Posts by herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

Undisfellowshipped,

You wrote:

I am just notifying everyone that I am going to busy for a couple of days.

Just so you know, most of the rest of us are also very busy. We have full time jobs and other responsibilities, and some of us are fully occupied in this thread and others. So, the playing field is quite equal.

Contrary to what you said, I do understand what you were saying about Jesus and the Father being differentiated when they are mentioned in the same verses. The fact is that your argument has no merit. It proves nothing except that the Father and Jesus are two separate persons, something that non-Trinitarians believe very strongly.

You wrote:

Just because I did not explain my points very well on a few comments, and because I did post one point that was not very good (the Revelation 5:13 point), I don't think that should be a cause for people to accuse me of "being on drugs", "being dishonest", and "intentionally spreading falsehoods".

I wonder if you can get away from this. I've already explained why I wrote as I did. Your eyes should be open to the error on your side as well as on the other side. By continuing to show that your feelings are hurt, you give the impression of carrying a grudge. I'm sure you don't, so please try to move on.

The fact is, you were greatly mistaken in your explanation of Revelation 5:13. You tried to read something into it that isn't there, and that is one of my biggest complaints against Trinitarians. You people constantly do that, and then you try to turn the tables on us by telling us that we are the ones who are not reading the Bible correctly. And then, instead of admitting when they're wrong, Trinitarians often say something like, "Well, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly."

There is no reasonable person who will agree with your explanations of John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Again you are trying to force the texts to say something that they just don't. We should be willing to accept what the Scriptures simply say. I'll deal with 1 Corinthians 8:6 further down.

First, look at what you've done to John 17:3: Jesus was the speaker. He was praying to God his Father in heaven. He addressed him as "you." He called him "you, the only true God." But that isn't good enough for Trinitarians. They want Jesus to say what they believe, not what he believes. So they desperately try to find other passages in the Bible that will possibly water down Jesus' statement or put new meaning into it. How can they expect to truly know God and Christ if they continually try to force their own theories into the Scriptures?

And, then, they often misinterpret those other passages that they run to for support. For example, look closely at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16. You apply the titles "only Ruler" and "King of kings" to Christ. But even Trinitarian scholars do not do that. The New Living Translation, for example, says: "For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen."

Here's another example among many that could be mentioned: "His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords." (Todays English Version)

And still another: "The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in His own time. He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Your reference to Revelation 17:14 is not harmonious with Jesus' own statements about himself. Even before his death and resurrection he stated "All things have been delivered to me by my Father." (Matthew 11:27) He later said, "All authority has been given me." (Matthew 28:18) Ephesians 1:19-22, speaking of God, states: "He raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him as head over all things to the church." And Philippians 2:9 adds that "God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."

This easily explains why "the Lamb" is called "Lord of lords and King of kings." But such titles do not put him in the category of Almighty God. Elaboration is given at 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28: "For he has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all."

You and I have already discussed Revelation 15. But you ask who is the one in verse 4 who "alone is holy." As I've already explained in previous posts, that chapter makes plain that God is seated on the throne and the Lamb is in the vicinity of the throne as are other heavenly persons. The one who alone is holy is God the Father, not Christ, in that context. It isn't reasonable or scriptural to say that two or three persons are meant when just one of them is said to be "holy alone."

Acts 3:14 and Revelation 3:7 are superfluous as proofs that Christ is the one who "alone" is holy. Aside from Christ, others are called "holy ones." In fact, Jude 14 says, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones." That doesn't mean that God is composed of thousands of persons. And it also doesn't take away from the fact that God the Father is holy in a sense that is unique from the holiness of all other persons.

As for 1 Corinthians 8:6, why should you have a problem distinguishing between God and Lord? The text specifically states, "There is but one God, the Father." It does not say there are one God, the Father and the Son. Nor does it say there are one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It limits godhood to only one Person, namely, the Father. Then Paul adds, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

Now, please think for a moment: If "Lord" also means "God," then Paul was saying "There is one God, the Father, and there is one God, Jesus Christ." Obviously, in this context, God and Lord are not equivalents. Otherwise, Paul was teaching that there are two Gods. The only reason anyone would resort to even thinking that way is to prove a doctrine already preconceived. Instead, we should be eager to learn the true meaning and intent of what the Scriptures say.

When Jesus walked the earth, even persons who were not his disciples called him Lord. It was a title given to masters and to persons who were much admired for their wisdom. In none of those instances did the people view Jesus as the Almighty God. And so, to Christians, Jesus is our only Lord. He is such because of the position God gave to him, as explained by several texts that I referred to up above.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

Bruce Metzger is just about the most respected biblical scholar alive today. Who do you respect? You mentioned that there are other scholars, and you said they don't agree with Metzger. Well, what exactly do they say? The more you check into this, as I have, the more you will see that the majority agree with Metzger and not with you. You will also discover that the Textus Receptus and the KJV are simply loaded with flaws. At a time like this, when so many better translations are available, a person is surely handicapped by using the KJV. It is no way to know God and Christ as well as possible.

The majority of Bibles agree with Metzger, as illustrated by the following sampling. It should be noted that the last mentioned, the Wycliffe translation, is much older than the KJV.

He who was manifested in the flesh. (American Standard Version)
He was made visible in human flesh. (Amplified Bible, preferred rendering)
He who was seen in the flesh. (Bible in Basic English)
Christ came as a human. (Contemporary English Version)
Which was manifested in the flesh. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
He was manifested in the flesh. (English Standard Version)
He was manifested in the flesh. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
He who was revealed in the flesh. (New American Standard Bible)
He was shown to us in a human body. (New Century Version)
He appeared in a body. (New International Version)
Christ appeared in the flesh. (New Living Version)
He was revealed in flesh. (New Revised Standard)
He was manifested in the flesh. (Revised Standard Version)
He appeared in human form. (Today's English Version)
That thing that was showed in flesh. (Wycliffe's Translation)

The context doesn't support Trinitarianism at all. The apostle John is the speaker from verses 1 to 7. In verse 7 he quotes from the Old Testament concerning Christ. But Christ doesn't speak until verse 11. Another voice speaks in verse 8. You say it is Christ, but most translations show that it is God, not Christ. Then, the voice of John returns in verse 9.

Verse 8 says the Alpha and Omega is God the Amighty. In verse 11, the KJV seems to apply Alpha and Omega to Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 as spurious. It isn't found in the American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Todays English Version, and a host of other versions.

In verse 8, many Hebrew translations produced from 1599 to 1979 say "Jehovah" instead of "the Lord," showing clearly that over several centuries scholars have been aware that the verse does not apply to Christ.

Christian conquerors are "sons" of the Alpha and Omega, according to Revelation 21:6, 7. That is never said of the relationship between Christ and his followers. Jesus spoke of them as his "brothers," not his sons. (Matthew 12:50; 25:40; Hebrews 2:11) On the other hand, the "brothers" of Christ are referred to as "sons of God." (Galatians 3:26; 4:6) So, all the evidence supports the conclusion that the title Alpha and Omega applies to Almighty God, the Father, and not to the Son.

It isn't wise to reject the Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:26. For centuries they had the correct understanding. Jesus didn't change what Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and others believed. He said, "We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)

A plural noun in Hebrew is accompanied by plural verbs when the word is meant to be numerically plural. But Hebrew has another type of plural. In English we call it the plural of majesty. It isn't usually accompanied by plural verbs. Elohim when applied to God is such a word. It suggests the uniqueness of God, not that there is something plural about his nature or being. Persons who really want to know the truth about God will not reject this established fact about the Hebrew language, as if he or she knows the Hebrew language better than those who actually speak it.

It is only in the minds of Trinitarians that the singular for "name" in Matthew 28:19 means equality. Revelation 14:1 speaks of "the Lamb" and those "having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads." Their names are not the same. The Lord's prayer is addressed to the Father and asks that his name be hallowed. (Matthew 6:9) Jesus also has a name. (Matthew 1:21) The Father should not be called "Jesus," and the Son should not be called "Jehovah." Neither one bears the name "the Holy Spirit." It should be easy to see that Matthew 28:19 has a meaning very different than the one you choose to give it. It says nothing about equality, but speaks instead of basic teachings that must be accepted by those who are baptized.

Regarding 1 John 5:7 you wrote:

Notify me on what the "better translations" are.

The following are just some of many translations that omit the sentence: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

American Standard Version, Bible in Basic English, Contemporary English Version, Darby Translation, English Standard Version, Gods Word Translation, Hebrew Names Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Latin Vulgate, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Todays English Version, Wesleys New Testament, and World English Bible.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

Here's another one you haven't answered:

SwedishChef,

There is no evidence of a Trinity in Isaiah 44. The rendering you supplied is from the KJV. It should be obvious to the casual reader that something doesn't look right in the phrase "Thus saith the L ORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the L ORD of hosts." The natural inclination of a sincere Bible student is to try to make sense of this. First, he notes that the L ORD is the true King of Israel. But the redeemer - whose redeemer is he? Is he Israel's redeemer or the L ORD 's redeemer? He cannot be the L ORD 's redeemer since he is the L ORD himself. Thus we naturally conclude that he is Israel's redeemer. This makes sense, since Isaiah often in other places identifies the L ORD of Hosts as Israel's Redeemer. (41:14; 43:14; 44:24; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8; 60:16; 63:16)

In fact, this phrase or something similar is very common in Isaiah:

"I will help thee, saith the L ORD , and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (41:14)
"Thus saith the L ORD , your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (43:14)
"As for our redeemer, the L ORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel." (47:4)
"Thus saith the L ORD , thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (48:17)
"Thus saith the L ORD , the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One." (49:7)
"The L ORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel." (54:5)

So, Trinitarians are in error when they try to make the case that Jehovah the King of Israel is a person different from Jehovah of hosts, Israel's Redeemer. Checking other translations, we get a better rendering. For example, the NASB says at Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the L ORD , the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the L ORD of hosts."

If they are two separate persons, why are both named Jehovah when the name of the Son of God is Jesus, not Jehovah which is the name of the Father? Furthermore, where is the Holy Spirit in this picture? If there were a suggestion of two different persons, the most this text would indicate is that God is a binitary, not a Trinity.

This One Person who is the God of Israel then proceeds to say, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." In other words, Jehovah the Father is the first God; before him there was no Almighty God. And there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.

Somehow, SC, you jumped from Isaiah to Zechariah 2:11 with the rest of your text in quotes:

"And many nations shall be joined to the Lord [Jehovah] in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts hath sent me unto thee."

I suppose you intended to show that Jehovah is Jesus since Jehovah says to Israel "I will dwell in the midst of thee" and that they would know Jehovah "hath sent" him.

Here, again, a serious Bible student is puzzled at first due to the language. There is no problem in understanding how God would "dwell in the midst of thee," for he often said that in connection with the tabernacle and the temple. (Leviticus 26:2; Deuteronomy 23:14; Psalms 46:5; Isaiah 12:6) But, how could "the L ORD " be "sent" by "the L ORD "? Our understanding opens up when we discover who is actually speaking, as the following breakdown will show.

Verse 1: Zechariah ["I lifted up mine eyes"]
Verse 2: Zechariah and "a man" ["Then said I ... and he said unto me"]
Verse 3: Zechariah ["behold, the angel that talked with me"]
Verse 4: Zechariah and an angel ["said unto him ... speak to this young man"]
Verse 5: An angel quoting Jehovah ["For I, saith the L ORD "]
Verse 6-8: An angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 9: An angel who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me."
Verse 10: And angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 11-13: An angel ["and thou shalt know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee"]

So, it is an angel, not Jehovah himself, who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me." Seven times in Zechariah, an angel says something like that. (1:10; 2:8, 9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 7:12) This should also be noted: The angel was not predicting a future time when God would send someone. He was referring to a future realization that God had already sent his angels to Israel:

"Then said I, O my lord, what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the L ORD hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth. And they answered the angel of the L ORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest." (1:9-11)

Isaiah 44:24 is self-explanatory. Yes, "there is one independant creator," and he is Israel's L ORD and Redeemer.

I hope this is helpful.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

SwedishChef,

Here's one of the first posts you never answered:

SwedishChef,

Let's start with the first 5 passages you supplied. You seem eager to get away from them and eager to move on, even though you haven't proved a thing by mentioning them.

1 Timothy 3:16 - You said this is one of "countless" texts that prove Jesus is God. Your reason is that some translations say: "God was manifest in the flesh." However, Bruce M. Metzger wrote in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: "No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eigth or ninth century ... supports [theos]; all ancient versions presuppose [hos] or [ho]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading [theos]." Today, most translations show their disagreement with the KJV by omitting any reference to "God" in this text. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Simply by ignoring it? This is the first text you introduced to prove Jesus is God. How can we accept your interpretation of any other text if you choose to ignore the facts here? So, what is your response? And what scholarly support do you have?
Revelation 1:8 - It is plain from simply reading this verse that the Father, not Jesus, is the Alpha and Omega and the Lord God Almighty. Jesus is never called the Lord God Almighty. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Are you going to simply ignore the truth? Surely you had a reason for citing this verse! Why not show us how it proves your point. Or, could it be that you have no proof, after all?
Genesis 1:26 - Trinitarians and JWs say that God was speaking here to Christ. However, the Jews have long held that God was speaking to "all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left." (1 Ki 22:19-22; Job 38:7) So, how does this in any way "prove" that Jesus is God? How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Jesus said concerning the Jews, "we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22) Why do you choose to give preference to trinitarians who were not Jews and who came along centuries later with a different interpretation than the Jews had?
Matthew 28:19 - This verse simply mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It says nothing about them being God or equal persons within the Godhead. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Or, as in all the examples above, are you unable to give an answer?
1 John 5:7 - Up above, Navigator gave a fine explanation of why this verse is not found in all the better translations. Why do you choose to ignore something so vital to knowing the truth about God and Christ? How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Could it be you have no answer?

You wrote:

Herk how do you feel about the angel point raised by meadow? The first 2 Chapters of Hebrews seems to me to substantaite clearly the statement: SEE HEBREWS FOR REFUTATION TO JESUS AS AN ANGEL

I don't believe Jesus is an angel. By the way, Meadow77 hasn't answered my last post to her. I wonder if she ever will.

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

UnDisfellowshipped,

You wrote:

How do you know that Psalm 45:6 (or the whole Chapter of Psalms 45) is addressed to a Human King of Israel?

There are many Trinitarian scholars who say so. For example, a footnote in the NIV Study Bible states: "Ps 45 A song in praise of the king on his wedding day (see title). He undoubtedly belonged to David's dynasty, and the song was probably used at more than one royal wedding. Since the bride is a foreign princess (see vv. 10, 12), the wedding reflects the king's standing as a figure of international significance (see note on v. 9). Accordingly he is addressed as one whose reign is to be characterized by victories over the nations (vv. 3-5; cf. Ps 2; 110). As a royal son of David, he is a type (foreshadowing) of Christ."

The footnote for verse 6 says: "45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as 'god.' The Davidic king (the 'L ORD 's anointed,' 2Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; 1Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8-9)."

You wrote:

Please read Acts 2:25-31 to see how Prophecies like Psalm 45:6 about Christ were stated in the Bible.

As I'm sure you are aware, Acts 2 says nothing about Psalm 45. Are we to understand that nothing in the Psalms applies to the people who lived during the period when it was being written? As shown by the NIV Study Bible, Psalm 45:6 is not a prophecy in particular. It was written for special occasions in the ceremonies of ancient Israel.

You wrote:

Hmmm, well, I would the majority of Translations I have do not include the word "Him". The King James Version and a couple other Translations I have do include the word "Him", but about 17 Translations I have do not.

A quick reading of Revelation 5 shows there is only one person sitting upon the throne. See verse 7 and also verses 1 and 13 as I mentioned:

The One sitting upon the throne that is surrounded by the angels is not the Lamb. It is God. (Verses 1, 13)

I asked if you would agree with Peter's answer to Jesus' question on who Jesus is. You didn't answer the question. You threw two other texts at me that have nothing to do with Peter's answer. So, the question remains: Was Peter correct when he did not say Jesus is God? Was he wrong when he said Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God? What is your answer? You know, of course, that if you say Peter was wrong, then you are saying God is wrong, since Jesus told Peter that his answer came from God.

What Thomas said was a different story. We can discuss that another time. I just wish you would stick with what we've been dealing with so far, instead of frequently changing the subject.

Will you answer the questions I've raised in this post? (1) Were the kings of Israel addressed as God, and if so, did that mean they were actually God himself? (2) If Jesus was addressed as God in the same way that Israel's kings were addressed, does that prove he is God himself? (3) Will you acknowledge that the "him" who is worshipped in Revelation 5 is God and not the Lamb, as shown by the fact that only God is sitting upon a throne and only the one on the throne is rendered worship? (4) Will you acknowledge that Peter was correct in his identification of Jesus, not as God, but as the promised human Messiah, the Son of God?

Herk

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

herk

UnDisfellowshipped,

I carefully read what you wrote and I'm convinced most persons would understand you just as I did. When you said "most of the time" and "whenever," I can hardly be blamed for taking you at your word. I responded accurately when I showed you that in all cases, not simply the majority, where both Jesus and God the Father are mentioned together, there isn't the slightest hint in the context that Jesus is a "separate person" within the Trinity. Now that you've explained more clearly what you intended, your point is even more superfluous. It doesn't prove a thing.

You wrote:

In the Scriptures, most of the time, whenever The Father and Jesus are mentioned in the same Verses, The Father is called God, and Jesus is distinguished because they are SEPARATE PERSONS.

In the 387 instances that I mentioned, Jesus is not "distinguished" (according to the dictionary definition) as being a separate person within the Trinity. He is shown simply as being a person who is not God, just as the mention of any other person in the same sort of context would mean that the person is not God.

At least 189 times he spoke of God as his Father, instead of as God. If your point had any validity, he should have called him God all the time. On the other hand, a prince doesn't call his father the king if he himself is the king. If he did so in truth, the realm would have two kings, the father and the son. For the same reason Jesus would not speak of his Father as his God if he himself were God. If both were God, then we have the scenario of two Gods, not just one.

Additionally, the New Testament writers used the term for "Father" 16 times when they clearly meant God, and in such cases Jesus is not mentioned in the immediate context. If Jesus is God, and if the Holy Spirit is God, then they should have said "God" instead of limiting godship to the Father alone.

They wrote of God as "God the Father" 13 times. (Gal 1:1; Eph 6:23; Php 2:11; Col 3:17; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:2; 1 Ti 1:2; 2 Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; 1 Pe 1:2; 2 Pe 1:17; 2 Jn 3; Jude 1)

And 14 times they described him as "the God and Father." (Ro 15:6; 1 Co 15:24; 2 Co 1:3; 11:31; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:3; 4:6; Php 4:20; 1 Th 1:3; 3:11, 13; Jas 1:27; 1 Pe 1:3; Re 1:6)

So, there are many texts that clearly show that the Father is God. No guesswork is necessary. There is no need to rationalize and say we can see "evidence" that the Father is God in such-and-such texts. The Bible states many times in unmistakable terms that the Father is God.

Can you show us a dozen or so texts that say the same thing about Jesus? About the Holy Spirit? Can you show us even one text that speaks of "God the Son" and another that mentions "God the Holy Spirit"? Why not? If both are equal with the Father as members of the triune God, wouldn't that be a good place to start in showing the credibility of such a teaching?

Herk