[quote author=analice107 post=59842841][/quote]
I would have continued this chat but lets reason
1. Henry took over his bro's wife, their age difference doesn't qualify him for a new wife when he feels like, please drop the hate and reason.
2. my question was/is the first missionaries that visited our side were they Catholics or not? and not asking their nationality.
3. writing is different from compiling. the apostles and the prophets of old wrote epistles in scrolls in different languages.
4. the bible was compiled by people(first Christians) who collected the original manual scripts and arranged them accordingly.
5. don't get me wrong the catholic church may have done some bad things in the past according to the bad, but u cant write the Christian history without mentioning them.
6. the new books added, please read them, if there is any chapter that is against the work of Christ, or promotes ''paganism'' according to u, please point it to me, cos I would like to learn from u.
7. for your movie, df ppl tell same story differentl

analice107:



Pls, can you tell us the Century the Bible got to Rome. Oh, what i mean is, when the Roman Catholicism was established as a state religion in Rome.

Pls for how many Centuries was the Bible locked up in Rome away from the reach of even some Priests?

Are you sure the Catholic Church intended for the entire human race to handle a Bible for themselves and see what it said about them personally?

Why then was the Bible hidden for Centuries until some Priests began secretly translating it into the languages of their people with the hope of them understanding it?

Do you know how many Bibles the Mother Church burnt together with those who translated them into different languages? would you say that was an attitude of a Church which wanted the Bible taken to People?

Was Christianity meant to remain in Rome? Why then did Catholicism held it down in Rome for Centuries until the Reformation broke through?

Are you sure Catholicism would have allowed Christianity to be a Creed of Liberty if the Reformers didn't make the move seriously paying with their own blood? Have you watched this movie " Juan of Arc?" you should watch it and see what Catholicism meant or intended for humanity.

You all blame King Henry the 8th for breaking out and starting The Anglican Communion, but, have you found time to know what led to that?

He was given a Bible which he read for himself, he saw what the Pope had always told him through the Bishop to be lies, lies and more lies. He saw he didn't have to pay the Papal indulgence to ascertain his redemption. He saw he didn't have to marry his late brothers wife if he didn't want to, contrary to what the Catholic Church wanted him to believe.

He saw he had the liberty to choose for himself whether or not to obey God.

Let me ask you this sir.

From when Catholicism began, to when the Reformation broke out, how many years were they?

From When The Reformation started to When the Catholic Church saw the need to spread to our African Continent, how many years was it?

Sir, if you believe Catholicism brought you the Bible, then you just believed a lie. But for the Reformation, the Bible would've remained locked up in an extinct Latin language, and inside some old cupboards only to be read to you by those who feel they have the right to control you by telling you only what they want you to hear and know.

The Catholic Church works against Christ. Jesus says, take the Good News to the Ends of the Earth, the Catholic Church wanted it locked up in Rome.


With this, The Catholic Church just affirms that it's stance is not consistent with what He whom they claim to follow commands.

Jesus says in Revelation 22:19 ...

Good News Translation Revelation 22:19 And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

The Catholic Church added these other books to enable them practice paganism.

Cc. UnchangeableGod

With all due respect to you... you have lied against the Church...
You get your information about the Catholic church from movies instead of real history... Interesting

Henry VIII broke away because he read the bible for himself and the catholic church wanted him to marry his brother's wife... THATS NOT WHAT HISTORY SAYS..

Henry is best known for his SIX MARRIAGES and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled.
His disagreement with the Pope on the
question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation , separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

This talks about his reason for breaking away.. and it doesn't mention reading the bible for himself...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England/Annulment from Catherine

At least from yo r post you agree that the Catholic Church compiled the bible since the say that the bible was at a time "only in Rome"
The Bible has been there since before the reformation with many Catholic clergy translating it into vernacular..

Sts Cyril and Methodius did it in 885 Almost 800 years before the Reformation ..
In England,
In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue. During the early 8th century, St. Bede the Venerable also translated parts of the Bible into the language of the common British people. On his death bed in 735, he translated the Gospel of St. John. Also in this period, Bishop Eadhelm, Guthlac and Bishop Egbert worked on Saxon Bibles. During the 9th and 10th centuries, King Alfred the Great and Archbishop Aelfric worked on Anglo-Saxon (Old English) translations.

Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cædmon/Work

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius

[quote author=analice107 post=59842841][/quote]

My dear.. yes the apostles wrote the epistles and gospels.. but who told that this epistle was written by Paul or Peter or James etc before you accepted it thousands of years later.. IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.. Why were they selected is the question you should ask yourself because there are other books that are claimed to be written by the apostles ...

these are some examples

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts
of Pilate"
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem , On the Life and
the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims
to be according to Bartholomew )

And all these were rejected and decided by the Catholic Church at the council of Hippo and Carthage...

[quote author=analice107 post=59842841][/quote]

My dear.. yes the apostles wrote the epistles and gospels.. but who told that this epistle was written by Paul or Peter or James etc before you accepted it thousands of years later.. IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.. Why were they selected is the question you should ask yourself because there are other books that are claimed to be written by the apostles ...

these are some examples

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts
of Pilate"
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem , On the Life and
the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims
to be according to Bartholomew )

And all these were rejected and decided by the Catholic Church at the council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage... almost 1300 years before any Protestant reformation..
Yes the Apostles were inspired and their Job of writing was very important... BUT SO IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR COMPILING THE RIGHT BOOKS BY THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. otherwise you would be reading the Gospel of Peter, Questions of Bartholomew etc now

easymancfc,

Surely the Holy Spirit did not direct the Catholic church to add the apocryphal books, which promote practices condemned by the Law of GOD, to the Bible. "To the Law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them." - Isa. 8:20

There is no light in any writing that speaks against the Law of GOD, or commands men to disregard its precepts.

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Surely the Holy Spirit did not direct the Catholic church to add the apocryphal books, which promote practices condemned by the Law of GOD, to the Bible. "To the Law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them." - Isa. 8:20

There is no light in any writing that speaks against the Law of GOD, or commands men to disregard its precepts.

The Deuterocanonica was accepted by the whole of Christendom until Martin Luther removed them from his German translation.. It might interest you to know that the first King James translation had the deuterocanonica in it... You should blame Martin Luther for removing them because for 1500 years it was accepted

HE ALSO WANTED TO REMOVE JAMES AND HEBREWS ALSO... IF HE DID.. AM SURE YOU WOULD BE SAYING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDED JAMES AND HEBREWS TO THE BIBLE WHICH "GO AGAINST" GOD's WORD..

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such assola gratiaandsola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in theGerman-languageLuther Bibleto this day.[5]

Luther did not include thedeuterocanonical booksin his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."[4]He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of theBook of Estherfrom the canon to the Apocrypha, because without thedeuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C5018687969

We will now compare the words of the catholic church with the words of the Bible:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." (A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52).

Paul told Timothy, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15).

Consequently, Paul says that the Scripture alone is sufficiently able to make one wise/equip one unto salvation. The catholic church says GOD taught other things which are not in the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Paul says that the Scripture contains sufficient to make the man of GOD PERFECT and equipped for every good work. Surely anything not contained in the Bible is not necessary for salvation.

easymancfc:


The Deuterocanonica was accepted by the whole of Christendom until Martin Luther removed them from his German translation.. It might interest you to know that the first King James translation had the deuterocanonica in it... You should blame Martin Luther for removing them because for 1500 years it was accepted

HE ALSO WANTED TO REMOVE JAMES AND HEBREWS ALSO... IF HE DID.. AM SURE YOU WOULD BE SAYING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDED JAMES AND HEBREWS TO THE BIBLE WHICH "GO AGAINST" GOD's WORD..

Surely the true church of GOD on earth then, including the Waldensians, "of whom the world was not worthy", and which "wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth", whither the bloodthirsty papacy chased them, did not accept your idolatry-approving deuterocanonica.(Heb. 11:38)

DoctorAlien:
We will now compare the words of the catholic church with the words of the Bible:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." (A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52).

Paul told Timothy, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15).

Consequently, Paul says that the Scripture alone is sufficiently able to make one wise/equip one unto salvation. The catholic church says GOD taught other things which are not in the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Paul says that the Scripture contains sufficient to make the man of GOD PERFECT and equipped for every good work. Surely anything not contained in the Bible is not necessary for salvation.

2 Tim 6 doesn't mention "sufficient" you added that...

In 2 Tim 3:15 says since you were a child.. or from infancy.. The Sacred writings was the old testament not the new... because there was no Ephesians or Colossians or Hebrews when Timothy was a child only the Old testament meaning.. the Scripture here is the OLD TESTAMENT therefore the right conclusion using your analogy is the OLD TESTAMENT ALONE...

easymancfc:


2 Tim 6 doesn't mention "sufficient" you added that...

In 2 Tim 3:15 says since you were a child.. or from infancy.. The Sacred writings was the old testament not the new... because there was no Ephesians or Colossians or Hebrews when Timothy was a child only the Old testament meaning.. the Scripture here is the OLD TESTAMENT therefore the right conclusion using your analogy is the OLD TESTAMENT ALONE...

I know that your Reverend Father has never told you that, armed with the Old Testament alone, one can grasp the basic tenets of the gospel of Christ Jesus. The OT alone is even sufficient to lead one to realize his need of the Messiah which Paul preached, hence his words to Timothy. Paul knew that even the OT Patriarchs knew of the gospel he preached, and he said that the "Scripture...preached the gospel unto Abraham"(Gal. 3:8 ).

Anyway, Peter called Paul's writings Scripture(2 Pet. 3:15-16). But he never called your church fables Scripture.

DoctorAlien:


I know that your Reverend Father has never told you that, armed with the Old Testament alone, one can grasp the basic tenets of the gospel of Christ Jesus. The OT alone is even sufficient to lead one to realize his need of the Messiah which Paul preached, hence his words to Timothy. Paul knew that even the OT Patriarchs knew of the gospel he preached, and he said that the "Scripture...preached the gospel unto Abraham"(Gal. 3:.

Anyway, Peter called Paul's writings Scripture(2 Pet. 3:15-16). But he never called your church fables Scripture.

In essence you agree that In that case the old testament alone would be scripture in that case...

Even if that were true Peter didn't call Mathew, Mark, Luke or John, James etc Scripture but you don't have any issue in those... here's a question for you.. Who put The book of Peter as scripture.. was it the Adventist Church?

easymancfc:


In essence you agree that In that case the old testament alone would be scripture in that case...

Even if that were true Peter didn't call Mathew, Mark, Luke or John, James etc Scripture but you don't have any issue in those... here's a question for you.. Who put The book of Peter as scripture.. was it the Adventist Church?

Nobody on earth will so misconstrue my argument as to arrive at your first line above. Think more objectively. I only said that one who has access only to the OT can even be instructed unto salvation by it, hence Paul's word to Timothy.

Let's get it clear: the catholic church may have compiled the books of the NT simply because they were largely under her possession. Don't make it look like nobody on earth would have access to any book of the NT without the catholic church. Paul directed the churches in Colosse and Laodicea to exchange epistles(Col. 4:16). So, churches were in possession of the different epistles of Paul.

analice107:





You all blame King Henry the 8th for breaking out and starting The Anglican Communion, but, have you found time to know what led to that?

He was given a Bible which he read for himself, he saw what the Pope had always told him through the Bishop to be lies, lies and more lies. He saw he didn't have to pay the Papal indulgence to ascertain his redemption. He saw he didn't have to marry his late brothers wife if he didn't want to, contrary to what the Catholic Church wanted him to believe.

This is the reeeeeemix Lmao

easymancfc,

Paul says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17

The dictionary defines "thoroughly" as "completely", "perfectly", "utterly". Therefore, Paul says that the Scripture alone can indoctrinate, reprove, correct and instruct one, to the end that one may be completely/perfectly/utterly furnished unto(made able to carry out) all good works.

Where is the place of your church fables here?

DoctorAlien:


Nobody on earth will so misconstrue my argument as to arrive at your first line above. Think more objectively. I only said that one who has access only to the OT can even be instructed unto salvation by it, hence Paul's word to Timothy.

Let's get it clear: the catholic church may have compiled the books of the NT simply because they were largely under her possession. Don't make it look like nobody on earth would have access to any book of the NT without the catholic church. Paul directed the churches in Colosse and Laodicea to exchange epistles(Col. 4:16). So, churches were in possession of the different epistles of Paul.

In essence again you agree that the Catholic church compiled the new testament correctly that you take correctly but not the old...

Yes Paul asked that the Epistle be read in Laodicea not because it was to spread throughout the world from there or be made part of the new testament but because of Epaphras Salutation who worked both for the Colossian and Laodicean church..
col 4:12Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. 13For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.

if it was as you said then other epistles like Corinthians, Thessalonians etc would have such injunctions directly..

Lastly the gospels (Mathew, Mark, etc) were not letters addressed directly to any church ...

as for the old testament.. I also emphasized what you said ...all Jews accept the old testament and were expecting a saviour but they hold only to the old testament and reject the Christian new testament...

easymancfc:


In essence again you agree that the Catholic church compiled the new testament correctly that you take correctly but not the old...

Yes Paul asked that the Epistle be read in Laodicea not because it was to spread throughout the world from there or be made part of the new testament but because of Epaphras Salutation who worked both for the Colossian and Laodicean church..

Are you joking? Who on earth can believe that Paul asked that his epistle to the Colossians be read among the Laodiceans too only because it contains Epaphras' salutation, and not because the admonition contained in it would also benefit the Laodiceans?

So why did Paul ask that the epistle to the Laodiceans be also read among the Colossians in Col. 4:16? Whose salution now was contained in the epistle to the Laodicians, which the Colossians needed to see?

Wow! Catholic apologists at their best in joke-making.

The way I see it, the Roman Catholic Church is no different from any Protestant Church.

DoctorAlien:
We will now compare the words of the catholic church with the words of the Bible:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." (A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52).

Paul told Timothy, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15).

Consequently, Paul says that the Scripture alone is sufficiently able to make one wise/equip one unto salvation. The catholic church says GOD taught other things which are not in the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Paul says that the Scripture contains sufficient to make the man of GOD PERFECT and equipped for every good work. Surely anything not contained in the Bible is not necessary for salvation.

Conveniently ignored the preceeding verse which referred to tradition!

v14 - But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

Sacred tradition and scripture. you'll find no sola scriptura in the bible.
Also Paul did not list what books constituted scripture, this would come 300years later. In any case, Paul could only have been referring to the OT(Jews hadn't even closed the canon at that point) as profitable/ useful not all sufficient.

analice107:
.

Have you heard about Peshitta? Meaning "simple". It's the Syriac translation of the New Testament dated to the time shortly after the death of the Apostles. It is still the authoritative Bible in large Eastern communities. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Lucian (AD 250-312), a renowned hebrew scholar worked on the text of the Old Testament, which he corrected from the original Hebrew. His version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor. Protestant denominations are built upon Lucian edition of the manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church.
They can not take credit for the compilation and translation of the Bible. The Church at Antioch had the truth directly from the Apostles. Rome was just a new comer. Don't mind the catholics.

oaroloye:
The way I see it, the Roman Catholic Church is no different from any Protestant Church.

Protestant churches were formed by those protesting against the authority of the established Catholic church.

Very easy to forget this fact 500 years later

otr1:

Have you heard about Peshitta? Meaning "simple". It's the Syriac translation of the New Testament dated to the time shortly after the death of the Apostles. It is still the authoritative Bible in large Eastern communities. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Lucian (AD 250-312), a renowned hebrew scholar worked on the text of the Old Testament, which he corrected from the original Hebrew. His version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor. Protestant denominations are built upon Lucian edition of the manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church.
They can not take credit for the compilation and translation of the Bible. The Church at Antioch had the truth directly from the Apostles. Rome was just a new comer. Don't mind the catholics.

Thank you for this info. I have a Christians friends from Syria and Lebanon. They are Orthodox Christians, i know that they use this Bible you just talked about.

The Catholic Church would wish there was no Reformation for them to do with Christianity as the pleased, but who can cage and limit the Holy Spirit?

Proudgorgeousga:


This is the reeeeeemix Lmao

The Remix of what?

easymancfc:


My dear.. yes the apostles wrote the epistles and gospels.. but who told that this epistle was written by Paul or Peter or James etc before you accepted it thousands of years later.. IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.. Why were they selected is the question you should ask yourself because there are other books that are claimed to be written by the apostles ...

these are some examples

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts
of Pilate"
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem , On the Life and
the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims
to be according to Bartholomew )

And all these were rejected and decided by the Catholic Church at the council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage... almost 1300 years before any Protestant reformation..
Yes the Apostles were inspired and their Job of writing was very important... BUT SO IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR COMPILING THE RIGHT BOOKS BY THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. otherwise you would be reading the Gospel of Peter, Questions of Bartholomew etc now

Hahahahahabaha. Wait to meet Jesus so you can tell Him how well you followed the instructions he gave to you from the Bible.
Am done with you.

btoks:


Conveniently ignored the preceeding verse which referred to tradition!

v14 - But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

Sacred tradition and scripture. you'll find no sola scriptura in the bible.
Also Paul did not list what books constituted scripture, this would come 300years later. In any case, Paul could only have been referring to the OT(Jews hadn't even closed the canon at that point) as profitable/ useful not all sufficient.

Yes, Peter and Paul I know. James, John and the gospel writers I know. But who is that Latin-speaking man that moulds images, asking me to bow to them? Who is that Man of Sin(2 Thess. 2) that presumes to teach me things that directly oppose the word of GOD?(Isa. 8:20).

Sacred tradition, if anything like that is, must emphasize the supreme authority of the Scriptures, and can never contradict the Scriptures.

analice107:
The Remix of what?

of the story

otr1:

Have you heard about Peshitta? Meaning "simple". It's the Syriac translation of the New Testament dated to the time shortly after the death of the Apostles. It is still the authoritative Bible in large Eastern communities. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Lucian (AD 250-312), a renowned hebrew scholar worked on the text of the Old Testament, which he corrected from the original Hebrew. His version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor. Protestant denominations are built upon Lucian edition of the manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church.
They can not take credit for the compilation and translation of the Bible. The Church at Antioch had the truth directly from the Apostles. Rome was just a new comer. Don't mind the catholics.

those churches you mentioned all have teachings the same as the catholic church including the use of images in churches, mary, confession, infant baptism, etc. they have the same teaching you condemn the catholic church for. those teaching that makes it difficult for you to accept that the catholic church compiled the bible, these churches also have exactly the same doctrines and traditions. @analice107

MiddleDimension:


those churches you mentioned all have teachings the same as the catholic church including the use of images in churches, mary, confession, infant baptism, etc. they have the same teaching you condemn the catholic church for. those teaching that makes it difficult for you to accept that the catholic church compiled the bible, these churches also have exactly the same doctrines and traditions. @analice107

You lie sir. Complete lie.

Proudgorgeousga:


of the story

How come very few girls can actually sustain a discussion with facts rather than troll? Present your facts.

analice107:

You lie sir. Complete lie.

you should have proved it to me that i lied.

This is the greek orthodox church, one of those ancient churches the apostles planted. Please read up on their teachings in this link and tell me you didn't mistaken it for the Roman catholic church. https://www.goarch.org/-/teachings-of-the-orthodox-church

analice107:

How come very few girls can actually sustain a discussion with facts rather than troll? Present your facts.

you asked a question and I answered.

NVM you are an intelligent girl that can sustain a discussion without trolling well done. you are truly wonderful and blessed.

analice107:

How come very few girls can actually sustain a discussion with facts rather than troll? Present your facts.

Hi love, long time.