No New Commandment

[nolidad]

God has always been concerned with the heart...

So you are saying that when Yahweh, in the person of Jesus brought out all these teachings which were not in Torah- He was lying when He said these are new commands I give to you?

Maybe, but looking at a woman was not sin under Torah, but under the Law of the Spirit it is!

 

[nolidad]

I think our thoughts always mattered to the Father. The Messiah just explained it so we could understand better.

Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Psalm 10:4
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

Psalm 94:11
The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Proverbs 15:26
The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.

Isaiah 55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Jeremiah 6:19
Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

Not only did he explain it, but codified it a sin! Many many things jesus declared sin or righteous were not written in the Mosaic Law.

 

[Dkh587]

So you are saying that when Yahweh, in the person of Jesus brought out all these teachings which were not in Torah- He was lying when He said these are new commands I give to you?

Maybe, but looking at a woman was not sin under Torah, but under the Law of the Spirit it is!

The Messiah never said looking at a woman was a sin - he was teaching them that to look at a married woman with desire in your heart is committing adultery.

adultery, according to the Bible, is sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man she is not married to, hence him saying “to look at a woman with desire in your heart”. He is of course referencing a married woman, because a single man desiring a single woman is not adultery.

David committed adultery - he had sex with another man’s wife - David desired to have another man’s wife(it started in his heart), and he followed his desire for another man’s wife, and committed adultery.

Exodus 20:17

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

He wasn’t exactly teaching something brand new...

we were commanded not to desire what belongs to your neighbor...

 

[sparow]

No! The law was more concerned with the ourtward actions.

Jesus would constantly say "But I say" That is the clue He was introducing something brand new and beyond the law.

Like simply looking upon a woman with lust is adultery! That was never said in the Mosaic Law!

No no no! The Law was never primarily to do with outward action; not that outward appearances were excluded; but outward appearances define the Pagans and praying as the Pagans pray.

If God told us everything the Bible would be so large it would be useless; instead God created a head for us, not just to wear a hat but so we could apply the Law to our lives; firstly to honor God and secondly to honor ourselves, both singularly and collectively.

The law might be, do not do ten things and to do two things; honor our mother and father and to keep the seventh day Holy; these tow can be expressed in the negative also; do not profane God or His Seventh day and do not profane our mother and father.

Keeping the Law (inwardly and outwardly) is required; but how does not doing constitute doing? Keeping the Law is what a person does, everything a person does; not keeping God's Law is also what other people do, everything they do; there is no such thing as no Law kept, unless the person was insane. So watching a man of God keep the Law what you would see is him living his life, which will include stumbling and repenting.

 

[nolidad]

The Messiah never said looking at a woman was a sin - he was teaching them that to look at a married woman with desire in your heart is committing adultery.

adultery, according to the Bible, is sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man she is not married to, hence him saying “to look at a woman with desire in your heart”. He is of course referencing a married woman, because a single man desiring a single woman is not adultery.

David committed adultery - he had sex with another man’s wife - David desired to have another man’s wife(it started in his heart), and he followed his desire for another man’s wife, and committed adultery.

Exodus 20:17


He wasn’t exactly teaching something brand new...

we were commanded not to desire what belongs to your neighbor...

Matthew 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Gods Word hath corrected you!

Every woman is designed for a certain man! So lusting after a single woman is in Gods omniscient view commtting adultery with someones wife.

And you are correct that singles having sex is not adultery- it is fornication which is illicit sex which is sexual sin.

Yes David committed Adultery with Bathsheeba. Jesus added that even desiring her, even if you do not consumate the desire is still adultery!

 

[nolidad]

No no no! The Law was never primarily to do with outward action; not that outward appearances were excluded; but outward appearances define the Pagans and praying as the Pagans pray.

If God told us everything the Bible would be so large it would be useless; instead God created a head for us, not just to wear a hat but so we could apply the Law to our lives; firstly to honor God and secondly to honor ourselves, both singularly and collectively.

The law might be, do not do ten things and to do two things; honor our mother and father and to keep the seventh day Holy; these tow can be expressed in the negative also; do not profane God or His Seventh day and do not profane our mother and father.

Keeping the Law (inwardly and outwardly) is required; but how does not doing constitute doing? Keeping the Law is what a person does, everything a person does; not keeping God's Law is also what other people do, everything they do; there is no such thing as no Law kept, unless the person was insane. So watching a man of God keep the Law what you would see is him living his life, which will include stumbling and repenting.

If you read the Torah (the 613 laws of Moses) you will find that most of it is external. It is not solely focused on externals, but Jesus defined attitudes far more than the Mosaic Law did. Remember it is 613, not just the ten written on stone which were a ministry of death!

 

[Dkh587]

Matthew 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Gods Word hath corrected you!

Every woman is designed for a certain man! So lusting after a single woman is in Gods omniscient view commtting adultery with someones wife.

And you are correct that singles having sex is not adultery- it is fornication which is illicit sex which is sexual sin.

Yes David committed Adultery with Bathsheeba. Jesus added that even desiring her, even if you do not consumate the desire is still adultery!

Adultery is biblically defined as a sexual relationship between a married woman, and a man other than her husband - the sin of adultery is dependent on the marital status of the woman.

When the Messiah talks about adultery, he does so with the correct view of what adultery is, in order to expound further on the commandment. When he speaks of a woman in the discussion of adultery, it’s automatically speaking of a married woman, not a single woman. If you don’t understand what adultery is, you won’t understand his teaching about desiring a woman in your heart.

it’s nonsense to think it’s adultery for a single man to desire a single woman, because she might be another man’s wife in the future. No prophet or apostle ever taught such a thing.

Adultery, even spiritual adultery, is always depicted as a woman having sex with a man other than her husband, even in the OT - when Israel went and worshipped other gods, Israel was likened to a woman who was whoring around on her husband.

And yes, singles having sex is fornication, and fornicators will not inherit the kingdom.

 

[sparow]

If you read the Torah (the 613 laws of Moses) you will find that most of it is external. It is not solely focused on externals, but Jesus defined attitudes far more than the Mosaic Law did. Remember it is 613, not just the ten written on stone which were a ministry of death!

It is interesting that you raise this point given the topic of the thread which is to do with the semantics involved in the writing of and reading of the Holy Scriptures. The Pharisees or their predecessors divided out 613 laws; had Moses done it, it would still be wrong; it constitutes adding to and subtracting from what God has given. The ten Commandments are an abstract and the two great commandments are more abstract, but both cover the same infinite extravaganza of behavior, and to divide out 613 demonstrates a lack of understanding and is almost as bad or worse than abrogating the whole Law.

Ministry of death: really; this is a criticism of God's way. The blood covenant requires the blood of the offender to be shed when the covenant is broken; with repentance God allows a substitute blood to be she for the remission of sin; other wise it is the second death.

 

[nolidad]

It is interesting that you raise this point given the topic of the thread which is to do with the semantics involved in the writing of and reading of the Holy Scriptures. The Pharisees or their predecessors divided out 613 laws; had Moses done it, it would still be wrong; it constitutes adding to and subtracting from what God has given. The ten Commandments are an abstract and the two great commandments are more abstract, but both cover the same infinite extravaganza of behavior, and to divide out 613 demonstrates a lack of understanding and is almost as bad or worse than abrogating the whole Law.

Ministry of death: really; this is a criticism of God's way. The blood covenant requires the blood of the offender to be shed when the covenant is broken; with repentance God allows a substitute blood to be she for the remission of sin; other wise it is the second death.

REad your bible! God gave Moses 613 commands that are known as the Torah! ten were written on stone which are called the ministry of death! Paul said it- so you have a problem with the inspired writer of SCripture.

2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

Verse 7 is key! Read, learn and end your confusion!

 

[sparow]

REad your bible! God gave Moses 613 commands that are known as the Torah! ten were written on stone which are called the ministry of death! Paul said it- so you have a problem with the inspired writer of SCripture.

2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

Verse 7 is key! Read, learn and end your confusion!

Do you know the 613 Laws?

The 613 Commandments (Mitzvot)

Now I know 2 who call the covenant (that confirmed in, and by Christ) a ministry of death; yourself and Paul, (I believe Paul is misquoted); I call the law “the ministry of life”.

If I were a Corinthian 2000 years ago I may know and understand what he was saying; as it is Paul has noting to do with me.

 

[nolidad]

Do you know the 613 Laws?

The 613 Commandments (Mitzvot)

Now I know 2 who call the covenant (that confirmed in, and by Christ) a ministry of death; yourself and Paul, (I believe Paul is misquoted); I call the law “the ministry of life”.

If I were a Corinthian 2000 years ago I may know and understand what he was saying; as it is Paul has noting to do with me.

So what yuo are saying is that all bibles are in error.

Paul also said we are no loinger under the law in Galatians.

The writer of Hebrews in citing Jeremiah said the old Covenant (the Torah or Mitzvot) has passed away and replaced by the new covenant which is based on the blood of Jesus!

So now show your evidence that all Bibles are quoting a lie in corinthians! Remember all ancinet texts and the writings of the ancient church fathers all affirm this passage as true! So you need to show evidence he was misquoted by (most likely Luke) or get rid of your feelings and stand with the Word of God!

 

[sparow]

So what yuo are saying is that all bibles are in error.

Paul also said we are no loinger under the law in Galatians.

The writer of Hebrews in citing Jeremiah said the old Covenant (the Torah or Mitzvot) has passed away and replaced by the new covenant which is based on the blood of Jesus!

So now show your evidence that all Bibles are quoting a lie in corinthians! Remember all ancinet texts and the writings of the ancient church fathers all affirm this passage as true! So you need to show evidence he was misquoted by (most likely Luke) or get rid of your feelings and stand with the Word of God!

I say all Bibles contain human errors, errors by scribes and translators; even if this wasn't the case there would be error in the way these would be read.
I am not a disciple of Paul, but Paul was a facetious keeper of the Law, so when he said he was no longer under the law, what did he mean; there is a concept here that Paul seems to have created; and there are many issues that determine the context in which Paul spoke; many of the Jewish elements wanted to keep to keep their Pharisee system alive; Jesus accused the Pharisees of making the Law a heavy burden, the Law was not naturally that way; Solomon said, it is more profitable to keep the Law than not.


You quote the Part of Hebrews which is in error; Hebrews states that the Law (a portion of the Law) had to be changed in order for Christ to be a High Priest, implying Jesus was not a Levite. Looking at Jesus's Genealogy He was as much a Levite as He was a Jew; He also has gentiles and prostitutes in His lineage.


The Laws governing the Priesthood have not changed; the application of the Law has changed; the duties of the High Priest is performed once, not for an instance in time but each individual performance reaches across eternity or at least until the end of time; no longer performed daily or monthly or annually; and is still performed in accordance with established Law..

Jesus was the Lamb of God since the foundation; his blood (God's blood) is the blood of the OT also.

For the purpose of this discussion, the authenticity of Corinthian is not questioned but rather the interpretation of it, which can be in error without being a lie.

 

[nolidad]

I say all Bibles contain human errors, errors by scribes and translators; even if this wasn't the case there would be error in the way these would be read.
I am not a disciple of Paul, but Paul was a facetious keeper of the Law, so when he said he was no longer under the law, what did he mean; there is a concept here that Paul seems to have created; and there are many issues that determine the context in which Paul spoke; many of the Jewish elements wanted to keep to keep their Pharisee system alive; Jesus accused the Pharisees of making the Law a heavy burden, the Law was not naturally that way; Solomon said, it is more profitable to keep the Law than not.


You quote the Part of Hebrews which is in error; Hebrews states that the Law (a portion of the Law) had to be changed in order for Christ to be a High Priest, implying Jesus was not a Levite. Looking at Jesus's Genealogy He was as much a Levite as He was a Jew; He also has gentiles and prostitutes in His lineage.


The Laws governing the Priesthood have not changed; the application of the Law has changed; the duties of the High Priest is performed once, not for an instance in time but each individual performance reaches across eternity or at least until the end of time; no longer performed daily or monthly or annually; and is still performed in accordance with established Law..

Jesus was the Lamb of God since the foundation; his blood (God's blood) is the blood of the OT also.

For the purpose of this discussion, the authenticity of Corinthian is not questioned but rather the interpretation of it, which can be in error without being a lie.

Well seeing as you have openbly declared the Bible is filled with errors by scribes and translators (I do as well , but none that affect doctrine) I suspect that whenever I post verses you will do what you just did, say you believe it wrong or accuse the Apostle or writer of being in error.

But you are wrong about Hebrews! It was the Mosaic Covenant that had to pass away! It was not a portion or part! The writer says the old covenant has passed. Just like Jeremiah said, so I am sure you will blame translators for misquoiting Jeremiah as well!

I await your evidence to show why these are in error and what th ecorrect is!

 

[sparow]

Well seeing as you have openbly declared the Bible is filled with errors by scribes and translators (I do as well , but none that affect doctrine) I suspect that whenever I post verses you will do what you just did, say you believe it wrong or accuse the Apostle or writer of being in error.

But you are wrong about Hebrews! It was the Mosaic Covenant that had to pass away! It was not a portion or part! The writer says the old covenant has passed. Just like Jeremiah said, so I am sure you will blame translators for misquoiting Jeremiah as well!

I await your evidence to show why these are in error and what th ecorrect is!

You want me to be a legalist and I do not engage at that level. You mention doctrine, I assume you mean doctrine of men. Even if the translations were perfect people would still read it differently; that doesn't have to be a problem unless one is a legalist.

The common error is calling the covenant "the Mosaic covenant"; if the covenant was called God's covenant then the word new may not be confusing. From memory Jeremiah mentions three differences regarding the new covenant; the new covenant would be better; the sins of the father would not be perpetuated for three generations; the new covenant would be written on the heart and mind by God. In the old covenant men had to write the law on their own heart and mind. What made the covenant better, Jeremiah did not elaborate on this, was that God was the mediator of it. The new covenant was made with the lost sheep of Israel; lost in the sense their names were not in the Book of life; the new covenant gives those who missed out the first time a second chance; as prophesied in the OT the Law (covenant) is extended to the Gentiles.

There are differences in the administration but the Law remains the same.

I do not believe the Bible is full of error; but translations always have a bias from preconception; my job is to make allowances for that.

What original documents that made it into the Christian Bibles was determined by a Roman Governor and a Christian church prepared to be led by a Roman Governor; That includes the OT; the Roman Governor does not have the authority to make Paul's epistle the word of God.

Hebrews only speaks of the Law being changed to allow Christ to be a High Priest; anything in excess of that is assumption.

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV)
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

This verse doesn't bother me; it does not mean what you assume. No verse in scripture can be taken out of the context in which it is given. There are a number of contexts that could be considered; the writer of Hebrews implies Jeremiah meant that the first was obsolete; in this context, and in regard to whom Jeremiah speaks, the first was obsolete, they were no longer in covenant with God , so the need for the covenant to be renewed. Another context is Hebrews is a part of a lager private conversation where the context is not know but the second party in the conversation does not understand the significance of Christ and His confirming of the covenant; this party wants to continue killing sheep; this statement (Hebrews 8:13, could be an argument in a debate context but not a universal statement. When Christ came the old covenant was obsolete for those who were not in covenant with God, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but there were people who were on covenant with God and for these the covenant was active; else Christ would not have had a covenant to confirm. Who was keeping the covenant when Jesus came; Marry and her parents were; John the Baptist and his parents were; the fathers were Priests.

For Hebrews 8:13, to be universal and true, “obsolete” would need to be changed to suspended, because Christ has not finished confirming it yet.

 

[nolidad]

You want me to be a legalist and I do not engage at that level. You mention doctrine, I assume you mean doctrine of men. Even if the translations were perfect people would still read it differently; that doesn't have to be a problem unless one is a legalist.

No I mean the Doctrines of God as laid down in the Word

This verse doesn't bother me; it does not mean what you assume. No verse in scripture can be taken out of the context in which it is given. There are a number of contexts that could be considered; the writer of Hebrews implies Jeremiah meant that the first was obsolete; in this context, and in regard to whom Jeremiah speaks, the first was obsolete, they were no longer in covenant with God , so the need for the covenant to be renewed. Another context is Hebrews is a part of a lager private conversation where the context is not know but the second party in the conversation does not understand the significance of Christ and His confirming of the covenant; this party wants to continue killing sheep; this statement (Hebrews 8:13, could be an argument in a debate context but not a universal statement. When Christ came the old covenant was obsolete for those who were not in covenant with God, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but there were people who were on covenant with God and for these the covenant was active; else Christ would not have had a covenant to confirm. Who was keeping the covenant when Jesus came; Marry and her parents were; John the Baptist and his parents were; the fathers were Priests.

There is only one context to be considered- what was written and how it was written! It cannot refer to a people for the subject is a covenant! And we call it th eMosaic Covenant to differentiate it from the other covenants God made with thenation of Israel (Abrahamic, Land and Davidic). They are all Gods covenants!

Teh second context you hypothesize is also false. The writer is exhorting Jews who are living around Jerusalem between 66-70 AD. Based on teh language uses- the letter is to Jews who were fellowshipping with Jewish Christians but mayu have not given their lives to Christ. Teh Writer was encouraging them to go all the way! And showing the supremacy of Christ over the old covenant which has passed away while all the aspects of the new covenant have not yet been fulfilled.

No I do not think you a legalist. And you must remember that teh Mosaic Covenant was never given to bring salvation to any Jew or proselyte to Judiasm. Gods method of salvation has always been by grace through faith!

 

[sparow]

No I mean the Doctrines of God as laid down in the Word



There is only one context to be considered- what was written and how it was written! It cannot refer to a people for the subject is a covenant! And we call it th eMosaic Covenant to differentiate it from the other covenants God made with thenation of Israel (Abrahamic, Land and Davidic). They are all Gods covenants!

Teh second context you hypothesize is also false. The writer is exhorting Jews who are living around Jerusalem between 66-70 AD. Based on teh language uses- the letter is to Jews who were fellowshipping with Jewish Christians but mayu have not given their lives to Christ. Teh Writer was encouraging them to go all the way! And showing the supremacy of Christ over the old covenant which has passed away while all the aspects of the new covenant have not yet been fulfilled.

No I do not think you a legalist. And you must remember that teh Mosaic Covenant was never given to bring salvation to any Jew or proselyte to Judiasm. Gods method of salvation has always been by grace through faith!

I am not sure what you mean by doctrine; God's word is doctrine, found mostly in the OT; in as far as the Bible is God's word it is God's doctrine or teaching. God does not teach one thing at one time and then an alternate thing another time.

If the Bible called God's covenant "Mosaic covenant", I would; I can allow that the covenant as it was given to Moses can be discussed separately; God's covenant is one but revealed across time.

Of course people were saved during the OT, Abraham and David for sure. Faith I understand but Grace seems to be to do with the metaphysical.

 

[nolidad]

I am not sure what you mean by doctrine; God's word is doctrine, found mostly in the OT; in as far as the Bible is God's word it is God's doctrine or teaching. God does not teach one thing at one time and then an alternate thing another time.

If the Bible called God's covenant "Mosaic covenant", I would; I can allow that the covenant as it was given to Moses can be discussed separately; God's covenant is one but revealed across time.

Of course people were saved during the OT, Abraham and David for sure. Faith I understand but Grace seems to be to do with the metaphysical.

The New Testament is vastly different than the Old testament as far as doctrine goes. It is called the Mosaic covenant simply because the 613 commands of that covenant were given by God to Moses! Just like we call the covenant in Eden the Adamic Covenant because it was a covenant God made with Adam!

Of course God has taught one thing at one time and another at another time! The people of God in the New TEstament are nos under the dietary restrictions God commanded Israel to live by.

We no longer stone adulterers and adulteresses! and many more.

All Scripute is equally inspired, but all SCripure is not equally applicable.!

 

[Dkh587]

The New Testament is vastly different than the Old testament as far as doctrine goes. It is called the Mosaic covenant simply because the 613 commands of that covenant were given by God to Moses! Just like we call the covenant in Eden the Adamic Covenant because it was a covenant God made with Adam!

Of course God has taught one thing at one time and another at another time! The people of God in the New TEstament are nos under the dietary restrictions God commanded Israel to live by.

We no longer stone adulterers and adulteresses! and many more.

All Scripute is equally inspired, but all SCripure is not equally applicable.!

God didn’t make the covenant at Sinai with Moses, he made the covenant with Israel.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that it’s the Israelite covenant, and not Mosaic? Moses was the mediator, and as part of Israel, he was part of the covenant, but the covenant was not made with him.

unlike the other covenants, which were made with specific people, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, David... the covenant at Sinai is different because it was made with a group of people and not 1 man.

 

[nolidad]

God didn’t make the covenant at Sinai with Moses, he made the covenant with Israel.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that it’s the Israelite covenant, and not Mosaic? Moses was the mediator, and as part of Israel, he was part of the covenant, but the covenant was not made with him.

unlike the other covenants, which were made with specific people, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, David... the covenant at Sinai is different because it was made with a group of people and not 1 man.

You can call it the Qumquat covenant if you wish. Much of Christianity refers to it as the Mosaic so I do! This isn't about getting into a spitting contest over what to call it! It is about what it was and how it is now fulfilled and made null.

Moses went up and received th ecovenant. Calling it is simply to differentiate it from the other covenants. It is not a big theological harangue!

 

[Dkh587]

You can call it the Qumquat covenant if you wish. Much of Christianity refers to it as the Mosaic so I do! This isn't about getting into a spitting contest over what to call it! It is about what it was and how it is now fulfilled and made null.

Moses went up and received th ecovenant. Calling it is simply to differentiate it from the other covenants. It is not a big theological harangue!

No need to go on a tirade, just asking a simple question based on what you posted.