Jesus Christ: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

I can give you tons of proof from the bible, but this isn't the subject. Make another thread, and we can talk about it.

I gave an explanation and answer to every citation from the bible you gave.

In the earlier verses -

Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death. (John 8:51).

Read the whole chapter rather than taking one verse, completely changing its meaning, and say that Jesus is claiming to be god. I will reiterate, Jesus did not claim to be god once. I asked for the simple, unequivocal, anecdotal statement where he says I am god, or where he says worship me. You haven't given me it, and you never will.

Well why was it there?

Ok so if he's claiming to be "god" why would he say this -

Do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:36)

Clearly not claiming to be god. Jews called themselves "gods" metaphorically. If he is a holy man, they considered him a "god." Learn the hebrew language. I do not add any of my own interpretations to the text. I take them as is, present in the whole chapter and read the context. I don't take everything literally. This is a hebrew scripture, an eastern scripture, but you are looking at it through western eyes, as the Greeks saw it, as the Romans saw it. It's filled with figurative language that westerners take literally.

In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase "I AM" was used by David, Moses, and other Prophets 72 times, does that make them god aswell? This is clearly not referring to Yahweh (eyeh asher eyeh). I AM means nothing. Eyeh asher eyeh refers to god.

I am the son of god too. So are you. So is every Tom, Dick, and Harry. There are no "capitalizations" in the Hebrew language, Greek, so on. There are plenty of times where different words for God would be used, one would be "God" and the other "god" in the Greek texts. And even if the "god" word was used, biblical scholars proceeded to put "God".

Less than 10% of the new testament is what Jesus spoke. Have you heard of a red letter bible? 10%. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Saul (Paul) are not god. Jesus never claimed to be god. I will answer the "Jesus is only part of the equation" in the next sentence.

Read the doctrine. Jesus never preached Trinity anyway. As for the equation, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1?

I think this can do a better job than I can : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZV5x91pf14

Watch the whole thing if you have the time.

 

I'm actually somewhat curious about how you reached this conclusion, too. Consider it a subpoint dealing with the accuracy of the Biblical account.

 

Hashtag mindblown..

OP i do believe jesus is the son of god

 

To those who say "Jesus never claimed to be God":

1) "I AM" is indisputably a claim to divinity. The parallel it has in the Old Testament, found in Isaiah, is always attributed to Yahweh and Yahweh alone. It was never used outside of the context of divine claims in Jesus' time, and if it were you were considered a major blasphemer. The only way a skeptic can overcome this is by denying the reliability or authenticity of the "I Am" passages, but there are no grounds for this.
2) Claims that "Son of God" do not mean divinity are true, but provide no grounds for a case against Jesus as a divine claimant.
3) The "Son of Man" claims are at lowest claims to be a prophet or judge, and almost certainly mean he is claiming to be either the Messiah or God himself, or both.
4) To those who claim Jesus does not claim to be divine in the Synoptics, this is blatantly false. "I Am" is found in Matt 14:27, but is not found in English translations due to translation problems. In addition, Jesus' acts clearly indicate, given the context of the time, that he believed himself to be God. They are as follows:

All of these would be considered at least to implicate that he was a prophet or judge. Most of these would be interpreted as implying he believed he was the Messiah. #1 and several others would also skip right to Messiah, over prophet/judge. Several of these would only be permissible if God himself did it, or somebody who was equal to God.

Bottom line, Jesus DID claim to be divine. Lord, Lunatic, or Liar is still a problem for the skeptic.

Sources:
1) http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html
2) Common knowledge. If memory serves I first heard it on an atheist website.
3) http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html
4) #1 and http://christianthinktank.com/trin03b.html

 

False. The Gospel of John was composed at latest 100 AD, within 80 years of Jesus' death - in antiquity that window for a full-scale biography was fantastic. Not only that, but there is good reason to believe that the Gospel of John was composed by an eyewitness, or one immediately associated with an eyewitness.

And yes its Christology is higher, but that makes neither it nor the Synoptics less reliable.

 

Ok.

Jesus, Paul, and everyone else agrees that when someone dies, they go from a mortal body to an eternal body. A resurrected body is a spiritual body. Now to start with the whole issue of "Was Jesus Crucified" we go back and analyze the Gospel of St Luke Chapter 24, verses 36-44.

36: Now whilst they were speaking these things, Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to you; it is I, fear not.

37: But they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit.

38: And he said to them: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39: See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have.

40: And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and feet.

41: But while they yet believed not, and wondered for joy, he said: Have you any thing to eat?

42: And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb.

43: And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them.

44: And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The disciples heard that the master (Jesus) was hung on the cross. They didn't see it first hand, but heard about it from hearsay. When he entered that upper room, after his alleged crucifixion, the disciples were terrified. They thought he was a spirit. But reading the verses, he shows them his hands and feet. He eats in front of them. All of this to prove what, that he is resurrected? Or is it to prove that he is ALIVE? Jesus says all dead bodies will be resurrected as spiritual bodies, Paul says all resurrected bodies will be spiritual bodies, or rather immortal bodies. All of this happened Sunday evening after the alleged crucifixion.

That sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus to find it empty. I ask why? Mark answers in The Gospel of Mark 16:1:

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus."

And then you continue on with Mark 16:2-4:

2: And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen.

3: And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4: And looking, they saw the stone rolled back. For it was very great.

So now the Jesus Mary went to anoint days after his crucifixion is not there? First I ask why would she want to anoint a dead body days after. And then with the stone being moved from the front of the sepulchre, would a spirit need to move the stone to walk out? Surly not.

After the whole ordeal, Jesus appears to Marry Magdalene, though she noticed him not. He was disguised, according to John 20:14-15

14: When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus.

15: Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Now I ask, why would Jesus be disguised? Jesus was afraid of the jews, and he was disguised because he did not die. If he had died, there would be no need for him to be disguised as he would have already conquered death, for when you die, you are equal onto the angles. Being equal onto the angles meaning you have eternal life. You can't die twice.

Now with that being said, look at John 20:15 closely. Mary Magdalene says she will take him away. Imagine, a young girl carrying a man that would be at least 160-180 pounds, with 100 extra pounds of medicines around him. Imagine a young, frail woman carrying nearly 300 pounds.

Then in John 20:16-17 Mary realizes it is Jesus.

16: Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master).

17: Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

When Mary realizes it is Jesus, she wants to embrace him. As we Easterners do, she wanted to grab him. Why would he not want her to touch him? More than likely, because it hurt. Also we can see the idiom "I am not yet ascended to my Father." This idiom means, in Lehman's terms, I'm not dead yet.

In my previous posts, I stated the Jews always came with riddles, and requests for Jesus. Here is one of their requests, in the Gospel of St. Matthew , Chapter 12 Verses 38-40.

38: Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee.

39: Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

40: For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

I am asking, what is the sign of Jonah? I am going to assume you know the story of Jonah. If you don't, go ahead and read it. It is very short. I'll start with the part of Jonah volunteering to be thrown off the boat because God was going to sink the ship. So, Jonah volunteers and tells all the men on the ship God is seeking his blood. The men on the boat deny it is him, and they go ahead cast lots to find out who is the guilty party. When Jonah's turn came, he was found to be the guilty man. Now, since Jonah volunteered to be thrown overboard, it's safe to assume they didn't have to force him to come with them, break his bone to subdue him, etc. With that being said, Jonah was thrown overboard ALIVE. Then the large fish gobbles him up, ALIVE. And in the belly of the whale, Jonah was ALIVE. And after his stay in the fish, he was on the shore, ALIVE. Alive, alive, alive, alive.

Now you ask the Christian, was Jesus dead or alive in the tomb? They say dead. Is that like Jonah or unlike Jonah? Jonah is alive, Jesus is dead. Surly that isn't like Jonah. Jesus says he's going to be like Jonah, they say he's unlike Jonah. The miracle is when you expect someone to die, and they live.

The clever man will say, no no, Jesus is emphasizing the time factor. So we go back to the prophecy given by Jesus. "3 days and 3 nights" is stated 4 times, so surly it must be the time factor they say. Let's look at the time factor.

Universally, all Christians agree Jesus was crucified on Good Friday. When in the day? They answer, the afternoon. Since it is Friday, no one must be hanging on the cross when the Sabbath starts. So before sunset, the body must be in the tomb. Now we must ask, how many days and how many nights was he in the tomb? Mary Magdalene finds his tomb empty on the first day of the week, Sunday. Friday - Sunday = 3 days? In the western system yes, but the eastern system no. Easterners count days and nights. So Friday night Jesus is in the tomb, Saturday day Jesus is in the tomb, Saturday night Jesus is in the tomb, Sunday morning Jesus is gone. Two days, and One night. Not 3 days and 3 nights, but 2 days and 1 night. 3 and 3 =/= 2 and 1. Yet, there is nothing miraculous about a time factor. The miracle is when you expect a man to die, and he lives.

Jesus never claimed to be dead and resurrected. After Jesus' alleged crucifixion, he never went back to the Temple of Jerusalem. Why? Because Jesus wasn't reluctant to die. He told his disciples to trade their garments for swords according to Luke 22:36. Why would he want his disciples to have swords? And then we have Jesus begging God for help in Matthew 26:39 -

39: And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

That was after he went back with his disciples to Gethsemane.

I'd like to end this off with a quote of Saul (Paul), in I Corinthians 14:

"And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

 

I think that he is Lord, it's what it says in the Bible and I believe in the bible

 

But when it clearly contradicts earlier accounts, any historical claims that it makes are highly dubious.

The reason being that...?

The fact that Jesus sayings imply a higher form of Christology shows that the gospel's author didn't mind taking a few historical liberties in his writing.

As I said, the Gospel of John is of questionable reliability considering the fundamentally different Jesus that is portrayed from that of the synoptics.

If you are making the positive claim that Jesus of Nazareth claimed divinity, the burden is on you. This explanation is given as a rebuttal, not proof of the contrary.

I have no doubt that Jesus believed himself to be a prophet; however, you've shown no evidence that the "Son of Man" was supposed to be God. The very notion that God could be a man goes against very basic tenants of Judaism.

The "I AM" statements of John all metaphorically compare Jesus to an item of theological significance; the statement of Matthew is clearly different than all these, as it is merely an example of Jesus asserting his physical presence.

I can't respond to all of your claims considering that you don't cite any verses, nor do you point out which specific ones bear witness to his divinity, but I would like to ask you for a source for the following claims:

Nobody is doubting his claims of being a prophet, or even the Messiah.

Which ones? You're being very stubborn here, citing various events of Christ's life and making the vague assertion that "everal of these would only be permissible if God himself did it." What specific actions of Jesus imply divinity, and by what means was the implication made?

Even if I was to accept the validity of your claim, the notion that Jesus was crazy is far more probable than the idea that he was a virgin-born god who was resurrected and will one day return to judge everybody.

 

Where does it explicitly contradict (not at face value) the Synoptics or a secular reference to Jesus? And why does that make it "highly dubious"? Almost all primary sources from the time contradict another well-accepted account.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html
http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline

Please forgive me for using links, as they are highly antithetical to discussion, but I'm very tired right now and would just rather post them than list out the arguments. To do a very brief summary the internal and external attestation to authorship puts the burden on the critic and in addition there are numerous reasons to accept an eyewitness or one immediately associated as author based on the content. Most, if not all, of the common critiques based on content fail too.

If that indeed does show that John made up stories to make a theological point - which is extremely disputable even if we grant virtually no Christology to the Synoptics - the readers would know that those stories were fiction. All of the Gospels were written in a high-context culture which assumed the reader knew something like that (because he did).

Sorry, that misses the mark. Even if we reject John's "I Am" claims - which does not follow from John's being unreliable in the first place, but whatever - Matthew contains an allusion to "I Am", but it is obscured due to translation.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html

(Emphasis mine).

Once again I apologize for linking but please just read the first few paragraphs here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html

Why, because it seems that way in English? Both my summary and my source noted that the claim is confounded due to translation. The original probably carried multiple meanings.

Please read my source, it names verses and their content. It is http://christianthinktank.com/trin03b.html
also http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html, though I didn't cite that and that uses the former.

Good.

It should be quite clear which are claims to divinity at face value. Tomorrow I can research and say which, if any, point to this at a deeper context. My link also states or implies these.

To each his own (note I'm not saying the issue of the truth of his actual claims is subjective but I simply won't comment any further). My point was simply that it is a bad argument to say he never claimed to be God, and so far you've offered nothing new. I once more apologize for using mostly links but I just want to finish this off now, and can discuss more tomorrow.

 

L2bot - Your interpretation of what the Bible says is, in fact, irrelevant. There has been documented, secular evidence that has proven Jesus to have both, A) existed, and B) been put to death. A man named Cornelius Tacitus was a famous historian from Rome who gave us documented proof he existed. Being one of the greatest Roman historians to have lived, I believe it's safe to say he's a credible source.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." - Annals XV, 44 (Source)

Why would an impartial, non-christian, famous Roman historian lie?

 

First of all, I never denied the existence of Jesus. I believe Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God. Your whole rant on trying to prove to me that Jesus existed is useless to me.

Second of all, I proved crucifixion wrong, try and refute any of the points given. Jesus clearly did not die. That's what crucifixion means, death by hanging on the cross. I know it hurts for me to rip apart the very foundation of your faith, but try and stick to what I typed rather than going completely off topic. These historical accounts mean nothing, as with the proof I gave that Jesus was indeed not crucified. I'll take Jesus's word over yours, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the Pope, Pontius Pilate, Cornelius Tacitus, and just about everyone else.

 

Proof? You gave your interpretation of some Bible verses. Regardless, if it's historically documented that Jesus was put to death... how can you use a Bible verse (if you're using that as your credible source), that states He's again, alive? Wouldn't that merely add evidence towards Jesus' resurrection, regardless of whether or not he died the way most believe?

Regardless, don't try to act like an arrogant piece of shit. You're a 16 year old kid in highschool. I'm sorry, but you can't disprove the largest religion in the world stating the amount of time he was dead is off (check your math on that, by the way). Much, much, MUCH smarter people have tried to disprove Christianity and have failed. It's not nearly as simple as you try oh-so-hard to make it sound.

 

If you use logic, it makes sense. It isn't my interpretations, it's me using deductive reasoning and logically making a conclusion. Surly, Jesus (the man) could have countered death. Do I know how he did it, no. I didn't even say Jesus was resurrected. Because resurrection is spiritual, no flesh, as he showed his disciples in the upper room before they all forsook him and fled. And when a man says, "Do not touch for I have no ascended onto my father", what in the hell could that possibly mean? If he died, he would have ascended to the father. Time and time again, Jesus is showing he did not die. If he died, why wouldn't he tell us plainly? If you look at it logically, there is no way in hell he could have died.

I used the Douay Rheims bible for all my quotations, and I think that is a somewhat credible source since the bible has so many versions and has changed so many times. And rather than just saying "it's your interpretations" why don't you show me some proof of his death and resurrection.

You're acting rather arrogant yourself for a 20 year old frycook who goes to Community College. (I'm honestly joking, but I can play that game too.) Age isn't a barrier for intelligence. I can guarantee you I know more about the bible than you do.

I can, and I have disproved the worlds largest religion, . The last prophecy Jesus gave the Jews was the "Sign of Jonah" right before his alleged crucifixion. Jesus says he will be like Jonah, and you say he isn't. Jonah lived, Jesus dies, that's what you're telling me. That's not like Jonah. I even stated there's nothing miraculous about a time factor, but many of your scholars claim that's the miraculous part about the prophecy, ignoring the fact Jonah survived when he should have died. And even after that, I used only logic. Sure there were "witnesses", but Jesus surly a miraculous man could have done the unthinkable. And Friday Night - Sunday Morning is 2 nights and a day.

I don't care how large the religion is. I can consciously say that the vast majority of some 1,200 million Christians follow conjecture.

But I honestly do urge you to prove my points wrong, as it makes for more thorough and concise debate. You can continue to say Jesus is a liar, and continue to commit blasphemy against God almighty. It's your loss, not mine.

 

So this average "prophet", as you say, has the ability to die and rise again? That's one hell of a power for a "prophet".

Google.com -> Define resurrection

res·ur·rec·tion/ˌrezəˈrekSHən/
Noun:
The action or fact of resurrecting or being resurrected.
(in Christian belief) Christ's rising from the dead.

It can mean both spiritually and physically.

Jesus never spoke "plainly". Hence why you're stating, "Jesus never claimed to be God". He spoke in parables in order to never directly say He was Lord (except for what got him crucified seen below). That would have been considered blasphemy by the Pharisees.

Edit: Could you please explain the meaning of this then? (As Jesus was before the Sanhedrin):

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14:60-62

The Bible has not changed nearly as much as you think. The monks and priests dedicated their lives in order to translate the Bible throughout languages. In the Douay Rheims bible, there were portions where a Catholic bishop named Richard Challoner interpreted and translated it from Latin. I would trust a New King James bible over the Douay Rheims bible.

Edit: Also, proof of his death? It's documented. Romans knew how to kill, and they knew how to do it well. You're stating Jesus was still alive. Roman historians documented the killing of Jesus. Therefore Jesus died... but was then again alive?

I'm an 18 year old, ex-hardware store employee who studies at a private college in Michigan. Good try on that "joke" though. Regardless, religion isn't what I study, nor will I ever at a serious level. Nevertheless, it's much more than simply studying and reading a book. I'm sure you've heard the saying, but, "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion". You've yet to tell me in here, IRC, or anywhere else where you've seen what you would consider "proof" that Allah, or whatever it is you believe, is God.

If it was as simple as you try to make it sound, I'm quite sure a hell of a lot of the 1.2 billion people would change their beliefs. You have not disproved anything.

Ah, but I believe it is you, good sir, who's committing the blasphemy.

 

You're joking, right? Resurrection is by definition coming back from the dead, which implies physicality. Everybody in that context - especially the Jews - would not call a spirit coming back resurrection. The burden is on the critic to show the resurrection was meant to be spiritual, and you haven't given such evidence.

Source: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html
NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God

 

I didn't say he could die and rise again. I said he was one of the mightiest prophets, not an average one.

I didn't mean the dictionary definition. Paul and Jesus say, when you die, you are resurrected spiritually, and you shall die no more.

Quoting from the New King James Version, The Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 20 Verses 34 - 36 -

34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.

35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;

36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

According to an old Jewish custom, when a brother died and he left no offspring, the next brother in line (according to age) would take his wife. The Jews came up to Jesus with their riddles and such, and they asked him who shall get the wife in heaven? And the verses I gave answer that. Jesus says they shall die no more, and be equal onto the angels. I didn't mean the literal definition, but by what Jesus and Paul say about death and resurrection.

Jesus plainly says he's the messiah. Why would Jesus not want tell us he's god? Because Jesus wouldn't lie. If Jesus was God, what would he have to fear, these puny men? Jesus was put on trial for claiming to be the Messiah, and for claiming to be "King of the Jews." And by explain this, I assume you mean the very last verse. Jesus is saying he's going to sit next to god, metaphorically speaking, he's the right hand man of god.

The Bible has changed more than it should have. Even the Revised Standard Version of the bible includes in the preface that the King James Version has its grave defects.

As for historical proof, Jesus says he didn't die, and you say he died. We're dealing with something that is beyond our ability to comprehend.

Good to see we both have a sense of humor. I do agree there is more to religion than studying a book. Just a quick lesson, Allah means god in Arabic. Allah is the preferred word because it is a more pure from than the word God. The word god can be mutilated, as where Allah in Arabic cannot. You can have gods, goddess, godfather, godly, godmother, and what not. In Arabic there can be no mutilation. There are no such words in Arabic.

As for proof, sure I can show it. Sure you can believe or you can't, but I'll save my time. Me and you believe in the same God, the one and only.

It's not that easy to change someone's mind.

Very outlandish. Please tell me how I commit blasphemy when you call a human being that excretes, eats, sleeps, drinks, God.

 

See my first response above. Jesus says whoever dies will not die again, and will be equal onto the angles. I didn't mean the literal meaning, but rather the religious interpretation of what happens when you die.

 

Your claim is ambiguous. What verses is this claim from, and why is it incompatible with bodily resurrection? You seem to be, as others are pointing out, inserting your (rather uninformed) personnal interpretations onto the text with no evidence for them.

 

Do I have to repeat myself? Luke 20:34-36 as I stated up top. What other meaning could this have? He says when a man dies he will not die again, and he will be equal onto the angels. What does being equal to the angels imply? It means you are immortal, spiritual, etc. If you disagree state why. The verse Luke 20:36 is really straightforward. And if you want the preceding verses, look it up in your bible. It's about the Jews asking Jesus who will get the wife in heaven if she was married 7 times.

Putting two and two together isn't hard. Rather than claiming I'm giving my own personal interpretations is crazy, and calling them uninformed is ridiculous, use your brain.

 

I see nothing there implying a spiritual resurrection. Even if we take "like angels" to mean spiritual and immortal (noting the preceding verses it would also make a lot of sense to view it in terms of social priorities), it is in reference to a "spiritual body", an idea that the physical body is enhanced and vindicated which is found in Paul too!

In fact, in the very next verse Jesus says the dead will rise. In 1st-century Judaism nobody classified what you call spiritual resurrection as such. In 1st-century Judaism the only possible way that would make sense was if he was referring to bodies getting up again!

Nope, they are indeed personal readings and uninformed. Sorry.