666

[justified]

Robert Henry Charles...

Born 6 Aug 1855, Cookstown, Co. Tyrone. Educated at Belfast Academy, Queen's College Belfast (Classics, 1874-80), and Trinity College Dublin (Classics and Theology). Ordained Deacon in 1883 and Priest in 1884. Married to Mary Lilias, 1886, no children. Served several curacies in England from 1883 to 89 before turning to academia in 1890. His studies focused on the religious developments within Judaism in the period between the Testaments, concentrating particularly on the exposition of the Apocalyptic literature, both Christian and Jewish. Charles's work attracted a great deal of attention during his lifetime, becoming a leading authority on his chosen specialisms. He became Professor of Biblical Greek at Trinity College Dublin (1898-1906), the Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint (1905-11), Speaker's lecturer in Biblical Studies at Oxford (1910-14), Warburton lecturer in Lincoln's Inn Chapel from 1919, and Schweich lecturer of the British Academy (1919-20). He was also elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1906 and of Merton College, Oxford in 1910. In 1925 he was the first recipient of the British Academy Medal for Biblical Studies. Charles also received honorary degrees from the universities of Belfast in 1923 and Oxford in 1928 in recognition for his work. In 1913 he was appointed a canon of Westminister, becoming archdeacon later in 1919. He died at his home in Little Cloisters on 30 January 1931.
Publications: Book of Enoch (1893, 2nd ed. 1912); Apocalypse of St John ( 2 vols., 1920); Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (1929); Book of Jubilees (1895); Enoch (1906); The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908); The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols., 1913); A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel in Judaism and in Christianity (1899, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., 1913); Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments (1914); Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu (1916)

And those are just some of them. He was the one who actually SET the discussion of Revelation even unto now -- at least among those who read the languages. But then, there is this sort of underworld which ignores real scholarship and persists in its own little devices.

 

[parousia70]

It is your camp that absolutely must have the man of sin be Nero -and it absolutely cannot be Nero, was not Nero, and will not be Nero.

I agree.
The Man of Sin in the spoken of in the epistle to the Thessalonians cannot be Nero, was not Nero and will not be Nero.

So you are incorrect to say "my camp MUST have the Man of Sin be Nero".

I have never asserted such, nor will I ever assert such.

 

[parousia70]

Honestly, if you're asking me to spend all that time putting together that scripture when you know where it is, then forget it.

All that time?
It's only Revelation 13 & a little of 14 that have anything about the Beast in it.... how could it be that difficult?

Look Ottowa, you made several assertions about that text, and I don't think you can back them up with the text in question, and your refusal to show how the text means what you claim it means totally supports my contention.

Being the patient fella that I am, I'll give you another opportunity to prove a couple of your contentions WITH SCRIPTURE (if you indeed can)

1) The head of the beast which was 666 was "yet to come". Nero was already in power! How could he possibly be 666?
2) Nero would've been the sixth head of the Beast which WAS, because you're claiming he was in power at the time John wrote it.

Show us the scriptures that teach the head which was 666 came after Nero.


Where did the 10 kings destroy Babylon the Great?

Jerusalem , AD70

What city was Babylon the Great?

The Great City Jerusalem,(the city where our lord was crucified)


Why would God give John this Revelation and make it so rich in symbolism and according to you, be so wrong when explaining who was and is, when Nero was 666? It makes no sense.

According to me God was wrong about Nero being the Beast?
When have I claimed anything of the sort?

tis not I that slumber..........

 

[lilangel04_86]

Actually there isnt a 3. Just 6's. And if you want to get technical, I believe it's 600 + 60 + 6 so 666

I was talking about the symbolism of there being three sixes.

 

[parousia70]

By a majority of scholars over the past 2000 years? Or even now?
I already know you have a list of names - some are unknowns really - but a huge list could be made for the late as well.

Not as large a list as the early date advocates.
But you know this, as you said, you've seen the early date advocate list, and you know the challenge has been made for anyone to eclipse it with a list of late daters. you haven't, you can't, and therefore my contention stands unrefuted. Of all scholars in the past 2000 years who have published a prefrence for early or late date, the majority side with the early date.

For the futurist, the date is not so important. For the preterist, the date is crucial. IF it is the later date, preterism falls.

Then it is sure too bad that you can't prove the late date isn't it?
It'd be a big thorn removed from your side if you could.

 

[parousia70]

Yep, I agree.

I spent enough of my time on this.

You're bluffing.

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

Not as large a list as the early date advocates.
But you know this, as you said, you've seen the early date advocate list, and you know the challenge has been made for anyone to eclipse it with a list of late daters. you haven't, you can't, and therefore my contention stands unrefuted. Of all scholars in the past 2000 years who have published a prefrence for early or late date, the majority side with the early date.

You can make the grand claim that it is larger than the late date advocates - but that is rather silly, parousia, as the late date advocates cover 2000 years and the early date advocates are more 'johnny come lately'. The first document referring to the early date is about 559 AD - a note in the Syriac translation. And there were only two other ancient sources for the early date that were later than that. The late date view dominated all along...and the early date came around after the developement of modern day preterism. Modern day preterism has to go by the early date, or it falls flat.

And if you want to go by lists of names - as in going by numbers ( ), the early date will fail again.
How many scholars go with Jerome and Eusebius since they wrote? Probably thousands. How many scholars agreed with john Calvin? Probably thousands. How many scholars were involved in the New American Bible? Lots.

Then it is sure too bad that you can't prove the late date isn't it?
It'd be a big thorn removed from your side if you could.

I have far more historical support for the late date than you can provide for the early date.
It isn't a problem for me. The date of its writing is a big problem for you - because if it isn't written pre70 AD (and it isn't), then your view falls flat on its face.

 

[FreeinChrist]

And regarding the dating of Revelation, I found the following at a site that is neither preterist or futurist but is historicist site:

http://www.historicist.com/articles/revdate_4.html
We reviewed six points in Chilton's work, The Days of Vengeance, which he contends support an early dating of the book of Revelation, during Nero's reign, prior to 70 A.D. We assert that the preponderance of internal and external evidence points to a 96 A.D. writing.

1. Chilton suggests that references to Temple worship articles in the detail offered in the Revelation prove that book was written while the Temple was still standing, i.e., prior to 70 A.D. We believe that God provided John with the ability to accurately describe the vision he saw, even articles from a temple no longer standing. Also, as Elliott explains, the purpose of the Temple articles are to point to Christ himself and to prepare John and future readers to use this interpretive aid.
   
2. External support for the dating of the book of Revelation came from writings by the early church fathers and historians which have been preserved. The chief support which places John on the island of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, around 96 A.D. is a statement recorded by St. Irenaeus. Irenaeus lived in the second century A.D. and was a student of one of St. John's followers, Polycarp. This statement was unchallenged for centuries by church historians. In the past three centuries, however, it has come under scrutiny by Praeterists. They say it has been misunderstood by those church fathers who were masters of the Greek. language. If this is not enough, they also imply that St. Irenaeus has made a careless mistake about the writing date. We stand by Irenaeus' statement and all the learned men who did not try to impeach this source.
   
3. Many other supports for a 96 A.D. date are found in the writing of early church fathers including Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus and Eusebius. They do not merely repeat what was stated by St. Irenaeus, but were themselves scholars and historians. They reached their conclusion based on all available information, some which may not have survived to this present day. Had there been a contrary opinion it would have been mentioned. However, none appeared until the fourth century and later, all of questionable value.
   
4. Contrary to Chilton's opinion, the 96 A.D. date is not based on the belief that Christians were slaughtered under Domitian's reign. It is commonly accepted that Domitian often banished Christians for punishment and this was the punishment inflicted on John - he was banished to Patmos where he received the Revelation.
   
5. Chilton next claims that since the Revelation describes the fall of Jerusalem, it therefore must prove the Neronic date of writing. This is circular reasoning. Early church fathers interpreted the Revelation as then future to them and modern Historicists see its fulfillment through the ages with some parts yet unfulfilled. These interpretations do not hinge on the writing date, while the Praeterist interpretation does.
   
6. Finally, Mr. Chilton's most important point was that we have some a priori teaching from Scripture itself that the "seventy weeks" was to end with the fall of Jerusalem and that all special revelations given to men also ended by 70 A.D. We have demonstrated in our short discourse that for the "seventy weeks" to have ended at the fall of Jerusalem would have required another "break" in time, similar to how the Futurists view this prophecy.
   

 

[justified]

1) The head of the beast which was 666 was "yet to come". Nero was already in power! How could he possibly be 666?

one of the many keys that you are all missing is that text does not just say that he was "yet to come." It says quite openly in chapter seventeen, that the beast:

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. (17:8)

You cannot interpret who the book is talking about without this clue, because it is GIVEN as an indicator of who the guy is...

 

[ikester]

so if Nero was the beast....then why would that generation be damned for accepting the mark...( which there wasn't then)....yet we have 2000 more years of false/fake god worship and every sin since the garden....and the point being for 70ad... the jews missed the time of visitation and were under judgement anyway......

 

[parousia70]

so if Nero was the beast....then why would that generation be damned for accepting the mark...( which there wasn't then)....yet we have 2000 more years of false/fake god worship and every sin since the garden....

1)Please prove there was no mark then.

2)According to scripture, even in the New Heavens and earth time period there are whoremongers, murderers, sorcerors, adulterers, etc, all practicing their lies right outside the gates of the New Jerusalem.

So what's your point?

and the point being for 70ad... the jews missed the time of visitation and were under judgement anyway......

Show us the scripture that proves your contention, that 70AD was the prophesied punishment/judgement upon the Jews for missing the time of visitation.

 

[parousia70]

[/color]

I have far more historical support for the late date than you can provide for the early date.

No, you don't.
The early date has the most evedentiary support, historical or otherwise.

It isn't a problem for me. The date of its writing is a big problem for you - because if it isn't written pre70 AD (and it isn't), then your view falls flat on its face.

Free, If you could PROVE the late date, you would have by now.
Instead, because you will never be able to prove it, you continue to blow smoke and kick up dust in the hope that people will tire of looking at the perponderance of the evidence. (wich overwhelmingly favors the early date).

 

[parousia70]

[/color]

The first document referring to the early date is about 559 AD - a note in the Syriac translation. And there were only two other ancient sources for the early date that were later than that.

I'm suprised by this Free, I have come to expect at least a more thorough study from you before you go off and make these type of absolute claims.

Of Course I'm not suprised that your claims are wrong, just suprised at how little investigation it would have reqired on your part to see for yourself how wrong you were.

NONE before 559 AD you say?
What does the Historical reality say?:

Epiphanies
(A. D. 315-403)- yep that's right, 315-403, at least 150 years BEFORE your claim of the earliest.
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)

Clement (150-215).... WOW... over 300 years BEFORE your claim of the "first".....
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)
"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170) AD 170??? how many years before 559 Ad is that Free??
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Papias (first century) FIRST CENTURY?? how could that be???
"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)


Again, ALL historical late daters hang their hat on one single statement by Ireneaus.
That's it. That's all they have,,, oh, and eachother.

 

[FirstStrikeForce]

Actually there isnt a 3. Just 6's. And if you want to get technical, I believe it's 600 + 60 + 6 so 666

I was talking about the symbolism of there being three sixes.

Is that to me? I don't know who that is to... there are three sixes there and if the original Greek says "600 + 60 + 6" then that is still three sixes, albeit by tens.

I was also talking about the symbolism of there being "three" "sixes".

But, maybe that was not to me.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I'm suprised by this Free, I have come to expect at least a more thorough study from you before you go off and make these type of absolute claims.

Of Course I'm not suprised that your claims are wrong, just suprised at how little investigation it would have reqired on your part to see for yourself how wrong you were.

NONE before 559 AD you say?
What does the Historical reality say?:

Epiphanies
(A. D. 315-403)- yep that's right, 315-403, at least 150 years BEFORE your claim of the earliest.
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)

From what I have read, Epiphanies writing had issues.

See http://www.saviour-of-all.org/DatingRevelation.html
"Epiphanius, as formerly shown, says : ' John prophesied in the isle of Patmos, in the reign of Claudius.' And in another place, then only referred to, he says: ' John wrote his gospel in his old age, when he was more than ninety years old, after his return from Patmos, which was in the time of Claudius Caesar.'"
Note that your source implies that Claudius Ceasar is Nero...but Claudius Ceasar was the ceasar before the infamous Nero. That would be plaicing the vision as being received between 41 - 54 AD....and there was no Roman persecution of Christians. Claudius full name was Claudius Nero Germanicus - but was not Nero.

Now was John 90 years old in 41 - 54 AD?

See ther eis a problem with Epiphanies - which is probably why the early church fathers like Eusebius and Jerome went with Ireneaus.

Clement (150-215).... WOW... over 300 years BEFORE your claim of the "first".....

"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

Did he accept Revelation as scripture?

(On the Timing of John's Banishment)
"And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant [previously identified as Nero] he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit." (Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?; Section 42)

Whoever/wherever you are quoting this from is adding to to it. He didn't previously identify the tyrant as Nero. Have yoiu read the whole thing? I haven't found where the tyrant is previously identified as Nero at all.
this is what Clement wrote:
XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale,82 which is not a tale but a narrative,83 handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.

Nero didn't banish Christians - he tortured them. His persecution was limited to Rome. Domitian however, did banish, and his persecution extended well beyond Rome.

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170) AD 170??? how many years before 559 Ad is that Free??

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Yeah, I know Gentry refers to this as support for his contention that Revelatin was written in 65 A.D....however, the last of hte pauline epistles was written in 62 A.D., so that doesn't doesn't work out.

And the Muratorian Canon also has this:
“And so, though various elements(d) may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign(e) Spirit all things have been declared in all the Gospels: concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning life with his disciples, and concerning his twofold coming; the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, the second glorious in royal power, which is still in the future.”

It doesn't mention a coming in 70 AD.
I believe (as do many others) that the use of "predecessor" in the quote you provided simply efers to John being a disciple before Paul.

Papias (first century) FIRST CENTURY?? how could that be???

"Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

Butdid Papias ever say that the Revelation was written before 70 AD or that it is possible the author was a different John - the Presbyter John.

"A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

And New Advent states Revealtion was written in 95-96 AD. Again, this was not about whether it was written earlier than 96 AD, but whether the author was John the Apostle rather than a later elder John.

Again, ALL historical late daters hang their hat on one single statement by Ireneaus.

That is assuming that Eusebius and Jerome etc were not scholars and didn't know Greek - or have any other sources for history. But they were scholars in their own right....and did know Koine Greek...and had other sources.

Could elaborate more....but I need sleep.

 

[interpreter]

Robert Henry Charles...

Born 6 Aug 1855, Cookstown, Co. Tyrone. Educated at Belfast Academy, Queen's College Belfast (Classics, 1874-80), and Trinity College Dublin (Classics and Theology). Ordained Deacon in 1883 and Priest in 1884. Married to Mary Lilias, 1886, no children. Served several curacies in England from 1883 to 89 before turning to academia in 1890. His studies focused on the religious developments within Judaism in the period between the Testaments, concentrating particularly on the exposition of the Apocalyptic literature, both Christian and Jewish. Charles's work attracted a great deal of attention during his lifetime, becoming a leading authority on his chosen specialisms. He became Professor of Biblical Greek at Trinity College Dublin (1898-1906), the Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint (1905-11), Speaker's lecturer in Biblical Studies at Oxford (1910-14), Warburton lecturer in Lincoln's Inn Chapel from 1919, and Schweich lecturer of the British Academy (1919-20). He was also elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1906 and of Merton College, Oxford in 1910. In 1925 he was the first recipient of the British Academy Medal for Biblical Studies. Charles also received honorary degrees from the universities of Belfast in 1923 and Oxford in 1928 in recognition for his work. In 1913 he was appointed a canon of Westminister, becoming archdeacon later in 1919. He died at his home in Little Cloisters on 30 January 1931.
Publications: Book of Enoch (1893, 2nd ed. 1912); Apocalypse of St John ( 2 vols., 1920); Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (1929); Book of Jubilees (1895); Enoch (1906); The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908); The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols., 1913); A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel in Judaism and in Christianity (1899, 2nd revised and enlarged ed., 1913); Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments (1914); Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu (1916)

And those are just some of them. He was the one who actually SET the discussion of Revelation even unto now -- at least among those who read the languages. But then, there is this sort of underworld which ignores real scholarship and persists in its own little devices.

hmm... Never heard of Robert Henry Charles until now, and I've read a lot of commentaries on the revelation. Care to tell us his views on 666, or the date the Revelation was received?

Barry

 

[justified]

I have been trying, but it has been ignored four times already. That's the whole point. I'd rather you define "a lot" because I have read very little in this thread that makes any sense. Who have you read? Who has influenced your thinking? Give me a bibliography.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

1)...

2)According to scripture, even in the New Heavens and earth time period there are whoremongers, murderers, sorcerors, adulterers, etc, all practicing their lies right outside the gates of the New Jerusalem.

...QUOTE]
I don't agree with that, Parousia70, as the Scriptures are filled with contrary information to that statement.

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

in the new heavens and new earth there only righteousness dwells, and 'out' of the 'city' (specifically, in the lake of fire), are those who never repented and were cast into the 'outer darkness' in the lake of fire, called the blackness of darkness forever.

The New Jerusalem is the Holy of Holies, itself, that the heavenly one is a type and shadow of in this present creation -and that the pattern for was given to Moses: in fact, the Holy of holies was the Oracle, itself, of the house that YHWH is building for His habitation.
The New Jerusalem has no shut gates, ever, for in itself there is never night, for it is lighted with the glory of God forever; and there is nothing dark or wicked, forever, that could enter it, for 'without' (exo), in the outer darkness, in the blackness of darkness forever, are those who were not repentent and were cast into the lake of fire, the second death.

Revelation 22:15; "For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie".
AV - without 23, out 16, out of 15, forth 8, outward 1,
strange 1, away 1; 65


Jesus is clear that they are cast into the outer darkness, where there is no light, no glory, no Holy Spirit for them to 'live and move and have their being in', for they will be utterly cut off from the Light that lights every man that comes into the world when they are 'cast away', into the outer darkness forever.
I have a lot more Scriptural reasons why, too, but that begins it.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

All that time?
It's only Revelation 13 & a little of 14 that have anything about the Beast in it.... how could it be that difficult?

Look Ottowa, you made several assertions about that text, and I don't think you can back them up with the text in question, and your refusal to show how the text means what you claim it means totally supports my contention.

Being the patient fella that I am, I'll give you another opportunity to prove a couple of your contentions WITH SCRIPTURE (if you indeed can)

1) The head of the beast which was 666 was "yet to come". Nero was already in power! How could he possibly be 666?
2) Nero would've been the sixth head of the Beast which WAS, because you're claiming he was in power at the time John wrote it.

Show us the scriptures that teach the head which was 666 came after Nero.


Where did the 10 kings destroy Babylon the Great?

Jerusalem , AD70

What city was Babylon the Great?

The Great City Jerusalem,(the city where our lord was crucified)


Why would God give John this Revelation and make it so rich in symbolism and according to you, be so wrong when explaining who was and is, when Nero was 666? It makes no sense.

According to me God was wrong about Nero being the Beast?
When have I claimed anything of the sort?

tis not I that slumber..........

Before understanding the rest of Revelation, first you must understand the beginning.

Chapter One;

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

But somehow, dispensationalists, who claim to use the literal method of interpretation, twist the words, "must shortly take place" and "the time is near", and project them into a far off future, one in which the blessing would not be of effect to the one's orignially hearing and reading the prophecy, since it did not apply to them, but to a people in the far distant future.

So much for literalism, eh?

 

[ForeverEndeavor]

Huh? The terms short and soon are both relative terms. Do you understand what that means? It means your idea of short and mine might differ but they may both be correct. When you say it is litteral, it IS. It is not up to you to determine an exact amount of time for "short". You can't assume that just because "short" to you is say, less than a hundred years that that's what Rev must mean if you take it litteally. That kind of thinking is naive.