Call No Man Father

[Rodger]

That’s a problem!

We have different languages and different meanings

Redemption, Justification, Sanctification, and Salvation!

Redemption: 100 percent the work of God, thru the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ! All mankind are redeemed in Christ! Eph 2
Galatians 2:16 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law...
Christ alone accomplished the redemption of mankind apart from any works on our part!

(Redemption is not Salvation)
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


Justification: our acceptance of redemption thru faith and baptism! Become a disciple and member of Christ and His Church! Jn 3:5 acts 2:38 Mk 16:16 He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


Sanctification: the life of grace applied to our souls in the sacraments, prayer, virtue and good works, the just living by faith, and faith working thru love! Phil 1:29 called to suffer with Christ.
All done in Christ thru His grace! Jn 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Purification: no unclean thing enter the heavenly realms of glory!

Salvation: a christian in the state if grace at the moment of death we enter into the salvation of the Lord! Mt 24:44-47 faithful servant! Jn 15:1-5 abide in me. Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:
Heb 4:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Rom 13:11 ...for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Glorification:

Suffering with Christ is required for glorification with Christ!

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

2 Timothy 2:12
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Justification and salvation are not the same rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

I did not say that Justification and salvation were the same thing.

YOU asked me if REDEMPTION and SALVATION was the same thing.

You seem to be a very nice person but you have a penchant to say things that others did not say.

Justification is a legal term that means...Declared Not Guility.
Salvation is a process with actually includes Justification.
1. Justified.
2. Santified
3. Glorifed

 

[Rodger]

Then he must have two natures
Divine and human
In one person

Correct.
Jesus was divine and he was human but what I was saying was that Jesus did not have a SIN NATURE.

 

[Rodger]

T

Then it does not change
Perpetual
Amen!

Nope!

As with many of your assumptions, there is NOT ONE single Scripture to support them.

Mary was not a perpetual virgin. That is completely a man made opinion based on nothing.

 

[Rodger]

Do you really have biblical proof that Jesus' brothers and sisters were only half-brothers and sister ?

I have the Word of God.

I have posted those Scriptures several times now.

If you were really interested in knowing, all you have to do is goggle ..."did Mary have other children".

You will find Matthew 1:24-25.
You will also find Mark 6:3.
You will also see John 2:12.
You will also see Matthew 12:46.

Now that you have what you asked for, YOU open your Bible and read those Scriptures.

Once that is done, YOU find in YOUR Bible the words that "MARY WAS A PERPETUAL virgin and then get back with me and we can have a meaningful discussion.

Now, as you have observed that "donabus" and I have been having a long discussion and one of those topics is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I want you and others to understand that his/her efforts to prove that Mary stayed a virgin aren’t based on the Bible but on the misguided loyalty to a woman who was as imperfect as any other human.

I have not bashed the Catholic religion and I have tried to not be argumenitive but instead to state that some of the Catholic teachings are SIMPLY NOT BIBLICAL.

I know and agree completely that God choose Mary for her holy task, but she was, in her own words, a humble servant. She obeyed God with faithfulness, like other humble servants, including Hannah, Gideon, Elijah, and Moses. Mary’s marital relations with her husband, Joseph, wouldn’t have defiled her. Those relations did in fact produce other children who would’ve grown up with Jesus as their elder brother. which make all of them (6) his 1/2 siblings.

The Original Greek language verifies that exact fact when YOU investigate it you will see that the words used by the Apostles were "BROTHERS AND SISTERS".

According to the Word of God, Mary isn’t given a special place in the Bible, so any effort to exalt her to a godlike position is manufactured rumors.

So, yes, Mary did have other children. However, how many children she had is unknown, but she likely had at least SIX, including Jesus would be SEVEN.

Now after you do the work, and the reading of those Scriptures, and YOU look up in the Strongs concordance the literal meanings.........THEN GET BACK WITH ME.

 

[Rodger]

The one that you ignore Lk 1:34

OK.

Allow me to say this to you with respect and Christian love.

I am not going to continue to do this back and forth monolog of He said and He said.

I have stated over and over the BIBLICAL position I have and YOU state only your Catholic understanding and you refuse to accept the Word of God.

I have gone as far as I can and I can not respond to the same things you post over and over and over.

 

[donadams]

There are NO Scriptures that teach, validate, hint at or suggest Purgatory.

If we can be purged from old sins then we can be purged from new sins

 

[donadams]

There are NO Scriptures that teach, validate, hint at or suggest Purgatory.

Christ founded a church house of faith not a publishing house to teach purgatory to all men! Matt 28:19

 

[Rodger]

Christ founded a church house of faith not a publishing house to teach purgatory to all men! Matt 28:19

Exactly what I have said. The Catholic church should not be teaching something that is not in the house of faith.

 

[donadams]

Correct.
Jesus was divine and he was human but what I was saying was that Jesus did not have a SIN NATURE.

Oh sorry you right in that case

 

[donadams]

Nope!

As with many of your assumptions, there is NOT ONE single Scripture to support them.

Mary was not a perpetual virgin. That is completely a man made opinion based on nothing.

Show the verse that changed this verse?

 

[Rodger]

If we can be purged from old sins then we can be purged from new sins

NO sequitur. That has NO meaning.

We are "Forgiven" of our sins the second we accept Christ as our Saviour.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I have the Word of God.
I have posted those Scriptures several times now.
If you were really interested in knowing, all you have to do is goggle ..."did Mary have other children".
You will find Matthew 1:24-25.
You will also find Mark 6:3.
You will also see John 2:12.
You will also see Matthew 12:46.
Now that you have what you asked for, YOU open your Bible and read those Scriptures.

Not one of your kindly provided citings say anything but that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Once that is done, YOU find in YOUR Bible the words that "MARY WAS A PERPETUAL virgin and then get back with me and we can have a meaningful discussion.

That is not in the bible.
You are basing your claims on the unbiblical.

Now, as you have observed that "donabus" and I have been having a long discussion and one of those topics is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
I want you and others to understand that his/her efforts to prove that Mary stayed a virgin aren’t based on the Bible but on the misguided loyalty to a woman who was as imperfect as any other human.

LOL...you should have opened your post with "NO, I don't believe ..."
It looked, initially, like you were defending the POV of Mary having only one child.

I have not bashed the Catholic religion and I have tried to not be argumenitive but instead to state that some of the Catholic teachings are SIMPLY NOT BIBLICAL.

Agreed.

I know and agree completely that God choose Mary for her holy task, but she was, in her own words, a humble servant. She obeyed God with faithfulness, like other humble servants, including Hannah, Gideon, Elijah, and Moses. Mary’s marital relations with her husband, Joseph, wouldn’t have defiled her. Those relations did in fact produce other children who would’ve grown up with Jesus as their elder brother. which make all of them (6) his 1/2 siblings.

I see, the other "half" of Jesus being God instead of Joseph.
And NOT that the other "half" of Jesus' brothers and sister were NOT of Mary.

The Original Greek language verifies that exact fact when YOU investigate it you will see that the words used by the Apostles were "BROTHERS AND SISTERS".
According to the Word of God, Mary isn’t given a special place in the Bible, so any effort to exalt her to a godlike position is manufactured rumors.
So, yes, Mary did have other children. However, how many children she had is unknown, but she likely had at least SIX, including Jesus would be SEVEN.
Now after you do the work, and the reading of those Scriptures, and YOU look up in the Strongs concordance the literal meanings.........THEN GET BACK WITH ME.

I agree with you POV.
Mary had other children with Joseph, after Jesus was born.

 

[GodsGrace]

It seems to me that the paradox that you placed yourself into has caused you to discontinue the discussion.

Aloow me to say for the 5th time........if maybe you forgot and want to answer-----
YOU deny "Faith alone" for salvation because those exact words are not in the Bible.

However, YOU accept the Trinity as a doctrine, but those exact words are not in the Bible either.

That is what is called a "Paradox".

What is a "Paradox". It is a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained proves to be well founded or true.

Hi Rodger
You're replying to donadams above and I haven't been following this thread. Sorry.

I just feel it's important to understand the followong:

The CC teaches that we are saved by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8.....
Not by works.
Works without faith will not save.
Faith saves.

Here comes the
BUT

Faith cannot then stand alone.
Faith that STANDS ALONE will not be a salvific faith because it is not FAITH.
Faith will produce fruit....per Jesus
It will produce obedience....per Jesus

There are those on this very forum who state that all that is necessary is belief in Jesus and we will be saved.

No!
Because they mean that nothing else is ever necessary....no good works are necessary...a person could continue in their life as before and still be saved.

Jesus spent His ministry teaching how to be a member of the Kingdom.

Faith saves.
Then comes sanctification.

Do we agree at all?
Must we disagree even on the basics?

(I mean Cath-Prot)

 

[GodsGrace]

NO sequitur. That has NO meaning.

We are "Forgiven" of our sins the second we accept Christ as our Saviour.

Which ones?

 

[donadams]

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Scripture says Mary has a sister!
Does that imply biological blood sister?

(Mary is an only child,
She has no biological siblings)

What man would have two daughters with the same name?

Cleophas is Joseph’s brother (biological)

This is Mary’s sister in law!

But scripture just says sister!
So it is possible to say brothers without implying biological blood brothers!!!

And these supposed and alleged children of Mary ever virgin are the children of this other Mary her sister in law and therefore the truth is cousins, which Hebrew culture Calls bothers! Amen!

Matthew 27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Thks

 

[donadams]

Tim Staples

(Former Baptist Minister)

Perhaps the two most commonly employed texts by those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity are:

Matthew 13:55-56: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?”

and:

Matthew 1:24-25: “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn [Greek, prototokon] son: and he called his name JESUS” (Douay-Rheims).

A surface reading of these texts seems to raise some questions. If Jesus had brethren (brothers) and sisters, doesn’t this mean that Mary had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, doesn’t this imply there was at least a second-born? And doesn’t “he knew her not till” imply that he “knew her” at some point thereafter? We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.

Oh, brother!

First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean not only a blood brother but an extended relative or even a spiritual brother. Abraham and Lot are classic examples of “brother” being used for an extended relation (see Genesis 13:8 and 14:12). Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” (see Matthew 23:8). Obviously, this doesn’t infer that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers” of the Lord mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to actually be a cousin or some other variety of relative of Jesus rather than a blood brother. For example, St. Paul tells us:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19).

Notice, the James of whom St. Paul speaks was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are only two apostles named James among the twelve. The first James is revealed to have been a son of Zebedee. He would most likely not be the James St. Paul speaks of in Galatians, because this James, the brother of John, was martyred early on, according to Acts 12:1-2. And even if it were him, his father was Zebedee. If he were the blood brother of the Lord, his father would have been Joseph.

The second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16, is most likely to whom St. Paul refers, and his father was Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not blood brothers.

Easy enough. However, some will argue that the James spoken of in Galatians 1 was not an apostle—or, at least, he was not one of the Twelve. Though this is a possibility—there are others in the New Testament, such as St. Barnabas in Acts 14:14, who are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak.

When St. Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see St. Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about apostles proper, or the Twelve.

But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:

[T]he Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression (CCC 500).

The Catechism here refers to the fact that, fourteen chapters after we find the “brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joses, Simon and Judas,” we find “James and Joses” mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary—but not Mary the mother of Jesus. The conclusion becomes apparent: “James and Joses” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not blood brothers.

The Problem of the “Firstborn”

So what about Matthew 1:24-25and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does St. Matthew here teach Mary to have had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something important about the firstborn in Israel:

The Lord said to Moses, “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.”

The firstborn were not given the title because there was a second-born. They were called firstborn at birth. Hence, Jesus being referred to as firstborn in Matthew 1 does not require there to be more siblings after him.

Propositions About a Preposition

Scripture stating Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they “knew” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means! A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the “until” is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples that may help clarify things:

II Samuel 6:23: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to [unti] the day of her death.” Does this mean she had children after she died?

I Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after St. Paul comes?

I Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “[H]e will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until,” whereas the texts I mention above from the New Testament use heosalone, there is a difference in meaning. Heos hou, it is argued, would indicate the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have then ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that there is no scholarship available that confirms it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter:

But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Greek, heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.

Does this text mean that St. Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

 

[donadams]

Cont.

A Positive Outlook

Having dispatched some of the objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity, perhaps some positive reasons for faith would be in order. In my book Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight positive reasons, but for brevity’s sake, we will briefly consider three:

1. In Luke 1:34, when the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph to then have had what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married! That would mean St. Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point. Normally, after the espousal the husband would prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why St. Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19) when he discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant, because a newly married woman would not ask the question, “How shall this be?” She would know! Unless, of course, that woman had a vow of virginity! Mary believed the message but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with St. Joseph.

2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his mother to the care of St. John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable to believe that Jesus would take his mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Some will claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his mother to St. John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross.

This claim reveals a low and unbiblical Christology. As St. John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (John 2:25). If St. James were his blood brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is, Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his mother.

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. When Mary asked the angel how she was going to conceive a child in Luke 1:34, the angel responded:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary then came up pregnant, St. Joseph would have been required to divorce her, because she would then belong to another (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3:1). When St. Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of St. Joseph having conjugal relations with Mary would not have been a consideration for a “just man” like St. Joseph.

One Final Thought

An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his wife,” according to Matthew 1:24, if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but St. Joseph was her spouse and protector on Earth. This is not a contradiction. All Christians have a nuptial relationship with our Lord. The Church is, after all, “the bride of Christ.” But in the case of Mary and Joseph, Joseph was essential in the life of Mary, his spouse, for at least two obvious reasons. First, as St. Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, St. Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see II Samuel 7:14; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of St. Joseph. As the only son of St. Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

Also, in a culture that did not take kindly to espoused women becoming pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. Thus, St. Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.

Thks

 

[Rodger]

Which ones?

ALL of them.

If we break one command of God we have broken all of them.

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger
You're replying to donadams above and I haven't been following this thread. Sorry.

I just feel it's important to understand the followong:

The CC teaches that we are saved by faith alone.
Ephesians 2:8.....
Not by works.
Works without faith will not save.
Faith saves.

Here comes the
BUT

Faith cannot then stand alone.
Faith that STANDS ALONE will not be a salvific faith because it is not FAITH.
Faith will produce fruit....per Jesus
It will produce obedience....per Jesus

There are those on this very forum who state that all that is necessary is belief in Jesus and we will be saved.

No!
Because they mean that nothing else is ever necessary....no good works are necessary...a person could continue in their life as before and still be saved.

Jesus spent His ministry teaching how to be a member of the Kingdom.

Faith saves.
Then comes sanctification.

Do we agree at all?
Must we disagree even on the basics?

(I mean Cath-Prot)

No we do not.

The Catholic church does NOT teach "The CC teaches that we are saved by faith alone."

The RCC teaches faith in Christ PLUS the Church and baptism.

You said.........."Faith will produce fruit.."

That is correct and that is what the 1/2 brother of Jesus says in 2:26........
"“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” .

James is not saying that our works make us righteous before God but that real saving faith is demonstrated by good works. Works are not the cause of salvation; works are the evidence of salvation.

You said..........
"There are those on this very forum who state that all that is necessary is belief in Jesus and we will be saved.
No!
Because they mean that nothing else is ever necessary....no good works are necessary...a person could continue in their life as before and still be saved."

No sir that is not the case. IF that is true then YOU will have to remove Ephesians 2:8-9 from your Bible as it says the exact opposite!

You said........."Faith save"..............YES, you are correct! ONLY faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You said........"then comes santification"....Yes you are correct.

Justification then comes sanctification and then glorification. Sanctification is the process of being set aside to be used by God for His purposes.

 

[Rodger]

Not one of your kindly provided citings say anything but that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

That is not in the bible.
You are basing your claims on the unbiblical.

LOL...you should have opened your post with "NO, I don't believe ..."
It looked, initially, like you were defending the POV of Mary having only one child.

Agreed.

I see, the other "half" of Jesus being God instead of Joseph.
And NOT that the other "half" of Jesus' brothers and sister were NOT of Mary.

I agree with you POV.
Mary had other children with Joseph, after Jesus was born.

You said..........
"Not one of your kindly provided citings say anything but that Jesus had brothers and sisters."

I do not know how to respond to that.

Matthew 12:46 (ESV)​

"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him."

In as nice of as a way as I can ask it, What part of "HIS BROTHERS" in the original Greek do you not understand.

Luke 8:19 (ESV)​

"Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.

Again, In as nice of as a way as I can ask it, What part of "HIS BROTHERS" in the original Greek do you not understand.

Matthew 13:56 (ESV)​

"And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Again, In as nice of as a way as I can ask it, What part of "HIS BROTHERS" in the original Greek do you not understand.

Now, YOU do the work. Look up those Scriptures in a Strongs concordance or any Greek concordance and confirm that the words BROTHERS and SISTER mean exactly that.....Relatives.

The only reason you do not understand those LITERAL words of Scripture is because you are a Catholic and you deny the written Word of God.

You see my friend, those LITERAL Scriptures destroy the Catholic false teaching of the Immacualte conception of Mary and YOU as a Catholic must reject them. It is just that simple.

The facts is.......everything I post is from Scripture! That is what I do. You are going to have to come up with some other excuse because that one is not going to work!