Jesus is God

Jesus is God


  • Total voters
    121

StanJ

New member
I interpret the Bible differently. I think I am honest and respectful of the text because I acknowledge there are discrepancies and contradictions and because they are all IN the Bible, I must honestly confront them and take them all seriously.

Differently is what I've noticed, but the key is 2 Tim 2:15 (NIV) where Paul teaches we are to do it CORRECTLY.

On a fundamental level, I cannot begrudge other believers for preferring a certain biblical tradition or theology over other traditions and theologies.

Paul said we were to follow the tradition he preached, which was Jesus as our God and Savior.

I am doing the best I can, but as a finite and imperfect human being I have to be accountable for the truth that I can only cherry-pick what actually resonates with me. It is an immense, infinite orchard God has and I certainly cannot harvest every piece of fruit.

Maybe not, but what you can see and harvest must ALL agree, which all Unis don't.

If I can find out what a passage or verse actually meant to its original writer and audience it will make more sense to me. I used to twist the ancient knowledge in the Bible to my own 21st century modern beliefs but I soon found I was demanding this knowledge prove my own personal theology.

You are then assuming, quite wrongly, that those credentialed scholars that did the modern translations didn't do that. That is quite naïve if not condescending.

I know now this is not so. But if I am to follow the truth wherever it leads me, I will learn the truth. If I focus on Jesus and what he was really saying, I can truly arrive home free--and I feel I have.

Arrive home free? Sorry but there is suffering and sacrifice in being a disciple of Jesus. It is NOT free, it costs your life and allegiance.

I no longer have to leave my brain out in the parking lot before I enter a church or get to learn someone else's belief system.

Nobody should ever do that, because GOD is the author of truth and NEVER contradicts Himself or His written Word.
 

daqq

Well-known member
The son was not known in the OT.

:thumb: And from where does Paul receive the following quotes?

Philippians 2:8-11 ASV
8. and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
9. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
10. that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Of course I do not believe the above rendering is exactly what Paul says so here is my own understanding of the same passage. But note that indeed Paul writes that every knee should bow or bend "IN" the name of Yeshua as opposed to "at" or "to" the name of Yeshua. This is a huge difference because we bend the knee and bow the knee "TO" the Father "IN" the name of Yeshua:

Philippians 2:8-11
8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, moreover the death of the stake.
9. Wherefore Elohim also highly exalted him, and granted unto him the name that is above every name: [Isaiah 45:3]
10. That in the name Yeshua every knee should bend, [Isaiah 45:23] of the heavenlies, of the terrestrials, and of the subterraneans:
11. And every tongue should confess [Isaiah 45:23] that Master Yeshua is Messiah to the glory of the Father Elohim.


Hmmm, quotes taken from Isaiah 45:23? What else is found in that same passage of Isaiah? Is there not the mention of Koresh, ("like the sun") the Mashiyach-Christos of YHWH? And in the Septuagint the title Koresh is rendered Kyros or Kuros which is the older root from which Kyrios-Kurios, (Master-Lord) is derived:

Isaiah 45:1-5
1. Thus says YHWH to His Mashiyach-Christos, to Kyro, [Septuagint Kyro-Kuro : Lord - Master - power - supreme authority] whose right hand I have laid hold on, to subdue nations before him; and I will loosen the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut:
2. I will go before you and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3. And I will give you the treasures of darkness, and the hidden riches of the secret places, that you may know that I am YHWH who calls you by your name, Elohey Yisrael.
4. For the sake of Yakob My servant, and Yisrael My chosen one, I have even called you by your name: I have surnamed you, [Elohey Yisrael] though you have not known Me!
5. I am YHWH, and there is none else, there is no Elohim except me: I gird you, though you have not known Me:


This is not a prophecy of the historical king Cyrus but rather prophecy based on a historical figure just as the prophets often do like as Daniel employs king Nebuchadnezzar and other kingdoms to speak of spiritual things in prophetic language. This Koresh-Kuros is the Mashiyach-Christos of YHWH and the Father YHWH surnames him "Elohey Yisrael", (Elohim Yisrael, the name of the Elohim that surnamed Yakob changing his name to Yisrael when he struggled in the night and prevailed, Genesis 32:24-30) EVEN THOUGH MASHIYACH HAD NOT YET COME AND KNEW NOT YHWH BEFOREHAND! Thank you Paulos for pointing me to this passage. Thank you Father for sending your messenger Paulos. :)

:sheep:
 

Elia

Well-known member
Yes the WHOLE Bible does, but I see you only quote the OT...could that be because you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah?

Bs'd

I don't believe he was the messiah because he did NOT fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Also do you NOT believe in the OMNI attributes of God? They are not named in the Bible either.
I have no problem with the Shema, and it ONLY finds it's completeness and full understanding when viewed from the perspective of the NC/NT.

Only when so viewed you start to understand that when it says "God is one" it really means "God is three"?

What is God referring to in Gen 1:26 (NIV) when He says;
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness"

Genesis 1:26; "Let us make man" If anybody finds in a text the word "us", would any normal person assume that it refers to one person with a multi-personality disorder? Of course not.

But why then, when Christians see the word "us" in the Bible, do they think that?

Gen 1:26 is used as a 'proof' that there is more than one God, or one God who is not one, eventhough the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God who is one. and despite the fact that there are several other valid explanations for the plural word "us". One explanation is that it is a majestic plural as used by kings. Another possible explanation is that God was talking to the angels.

Some Christians try to refute the last argument by saying that the angels didn't create. They point to Genesis 1:1; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." They say: 'God was the creator, and not the angels.' However, it is a given in Jewish law that an emissary is equal to the one who sends him. When a Jewish man marries a woman through an agent, the legal effect is the same as when he marries her personally. A good Biblical example of this is to be found in Genesis 19 where is spoken about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sent two angels to destroy the cities, the angels said to Lot in verse 13: "For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." Upon this Lot says to his sons in law: "Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city." Lot didn't say: "The angels are going to destroy the city" He said: "The LORD (Y-H-W-H in the Hebrew text) is going to destroy the city". And in verse 29 it is written: "So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley...." So the angels were send by God to destroy the cities, but God is considered to be the one who did it, because He was the one who sent them. So why shouldn't the same hold true for the creation?

But one way or the other, no plural created man. Look in Genesis 5:1; "When God created man ..." In Hebrew this is: "bara Elohiem adam" Here the verb "to create", in Hebrew "bara", is in the singular, indicating clearly that Elohiem who created man is one. The same goes for the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The word created is here written in the singular; it says "bara". If God was a plural, it should have been "baru".

BUT, back to the pronouns, Y-H-W-H says the following:

Isaiah 44:6 “This is what Y-H-W-H says- Israel's King and Redeemer, Y-H-W-H Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It says "I" am Y-H-W-H. And, as we all know, "I" is singular, and not plural, and therefore no three persons in Y-H-W-H. Otherwise He would have said: "WE are Y-H-W-H."

But no such thing, God says: "I am Y-H-W-H".

No trinity.

Another example of a pronoun:

Nehemiah 9:6 “You alone are Y-H-W-H.”

As we see, it says that YOU, in the Hebrew singular, not plural are Y-H-W-H.

Again, no YOU, plural, are Y-H-W-H, but YOU singular, are Y-H-W-H.

So no three persons in God.

Another one:

Isaiah 44:6 “This is what Y-H-W-H says- Israel's King and Redeemer, Y-H-W-H Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Clear what? It doesn't say: “This is what Y-H-W-H says- Israel's King and Redeemer, Y-H-W-H Almighty: WE are the first and WE are the last; apart from US there is no God.

No such a thing, it is all SINGULAR.

Another one:

Joel 2:27 “Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am Y-H-W-H your God, and that there is no other;”

Again, God says: "I am Y-H-W-H", and not "WE are Y-H-W-H" Such a thing simply doesn't exist.

I can go on and on with this, but these examples suffice. There is NO plurality in God.

And the word "us" when God speaks to the angels, does not imply otherwise.

Our triune God IS one in purpose and identity and power and purpose.

There is no "triune God" to be found in Scripture.


שמע ישראל י-ה-ו-ה אלהנו י-ה-ו-ה אחד


Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is
ONE.​

And you shall love Y-H-W-H your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart;
and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Deut 6:4-9

The Jews until this day fulfill this commandment. Every morning they put upon their arm and upon their forehead their phylacteries, (prayer belts) that consist of black straps with black leather cubes, that contain parchment upon which is written this Biblical text that says that God is one. Upon the doorposts of the houses of the religious Jews there are small boxes or containers that also contain parchment upon which is written that God is one. During the morning and evening prayers the above text is recited which says that God is one.

Y-H-W-H, the one and only God who is one.

Beside Him there is no God, no Buddha, no Christ, no David Koresh; NOBODY.

Whoever worships anything or anybody else than Y-H-W-H is an IDOL WORSHIPER.

.
.
.
 

StanJ

New member
I don't believe he was the messiah because he did NOT fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Obviously, but He DID fulfill 353 of them, so which ones did He not fulfill that are problematic for you?

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Only when so viewed you start to understand that when it says "God is one" it really means "God is three"?

No, only those who DON'T understand the triune nature of God think this way. One is one literally and figuratively.

Genesis 1:26; "Let us make man" If anybody finds in a text the word "us", would any normal person assume that it refers to one person with a multi-personality disorder? Of course not.
But why then, when Christians see the word "us" in the Bible, do they think that?

That's right, which is why this verse shows us the first glimpse of the triune nature of God, but of course if you don't read the NT and refuse to then you will NEVER see how it completes our understanding of God's nature.
The Bible is for Christians. Why an unbeliever would read it is beyond me, but to each his own I guess. They certainly, as you demonstrate, would understand the context or meaning.


Gen 1:26 is used as a 'proof' that there is more than one God, or one God who is not one, eventhough the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God who is one. and despite the fact that there are several other valid explanations for the plural word "us". One explanation is that it is a majestic plural as used by kings. Another possible explanation is that God was talking to the angels.

No, it's used as the FIRST example of God's triune nature. The entire Bible shows it throughout IF you have the Holy Spirit to bring it to light.
So you contend that God and angles looked the same and that is what we look like, God and angles. How exactly does that work with a spirit?
The Hebrew word for image is tselem, whose connotation comes from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure.


Some Christians try to refute the last argument by saying that the angels didn't create. They point to Genesis 1:1; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." They say: 'God was the creator, and not the angels.' However, it is a given in Jewish law that an emissary is equal to the one who sends him. When a Jewish man marries a woman through an agent, the legal effect is the same as when he marries her personally. A good Biblical example of this is to be found in Genesis 19 where is spoken about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sent two angels to destroy the cities, the angels said to Lot in verse 13: "For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." Upon this Lot says to his sons in law: "Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city." Lot didn't say: "The angels are going to destroy the city" He said: "The LORD (Y-H-W-H in the Hebrew text) is going to destroy the city". And in verse 29 it is written: "So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley...." So the angels were send by God to destroy the cities, but God is considered to be the one who did it, because He was the one who sent them. So why shouldn't the same hold true for the creation?

Angels don't create, they serve God in whatever fashion He requires them to. The WORD created all things.
I think you mean it is told in rabbinical verbal law of what the Jews believe, which is NOT what the Bible conveys...sorry.

But one way or the other, no plural created man. Look in Genesis 5:1; "When God created man ..." In Hebrew this is: "bara Elohiem adam" Here the verb "to create", in Hebrew "bara", is in the singular, indicating clearly that Elohiem who created man is one. The same goes for the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The word created is here written in the singular; it says "bara". If God was a plural, it should have been "baru".

I think I'll take my cues from the credentialed scholars that actually did the translations of modern English versions, and not some armchair Hebrew critic.
Besides it is quite obvious you have no idea what the Hebrew conveys, as verbs are not written in plural or singular, they're VERBS.
'ĕlôhıym is the plural of 'ĕlôahh, and any real Hebrew scholar would know this.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Jesus said:I and the Father are one.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Genesis 1:26; "Let us make man" If anybody finds in a text the word "us", would any normal person assume that it refers to one person with a multi-personality disorder? Of course not.

But why then, when Christians see the word "us" in the Bible, do they think that?

Gen 1:26 is used as a 'proof' that there is more than one God, or one God who is not one, eventhough the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God who is one. and despite the fact that there are several other valid explanations for the plural word "us". One explanation is that it is a majestic plural as used by kings. Another possible explanation is that God was talking to the angels.

Some Christians try to refute the last argument by saying that the angels didn't create. They point to Genesis 1:1; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." They say: 'God was the creator, and not the angels.' However, it is a given in Jewish law that an emissary is equal to the one who sends him. When a Jewish man marries a woman through an agent, the legal effect is the same as when he marries her personally. A good Biblical example of this is to be found in Genesis 19 where is spoken about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God sent two angels to destroy the cities, the angels said to Lot in verse 13: "For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." Upon this Lot says to his sons in law: "Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city." Lot didn't say: "The angels are going to destroy the city" He said: "The LORD (Y-H-W-H in the Hebrew text) is going to destroy the city". And in verse 29 it is written: "So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley...." So the angels were send by God to destroy the cities, but God is considered to be the one who did it, because He was the one who sent them. So why shouldn't the same hold true for the creation?

Hi Elia, :)
First off just a slight possible difference with the last portion highlighted from your post: perhaps it is more like that the emissary speaks with the authority of equal force to the one who sent the messenger-emissary, (as opposed to saying the emissary is flat out "equal to the one who sends him"). But more importantly to the other points I have highlighted in your post: we do not read anywhere in the Septuagint that YHWH, (Kurios) "knows good and evil" so you might want to do a little research into the following because I do believe that the Name of YHWH has been inserted by the Masoretes into the text of Genesis 3:22. If the Name is not in the original text then we have nowhere that YHWH is said to "know good and evil" and it is rather only [the] Elohim which know good and evil. The reason I bring this up is because in this passage once again we see the "us" where Elohim says "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil". This is therefore a critical point imo:

Genesis 3:22-23 KJV
22. And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23. Therefore the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Genesis 3:22-23 Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
22. And God [ho Theos - Elohim] said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and [so] he shall live forever--
23. So the Lord God [Kurios ho Theos - YHWH Elohim] sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/3.asp?pg=2

When we compare this passage with Genesis 1:26, where Elohim says "Let us make man in our image", we see that man is made in the image of Elohim, plural, (and man is therefore "equal to the Elohim-Angels" in the regeneration). But this does not say that man is made in the image of YHWH; nor is it implied, stated, or suggested anywhere outside of the Masoretic version of Genesis 3:22 that YHWH knows good and evil. In the Masoretic Text you have YHWH Elohim speaking to possibly some Elohim Angels but in the Septuagint you have [the] Elohim speaking as if asking "what if?", (what if now in his fallen state the man eats from the tree of Life and lives forever?) and in the next verse, Genesis 3:23, we have the Father YHWH Elohim sending the man out of Gan Eden so that the "what if?" does not come to pass.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
"What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”


Your theology is very shallow. There was a spiritual son many years before there was a flesh son.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Do you really believe your word carries ANY weight here keypurr? SHOW us where you get that from God's Word, and I'll refute it.


You haven't done a good job at refuting Stan.

I do not expect to carry weight around here as most at traditional church folks.

Been there, done that. It was not full enough for me. If you happy in your ignorance then I am happy for you. That does not make you a bad person, only a misguided one.
 

StanJ

New member
You haven't done a good job at refuting Stan.
I do not expect to carry weight around here as most at traditional church folks.
Been there, done that. It was not full enough for me. If you happy in your ignorance then I am happy for you. That does not make you a bad person, only a misguided one.

I knew you couldn't answer my simple question.

Again that is in YOUR mind, not reality.
Traditional church fold, as you label us, KNOW the True God and Savior of mankind...JESUS CHRIST.

Your pride is ALREADY your undoing keypurr. Soon, you will find out who the one true God is, and you will be forever tormented by that knowledge.

Rev 1:18 (NIV) and Rev 22:13 (NIV)
 

keypurr

Well-known member
I knew you couldn't answer my simple question.

Again that is in YOUR mind, not reality.
Traditional church fold, as you label us, KNOW the True God and Savior of mankind...JESUS CHRIST.

Your pride is ALREADY your undoing keypurr. Soon, you will find out who the one true God is, and you will be forever tormented by that knowledge.

Rev 1:18 (NIV) and Rev 22:13 (NIV)

I sadly disagree with your statement about the churches really knowing God and the son he sent. They are restricted by their traditions.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Since you claim to believe in God, stop contradicting yourself by claiming God could not preserve His written Word. So then, stop putting down the Bible and trust the words written in it.

The words in the Bible are God's words. If you believe in God, then believe He can preserve His word!
*sigh*

Again, what is your definition of the word "me" in the words of Jesus:
"Why do you call me good? Only God is good."
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Differently is what I've noticed, but the key is 2 Tim 2:15 (NIV) where Paul teaches we are to do it CORRECTLY.

Some letters attributed to Paul were probably written by people who lied about who they were to gain Paul’s authority for their own ideas. But biblical scholars hardly ever put it that bluntly.

They couldn’t even bring themselves to use the word "forgeries." Instead, they used “pseudepigrapha,” a fancy word meaning wrongly attributed authorship that tells the truth while in its pompousness also disguises it.

The "Pastorals" of Paul (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are often assumed to be genuine because these made it into the Bible under Paul’s name. But there is wide agreement among many Bible scholars that they differ so much from Paul’s vocabulary, style, and teachings that they could not be by him.

A question that comes up for me is "How much authority should we give the writings of those who were not truthful even about who they were?"

For instance, in contrast to the respect that Paul showed toward women, the author of 1 Timothy felt very differently. Timothy 1 reads that women need to be silent and submissive, and will be saved only "through childbearing."

A similar point that women need to be silent in church appears in an authentic letter of Paul-- 1 Corinthians.

Historians who study ancient languages and can evaluate passages carefully have found those verses in 1 Corinthians so thoroughly break the flow of the passage in which they appear and are so contrary to other things Paul writes, that they seem like they’re a later insertion by another person wanting to claim the authority of Paul for his own repressive attitude toward women.

And yet those verses in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, apparently by people pretending to be someone they were not, are used even today to justify limiting the leadership roles of women in some churches.

The real Paul was somewhat radical in his recognition of women believers--as his actual letters clearly demonstrate.
 

StanJ

New member
Some letters attributed to Paul were probably written by people who lied about who they were to gain Paul’s authority for their own ideas. But biblical scholars hardly ever put it that bluntly.

They couldn’t even bring themselves to use the word "forgeries." Instead, they used “pseudepigrapha,” a fancy word meaning wrongly attributed authorship that tells the truth while in its pompousness also disguises it.

The "Pastorals" of Paul (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are often assumed to be genuine because these made it into the Bible under Paul’s name. But there is wide agreement among many Bible scholars that they differ so much from Paul’s vocabulary, style, and teachings that they could not be by him.

A question that comes up for me is "How much authority should we give the writings of those who were not truthful even about who they were?"

For instance, in contrast to the respect that Paul showed toward women, the author of 1 Timothy felt very differently. Timothy 1 reads that women need to be silent and submissive, and will be saved only "through childbearing."

A similar point that women need to be silent in church appears in an authentic letter of Paul-- 1 Corinthians.

Historians who study ancient languages and can evaluate passages carefully have found those verses in 1 Corinthians so thoroughly break the flow of the passage in which they appear and are so contrary to other things Paul writes, that they seem like they’re a later insertion by another person wanting to claim the authority of Paul for his own repressive attitude toward women.

And yet those verses in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, apparently by people pretending to be someone they were not, are used even today to justify limiting the leadership roles of women in some churches.

The real Paul was somewhat radical in his recognition of women believers--as his actual letters clearly demonstrate.

Paul signed all his letters in his own hand, so please tell us which letters of his you consider pseudepigrapha? FYI, none of them are in the current 66 books commonly accepted canon of scripture.
In any event, this doesn't answer what I posted about 2 Tim 2:15 now does it?
 

StanJ

New member
I sadly disagree with your statement about the churches really knowing God and the son he sent. They are restricted by their traditions.


I expected nothing less from you keypurr, but the REAL church is what I was referring to, NOT the institutional one.
 
Top