Treasures from God’s Word and Digging for Spiritual Gems – “Go make Disciples – Why, Where and How?” (Matthew 27-28)
Matthew 28:18 - Jesus has wide ranging authority (w04 7/1 pg 8 para 4)
Does Matthew 28:18 say “Jesus has wide ranging authority”? What do you think?
All translations say “all authority”. The Greek word here translated “all” means ‘the whole. Every part of, all’, not "wide ranging"!
Perhaps the organization uses “wide ranging authority” because they do not want to draw attention to the fact that Jesus had all authority from very soon after his resurrection (within a few days, possibly immediately). This contradicts their teaching that he became King in 1914 as that would imply he gained extra power, which is impossible according to this verse. Colossians 1:13, which they cite in support of enthronement in 1914 actually states exegetically that “He [God] delivered us [the disciples] from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his [God’s] love”. So they were already in the Kingdom, and Jesus was already King.
Now the organization would have us believe that this is a kingdom only over his disciples, but John 3:14-17 says “For God loved the world so much he sent his only-begotten son” and then gave his Son having proved faithful until death, “all authority”, “in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life” by means of “the Kingdom of the Son of his love” in allowing Jesus to die as a ransom for our sins once for all time. (Hebrews 9:12, 1 Peter 3:18)
Finally 1 Peter 3:18 confirms that Jesus "is at God's right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him."
Matthew 27:51 – What did the tearing in two of the curtain signify? (curtain) (nwtsty)
According to the study note it “also signifies that entry into heaven itself is now possible.” But does it or is this an eisegetical interpretation? The study note also cites Hebrews 10:19-20 in support of this which says “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body,” (Berean Study Bible).
Now we know that Jesus sacrifice brought an end to the need for the yearly sacrifice on the Day of Atonement when the High Priest entered the Most Holy. (Exodus 30:10) We also know the curtain split in two at the time of his death, leading the Most Holy to be no longer separate from the Holy. (Matthew 27:51) This action also fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel 9:27 because the sacrifices were no longer required by God, having served their purpose by pointing to the Messiah, Jesus.
The whole of Hebrews 9 is good to read as it discusses the legitimate type and anti-type of the temple sanctuary and Jesus. Verse 8 tells us “Thus the holy spirit makes it plain that the way into the holy place had not yet been made manifest while the first tent was standing. [The Temple]” Verse 24 shows that Christ did not enter the Holy Place, but into Heaven to appear before God on our behalf. That was how the type was fulfilled. So, is there a basis for extending this fulfillment to Christians, the brothers of Christ? I could not find any scriptural or logical reason for doing so. (If perhaps any reader can do so, then we look forward to your scriptural research).
Proceeding on the premise that there is no basis for extending this fulfillment, then how can we understand Hebrews 10:19-20? To help understand, let us reason on the following. What did symbolically partaking of Christ’s blood and his body mean? According to John 6:52-58 whoever fed on his flesh and drank his blood would gain everlasting life and be resurrected at the last day. Without Jesus offering his sacrifice then life everlasting was not attainable, neither was the opportunity to become perfect sons of God (Matthew 5:9, Galatians 3:26). As only perfect humans could approach God directly as did perfect Adam, and only the High Priest could approach God directly in the Most Holy with the offering imputing righteousness to him, so now as Romans 5:8-9,18 says “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath. … likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life.”
It was now possible for imperfect humans through Christ’s sacrifice to have the possibility of coming into an approved state with God. Furthermore the role for these ones in the future is foretold to be “priests to serve our God and they will reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10 BSB).
It would therefore make sense that the tearing of the curtain in two, made the way possible for true Christians to become perfect sons of God and thereby gain direct access to God in the same way as Jesus and Adam were able to. There is no indication it is anything to do with location, but rather it was to do with status before God, as Romans 5:10 says, “For if, when we were enemies [of God],we became reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
Talk – Did Jesus die on a Cross? (g17.2 pg 14)
Another fine example of organization eisegesis.
The ‘New Jerusalem Bible’ is picked as supporting the interpretation required (which is that Jesus did not die on a cross) because it is translated as “Jesus was executed ‘by hanging on a tree’ Acts 5:30”. A quick review of Biblehub.com reveals that out of 29 English translations, 10 use ‘cross’ and 19 use ‘tree’. It is a case of 'he said, they said', and while a majority use ‘tree’ this still does not exclude what we understand as a cross. However, if we want to be picky, was Jesus nailed to the tree or hung with a rope from the tree? Actually it seems he probably was hung on the tree with nails. (John 20:25) As discussed in a recent CLAM review, why is it so important as to what structure Jesus died on? If he died on a cross, what of it? What does it change? Nothing. What is important however, is that we don’t use it as a symbol, nor use the symbol in worship.
To show how eisegetical the view is, have a look at Matthew 26:47. It says discussing Judas that he “came and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs from the chief priest and older men of the people.” The article says “The word xylon used at Acts 5:30 is simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”
Now look at Matthew 26:47 and what do we find? Yes, you guessed it. “xylon”. So to be consistent it should be translated “with swords and stakes (or upright pales)” which of course makes no sense. (See also Acts 16:24, 1 Corinthians 3:12, Revelation 18:12, Revelation 22:2 – all of which have xylon)
So, clearly the word xylon should be translated according what wood object fits the context. Also the Lexicon (seen end note) cited to support this understanding dates from 1877 and seems to be an isolated understanding—presumably because a later dated reference, that supports the conclusion they require, cannot be found; otherwise they would surely cite it.
Another piece of the puzzle is highlighted in Matthew 27:32 where it talks about Simon of Cyrene being pressed into service to carry the stauron (or crosspiece?) of Jesus.[i]
So piecing the information together, it appears there were pointed stakes or sometimes just tree’s (xylon = piece of wood/tree, item of wood) to which a cross piece (stauron) was added for execution, and it was this stauron rather than the combined stake and crosspiece, that the one being executed was made to carry.
This would make Jesus words in Mark 8:34 understandable, if it was the crosspiece. A crosspiece can (just about) be carried by a man. A stake or pole or tree or torture stake or full cross would be too heavy for almost anybody to carry. Yet Jesus said “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his stauron and follow me continually.” Jesus never asked anyone to do the impossible.
So where xylon is found in the Greek text, it should usually be translated stake or tree, and where stauron is found, it should usually be translated as cross-piece or timber, but when they are used in the context of execution, the translators of many Bibles have reasonably put "cross" for the readers to understand better the mechanism of execution, although it has blurred the slightly different use of the words. It is well documented that some kind of cross was the favoured way of execution for the Phoenicians and the Greeks, and then the Romans adopted it.
So quite why the organization makes such a pedantic argument against Jesus being put to death on a cross is strange, unless it is an attempt to differentiate themselves from the rest of Christendom; but there are far better and clearer ways of doing that.
Video – Continue without letup – Publicly and Making Disciples
Around the 1-minute mark, the elder directed the brother to the April 2015 Kingdom Ministry. “He emphasised that the goal of public witnessing is not just to place literature but to direct people to JW.org!” Yes, you heard it right!
Not to the Christ. Not even to Jehovah, and clearly, not to the Bible, but to the Organization.
Jesus, The Way (jy Chapter 16) –Jesus shows Zeal for True Worship
Nothing for comment.
_____________________________________________
[i] Strong’s concordance – A long established book defines stauros as an upright stake, hence a cross. However, Helps Word-Studies defines it as the crosspiece of a Roman cross. For more information, including Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon being alone in its understanding see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauros.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-04-10 09:02:11
The cross thing is all part of Rutherford's extreme attack on the churches, in part as revenge for sending him to prison. Reading Faith on the March by A H MacMillan clearly indicates how he felt about the religions of his day, and they probably deserved most of what he gave them, albeit in wisdom he might have done so more tactfully.
The cross, and other teachings which arose in the 1920s seems to me just his personal attack/attempt to show they were wrong. However, to this day we have little proof that he did die on a single upright stake, not that we have absolute proof that he died on a cross, but we do have a lot more evidence of that.
Otherwise, thanks for the many good comments, Tadua.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-04-10 12:02:58
Matthew 28:9 is very interesting. Bear with me, as I have spent an age on this subject. The Greek word here is Khairo, which has the sense of "rejoice". This is the same word as John uses in his 2nd letter where vs 10 translates this as "a greeting". No commentator, as far as I am aware, considers John means just a simple greeting at vs 10, although there are some poor translations around. The intention is that the apostate should not be given even a hint that would encourage him. However, relying on one commentator, who is out of line with all other commentators, the Org (W 7/15 1985 pp 30-31) decides that Khairo is like a simple salutation, and applies it accordingly.
One result is that Jesus, having been resurrected, meets a number of women disciples on their way from his tomb, and says, with what reads like an amusing understatement, "Good Day", instead of something much more appropriate, and, as a result, dumbs down the occasion, as also does Byington's translation.
Sad, if it wasn't true .
Comment by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-10 15:22:27
I have looked into the cross vs. stake issue a number of times. The subject can get very detailed, and unless you are a really studious person, I honestly found it a little boring. But, when I could plow through it all, I came to a few conclusions:
1. The scriptures and available non-biblical evidence are sparse, calling for great caution in being dogmatic. You can't point to any particular piece of evidence and say "ah ha, that proves my point!" because none of the evidence is that strong either way.
2. Having said that, I do believe the preponderance of all evidence suggests that Jesus died on a cross, not a stake.
3. Religiously, doctrinally, it makes no difference whether the actual object was a stake or cross.
4. The great number of ancient artifacts containing a Christian cross, or an image of one, makes it hard to believe that the early Christians simply "made the whole thing up" and decided to fraudulently use the cross as a representation of their faith without anything real and factual to back it up. That would reduce the usage of the cross to a mere hoax - one that some members of the Christian church surely would have known about and yet remained silent. Why would they do that?
5. The assertion by WT that the cross was introduced by pagan converts to Christianity lacks credibility. One source they often cited was a book I believe was called The Two Babylons. (I am describing a book I saw decades ago, so bear with me.) It cited the fact that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a T or t symbol, and from this WT concludes that the cross symbol originated in Babylon.
The main problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no proof it ever happened. What is more, it shows a profound lack of understanding of languages and the evolution of alphabets over time. Many ancient languages had alphabets with some very similar notations, such as simple lines, circles, X symbols, T symbols, Z symbols, etc. Why? Not because different cultures were sharing alphabets, but because these shapes were easy to write on papyrus or engrave into tablets, and they were forms easily explained, taught and recognized by those able to read.
In all likelihood, any similarity in the T of Tammuz and the T or t of the Christian cross is a mere coincidence, and not evidence of "pagan doctrines infiltrating an apostate Christian church" as WT wants people to believe.
6. The furious rejection of the cross by WT reflects the anti-religion (and usually, anti-Catholic) hated on the part of Rutherford. A much stronger case can be made that Rutherford made a big deal out of the cross issue for the sole reason of being different for the sake of being different. He wanted to be able to say, "See, WE are different than THEM - that makes US the true religion."
After all, if use of the cross symbol is "pagan", how did a "pagan" WT society under Russell, who published the WT magazine with a cross-and-crown image, get to be picked by God to be His "sole channel of communication"? And, bear in mind that WT did not DROP the cross-and-cross symbol until MUCH LATER than 1919, the supposed date when WT was "cleansed". (Sure, they were cleansed - except for all the parts that were NOT cleansed ...)
I do happen to believe that WT has been right about the error of idolizing the cross, making elaborate displays of the cross in and on churches, praying to crosses, etc.
But, after coming to a more nuanced position on this, I find it much easier to let go of my inbred WT-based antagonism any time I see someone with a cross necklace. I no longer feel the animosity I used to. I don't see them as "horrible pagans", just as people choosing to remember their Lord and Savior, albeit in a way I personally would not choose to do. If such people want to honor Christ and his sacrifice in that particular way, I am (surprisingly for me to say so) OK with that.Reply by Tadua on 2018-04-10 15:27:51
Hi Robert-6512
A nice clear short summary of the facts. I couldn’t agree more.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-10 21:50:53
Thanks, Tadua. Like many ex-JWs, I am sure, I have mixed feelings about crosses. To be honest, in my heart of hearts, I kind of really don't like them all that much. But, from my current vantage point, the obsessive fanaticism about crosses that WT has engendered all these years just seems so unreasonable, and (dare I say it) so un-Christ-like.
Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-04-10 22:21:06
The cross which you can't have without the stake is an inanimate object,
not worthy of worship nor much time spent wondering about it. It was the man Jesus Christ and his father and our's sacrifice to us that matters. He paid a debt he did not owe and one we could not pay!
Comment by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-10 22:24:26
Tadua, you bring up the question, "What did the tearing in two of the curtain signify?" I have long held an opinion about this. Allow me to share it, and I invite readers to comment.
My main focus is on Matthew 23:38: "Look! Your house is abandoned to you."
The Jews had long held the view, promoted by God himself, that the temple represented God's presence on earth, and also His approval of His people, the nation of Israel. So, when Jesus said "your house is abandoned to you", it could only mean that God was withdrawing His support and approval from Israel, and was abandoning them to their fate. Clearly, that happened, since that "house" or temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
So, what did it mean when the temple curtain was torn in two? Recall that ONLY the high priest was allowed to pass through the curtain; the other priests were not allowed. In that sense, the "curtain" was almost like "clothing", used to conceal that which was to be kept private and hidden, just like a woman's dress would do.
When the curtain was torn, it was like a properly-dressed woman had her dress torn off and was shoved into the streets naked, to be seen and viewed with scorn and condemnation. Or, she might have been viewed like some prisoners of war, who were stripped naked, chained, and dragged along in a forced death-march.
In like manner, the Most Holy was sacred - not to be seen by outsiders, the unclean, the unauthorized - in the same way that a woman's undressed body was to be kept sacred and only seen by her husband. By the curtain being torn in two, the Most Holy was openly displayed for all to see - ordinary Jews, pagans, Roman soldiers - anybody who happened to walk by and leer into it. Its sacred status was gone. It was no more sacred than a woman of the night. And, from a close reading of the scriptures, it does seem to imply that God Himself caused that curtain to be torn. We can't prove that, but the connotation seems pretty clear (to me, anyway).
As I see it, tearing the curtain in two was a physical manifestation of God's total rejection of the nation of Israel. Because of that, all attempts by people - from that time in the first century to this very day - to imply some kind of importance to the literal nation of Israel are misguided and dead wrong. The nation of Israel from then on, and today in the 21st century, is - in God's eyes - utterly NO DIFFERENT than any OTHER gentile, pagan nation. God has left them. They are on their own, and He has NOTHING to do with them, in any manner whatsoever.
That's what the tearing of the curtain meant.
Comments invited.Reply by MarthaMartha on 2018-04-12 14:21:21
Thanks Robert thats very interesting.
My comment would be along similar lines that the curtain divided the Holy from the Most Holy. The Most Holy represented heaven itself, the presence of God. The rest of the tabernacle or temple was part of the earthly realm.
Once the house had been abandoned, as you said, Jehovah withdrew from the Jews... No part of their temple had any heavenly meaning. Gods presence and the representation of it was gone and the Most Holy was no longer a part of heaven on earth but was the same as the rest of the building, with no curtain divider. It was all one room. It was all earthly, and of no consequence in worship any more because God had abandoned them.
I'm enjoying all of this. ?
Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-04-10 23:01:08
Thank you Robert-6512, I see it as Jehovah has put everything on cruise control, he hasn't totally turned his back on the creation. When the Bible says that Jehovah is creating a new heaven and a new earth, he is doing it with any means necessary and not just in religious ways. We (mankind) the "grunts" on the ground are very much needed to accomplish the creation here
and it's not all about building a Church or tower with a hotline to heaven.
In my humble opinion God has not quit watching his own works and is very much in charge.
Reply by Tadua on 2018-04-11 03:35:37
Hi Robert-6512
Your comments on the splitting of the curtain tie in with Daniel 9:27, where it was prophesied that at the half of the week gift offering and sacrifice would cease. We can reasonably understand this as the validity of the sacrifices.This foretold the end of the validity of the need for animal sacrifice as it foreshadowed Jesus sacrifice. The context of Hebrews 10:19-26 mentioned in the study note I.e. Hebrews 10:1-18 as well as Hebrews 9 which I briefly discussed support this understanding. The temple and sacrifice arrangement pointed them to the one who could forgive their sins, Jesus Christ, and whose ransom made it possible for them to be free of inherited sin. So the other aspect of the curtain splitting in two is as you suggest based on Matthew 23:38 and Jesus institution of the new covenant (Luke 22:20) at the Lords last evening meal. The Mosaic covenant with fleshly Israel was ended and the new covenant with all true Christians as spiritual Israel was instituted in its place. The fleshly temple arrangement was no longer sacred to God and fleshly Israel was abandoned. From then on only individual Israelites could benefit. This one act of the curtain being torn in two had significance for both fleshly Israel as highlighted by yourself and for spiritual Israel as highlighted in the review.
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2018-04-11 03:46:40
And we have another bit of very biased translation at 27:52-4. There is no evidence from the Interlinear that the writer intended anything other than it appears to read, namely that bodies of holy ones were raised up and entered and appeared in the holy city. Unlikely as that event might seem, and there is no further evidence to support it, there is no reason to change a translation just because a translator does not agree with what was recorded. Nevertheless that is what has been done with verse 53, where the NWT implies it was the people who had seen these events who entered the holy city. If that was the case two questions are raised:-
Why add the expression “they became visible to many” ?
What events are left for the soldier in vs 54 to say “Certainly this was God’s son” ?
Any comments will be appreciated.
Comment by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-11 12:45:23
Tadua, you must be careful when jumping on Matthew 28:18 to disprove a WT doctrine. While this is tempting, and many ex-JW sites have pointed this out, I find they use flawed reasoning in doing so, as you have done.
The problem is with "all". What exactly does that mean? When Jesus says "ALL authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" does that mean Jesus has the authority to usurp the authority of his God and Father, and literally take over the universe?
That's the problem. If you view "ALL" in absolute and extreme terms, you cannot really argue against the ability of Jesus to mount a coup in heaven - as unreasonable as that sounds. But, if you then say that Jesus didn't mean what he said to be taken to such absolute extremes, then when you also say Jesus had "ALL authority" in the first century, how can you defend against the claim that there were exceptions to it?
We must also ask, if Jesus has ALL authority, what exactly does he have authority to DO? It doesn't say. What's more, what has he been doing WITH all that authority all these centuries since he said it? An unbiased observer might claim that Jesus in fact seems to be doing little or nothing with that authority. If you or others wished to claim otherwise, I would ask you to provide proof. It's not so easy to do, is it?
You may object to the WT stance on Jesus' authority, but yours isn't really any better or any more defensible than theirs is.
I don't say this to be critical of you, but you have put yourself in a logical quandary and there is no easy way out of it.Reply by Tadua on 2018-04-11 13:37:15
Hi Robert-6512
Just a few thoughts on your post re Matthew 28:18.
You sayThe problem is with “all”. What exactly does that mean?
I would answer ‘all’ relative to God’s authority as the supreme one. Does that mean Jesus could attempt to usurp God’s authority? Theoretically, yes. In reality, no, otherwise God would not trust him with that authority.
I do take your point jumping on one particular scripture to prove something can be problematic. We are wise to leave that particular attribute to the organization.
In case anyone has any doubts I would like to make it clear that I am a truthseeker, always have been, always will be (at least I want to be) but do I know or have the whole truth? not by a long way. When I realised what I had believed all my life had serious flaws and errors, I decided I needed to re-examine everything I knew from the beginning again. That was and is a very daunting task. Along the way I have come to the wrong conclusion about something and then later had to revise it and this process will go on. It is the comments from people like yourself that assist in this, as it gives us pause for thought to keep “carefully examining if these things are true”.
As you mention even if Jesus has all authority, that doesn’t mean he has to use it or that he has used it. I think you would agree that He knows sufficient of God’s purpose that it is not yet his due time to exercise his authority in a large obvious way. I certainly wouldn’t claim he has used it yet. From the scriptures I would understand his first real large scale use will be at Armageddon. Of course he may have been responsible for the end of the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, but that would be difficult to prove and is relatively unimportant to the fact as to whether he already has all authority.
Just a few thoughts which may clarify what I was trying to convey.
Comment by Psalmbee on 2018-04-12 10:54:07
Here's a couple simple questions for the witnesses: Why is it so important to be spiritual and angelic like, if all you are ever gonna be is a human here on Earth?
Wouldn't that be for example like: taking piano lessons to learn how to play a guitar? Practicing baseball so you can be a football player, going to school to be a Doctor just so you can be a ditch digger!
They are so twisted and to be fair they are not the only ones.Reply by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-12 18:49:47
To me, a bigger question is WHY should we believe humans would go to heaven to rule with Christ?
The Bible tells us that no man ever gave anything to God, and so He doesn't need to repay anyone, and that no man ever counseled God to make Him understand anything. Where does the Bible EVER tell us - or even HINT - that God wants our personal opinions on how to rule the human race?
Where in the NT did Jesus ever ask his disciples advice on how they should be managed, taught and sent out to preach? Where did Jesus ever ask his apostles for help composing the sermon on the mount, or how to answer back the Scribes and Pharisees? Where did any of followers give him pointers on how to respond to Satan's challenging questions during his 40 day fast?
Um ... no where.
If that's true, then WHY would anyone go to heaven to HELP rule?
God and Christ don't NEED our help.
But we DO need help. Humans on earth would need guidance and direction to cleanse and rebuild and administer the earth after Armageddon.
God is depicted as saying the earth given to Adam and Eve was "very good". The Bible later says that God reserved the heavens for Himself but gave the earth to the sons of man. If we believe humans would go to heaven, we must also believe that God lied when He said the earth was very good. Evidently for those with a "heavenly hope", earth is not only NOT "very good", it isn't even 'good enough'. For those people, if they really went to heaven, the earth God gave to humans is taken away from them. God would have effectively withdrawn His gift. Why? Don't those people DESERVE His gift any more?
The so-called heavenly hope is not only contrary to scriptures, it is contrary to reason. It doesn't make any sense, and serves no purpose.Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-04-12 20:20:20
Hi Robert,
(Jn 17:24) may give some humans a reason to believe that there might be some going to heaven. You say that no man ever gave anything to God, I have to disagree, many have gave their loyalty to him and kept his Word and that's really all he asks of us (Jn 17:20,21).
I agree with you about the Earthly plan, it really doesn't make much sense to me for God to be making spirits and angels out of humans after all he already has millions upon millions of myriads of them.
Vengeance is mine saith The Lord, Jesus will get his chosen ones!!Reply by Robert-6512 on 2018-04-12 23:56:46
PB, you are absolutely right to say that humans can give God loyalty, along with love, honor, obedience, faith and all the other fruitages of the spirit and other fine qualities that the Bible encourages us to display.
And, our Father is pleased, and does in fact appreciate when His children 'behave themselves' as they should. But, He doesn't NEED us to obey. Our doing fine works does not make up for any LACK on His part.
That's why God says, Who gave me anything that I should repay him? Yes, lots of people gave God their love and devotion, but He is not then indebted to humans for that. Just as Jesus said, what we have done is what we ought to have done. Those are requirements for our own good, not to benefit Him.
Comment by LaRhonda T. on 2018-04-12 21:37:53
I remember quite clearly an elder telling me that the goal of witnessing was to "Point people to the Organization". I remember my jaw dropping...
Reply by Psalmbee on 2018-04-12 22:04:04
I don't doubt it a bit LaRhonda, the problem for them now though is that they are pointing almost the same amount of people to the to the exit door for apostasy lol, isn't that amazing. Welcome by the way and TY for commenting,it's always nice to see a fresh face.