Justification

[The Biblicist]

No, brother. That verse does not prove your 2 nature theory: "Have this attitude in e yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, [6] who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. [8] Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

The word "taking" means that as God he did not previously possess that "likeness of men." Hence, the humanity was something acquired that before did not exist with the God nature. So in fact it does teach precisely what I am saying. It proves the "likeness of men" is ADDITIONAL to the God nature.

Because Scripture tells us otherwise. Jesus is God (his nature is also immutable). The Farther could not reject God any more than could the Son. You are holding on to an invention in order to explain away scripture. And in so doing you have contradicted both yourself (you tear apart thst "fused nature" on the cross) and scripture (you deny Christ's divinity for that same instant). If what you say is true, that on the cross His withdrew his presence, then we have no salvation as you have emptied the cross of its worth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

Again, if Jesus can grow in knowledge as a man without ceasing to be the omnipresent God, why can't he as a man also suffer experiential disfellowship with the Father without ceasing to be God? If one, why not the other? Both limitations are found in his humanity not his deity OR do you believe his mutable knowledge as a man made the nature of God mutable as well?

Just as three distinguishable Persons CO-EXIST in ONE GOD without confusion of persons, so two distinguishable natures CO-EXIST in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures.

 

[Van]

Me, personally? I died in Christ and now I live in Him. And this is an experience that I can back up with scripture (Rm. 6:8). So the answer to your question, of course, is both. That's basic Christianity 101. God makes us what he has called us to be.

But my question concerns the statement of God declaring men"just". Does “just” here refer to us as “Law Keepers” based on the perfect Law-keeping of Christ (a righteousness based in the Law performed by Christ) or is this in the context of the Abrahamic covenant based on Christ and grounded in the Cross (a righteousness apart from the Law through faith…perhaps even looking at Christ’s on faithfulness in the Father for deliverance)?

Why would God declare us righteous if He had made us righteous? Where do you find "declared righteous" rather than justified?

Note, you say you have died with Christ. This refers to being spiritually baptized into His death. Thus you have undergone the Circumcision of Christ, your sin burden had been removed, and therefore you have been made righteous.

Bottom line, your question is based on your assertion you have been "declared" rather than made righteous.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why would God declare us righteous if He had made us righteous? Where do you find "declared righteous" rather than justified?

Note, you say you have died with Christ. This refers to being spiritually baptized into His death. Thus you have undergone the Circumcision of Christ, your sin burden had been removed, and therefore you have been made righteous.

Bottom line, your question is based on your assertion you have been "declared" rather than made righteous.

You are confusing regeneration wherein spiritual union is attained with justification. Justification is a legal position distinct from regeneration. In regeneration the righteous of Christ is imparted to the inward new nature by spiritual union but in justification it is imputed by faith, which faith embraces the promise of the Gospel of Christ as in the case of Job - "I know that MY REDEEMER liveth"

Jesus means Jehovah is salvation and "Christ" is the Messiah preached in the Old Testament by all the prophets concerning the promised redemption through faith in Christ (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; etc.). Righteousness was imputed because their faith embraced that promised redeemer.

 

[JonC]

The word "taking" means that as God he did not previously possess that "likeness of men." Hence, the humanity was something acquired that before did not exist with the God nature. So in fact it does teach precisely what I am saying. It proves the "likeness of men" is ADDITIONAL to the God nature.



Again, if Jesus can grow in knowledge as a man without ceasing to be the omnipresent God, why can't he as a man also suffer experiential disfellowship with the Father without ceasing to be God? If one, why not the other? Both limitations are found in his humanity not his deity OR do you believe his mutable knowledge as a man made the nature of God mutable as well?

Just as three distinguishable Persons CO-EXIST in ONE GOD without confusion of persons, so two distinguishable natures CO-EXIST in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures.

You are mistaking. Unfallen human nature is not out of sync with God's nature (but is a reflection of that nature). Jesus was without sin. Jesus did not take on a new nature, and certainly not a sinful nature. Again, you are confusing attributes with natures. We cannot speak of Jesus doing something in his humanity but apart from his divinity. That is unbiblical nonsense.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

You are mistaking.

No sir, I am not mistaken. You are simply changing the subject. No one said that the unfallen human nature is out of sync with God's nature. Jesus in his human nature was as sinless on the cross as before the cross. It is his LEGAL POSITION that was out of sync with the Divine Nature and that was the "cup" he did not wish to partake - to become sin for us LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY.

We most certainly can speak of Christ doing something in his humanity that he did not do in his divinity. In his divinity he never ceased to be God with all attributes of God - including immutability and omniscience but in his humanity he was LIMITED in knowledge, and GREW in knowledge and there is no possible rational way you can deny that. Likewise, in his humanity he could experience the consequences of being made sin legally including the Father forsaking him without any break in fellowship within the divine essence of one God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let's just nip this whole argument in the bud. You believe that Jesus was fully God, do you not? Yes! You believe he was fully man do you not? Yes! The issue between us is whether the divine God nature of Christ IS the human nature of Christ. I say it is not, you are saying it is, indeed you are saying that in Christ it becomes ONE AND THE SAME NATURE. I am saying that very belief denies that he is both God AND man, as your position has created a NEW GOD who is NEITHER God AND man but is DIVINE HUMANITY whose divinity is human and whose humanity is divine. The Scriptures clearly contradict that conclusion.

I am saying that Christ can express himself in the human nature without expressing himself equally in the divine nature. EVIDENCE: He expressed MUTABILITY, LIMITED KNOWLEGE in the human nature! That is a fact that no amount of argument will change. Now, you are left with the conclusion by your reasoning that the DIVINE NATURE in Christ was equally LIMITED IN KNOWLEGE and MUTABILE and that contradicts the very incommunicable attributes of God.

 

[JonC]

Let's just nip this whole argument in the bud. You believe that Jesus was fully God, do you not? Yes! You believe he was fully man do you not? Yes! The issue between us is whether the divine God nature of Christ IS the human nature of Christ. I say it is not, you are saying it is, indeed you are saying it is inseparable one nature and the same nature.

I am saying that Christ can express himself in the human nature without expressing himself equally in the divine nature. EVIDENCE: He expressed MUTABILITY, LIMITED KNOWLEGE in the human nature! That is a fact that no amount of argument will change. Now, you are left with the conclusion by your reasoning that the DIVINE NATURE in Christ was equally LIMITED IN KNOWLEGE and MUTABILE and that is contradicts the very incommunicable attributes of God.

Yes, I am saying that Jesus is God. Laying aside attributes is not the same as taking on a new nature.

God cannot be separated from God. Immutability is ontological to God. It is ontological to Christ. But it is ontological, not speaking of action but nature.

Only God is Holy. Was Jesus unholy when he did things "humanly"?

I am not arguing, brother, that Jesus did not set aside that glory and take on flesh. I am saying he is never less than God. How we reason that out - even if we reason that out - is less a concern to me than the conclusions we reach be in accord with God's Word.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[percho]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27

because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren; Rom 8:29 YLT

If Adam turns out to be one of those fore-appointed, conformed to the image of His Son, Will that image be equal to or greater than the image in which he had been created? Was Adam at the moment of his creation, equal unto the image of the resurrected Son of God? I agree he was created upright, righteous but did he remain so? We have been, by the death and resurrection of the Son, been imputed with the righteousness of God. After the coming again of Jesus, the blessed hope, at the adoption to whit, the redemption of the body, will we and or Adam, forever remain righteous ? That is without sin?

Will the resurrected and or changed man, in the image of the firstborn from the dead, Son be of a higher nature than the created Adam at his creation?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I am saying that Jesus is God. Laying aside attributes is not the same as taking on a new nature.

God cannot be separated from God. Immutability is ontological to God. It is ontological to Christ. But it is ontological, not speaking of action but nature.

Let me understand you clearly. Are you saying that Jesus was not 100% man but only 100% God?

Only God is Holy. Was Jesus unholy when he did things "humanly"?

Again, you are confusing communicable with incommunicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is "holy" because he has communicated holiness to angels and to men. However, God is the only one who is IMMUTABLE and ETERNAL and OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT as these are incommunicable attributes. To possess these attributes MAKE GOD TO BE GOD and distinct from creatures.

You have not confronted the evidence squarely. The indisputable evidence is that the MAN Jesus was MUTABLE, he was not omniscient as he GREW (mutability) in both "WISDOM" and "KNOWLEGE" and the nature of God cannot GROW in these areas as he is omniscient by nature. Therefore, just as there are three distinguishing Persons in ONE GOD without confusion of Persons, there are TWO NATURES in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures. That my friend, is the only possible explanation that harmonizes these scriptures.

God cannot be separated from God. Immutability is ontological to God. It is ontological to Christ. But it is ontological, not speaking of action but nature.

It is not ontological to Christ as Christ had no existence prior to the incarnation. Christ was a "fulfillment" to prophecy - "Christ" refers to the humanity that did not pre-exist the incarnation.

Only God is Holy. Was Jesus unholy when he did things "humanly"?

Again, you are confusing communicable attributes with non-communicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is holy as we can be "holy even as I am holy"! However, we cannot be omniscient or immutable or omnipresent "even as I am"!

Sorry brother, your position is erroneous.

 

[JonC]

Let me understand you clearly. Are you saying that Jesus was not 100% man but only 100% God?



Again, you are confusing communicable with incommunicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is "holy" because he has communicated holiness to angels and to men. However, God is the only one who is IMMUTABLE and ETERNAL and OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT as these are incommunicable attributes. To possess these attributes MAKE GOD TO BE GOD and distinct from creatures.

You have not confronted the evidence squarely. The indisputable evidence is that the MAN Jesus was MUTABLE, he was not omniscient as he GREW (mutability) in both "WISDOM" and "KNOWLEGE" and the nature of God cannot GROW in these areas as he is omniscient by nature. Therefore, just as there are three distinguishing Persons in ONE GOD without confusion of Persons, there are TWO NATURES in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures. That my friend, is the only possible explanation that harmonizes these scriptures.



It is not ontological to Christ as Christ had no existence prior to the incarnation. Christ was a "fulfillment" to prophecy - "Christ" refers to the humanity that did not pre-exist the incarnation.



Again, you are confusing communicable attributes with non-communicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is holy as we can be "holy even as I am holy"! However, we cannot be omniscient or immutable or omnipresent "even as I am"!

Sorry brother, your position is erroneous.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that God became man, not as an addition to his nature but as becoming flesh. Completely human, completely God. I am saying your philosophy is leading you into error in your rejection that Jesus is eternally God (even on the cross).

I think the issue may be that you can't accept God humbling himself as scripture states (that is contrary to how you view God) so you invent a way around it (you say he didnt....not as God anyway).



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Why would God declare us righteous if He had made us righteous? Where do you find "declared righteous" rather than justified?

Note, you say you have died with Christ. This refers to being spiritually baptized into His death. Thus you have undergone the Circumcision of Christ, your sin burden had been removed, and therefore you have been made righteous.

Bottom line, your question is based on your assertion you have been "declared" rather than made righteous.

Van, you are misunderstanding me. I am asking of those who hold that view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Lets see if I understand. First you say I am misunderstanding. Fair enough, but since you did not state your differing view, I am left to assume you do not accept that we are "declared righteous" but rather made righteous by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

 

[Van]

Hi Biblicist.

Justification is not a legal position, but a spiritual condition. We who are born anew are being continually justified by the blood of the Lamb. It is just as though we did not sin.

Righteousness was not "imputed" but made via the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

When God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers us into the kingdom of His Son. We are spiritually baptized into His death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, having undergone the "washing of regeneration." Justification is a simple straightforward concept, no need to make it mystical.

Spiritually "in" Christ = justified; spiritually not "in" Christ = not justified.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that God became man, not as an addition to his nature but as becoming flesh. Completely human, completely God. I am saying your philosophy is leading you into error in your rejection that Jesus is eternally God (even on the cross).

I think the issue may be that you can't accept God humbling himself as scripture states (that is contrary to how you view God) so you invent a way around it (you say he didnt....not as God anyway).



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

I continue to place the same evidence before you post after post and post after post you simply ignore the Biblical evidence and simply repeat empty assertions. So this conversation is hopeless. My position would never lead to rejection that Jesus is both God and man.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist.

Hi Van, long time

Justification is not a legal position, but a spiritual condition.

The very use of the term by Paul is found in reference to the "law" and thus it is a legal term.

We who are born anew are being continually justified by the blood of the Lamb. It is just as though we did not sin.

Paul explicitly deals with your position and repudiates it very clearly by using the Aorist (Rom. 4:11) and Perfect tense verbs (Rom. 5:1-2). He confines it to an Aorist completed action "in circumcision" while completely denying it is a progressive action by saying "not in circumcision" which characterizes the most of Abraham's life.

Righteousness was not "imputed" but made via the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

Again you are embracing Roman Catholic doctrine that confuses regeneration with justification and which error is the root error of "another gospel" whereby progressive sanctification is made equal to justification thereby denying that Christ's life and death satisfied the law once and for all - finished.

When God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers us into the kingdom of His Son.

He is not crediting "our faith" but "imputing" righteousness provided by Christ's active and passive obedience "FOR US" which is what that "faith" embraces in the promise declared in the gospel.

We are spiritually baptized into His death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, having undergone the "washing of regeneration." Justification is a simple straightforward concept, no need to make it mystical.

You are confusing regeneration with justification and thus making mumbo jumbo of the gospel of Christ and repudiating the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by including works of righteousness performed in your own body by the Spirit of God. Your position is the essence of Seventh Day Adventism and its view of justification.

Spiritually "in" Christ = justified; spiritually not "in" Christ = not justified.

The preposition "in Christ" is used many different ways in Scripture. At least 7 different ways. (1) In Christ before the foundation of the world by elective purpose - Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:28-33. (2) In Christ by representation -Rom. 5:12-19; (3) In Christ positionally through justification - Rom. 3:24-5:2; (4) In Christ by spiritual union through regeneration - Eph. 2:5,10; (5) In Christ metaphorically as metaphorical members in the metaphorical body of Christ - the congregation of Christ - 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:17-18; (6) Figuratively in Christ by baptism - 1 Pet. 3:21; (7) In Christ experientially as we "walk in him" - Col. 2:6

 

[JonC]

Lets see if I understand. First you say I am misunderstanding. Fair enough, but since you did not state your differing view, I am left to assume you do not accept that we are "declared righteous" but rather made righteous by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

Yes, Van. I am saying that we are not "justified" by a declaration as a work of God. We are justified "in Christ" (a declaration declares something that has happened). That said, we are also declared "right" and there is something by which justification or righteousness is measured. My question is if that act whereby God makes us "right" (forgiveness, regeneration, salvation, how ever we want to explore it) has in mind a moral "rightness" based on the Law or a "rightness" associated with God's covenant with Abraham.

 

[JonC]

I continue to place the same evidence before you post after post and post after post you simply ignore the Biblical evidence and simply repeat empty assertions. So this conversation is hopeless. My position would never lead to rejection that Jesus is both God and man.

Thus far your evidence has been simply that God is immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Yet when Jesus claimed to be God he was standing before man in a limited geographical location. Therefore, Jesus in his "human nature" was declaring to be God. I am saying that your logic does not end with the same conclusion scripture offers and that you are relying far too much on philosophy and far too less on God's Word in your position. Immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal are not qualities of one's nature. They are attributes but they are not nature. Did Jesus limit himself? Yes. Did this mean that Jesus was using his "human nature" and not his "divine nature"? No, that is absurd. Jesus' human nature was never in contradiction with his divine nature (Jesus was without sin). If we were without sin then we also would not have a nature contrary to God.

And I hope that you NEVER reject the belief that Jesus is both God and man. That would be apostasy. I do, however, hope that you one day come to understand that Jesus was not both a God and a man (he was 100% God, 100% man). I also hope you come to realize that these were inseparable, without mixture.

Again, the Holy Spirit is presented as submissive and as being sent by the Father and Son. God is sovereign. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit has a "human nature" as well?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Golly! I take an afternoon off and the thread has run off without me!

You are mistaking. Unfallen human nature is not out of sync with God's nature (but is a reflection of that nature). Jesus was without sin. Jesus did not take on a new nature, and certainly not a sinful nature. Again, you are confusing attributes with natures. We cannot speak of Jesus doing something in his humanity but apart from his divinity. That is unbiblical nonsense.

In Mark 4:35-41 we read of Jesus coming on board a boat and going to sleep on a pillow. Why would He do that? Because He was tired, why else?.
'Have you not known? have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth neither faints nor is weary....' (Isaiah 40:28).

Luke 25:41. 'But while they still did not believe for joy, and marvelled, He said to them, "have you any food?"
Psalm 50:12-13. "If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is mine and all its fullness. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"

I'll say it again; Jesus was God, as if He were not man, but He was also man as if He were not God.

'Oh who am I,
That for my sake
My Lord should take
Frail flesh and die?'

There is a threeness as well as a oneness to the Trinity. Can God sent forth God? It seems ridiculous, but the Father and the Son send forth the Spirit. Can God pray to God? Hardly, but the Son can pray to the Father. Can God obey God? It makes no sense, but the Son can be obedient to the Father even unto death. Can God forsake God? Surely it is impossible, but it is not impossible that, for a short time, the Father should forsake the Son. That is what happened because the Bible says it did.

 

[JonC]

Golly! I take an afternoon off and the thread has run off without me!

I told everyone to wait, but they said "no rest for the wicked" and we just kept going Laugh

In Mark 4:35-41 we read of Jesus coming on board a boat and going to sleep on a pillow. Why would He do that? Because He was tired, why else?.
'Have you not known? have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth neither faints nor is weary....' (Isaiah 40:28).

Luke 25:41. 'But while they still did not believe for joy, and marvelled, He said to them, "have you any food?"
Psalm 50:12-13. "If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is mine and all its fullness. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"

I'll say it again; Jesus was God, as if He were not man, but He was also man as if He were not God.

'Oh who am I,
That for my sake
My Lord should take
Frail flesh and die?'

There is a threeness as well as a oneness to the Trinity. Can God sent forth God? It seems ridiculous, but the Father and the Son send forth the Spirit. Can God pray to God? Hardly, but the Son can pray to the Father. Can God obey God? It makes no sense, but the Son can be obedient to the Father even unto death. Can God forsake God? Surely it is impossible, but it is not impossible that, for a short time, the Father should forsake the Son. That is what happened because the Bible says it did.

There is always room for mystery but we cannot allow our interpretations or doctrine to contradict scripture. I do not believe that Jesus' humanity contradicts the immutability of God simply because I believe divine immutability to speak to God's nature and not his attributes (God is not somehow forced to exercise every attribute in every situation in order to be "changeless"). God became man, and Jesus remains the "God man". But his nature does not "hunger" or "sleep" or exist temporally or have to learn....those are not things of one's nature.

But human nature is not divine, or holy, or righteous. Jesus was all of those....even in his "human nature" because Jesus was without sin. This is not two separate natures because Jesus' humanity was never sinful. Jesus was never something ungodly. One cannot be separated from the presence of God yet remain godly and holy (you can't have it both ways).

In the end, scripture never speaks of God separating from His Holy One. But sometimes our theologies do as we try to rationalize God becoming man. This is when we have to choose. And I have. Either scripture is right or the theory that Jesus was separated from God's presence is right, but not both.

What we have here is Scripture stating that God will never desert His Righteous One. Some wrestle with the idea of God humbling Himself (even before the Incarnation, God decided to humble Himself, which is something that does not fit into some's category of who God is). Some have developed theories of exactly how Jesus paid for our sins. In the end these folks go back and tweak scripture to their theories instead of tweaking their theories to scripture. What we are left with this this idea that Jesus separated from God's presence but nothing but theories with token passages to back it up. And when someone mentions that the view denies other passages the defense is "well...we just can't understand it." Of course we can't understand "it". "It" isn't revealed in scripture. But don't deny what is clearly and plainly stated. But some do.

And we get what we have here today... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the end, scripture never speaks of God separating from His Holy One.

Yes it does. It does so clearly and directly. Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34. Other passages back them up but you have closed your eyes to them.

What we are left with this this idea that Jesus separated from God's presence but nothing but theories with token passages to back it up. And when someone mentions that the view denies other passages the defence is "well...we just can't understand it."

They are not 'token' passages! They are Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34. And the Father forsook the Son only for a short time. 'For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you' (Isaiah 54:7-8). I know the primary reference here is to the people of God, but it must also apply to their Redeemer if He is to make propitiation for them.

earlier you wrote:

For my part, as a start, I stand on the truth of scripture that God will indeed never abandon his righteous one and in fact did not separate from Jesus (Deuteronomy 31:8; 31:6; Joshua 1:9; 1:5 Isaiah 41:10-13; Psalm 22; 37:25; 37:28; 55:22; 73:23-26; Micha 7:7).

Deut. 31:8. God did forsake Joshua briefly (Joshua 7), but only for a short while.
Psalm 22. The Father did forsake the Son for a short while QED.
Psalm 37:25. God does sometimes forsake the righteous, but only for a short time (eg. Isaiah 50:10).
Psalm 55:22. The righteous are moved sometimes, but God always restores (Psalm 40:1-3 etc.).
Micah 7:7. That is exactly what the Lord Jesus did when The Father forsook Him on the cross. He waited and God rescued Him.
And so on. 'Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all' (Psalm 34:19). God does hide His face from His people at times (what the Puritans called 'the dark night of the soul') but they are not permanently abandoned and nor was our Lord.

You wrote to the Biblicist:

There are no passages that treat Christ as if he had both a human and a divine nature.

Yes there are, and I have cited one to you already, Mark 4:35-41 etc. When the Lord Jesus comes onto the boat, He is tired and weary; He needs to sleep. He is man as if He were not God. But when the storm arises and the disciples come to Him in a panic, 'Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace, be still!" And the wind ceased and there was a great calm.' Who can still wind and wave but God Almighty? Jesus is God, God as if He were not man.

You concept of Christ and the Trinity is deficient as the Biblicist has said, and until you get it right you will not understand.

JonC, there's no point in continuing. I was most reluctant to resume this discussion because I knew how it would end, and it has. Let's leave it there. I have neither the time, the energy nor the inclination for it.