- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 09 2007,13:01) The doctrine makes sense of a lot of scripture.
It also seriously confuses others. I would say that the doctrine of the Trinity has solved what seems to be conflicts in scripture, or loose ends (for lack of better words). But there are certainly other ways that also make sense of a lot of scripture. That is what I love about this site – there are so many views.Quote (david @ June 09 2007,13:36) Quote I do not believe that Jesus preexisted, and so I am not welcome in the JW club either. Like I've said before, I'm a bit of a spiritual-misfit. Which suits me, really. So, you believe Jesus didn't exist until he was born on earth? May I ask why you believe this?
Sure, you can ask me anything David; however, my answers may not always satisfy you completely. I believe the gospel is simple. I believe the message that Jesus brought was easy enough for the disciples to understand (and that says a lot right there – these were not brilliant men like yourself and others here). I believe that words have meaning for a reason and we are not to change their meanings to suit our theories. Therefore, my approach to many spiritual subjects and lessons come with an ability to relate it to my own life and nature.With that said, you have asked me a loaded question, and I love it!
A few years ago I was studying John 1:1 in depth. I just couldn't “get it.” I had come to the conclusion already that Jesus wasn't God, himself, but he was the Son of God. So, what was up with John 1:1? Days went by as I pondered this. Weeks went by as I diligently pondered and met the Lord daily. Finally, one afternoon, I remember closing my Bible in a huff and folding my arms in frustration. I looked up a the sky and yelled, “I'm not going anywhere! I'm not leaving until you tell me! I want to know so badly….I'm not leaving. I'm going to keep coming back until you tell me what this means.” It was comical, really. Me telling God anything, right?
One morning not too long after that outburst, I woke up around 1 a.m. God gave me a vision of my husband and my son. “Father and Son,” God said to me. I couldn't hear God's voice – but you know when he is speaking to you. Well, I don't have to tell you that I got up immediately and grabbed my Bible and headed into the family room. I turned on a solitary light and got cozy on the couch for the long-awaited answer that I knew was coming…. And this is what God told me:
Before your son was born he was hidden within your husband. In this way, your son was your husband before he was born. John 1:1.
So it looks like this:
In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan.
God was telling me that he had a literal Son. Well, that changed everything as far as I was concerned. This meant that Jesus did not preexist; it meant that Jesus was not an incarnation of anything; it meant that Jesus was a “chip” off the old block – just like my son is almost the spitting image of his father.
So I went to bed around 4 a.m. and slept with a peace I have never experienced before then, and have never experienced since. I'm convinced that God's holy Spirit taught me what I was begging to know. And now I share it with you – accept it if you will.
Scripture that came to me through study after that seemed to line up everything God had shown me.
Working backwards, in Genesis 15, Abraham longed for a son. He told God that he would have to give his property to a servant because he did not have a son of his own. But God had another plan, he told Abraham, “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.” According to God, one can inherit an estate either by birth or by adoption. And this made sense to me because Jesus is a literal Son (true conception coming from God), and I am adopted; thus we are both legitimate children of God. On the other hand, if Jesus is an incarnation or even God himself come in the flesh……none of this makes sense.
Psalm 127:3
“Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them….”Quiver = case for arrows.
The parallel is given between “arrows” and “sons.” Obviously “arrows” are stored in a quiver. Where are “sons” stored?
Isaiah 49:2
“He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.”To me, this is the “how” Jesus was God in the beginning.
Jesus was hidden where? I think you get the idea…..
Isaiah 51:16
“I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand…”Isaiah 59:15,16
“Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intercede; so his own arm worked salvation for him…”Arm = offspring/salvation/power
God had a plan for someone who could intercede. Not just anyone – his own arm.
Isaiah 40:5
“And the glory of the LORD will be revealed and all mankind together will see it….”John 1:31
“I myself did not know him, but the reason I came….was that he might be revealed…”Luke 2:30
“For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people…”Jesus was conceived and born – we all know those verses. I confess, I have been interupted so many times during the course of this post, I'm not sure if it all makes sense or not? I will post this anyway, at least it gives a starting point to why I believe Jesus began his existence at conception. For further information on what I believe about this – visit the Conception and Preexistence threads where Nick and I have been discussing these very topics.
Quote I believe the gospel is simple. I believe the message that Jesus brought was easy enough for the disciples to understand (and that says a lot right there – these were not brilliant men like yourself and others here)
I too believe the gospel (good news) is simple. I believe those scriptures that speak of Jesus actually mean what they say. Comparing me to the Bible writers and saying I'm brilliant in any fashion is preposterous to the highest degree. But, if that was an attempt to be complementary, thanks.Quote I believe that words have meaning for a reason and we are not to change their meanings to suit our theories.
Exactly, so when we find the words “firstborn” we should take it to mean what it means all the other times we find that word. We shouldn't try to change it to mean first or best in creation. You are really, so far saying what I always say, when dealing with this subject.Quote With that said, you have asked me a loaded question, and I love it!
A few years ago I was studying John 1:1 in depth. I just couldn't “get it.” II'd suggest learning Greek. (Just kidding.)
Quote I had come to the conclusion already that Jesus wasn't God, himself, but he was the Son of God. So, what was up with John 1:1?
Perhaps what is “up” is that every single translator of all those Bible's believes in the trinity and so when they come to a verse like John 1:1 that can be translated literally “a god” (as some of the scholars who argue against the NWT have said) or it can be translated “God” (or Divine, etc.)
they always choose the one that suits THEIR theology, their beliefs.
Perhaps that is what is “up” with that. WE KNOW that certain Bible translations have messed with the trinity trying to insert thoughts and ideas that have no right whatsoever being there.Quote Before your son was born he was hidden within your husband. In this way, your son was your husband before he was born.
You lost me.
“your son WAS YOUR HUSBAND…”Quote So it looks like this: In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan.
The problem is that these are all names, and God isn't a name, it's a descriptive title. Ones who are not God can be called “gods” (such as angels, israelite judges, etc, because they are powerful ones and the word “god” essentially means “mighty one” in hebrew) Anyway, in John 1:1, the translation could just as well be “a god” as opposed to “God.” It is only on grounds of ones theology that people suggest it can't be translated this way. Numerous scholars who argue agains the “a god” translation have acknowledged this.Quote God was telling me that he had a literal Son. Well, that changed everything as far as I was concerned. This meant that Jesus did not preexist;
I don't see the connection or follow your logic here.Can you define “literal son.”
Quote On the other hand, if Jesus is an incarnation or even God himself come in the flesh……none of this makes sense.
Ya, I don't believe either of these two things. And, you're right, they wouldn't make sense.Quote For further information on what I believe about this – visit the Conception and Preexistence threads where Nick and I have been discussing these very topics.
Maybe I'll go there.MICAH 5:2
““And you, O Beth′le·hem Eph′ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.”JOHN 8:23
“So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world.”REVELATION 3:14
““And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,”COLOSSIANS 1:15-16
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.”JOHN 1:14
“So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.”JOHN 1:1
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”GENESIS 1:1
“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”GENESIS 1:26
“And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.””PROVERBS 8:22-31
““Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he
decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.”COLOSSIANS 1:15
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;”“The Word became flesh,” the apostle John testified, “and resided among us.”—John 1:1, 2, 14
John 17:5, RS: “[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” (Also John 8:23)
WHILE on earth, Jesus was a human, although a perfect one because it was God who transferred the life-force of Jesus to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:18-25) But that is not how he began. He himself declared that he had “descended from heaven.” (John 3:13) So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers: “What if you should see the Son of man [Jesus] ascend to where he was before?”—John 6:62, NJB.
Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.
Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was “the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was “the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). “Beginning” [Greek, ar·khe′] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe′ more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.” Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s invisible creations.
Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative “Wisdom” in the Bible book of Proverbs: “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB) While the term “Wisdom” is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence.
As “Wisdom” in his prehuman existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was “by his [God’s] side, a master craftsman.” (Proverbs 8:30, JB) In harmony with this role as master craftsman, Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus that “through him God created everything in heaven and on earth.”—Today’s English Version (TEV).
So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” (Italics ours.)—1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition.
It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the “us” and “our” in this expression indicate a Trinity. But if you were to say, ‘Let us make something for ourselves,’ no one would normally understand this to imply that several persons are combined as one inside of you. You simply mean that two or more individuals will work together on something. So, too, when God used “us” and “our,” he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus.
–Watchtower.Hi David, the reason you lost me was because the point you didn't understand was a simple one (easily missed by intellectual minds)……God is a Father. Before a father is a father, he holds within him the potential for his offspring (sperm). In this way, Jesus was God untl he was born and became his own person.
Nathan is our literal son.
JW's do believe in an incarnation (of sorts). They believe that Michael became Jesus. This makes Jesus not a true conception or literal Son of God. Why? You will have to do a study on conception to find that answer.
Quote Tim is definitly relunctant to have me be a part of the same family of God! Not3in1, I am not reluctant to have you be a part of the family of God. I would like very much for you to join the family of God. That is why I am telling you that your beliefs are wrong and you need to repent.
It has distressed me to listen to you talk about me on this forum without responding to me directly. I posted a message for you on this thread last week, trying to reach out to you so you understand where I'm coming from. Can you please respond to it?
Thanks,
TimQuote (Tim2 @ June 11 2007,16:38) Quote Tim is definitly relunctant to have me be a part of the same family of God! Not3in1, I am not reluctant to have you be a part of the family of God. I would like very much for you to join the family of God. That is why I am telling you that your beliefs are wrong and you need to repent.
It has distressed me to listen to you talk about me on this forum without responding to me directly. I posted a message for you on this thread last week, trying to reach out to you so you understand where I'm coming from. Can you please respond to it?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,Normally I would have let not3in1 respond and I hope she does but I must point out to you inquisitor Tim that your continued denying her salvation deserves a good slap up side the head. Just who died and made you God that you can judge a person's salvation. You went from just being irrational in your beliefs to playing the accuser of the brethren.
I find your comments disgusting and not even within the realms of any kind of social or Christian graces. As I said you do not know how to interpret scriptue and it is easily seen in that you do not know the heart of God.
Get over yourself.
Hi david,
You quote the watchtower.
“WHILE on earth, Jesus was a human, although a perfect one because it was God who transferred the life-force of Jesus to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:18-25) But that is not how he began. He himself declared that he had “descended from heaven.” (John 3:13) So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers: “What if you should see the Son of man [Jesus] ascend to where he was before?”—John 6:62, NJB.Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.
Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was “the first-born of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was “the beginning of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). “Beginning” [Greek, ar·khe′] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the ‘beginner’ of God’s creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe′ more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning.” Yes, Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s invisible creations.
Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative “Wisdom” in the Bible book of Proverbs: “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB) While the term “Wisdom” is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence.”
Is Christ so longer seen as Michael by the JWs now and only as Wisdom?
Is there any proof that Prov 8 refers to him when it speaks of wisdom.
He is called the wisdom of God but so is scripture and he is more than wisdom.Quote Is Christ so longer seen as Michael by the JWs now and only as Wisdom?
Is there any proof that Prov 8 refers to him when it speaks of wisdom.
He is called the wisdom of God but so is scripture and he is more than wisdom.Not3in1,
Hey Nick. Please go see one of the related threads. I have discussed both at great length.
Quote He is called the wisdom of God but so is scripture and he is more than wisdom.
No one is denying that.Quote Hi David, the reason you lost me was because the point you didn't understand was a simple one (easily missed by intellectual minds)……God is a Father.
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand. The Father / son relationship is one every human is familiar with.
You lost me when you said: “”your son WAS YOUR HUSBAND…””Quote Before a father is a father, he holds within him the potential for his offspring (sperm). In this way, Jesus was God until he was born and became his own person. The first sentence I understand. Before a person is a father, he holds the potential to be a Father.
Similarly, before a person is a dentist, or a chemist or an anything, he holds the potential to be those things.Quote Before a father is a father, he holds within him the potential for his offspring (sperm). In this way, Jesus was God until he was born and became his own person.
My problem is that if you take these two ideas and try to link them or substitue an analogy such as your husband or someone becoming a dentist, it doesn't really make sense to me.As well, these ideas you worked out are interesting, but we should let scripture interpret scripture. I gave you several scriptures, which seem to indicate that Jesus did exist before his human birth. Please do not sacrifice these to support your ideas.
Quote Before your son was born he was hidden within your husband. In this way, your son was your husband before he was born. John 1:1. So it looks like this:
In the beginning was Nathan, and Nathan was with Dan, and Nathan was Dan.
The thing is, when you say: “your son was your husband” what you really mean is that he was A PART of your husband. But when you say it like that, it seems to be that they are the same person.
I can eat a turkey club sandwich and that turkey club sandwich becomes a part of me, it's nutrients being taken into my body. But it is not me. It is only a part of me.
David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
Hi david,
You say
“Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are.”
In that case none of us are.
Eph3
“14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,”
Lk1
” 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. “I agree not3
Nick, tell me how many years I will have to study the Word to be able to pluck just the right scripture out of my head…….
Great passages in Eph and Luke!
Hi not3,
Just collect treasures you find on the path and store them in the storeroom.
The Spirit will remind you of them when you need them.Quote (Not3in1 @ June 12 2007,14:05) David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
Hi not3in1,
It may be interesting to understand the Hebrew perspective on the word Father. In the Hebrew language a name is not a identifier. In otherwords “father” is not a proper name. This concept is foreign to the Hebrew mind. To the Hebrew the term “father” literally means “one who gives strength to the family”. A name is a character trait to the Hebrews. For example; King David wuld be translated to the western mind as king = title and david = personal name. To the Hebrew it would mean King = one whio rules and David = one who is loved.. When A Hebrew reads King David they literally think one who rules and is loved.
When a Hebrew reads “father” they think the one who gives strength to the family.Quote (martian @ June 12 2007,14:32) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 12 2007,14:05) David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
Hi not3in1,
It may be interesting to understand the Hebrew perspective on the word Father. In the Hebrew language a name is not a identifier. In otherwords “father” is not a proper name. This concept is foreign to the Hebrew mind. To the Hebrew the term “father” literally means “one who gives strength to the family”. A name is a character trait to the Hebrews. For example; King David wuld be translated to the western mind as king = title and david = personal name. To the Hebrew it would mean King = one whio rules and David = one who is loved.. When A Hebrew reads King David they literally think one who rules and is loved.
When a Hebrew reads “father” they think the one who gives strength to the family.
But this “Father” that gives strength to the family ALSO got a girl pregnant!
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 12 2007,03:05) David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
So true!!GOD did NOT adopt Jesus!!
Jesus is truly His Son … And GOD is truly his Father!!Quote (Not3in1 @ June 12 2007,14:42) Quote (martian @ June 12 2007,14:32) Quote (Not3in1 @ June 12 2007,14:05) David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
Hi not3in1,
It may be interesting to understand the Hebrew perspective on the word Father. In the Hebrew language a name is not a identifier. In otherwords “father” is not a proper name. This concept is foreign to the Hebrew mind. To the Hebrew the term “father” literally means “one who gives strength to the family”. A name is a character trait to the Hebrews. For example; King David wuld be translated to the western mind as king = title and david = personal name. To the Hebrew it would mean King = one whio rules and David = one who is loved.. When A Hebrew reads King David they literally think one who rules and is loved.
When a Hebrew reads “father” they think the one who gives strength to the family.
But this “Father” that gives strength to the family ALSO got a girl pregnant!
Not3in1
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.I agree that God is a real father. He is the source of the sperm/seed that impregnated Mary. More then that, I believe, He also fathered Jesus as He grew up and taught Him as a good father does. There is reason why Jesus baffled the teachers at 12 y/o and it is not because He was God in the flesh. From a Hebrew perspective, many times in scripture God talks of Jesus being the perfect representation of God. Hebrews (even when writing in Greek) always wrote in the same concrete mindset. They spoke and wrote in parables and alligories. From this mindset is is easier to see that the Logos in John 1 is an expression of God or statement by God. In much the same way as you described your earthly family. My wife and I had a plan or idea in our hearts to have children. It was our intention to have children. Our motives were that we might love a child in our lives. This intention is innate in us. We all want to have or lives completed with children. When my wife had our first son, I could have said that my Logos/intention/expression of love, became flesh and dwelt with us. Jesus the human child became the son God started to create with Adam. For this reason Jesus is called the second Adam. In so many words, God restarted the clock with Jesus. He not only completed the task of growing and maturing a son with His character motives and intentions, but completed the process by which many sons (and daughters) can come to glory.
Quote David wrote:
No, I do realize God is called Father. Of course, he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand.**********************************************************
David,If you do not believe that God is a true Father, then I'm afraid I have lost all hope in trying to explain why Jesus is a true Son.
Quote So true!! GOD did NOT adopt Jesus!!
Jesus is truly His Son … And GOD is truly his Father!!Yes, I know! I know, Gos is truly his Son!
No question.
This is what I said and this was my point:
“Quote he's not a father just exactly as humans are. But it's a word he uses to describe himself so we limited humans can understand. It was Not3in1 that said of me: “you do not believe that God is a true Father.”
I did not say that I do not believe he is a “true father.” what I said was is that he is not a a father “JUST EXACTLY as humans are.”If we go back, you'll see Not3 giving interesting illustrations comparing sperm in his husband to…..
Anyway, this isn't what I said or at least, not what I meant.
Not3 was saying that the sperm in his husband WAS his husband, in the same way that Jesus was somehow in God and therefore God.
I don't think this analogy fits, but again, my point was that humans don't become Fathers in “EXACTLY” the same way Jehovah did. I think most encyclopedias will attest to that.
david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
