Saturday or Sunday Church?

[Leaf473]

@Soyeong

About delighting in Torah,

Amen! And as you say, the circumstances of a particular commandment may not have been met. And it sounds like we agree that it's up to us to decide for ourselves what circumstances have been met.

And that should wrap it up for post 848.

Peace be with you, Soyeong!

 

[Leaf473]

The topic of Romans 14 stated in the first verse is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow what God has commanded, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as suggesting that obedience to God is optional. For example, God gave no command to fast twice a week, yet that had become a common practice in the 1st century, where people were passing judgment on and resting each other based on disputable matters of opinion (Luke 18:12), and it was exactly this sort of behavior that Paul was addressing in this chapter. However, God has commanded to keep the Sabbath holy, so whether we do that is not a disputable matter of opinion, but a matter of obedience to God. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, break the Sabbath, rape, kidnap, or disobey any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok, but rather that was only said in regard to issues that are disputable matters of opinion.

For example, in Romans 14:1-3, Paul spoke about those who only vegetables as a meal, however, God has given no command eat only vegetables, so whether to do that is a disputable matter of opinion. It is likely that some Jews who were at a community meal who didn't know how the meat had been slaughtered would have been of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten rather than risk eating something that had been previously offered to idols.

In Romans 14:5-6, they were speaking about eating or refraining from eating from the Lord, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting as a disputable matter of opinion. They were even passing judgement on each other over which two days of the week they chose to fast (Didache 8:1-2). However, God has commanded to fast on Yom Kippur, so whether someone does that is not a disputable matter of opinion, but a matter of obedience to God. So the Sabbath was not specifically mentioned once in Romans 14 precisely because it had nothing to do with the issue that Paul was discussing. The reason why we are to keep the Sabbath holy is not because man esteemed it as a matter of opinion, but because God rested on it, blessed it, made it holy, and command His people to keep it holy. Furthermore, what is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we would still be obligated to keep the Sabbath holy even if God had never commanded anyone to do that.

What was only said against following man's opinions should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying God as if Paul were not a servant of God. However, the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so even if it were correct that Paul was speaking against obeying God, then we must obey God rather than Paul, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God who never spoke against obeying anything that He has commanded.

I believe what you have presented there is a particular interpretation of the passage.

And I think that's what Paul is talking about, interpretations.

They were different interpretations of the law back then, even as there are today.

The word translated Opinions there means something like thoughts and inner reasonings... basically interpretations.

I talked about this in a previous post, but I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you notice in my posts it’s prefaced with “if” you think Jesus broke the Sabbath, than by default that is calling Jesus a sinner. I asked you if you thought Jesus broke the Sabbath, so we could clear it up, but I didn’t get a response. I think most people on here thought the same thing from your post, so if you do not think Jesus broke the Sabbath, it might be better to phase your post in a way so people don’t think thats what you are insinuating. Anyway, if thats not what you meant, my apologies and I hope its not what you meant.

Posts 853 and 858 have no 'if's'

It is a direct accusation that I called Jesus a sinner.

We should dialogue with mutual respect, and not resort to such accusations.

 

[Leaf473]

Please edit your posts to quote just what you are responding to rather than quoting my entire post multiple times to respond with just a few lines at a time. Sorry, I think that the post that you were replying to had an extra end quote that is throwing off you quoting it.

Yep, it sure did. It was the extra /QUOTE.

I believe I fixed them all by now. Please let me know if I missed one

 

[Leaf473]

Please quote just what you responding to rather than quoting my entire post to repond with a line.. In any case, Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal, so that is something that is directedly stated. So any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid, and if that were to ever change, then all of God's righteous laws would not be eternal. For example, the circumstances under which sex counts as adultery can change, but it will always be against God's nature to commit adultery.



In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God wanted His people to circumcise their hearts and obey His commandments. In Deuteronomy 30:1-8, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah. In Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, the content is in regard to the Israelites returning from exile and the New Covenant, where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us to obey the Torah, and where He will put the Torah in our minds and write it on our hearts, so they are describing God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew, and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah.



The issue of whether or not it is idolatry to eat meat offered to idols from the altar to to eat at home meat that had previously been offered to idols is a different topic than issue of whether we are permitted to eat unclean animals. Paul said nothing about eating unclean animals, so you should not insert that into what he was talking about and then interpret him as speaking against obeying what God has commanded. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man man, so when God has spoken against eating unclean animals, then even if it were a correct interpretation that Paul was speaking against obeying God, then we must obey God rather than Paul.



I'm pretty sure, though I'd have to look more into it. I know that provisions were made for people who were traveling from far away to exchange their tithe for money to be used to purchase what they needed when they God to the place where God would put His name, but it is not clear that it is meant for those outside of the land. A number of laws are conditional about living in the land.



I'm not sure what you are asking about today being what. People should join communities of believers and live in accordance with the rulings of the authorities of that community so that there is unity rather than everyone deciding for themselves.



Sorry about that.

If you want me to quote just the part that I'm responding to, please make very short posts.

It's very difficult for me to deal with long posts on my cell phone, especially the particular model that I have.

Just attempting to copy a section of a long post can be very frustrating.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Posts 853 and 858 have no 'if's'

It is a direct accusation that I called Jesus a sinner.

We should dialogue with mutual respect, and not resort to such accusations.

All of the posts had a clause

Post 853:
Jesus never sinned and kept all of the commandments, including the Sabbath. To indicate otherwise it is to say Jesus sinned.

Post 858

If you say Jesus broke the Sabbath, that is accusing Him of sin 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, which Jesus never sinned, He never broke the Sabbath Luke 4:16 or any of His Father's commandments.

I wanted to clear this up which is why I asked a simple, direct question which so far you have not answered. I know if I wrote a post that if several people took the wrong way on something as important as this, I would want to clear it up.

 

[Carl Emerson]

accusing Jesus of sinning and taking the side of the Pharisees who crucified Christ without a cause.

How can you claim that to say such a thing about a member is not a serious breach of mutual respect?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

How can you claim that to say such a thing about a member is not a serious breach of mutual respect?

Than why not just answer the question so we can move on? Several people interpreted your post the same way I did, and thus far, you have not really wanted to clear it up. Would you care to answer the question- do you think Jesus broke the Sabbath?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Nonsense - please be honest...

I said "Jesus broke the rules as the religious of the day perceived them"

You turned it into me calling Jesus a sinner - this is a serious accusation I suggest you retract.

Here I even underlined the key phrase in my quote and you still accuse me of calling Jesus a sinner - what's up with that ???

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Here I even underlined the key phrase in my quote and you still accuse me of calling Jesus a sinner - what's up with that ???

I apologize for misunderstanding you. A few people came to the same conclusion so it wasn't really clear and when asked by at least two different people, you did not try to clear it up. I'm not really sure I understand the context of your original post and how it applies to the point you were trying to make, but I am very glad to hear you do not think Jesus broke the Sabbath and again my apologies for my misunderstanding.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I asked those questions because you had not, or if you had, then I missed it, for which I apologize. I see those as rather glaring flaws in how the Bible is interpreted by mainstream theology. Perhaps those issues can be reconciled and I am incorrect to see them as flaws, or perhaps I am correct to see those as flaws, and an interpretation that avoids those flaws should be preferred, but in any cast the matter should be investigated rather than ignored.

Not ignored, but examined and dismissed. Either they were dismissed because they don't apply to New Covenant Christianity, or all of the Church fathers, elders and teachers from the beginning onward decided to put themselves and everyone else in great jeopardy.

For example, when God has commanded to keep the 7th day holy and mainstream Christianity teaches against doing that, they are teaching against obeying God.

Why would they do that? What's been their goal? To commit spiritual suicide?

In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had already sinned by committing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and nothing in the passage was discouraging them from trying to obey the law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying the law more consistently in a way that avoided favoritism. This is by far the verse that I've seen most commonly taken out of context to make a point that has nothing to do with the point that James was making.

So in living under the Old Covenant Law God gave to Moses, it's okay to not keep the whole law. Or put another way, it's okay to ignore and dismiss hundreds of laws just as long as you go to church on Saturday.

 

[BobRyan]

they don't apply to New Covenant Christianity

"new Covenant Christianity" has the LAW of God written on heart and mine - according to the new covenant.

Heb 8:6-12

He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care about them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful toward their wrongdoings,
And their sins I will no longer remember.”

 

[Carl Emerson]

I apologize for misunderstanding you. A few people came to the same conclusion so it wasn't really clear and when asked by at least two different people, you did not try to clear it up. I'm not really sure I understand the context of your original post and how it applies to the point you were trying to make, but I am very glad to hear you do not think Jesus broke the Sabbath and again my apologies for my misunderstanding.

OK we are plenty of room to move... 70 x 7 - 1 = 489 and then there is tomorrow...

So should I refer back to Mark 2 and comment on what was going on ???

 

[SabbathBlessings]

OK we are plenty of room to move... 70 x 7 - 1 = 489 and then there is tomorrow...

Agreed!

So should I refer back to Mark 2 and comment on what was going on ???

I think @BobRyan cleared it up here Saturday or Sunday Church?

Have a great evening! God bless and until next time.

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK this is what I said when things turned to custard...

============
Are you saying that God can't inspire His Saints to righteousness.

They have to read ancient rules for an ancient culture and follow them to the letter to be righteous or be damned?

What happened to God in us inspiring us to righteousness?

God inspired Jesus to righteousness.

Jesus broke the rules as the religious of the day perceived them.
============

Now this last line above was the issue.

Looking at Mark 2...

23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

Here we see the prevailing opinion of the religious leaders regarding the Law being dismissed by Jesus.

However He says more than that.

The author of the Law has higher authority than the Law itself.

So if new covenant believers are indwelled by the Author of the Law, then His Living Word within is better than the written Law which was subject to human interpretation.

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong
About circumstances changing, that's why the law changes.

Or, if one perceives the law as eternal, how it is applied to changes.

Again, the Bible directly says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so that is not a matter of perception. For example, it is eternally against God's righteousness to commit murder and the circumstances under which killing someone counts are murder will never change, but whether it is right to kill someone is circumstantial. We are held innocent if in the middle of the night we strike a thief who broke in and they die and that will never change to becoming guilty if we do that. Likewise, if it were to ever change so that it became in accordance with God's righteousness to commit murder, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. We can be confident regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any, and no matter how many covenants God makes or that become obsolete that it will always be sinful to commit murder.

@Soyeong

About Jesus saying he didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets,

He goes on to say Until... and that's the key idea imo.

Jesus said that not the least part would disappear until heaven and earth disappear and that all is accomplished, which are either both referring to end times (Revelation 21:1) or are idioms for saying that it is never going to happen. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can't be abolished through first abolishing God's eternal righteousness.

@Soyeong

About Paul possibly referring to man-made laws at the end of 1 Corinthians 14,

It makes no sense to me to think that Paul would place Christian women under man-made laws.

Why?

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

@Soyeong

About the four laws in Acts 15 being four categories of laws, then it doesn't fit that they were just the starting point imo. Who knows what all laws could be fit into those four categories?

66 laws is still a much easier starting point than 613 laws. Do you think that 66 laws is too many for mature Gentiles believers to be able to keep?

@Soyeong

About the four laws in Acts 15 and 21,

The text just says it relates to gentiles. It doesn't split the gentiles into beginners and veterans.

In Acts 15:19, the point was to not make things too difficult for new believers who are turning to God, so that at least raises the question of whether it was intended to be an exhaustive list for mature believers or whether there is room for new believers to mature in their faith and learn more about how to love God and walk in His way by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21). Furthermore, there is evidence in places like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21 where Gentiles were expected to obey more than just the four things listed in Acts 15:20.

@Soyeong

About the works of The flesh in Galatians 5,

When Paul talks about doing them, he uses a word that means a regular event. I think he's talking about a lifestyle.

"...implying what is done as a regular practice – i.e. a routine or habit (cf. R. Trench)."
Strong's Greek: 4238. πράσσω (prassó) -- to do, practice

Indeed, we should not practice those things as a lifestyle, though the point still remains that there are more than the four things listed in Acts 15:20 that Gentiles are required to refrain from doing or else they will not inherit the Kingdom.

@Soyeong

About the law being for our instruction,

I agree! Possibly the only place we disagree is in how to apply it today.

Please give some examples where you justify your disagreement about how to apply it today.

@Soyeong

About travel in ancient times,

We know that it took Paul a long time to get back to Jerusalem on that final trip. Several months?

Suppose there was a devout family raising three or four teenagers. Do you honestly believe they were making that long trip every single time someone in the family had a "discharge"?

You probably wouldn't make it all the way back home before having to turn around again.
______________________
About Torah observant Jews not traveling to Jerusalem three times a year,

They're probably basing that on something in the oral Torah. Are you saying we also to follow the oral Torah, or just the written?

As far as the written Torah goes, I can't find any exception to not traveling three times a year for the feasts.

Didache 6:2 For if you are able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, what you are able that do.

In Deuteronomy 17:8-13, it forms the basis for the oral Torah. The verses that I cited for Paul instructing people to follow the traditions that they instructed refer to Jewish traditionary law, or in other words oral Torah. People should follow the Torah in the way that the elders of their community teach. The pilgrim festivals are also connected with the temple, and laws in regard to temple practice apply only when there is a temple in which to practice them.

I believe what you have presented there is a particular interpretation of the passage.

And I think that's what Paul is talking about, interpretations.

They were different interpretations of the law back then, even as there are today.

The word translated Opinions there means something like thoughts and inner reasonings... basically interpretations.

I talked about this in a previous post, but I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one.

Please explain why interpretations of Paul where he was teaching against obeying what God has commanded should be preferred over interpretations of Paul where he was teaching in accordance with what God has commanded. Paul was a servant of God, so he should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what He has commanded. Two people can have different interpretations about how to correctly obey what God has commanded while still being in complete agreement that followers of God should follow what God has commanded, so those are two separate issues that should not be blurred.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

OK this is what I said when things turned to custard...

============
Are you saying that God can't inspire His Saints to righteousness.

They have to read ancient rules for an ancient culture and follow them to the letter to be righteous or be damned?

What happened to God in us inspiring us to righteousness?

God inspired Jesus to righteousness.

Jesus broke the rules as the religious of the day perceived them.
============

Now this last line above was the issue.

Looking at Mark 2...

23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

Here we see the prevailing opinion of the religious leaders regarding the Law being dismissed by Jesus.

However He says more than that.

The author of the Law has higher authority than the Law itself.

So if new covenant believers are indwelled by the Author of the Law, then His Living Word within is better than the written Law which was subject to human interpretation.

What is not being said by Jesus is that we can break the Sabbath, so not sure if thats where you’re trying to get to, but Jesus taught we should keep His Father’s commandments Matthew 5:19-30, Matthew 15:3-9, John 15:10, Matthew 19:17-19, Matthew 14:15, not break them and was the perfect example of obedience as He was without sin. The Pharisees were teaching righteousness by their own works and not trusting in the works of God and His righteousness. We of course don’t obey the law to be saved, we should obey because we love God and through our love and faith, we want to obey what He asks and trust what He is asking is for our own good.

Once we know the truth and turn from it, it is willfully sinning. Hebrews 10:26-30 We can repent when we confess our sins and turn to Christ with a changed heart and walk in obedience to Him, but we should never put that off once we know the truth. Hence- "today" if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. Hebrews 3:15

The Holy Spirit can lead people to God’s righteousness when we do not harden our hearts to God’s Truth. John 17:17

 

[Soyeong]

Not ignored, but examined and dismissed. Either they were dismissed because they don't apply to New Covenant Christianity, or all of the Church fathers, elders and teachers from the beginning onward decided to put themselves and everyone else in great jeopardy.

You may not have ignored them, but you examining and dismissing them is not the same as explaining to me why those things makes sense to you.

Why would they do that? What's been their goal? To commit spiritual suicide?

The main stated goal is to honor the resurrection, though there are a number of other motivations, such as there being times when early Christians met on the 1st day, though that doesn't mean that they weren't also continuing to keep the 7th day holy. But regardless of their goal, the fact remains that God commanded His people to keep the 7th day holy and did not command to keep a different day holy instead. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to keep the 7th day holy and taught how to keep it holy through his interactions with the Pharisees on the topic, we are told to follow his example, and he did not command to keep a different day holy instead. So are we doing what God has commanded in accordance with what Christ taught by word and by example?

So in living under the Old Covenant Law God gave to Moses, it's okay to not keep the whole law. Or put another way, it's okay to ignore and dismiss hundreds of laws just as long as you go to church on Saturday.

I said nothing about it not being ok to keep the whole law or about dismissing hundreds of laws just as long as we go to church on Saturday, but rather I made the point that he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying the law more consistently, though even if I were taking the position that we should dismiss hundreds on laws and only need to keep the 7th day holy, that wouldn't mean that I was wrong about whether we should keep the 7th day holy. Furthermore, James was speaking to people who had faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, so he was speaking to New Covenant believers:

James 2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

 

[Soyeong]

OK this is what I said when things turned to custard...

============
Are you saying that God can't inspire His Saints to righteousness.

They have to read ancient rules for an ancient culture and follow them to the letter to be righteous or be damned?

What happened to God in us inspiring us to righteousness?

God inspired Jesus to righteousness.

Jesus broke the rules as the religious of the day perceived them.
============

Now this last line above was the issue.

Looking at Mark 2...

23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

Here we see the prevailing opinion of the religious leaders regarding the Law being dismissed by Jesus.

However He says more than that.

The author of the Law has higher authority than the Law itself.

So if new covenant believers are indwelled by the Author of the Law, then His Living Word within is better than the written Law which was subject to human interpretation.

The issue is that some laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. This is also why it was lawful to get a child or an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath.

Some of the Pharisees had reasoned that it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath and healing is work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, which is fairly straightforward, however, it does not take into consideration that we are also commanded to love our neighbor, it would not be loving our neighbor to refuse to heal them, and no command was intended to be understood as preventing the greatest two commandments from being obeyed, which is why Jesus ruled that it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath. His point was that the Sabbath is a gift from God that was made for our own good and was never intended to bring about situations that are for our detriment. He was speaking in regard to how to correctly keep the Sabbath, not speaking against obeying what God has commanded.

The group of Pharisees in Mark 2:23-28 would have been from the house of Shammai, which was not the prevailing opinion of the religions leaders. In regard to the debate between the house of Hillel and the house of Shamai, Jesus and the Talmud agreed with the house of Hillel in virtually all situations. FYI, Hillel was the grandfather of Gamaliel, who was Paul's rabbi (Acts 22:3).

 

[Soyeong]

OK we are plenty of room to move... 70 x 7 - 1 = 489 and then there is tomorrow...

So should I refer back to Mark 2 and comment on what was going on ???

Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Genesis 4:23-24 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. 24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.”