that Hebrews 4:15; Hebrew 9:28 and 1 Peter 2:21-22 21 were posted earlier to you was to show that Jesus was sinless and was without sin and did no sin. This was stated in the scriptures verbatim and underlined in my previous post to you as they are in disagreement of your claims that Jesus was a sinner. You may also need to consider that the reason God gave us His Word through the scriptures as shown in 2 Timothy 3:16 is also to help correct others with a wrong understanding of the scriptures for their own salvation and to also share Gods Word with the whole world which is the great commission given by Jesus and commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. According to the scriptures our salvation is not complex it is actually very simple and only requires us to believe and obey what Gods Word says (see John 3:36; John 3:16; Matthew 7:21-23).

It is very possible for me to draw a wrong conclusion, but I have no control over you. Isn't that good? You can decide for yourself what is right. The scriptures are written such that they are not forceful. They are useful, but there is a reason that contradictions are built in purposely, that the genealogies do not match and that the fulfillments are not. It keeps me from having you as a pet and you from me. Just like if you say Jesus never lies, and I say "But here is an example of him doing so!" You have lost control, because the scriptures won't let you wield them with authority. This is purposeful I think. Jesus says to the high priest, deceiving the high priest, that he can rebuild the temple. This is the place where the priest works. This is a deception, and Jesus plainly tells his disciples that Jesus does this frequently: speaking in parables to deceive. The principle is that Jesus can deceive you, too.

I reject your view that there is any contraction in the scriptures. If you find yourself thinking that there are contradictions it is perhaps that you have incorrectly interpreted what the scriptures are saying. The bible does not contradict itself. Our discussion is a good example because you believed through reading John 2:19 that Jesus was lying but you left out the scripture context in John 2:21 proving that Jesus was not lying that stated that Jesus was referring to the temple of His body, while the rest of the bible clearly states Jesus did no sin (scriptures already provided). You did not provide any examples of Jesus lying like you claim here. You posted a scripture taken out of context that led you to a wrong understanding of what the scriptures were saying.

Take Care.

 

[3rdAngel]

You have been corrected on this many times. It can be either singular or plural depending on the context. For example, if used in conjunction with verbs for third person singular, it is singular. Since you insist on making the same mistake after being informed, I can only conclude that you do not care about the truth.

I know this post was for someone else but what you state here is correct. Context is king and determines Hebrew and Greek word meanings and application. Good point.

 

[Bthoth]

I know this post was for someone else but what you state here is correct. Context is king and determines Hebrew and Greek word meanings and application. Good point.

What does king have to do with any of that. There is no supreme being, person or a man. Not even jesus was a king.

The variety of scripture have created an idea that a messiah will be some kind of king. Don't bet on it.

 

[Ebionite]

"Destroy this temple, and I can rebuild it in three days." This does not happen though Jesus says it to the high priest in court.

No, the author of John was just repeating what the Pharisees told him.

But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what [is it which] these witness against thee?
Matthew 26:60-62

 

[Ebionite]

I know this post was for someone else but what you state here is correct. Context is king and determines Hebrew and Greek word meanings and application. Good point.

The context doesn't support Indigo's position.

 

[3rdAngel]

What does king have to do with any of that. There is no supreme being, person or a man. Not even jesus was a king. The variety of scripture have created an idea that a messiah will be some kind of king. Don't bet on it.

Thanks for your comments dear friend. I think you have a misunderstanding of what you are responding to though. My post was only stating that in the Hebrew and Greek language the context that a Hebrew and Greek word is used determines the word meaning and application. This is because unlike English, the Hebrew and Greek can be plural or singular or even have many different meanings and applications that are dependent on other words and context it is applied to.

 

[Bthoth]

Thanks for your comments dear friend. I think you have a misunderstanding of what you are responding to though. My post was only stating that in the Hebrew and Greek language the context that a Hebrew and Greek word is used determines the word meaning and application. This is because unlike English, the Hebrew and Greek can be plural or singular or even have many different meanings and applications that are dependent on other words and context it is applied to.

I think that you have me confused with another conversation.

I know about the greek term christos. It's not about a person, but a symbol.

DO you know what it's about?

 

[3rdAngel]

I think that you have me confused with another conversation.

I know about the greek term christos. It's not about a person, but a symbol.

DO you know what it's about?

Hi there. I did not get you mixed up with another poster. I responded to your post to me from post # 67 linked

 

[Bthoth]

Hi there. I did not get you mixed up with another poster. I responded to your post to me from post # 67 linked

Since you helped me with #67. About the questions?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you disagree with anything I have posted here or elsewhere, I would invite you to tell me exactly what it is you believe is not supported by the scriptures

First of all: sins include doctrinal mistakes. Specifically John and James words are both talking about pride in our doctrines, the greatest problem in Christianity. It is not enough to remark "I could be wrong." What James says implies that Christians must never claim to be correct.

James addresses this boasting: "But the rich should take pride in their humiliation--since they will pass away like a wild flower." (James 1:10) and 1John addresses it, too: "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." (1 John 1:10)

So when you are sure you are right, it means you are wrong. Confessing sin is not merely confessing when you know you have made an error but confessing the errors you don't know you have made, including doctrinal ones.

Actually the three scriptures you provided do not show that Jesus lied as proven in my last post to you in the scripture context that you missed in quoting John 2:19. If you read up just a little further in John 2:21 it clearly states verbatim "But he spoke of the temple of his body."

The high priest did not know this and was deceived by Jesus words.

For me you are reading into the scriptures what the scriptures do not say. There is no where in Hebrews 5 that states anywhere that Jesus is a sinner.

It doesn't say he sins, but it says he must be perfected. This is not the same as performing a sin, no.

These scriptures are teaching that Jesus was tested and learned perfect obedience through His trials and temptations even unto death. Hebrews teaches word for word that Jesus was sinless and without sin.

Yes, I think I agree on that. The temptation is what is removed when he dies or is part of what is removed when he dies. Whatever happens, he is perfected only then.

Well the reason that Hebrews 4:15; Hebrew 9:28 and 1 Peter 2:21-22 21 were posted earlier to you was to show that Jesus was sinless and was without sin and did no sin. This was stated in the scriptures verbatim and underlined in my previous post to you as they are in disagreement of your claims that Jesus was a sinner. You may also need to consider that the reason God gave us His Word through the scriptures as shown in 2 Timothy 3:16 is also to help correct others with a wrong understanding of the scriptures for their own salvation and to also share Gods Word with the whole world which is the great commission given by Jesus and commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. According to the scriptures our salvation is not complex it is actually very simple and only requires us to believe and obey what Gods Word says (see John 3:36; John 3:16; Matthew 7:21-23).

I am familiar with these, however he misleads the high priest by saying things that mean something else purposely misleading. We can technically say it is a little white lie, but it misleads on purpose the priest who is a judge for the nation. This is not perfection.

tell me exactly what it is you believe is not supported by the scriptures

All scripture is useful, but its not a foundation. Hands crafted the scripture, but the rock made without hands will found a never ending kingdom.

 

[3rdAngel]

First of all: sins include doctrinal mistakes. Specifically John and James words are both talking about pride in our doctrines, the greatest problem in Christianity.

Actually not exactly. The scriptures teach us that in times of ignorance when we do not know any better God does not hold us accountable for our sins. (see Acts 17:30-31 and James 4:17). God does however hold us accountable for our sins once he gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word and we refuse to believe and obey what His Word says (see Hebrews 10:26-31). So no doctrinal mistakes are not sin if we do not know the truth of Gods Word. They can be sin if God has given us to the opportunity to be corrected and we refuse to hear Gods correction from our errors though. According to the scriptures though sin is defined as the transgression of Gods law and breaking anyone of Gods 10 commandments (1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11) and not believing and obeying Gods Word (John 3:36; Romans 14:23 and Matthew 7:21-23).

It is not enough to remark "I could be wrong." What James says implies that Christians must never claim to be correct.

Well you were the one who remarked that you could be wrong. It is not wrong to claim that Gods Word is correct. In fact the scriptures teach us that Gods Word is the standard of what is true and what is not true which is why it is written in Romans 3:4 "let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that you might be justified in your sayings, and might overcome when you are judged." The scriptures disagrees with you here.

James addresses this boasting: "But the rich should take pride in their humiliation--since they will pass away like a wild flower." (James 1:10) and 1John addresses it, too: "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." (1 John 1:10)

Again none of these scriptures are saying we cannot say Gods Word is true and correct. As posted earlier Romans 3:4 states that Gods only Gods Word is correct and true and is the very standard of what is true and what is not true and what is right and what is wrong. James 1:10 simply states that God exalts his people over the worldly rich, while 1 John 1:10 simply says that all of us have sinned against God which is why we need Gods salvation from sin. These scriptures you posted do not say anywhere we cannot say Gods word is true and correct.

So when you are sure you are right, it means you are wrong.

According to the scriptures we are only right we Gods Word is in agreement with us. This is what Romans 3:4 is talking about. We are not right if our words disagree with Gods Word. The scriptures therefore are the only test of what is right and what is wrong and what is true and what is not true.

I am familiar with these, however he misleads the high priest by saying things that mean something else purposely misleading. We can technically say it is a little white lie, but it misleads on purpose the priest who is a judge for the nation. This is not perfection. All scripture is useful, but its not a foundation. Hands crafted the scripture, but the rock made without hands will found a never ending kingdom.

Well I do not believe that he was misleading the High Priest. As proven in the context you left out earlier and disregarded in John 2:21, it states Jesus was referring to the temple of His body. Jesus actually prophesied telling the High Priest that you will kill me but I will rise again after the third day. It is neither a lie or a little white lie when Jesus was referring to himself as the dwelling place of God (temple) as shown through the scriptures earlier just like it is not a lie for any Christian to call themselves the temple of God as already shown in the scriptures and context you disregarded in John 2:21; shown also in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and again in 2 Corinthians 6:16 16 (already posted).

Take Care.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well I do not believe that he was misleading the High Priest. As proven in the context you left out earlier and disregarded in John 2:21, it states Jesus was referring to the temple of His body. Jesus actually prophesied telling the High Priest that you will kill me but I will rise again after the third day. It is neither a lie or a little white lie when Jesus was referring to himself as the dwelling place of God (temple) as shown through the scriptures earlier just like it is not a lie for any Christian to call themselves the temple of God as already shown in the scriptures and context you disregarded in John 2:21; shown also in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and again in 2 Corinthians 6:16 16 (already posted).

Jesus often told things to people knowing they would misunderstand, expecting the father to reveal the truth to them or not. This was no different, except that he mislead the high priest. The point of the story was that the high priest didn't get it, but Jesus mislead him. That same could happen to anyone. Jesus does not hold himself responsible for our understanding.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well I do not believe that he was misleading the High Priest. As proven in the context you left out earlier and disregarded in John 2:21, it states Jesus was referring to the temple of His body. Jesus actually prophesied telling the High Priest that you will kill me but I will rise again after the third day. It is neither a lie or a little white lie when Jesus was referring to himself as the dwelling place of God (temple) as shown through the scriptures earlier just like it is not a lie for any Christian to call themselves the temple of God as already shown in the scriptures and context you disregarded in John 2:21; shown also in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and again in 2 Corinthians 6:16 16 (already posted).

Jesus often told things to people knowing they would misunderstand, expecting the father to reveal the truth to them or not. This was no different, except that he mislead the high priest. The point of the story was that the high priest didn't get it, but Jesus mislead him. That same could happen to anyone. Jesus does not hold himself responsible for our understanding.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Again none of these scriptures are saying we cannot say Gods Word is true and correct. As posted earlier Romans 3:4 states that Gods only Gods Word is correct and true and is the very standard of what is true and what is not true and what is right and what is wrong. James 1:10 simply states that God exalts his people over the worldly rich, while 1 John 1:10 simply says that all of us have sinned against God which is why we need Gods salvation from sin. These scriptures you posted do not say anywhere we cannot say Gods word is true and correct.

If it is God's word then it cannot have contradictions, but instead it has purposeful ones. Therefore it is separate treasured books and letters conveniently placed into a common binding. The most plain contradictions are the fulfillments in Matthew, since upon researching any one of them it will be seen that they are not fulfilling any predictions. Rather they are imitating Israel. "Out of Egypt I called my son" and so Jesus goes to Egypt; but it was never predicted that he would. Nevertheless Matthew uses the term 'Fulfil'. Matthew's unique genealogy is another purposeful contradiction in which he plainly does not wish us to take his genealogy as authoritative. These writers never intend for us to take them as textbooks or as God's word. If they did, they would say so.

 

[Shaul]

God’s promise of the New Covenant is to ISRAEL…

• Jeremiah 31:31-34 [31], Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32],

So the scripture clearly states that the new covenant will be with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Those are the Jews. So it has nothing to do with gentiles.

• The word “Israel” therefore according to the scriptures is simply a name that God gives to all those who believe and obey what Gods Word says.

Stuff and nonsense. That is totally made up of hogwash. It has no basis in the TaNaKh.

 

[3rdAngel]

Jesus often told things to people knowing they would misunderstand, expecting the father to reveal the truth to them or not. This was no different, except that he mislead the high priest. The point of the story was that the high priest didn't get it, but Jesus mislead him. That same could happen to anyone. Jesus does not hold himself responsible for our understanding.

You are repeating yourself here again and this has already been answered and addressed in other posts to you. As shown through the scriptures earlier it was the scripture contexts you left out that proves Jesus did not mislead anyone as stated in John 2:21. A detailed response was already provided to you in post # 59; post #65 and post # 75. According to the scriptures Jesus spoke in parables and the truth of His Words were revealed by Gods Spirit to those who believed and hidden from the wise and learned who did not accept him who as Gods promised Messiah and did not believe he was from God (Matthew 11:25-26). This is not the same as lying to someone or misleading anyone. Jesus told everyone the truth. However the reason why many did not believe was because they choose to close their eyes and ears to hearing and understanding Gods Word because they did not accept Jesus as Gods promised Messiah.

 

[3rdAngel]

If it is God's word then it cannot have contradictions, but instead it has purposeful ones. Therefore it is separate treasured books and letters conveniently placed into a common binding. The most plain contradictions are the fulfillments in Matthew, since upon researching any one of them it will be seen that they are not fulfilling any predictions. Rather they are imitating Israel. "Out of Egypt I called my son" and so Jesus goes to Egypt; but it was never predicted that he would. Nevertheless Matthew uses the term 'Fulfil'. Matthew's unique genealogy is another purposeful contradiction in which he plainly does not wish us to take his genealogy as authoritative. These writers never intend for us to take them as textbooks or as God's word. If they did, they would say so.

As posted earlier, I reject your view that there is any contraction in the scriptures. If you find yourself thinking that there are contradictions it is perhaps that you have incorrectly interpreted what the scriptures are saying. The bible does not contradict itself. Our discussion is a good example because you believed through reading John 2:19 that Jesus was lying but you left out the scripture context in John 2:21 proving that Jesus was not lying that stated that Jesus was referring to the temple of His body, while the rest of the bible clearly states Jesus did no sin (scriptures already provided). You did not provide any examples of Jesus lying like you claim here. You posted a scripture taken out of context that led you to a wrong understanding of what the scriptures were saying. This was your contradiction. You may also want to look at Matthew 2:13-15 and compare Hosea 11:1. Matthew tells us that Jesus fulfills Hosea 11 (Matt. 2:13–15). He is the true Israel, the faithful Israel who succeeds where old covenant Israel failed. Like ancient Israel, He came up out of Egypt, passed through the waters, and was tested in the wilderness (2:13–15; 3:13–4:11; see Ex. 12:40–42; 14:1–31; 16:4). Unlike old covenant Israel, however, Jesus passed the test. He is therefore worthy to be called God’s Son because of who He is in His deity and because of what He accomplished in His humanity. It is God who has given us His Words in the scriptures and yes he intends us to believe and obey them.

Take Care.

 

[Ebionite]

So the scripture clearly states that the new covenant will be with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Those are the Jews.

No, the Jews were the house of Judah. The house of Israel was dispersed among the nations.

 

[Shaul]

No, the Jews were the house of Judah. The house of Israel was dispersed among the nations.

No, the Jews refer to all the extant descendants of the 12 tribes. The house of Israel would include all the tribes including Judah. I presume you meant the Kingdom of Israel. The people of the Kingdom of Israel were relocated, but only within the Assyrian kingdom. The word "Jew" etymologically derives from Judah, but that doesn't mean that only people from the tribe of Judah are Jews. That is clear both from the TaNaKh and even from the Christian "New Testament". After the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel all remaining descendants of Israel (ignoring the Samaritans), regardless of tribe, lived in the Kingdom of Judah and were all called Jews. The word's meaning morphed and is an overloaded term.