Books Containing Modern Day Miracles and Supernatural Events

[Hebrews 11]

That all depends on the Greek translation you use.

If you use the Alexandrian text that is your conclusion.

If you use the text the New Testament was written in the koin greek,or common language from 300BC to 300 AD then you may find many differences.
Even with your explanation the idiom remains the same.

Be it a work of hands given by God ,or a intrinsic work by God through a ministry there is no difference.

Here is a old but true statement:
You will never have what you speak against.

 

[Hebrews 11]

It would take more Faith to think all the eye witness accounts of miracles recorded were false than to simply believe them.

None of us were there when Jesus raised the dead.

None of us were there when Jesus raised from the tomb,yet Thomas is remembered by his doubt rather than his ministry.

With Jesus standing right before him he still had to touch his wound.

It's getting to the point we cannot quote scripture without a different translation to attempt to discredit what the Word says.

Where there is doubt there will be fear.

Fear is simply belief that bad things will happen,how can anything bad come from having Faith?

But without Faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[tango]

That all depends on the Greek translation you use.

If you use the Alexandrian text that is your conclusion.

If you use the text the New Testament was written in the koin greek,or common language from 300BC to 300 AD then you may find many differences.
Even with your explanation the idiom remains the same.

Be it a work of hands given by God ,or a intrinsic work by God through a ministry there is no difference.

Here is a old but true statement:
You will never have what you speak against.

Really?

There's a huge difference between the work of our hands and the works of God's hands. The works of our hands might look like the Good Samaritan. The works of God's hands would be the signs and wonders and fireworks that so many people chase and so many talk about as if we can choose to simply have more power.

My mother-in-law spoke against cancer many times but it still killed her.

 

[tango]

It would take more Faith to think all the eye witness accounts of miracles recorded were false than to simply believe them.

None of us were there when Jesus raised the dead.

None of us were there when Jesus raised from the tomb,yet Thomas is remembered by his doubt rather than his ministry.

With Jesus standing right before him he still had to touch his wound.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

It's getting to the point we cannot quote scripture without a different translation to attempt to discredit what the Word says.

Where Scripture appears to contradict Scripture, or where Scripture appears to contradict reality, we have to either figure that Scripture is unreliable or realise that we've misunderstood it. So when James presents healing as if it were guaranteed and Paul tells Timothy to take a little wine for his "frequent infirmities" we might ask whether we misunderstood what James is saying, or whether Paul was a putz who forgot to tell Timothy to present himself to the elders for anointing or to just claim the healing God was somehow obliged to give him.

If Paul was a putz we can throw away most of the New Testament because if he forgot to tell Timothy to claim his healing rather than self-medicating with wine we'd have to ask what else he might have forgotten to mention along the way. So we end up with a question of whether James is talking of physical healing in the sense of physical ailments going away, or something else.

Where there is doubt there will be fear.

Fear is simply belief that bad things will happen, how can anything bad come from having Faith?

We can't come to knowledge without first going through a degree of doubt. We come up with a theory, we test the theory, we come to conclude that the theory was true (or false, depending). In the meantime we don't know for sure whether it's true or not.

How can anything bad come from having faith? Easily, if that faith is misplaced. If I decide not to bother working because of my blind faith that It Will All Be Alright, what happens when I can't pay my bills? If I decide not to bother looking before crossing the road because of blind faith that "God will protect me" the results might not be pleasant. Likewise if I follow the teachers who insist that "God won't let me be deceived" and ignore the Scriptural call to test the spirits, who knows what spiritual dark alleys I'll wander into or how long it will take me to find my way clear of all the toxic waste I might find there?

But without Faith it is impossible to please God.

That's not really relevant here, because I don't imagine God is impressed by a gullibility that just accepts everything at face value when he gave us the Scriptures that tell us to test and to study. We can't love God with all of our minds if we simply turn our minds off and indulge a bit of blind faith in the latest feel-good story from Somewhere Else where Someone Else with multiple problems got prayed for and ended up feeling a little bit better for, oh, at least as long as it took the TV cameras to roll somewhere else.

 

[Hebrews 11]

The book of James and the book of Timothy,are not in contradiction.
You create the contradiction by a lack of understanding the wine in Timothy.
You discount a absolute promise of God based on your presumptuous understanding.

It is nothing new,your opinions another name for them would be religion.

What is religion?
A group of people who share the same opinions on God's word,and pass the opinions down to each new generation.

Religion becomes the foundation for worship,through religious ceremony.

God in a box wrapped by man's interpretation to fit their own personal agendas.

 

[Hebrews 11]

When did we decide that pleasing God was not relevant anywhere?

 

[Hebrews 11]

I am sorry for your loss.

So many people who are hurting ask why God ?

He promised seek and you will find , knock and the door will be opened unto you

 

[tango]

The book of James and the book of Timothy,are not in contradiction.
You create the contradiction by a lack of understanding the wine in Timothy.
You discount a absolute promise of God based on your presumptuous understanding.

Perhaps you could enlighten me then and explain the apparent contradiction.

It's easy to write off my "presumptuous understanding", although how "understanding the wine" has anything to do with it isn't clear. Anyone can say "you're wrong" but it takes more effort to write something useful that explains why you think I am wrong.

Paul wrote to Timothy with a solution for his "frequent infirmities". Since that solution wasn't going to the elders and having them anoint him with oil, are we misunderstanding James if we assume healing is guaranteed or did Paul miss a fairly obvious trick that would have saved Timothy some grief? If the former then healing clearly isn't guaranteed; if the latter then we would have to wonder what else Paul forgot to mention in his writings.

It is nothing new,your opinions another name for them would be religion.

What is religion?
A group of people who share the same opinions on God's word,and pass the opinions down to each new generation.

Religion becomes the foundation for worship,through religious ceremony.

God in a box wrapped by man's interpretation to fit their own personal agendas.

Are you able to address my questions without throwing generic terms that seem to be little more than thinly veiled insults? Since you don't know me it's rather amusing that you talk of me handing down my opinions to each generation, and seeking religious ceremony. As it happens I dislike religious ceremony because too often tradition gets elevated to the level of theology and I spent a lot of time trying to unpick what was God's requirement from what was Man's requirement.

My agenda in all this is simple - I want to know the truth. It's disappointing when I'm discussing with someone who seems to hold a different viewpoint when I find they appear unable to defend their viewpoint against even fairly basic questioning, and resort to vague accusations of "putting God in a box", pushing agendas and the like. You could have cut out a lot of words and called me a Pharisee, that would have been much quicker and it's hard to see what other conclusion I should draw from your post here.

 

[tango]

I am sorry for your loss.

So many people who are hurting ask why God ?

He promised seek and you will find , knock and the door will be opened unto you

I assume that was directed to me, in which case thankyou for your sympathies. My mother-in-law died nearly 20 years ago but my wife and I still miss her and probably will until the day we die.

One thing we need to remember is that we will all die, unless Jesus returns while we still live. If we could truly abolish sickness from this world what would death look like? When my mother-in-law died we knew she was sick so we had chance to say our goodbyes to her and prepare to lose her. How much harder would life be had she been in apparently perfect health before suddenly dropping dead for no apparent reason? How much more death and destruction would be caused if people just dropped like flies if they were driving cars, flying planes, operating heavy machinery and the like? When someone is sick and weak they know not to do such things, but why would someone who thought they were in good health avoid driving, or operating machinery?

Until we see the new heaven and the new earth we will have to face death, so why assume that sickness with be spirited out of the equation this side of heaven? It's a soothing theology but doesn't seem to be promised with any consistency in the Bible, nor does it align with the reality we can see around us. Sometimes God does heal people miraculously, other times he does not. As to why he chooses to heal one and not another, if we knew that we would "be like God" which didn't work out too well when the serpent promised it to Eve in Eden and won't work out any better for us if we try and follow that path now.

 

[tango]

When did we decide that pleasing God was not relevant anywhere?

I didn't say that pleasing God wasn't relevant, I just said your comment about it being impossible to please God without faith wasn't relevant.

If I put my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and run around on the interstate having faith that God will protect me from the trucks does that please God? I would imagine not, since he gave me the ears and eyes and the basic sense to avoid exposing myself to such pointless risks.

If I quit my job and sit on my rear end at home watching TV all day having faith that God will provide for me, refusing to lift a finger to provide for myself, does that please God? Again I would imagine not, given the parables of the talents and Paul's admonition in 2Th 3:10.

We need faith to please God but that faith has to be grounded in something worthy of having faith. Looking at a rickety bridge 1000 feet above a raging river and having blind faith that it will support me isn't useful. Taking everything at face value and accepting it blindly rather than testing it is equally not useful. If we don't test we could easily be putting our faith in false teachers, the people we are called to mark and avoid, which is also unlikely to please God.

 

[Hebrews 11]

I am not trying to insult you,but if I am correct your example of Paul telling Timothy take a little wine for thine stomach,some how refutes James.

James taught that the prayer of Faith Would heal the sick.

Paul sent Blessed handkerchiefs and they were healed.

Paul had all of the Spiritual gifts Healing included.

Paul and James had different ministries,one statement by Paul does not undermine the Gospel of James.

I respect all the Christians here,but I have a great passion for God' Word

 

[tango]

I am not trying to insult you,but if I am correct your example of Paul telling Timothy take a little wine for thine stomach,some how refutes James.

I am saying that Paul telling Timothy to take a little wine for his conditions certainly casts doubt on the conclusion that James was saying healing is guaranteed.

James taught that the prayer of Faith Would heal the sick.

Paul sent Blessed handkerchiefs and they were healed.

Paul had all of the Spiritual gifts Healing included.

So in the light of all that can you explain why Timothy still wasn't healed, and indeed still suffered "frequent infirmities"?

Paul and James had different ministries,one statement by Paul does not undermine the Gospel of James.

Where Scripture apparently contradicts Scripture it's probably worth digging a little deeper to resolve the contradiction, no? Otherwise all we have left is doublethink where healing is both guaranteed and conditional. If healing is guaranteed we need to figure out why Timothy (among many others) wasn't healed. If healing is not guaranteed we need to figure out just what James was saying.

It's interesting to note that some translations say that the prayer "will heal the sick" and others say "save the sick". But still we can safely assume that Paul's prayers did not heal Timothy, and hence we have an apparent contradiction. Unless we want to use some rather comical scenarios (e.g. Paul didn't think to pray about Timothy's issues) we need to resolve it one way or the other.

I respect all the Christians here,but I have a great passion for God' Word

As do I, which is why I look to resolve an apparent contradiction. All I've seen so far in response to questions about Timothy boil down to little more than "it doesn't matter", when actually Timothy not being healed casts a huge doubt on the notion of healing being guaranteed. As I write in my signature, if we're not going to take Scripture as a whole we might as well chuck the whole thing in the trash. If all we're doing is looking to support a preconceived idea by picking verses from here and there that seem to support it we might as well accept that we are following "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law".

It would be really nice if at somebody could present a reasoned explanation as to why this alleged guarantee of healing apparently didn't apply to Timothy.

 

[Hebrews 11]

I am saying that Paul telling Timothy to take a little wine for his conditions certainly casts doubt on the conclusion that James was saying healing is guaranteed.



So in the light of all that can you explain why Timothy still wasn't healed, and indeed still suffered "frequent infirmities"?



Where Scripture apparently contradicts Scripture it's probably worth digging a little deeper to resolve the contradiction, no? Otherwise all we have left is doublethink where healing is both guaranteed and conditional. If healing is guaranteed we need to figure out why Timothy (among many others) wasn't healed. If healing is not guaranteed we need to figure out just what James was saying.

It's interesting to note that some translations say that the prayer "will heal the sick" and others say "save the sick". But still we can safely assume that Paul's prayers did not heal Timothy, and hence we have an apparent contradiction. Unless we want to use some rather comical scenarios (e.g. Paul didn't think to pray about Timothy's issues) we need to resolve it one way or the other.



As do I, which is why I look to resolve an apparent contradiction. All I've seen so far in response to questions about Timothy boil down to little more than "it doesn't matter", when actually Timothy not being healed casts a huge doubt on the notion of healing being guaranteed. As I write in my signature, if we're not going to take Scripture as a whole we might as well chuck the whole thing in the trash. If all we're doing is looking to support a preconceived idea by picking verses from here and there that seem to support it we might as well accept that we are following "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law".

It would be really nice if at somebody could present a reasoned explanation as to why this alleged guarantee of healing apparently didn't apply to Timothy.

Let's look for a moment:
1 Timothy: 5. 20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. 23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. 24. Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

Paul is giving instruction to young Timothy.

Paul tells him to no longer drink water in 23.

Wouldn't you find that statement odd?

There would have to be a reason to not drink water!

Have you ever considered some of the water was contaminated,and was giving them a stomach issue.

Both of them could have been sick from the water,Paul is simply giving advice to drink wine instead.

This is a proprietary circumstance that Paul advised Timothy on.

It has no revelance to James.

 

[Hebrews 11]

It seems obvious to me that the conditions were less than sanitary.

As well Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on a man suddenly,or to be a partake of other men's sins.

A statement like this tells me there was the possibility of a sickness that could be passed on.

To warn not to be a partaker of another man's sin:

Simply means don't catch what he has gotten by way of his sin.

Timothy traveled with Paul and Silas to Macedonia and had hardship along the way.

He eventually ended up in Corinth,and helped Paul minister there.

1st Timothy is a Epistle of Paul giving advice knowing he would not be with Timothy to guide him.

As far as underlying infirmity:

Timothy was 1/2 Greek to appease the Jews for Timothy to be accepted Paul circumcised Timothy himself!

The effects of this may have lasted and could have been painful.

Until the Church was established in Corinth there would not have been elders to pray for Timothy.

You have to see what kind of man Paul was as well.
Before he met Christ he was a cruel man who violently opposed Christians.

He was beaten,shipwrecked,snake bit and jailed.
None of these things affected his passion for the Gospel.

Paul as I see him would have been a mans man.

Him telling Timothy to drink a little wine was a euphemism for suck it up kid and do your job.


I hope this helps.

 

[tango]

Let's look for a moment:
1 Timothy: 5. 20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. 23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. 24. Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

Paul is giving instruction to young Timothy.

Paul tells him to no longer drink water in 23.

Wouldn't you find that statement odd?

It depends which translation you look at. The KJV says "Drink no longer water" while other translations (ESV, GNB, NIV, NKJV) refer to not drinking "only water"

There would have to be a reason to not drink water!

Have you ever considered some of the water was contaminated,and was giving them a stomach issue.

Both of them could have been sick from the water,Paul is simply giving advice to drink wine instead.

Maybe they were sick, but how would that be if healing were guaranteed? Why didn't they just go to the elders for prayer, as James advised?

This is a proprietary circumstance that Paul advised Timothy on.

It has no revelance to James.

But what James wrote doesn't list preconditions, so "proprietary circumstance" doesn't work as an exception. It's still relevant to James, because if Timothy was frequently sick Paul is still telling him to do something other than present himself to the elders. How is Paul's advice any different from someone in this day and age saying "go see the doctor" instead of "go see the elders"?

 

[tango]

It seems obvious to me that the conditions were less than sanitary.

As well Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on a man suddenly,or to be a partake of other men's sins.

A statement like this tells me there was the possibility of a sickness that could be passed on.

To warn not to be a partaker of another man's sin:

Simply means don't catch what he has gotten by way of his sin.

So what sort of disease can one catch, as a result of sin, that can be transmitted by merely laying hands on someone? I can think of all sorts of nasty things that get passed around as a result of other sins but you typically won't get them by laying hands on someone - you need to get somewhat more intimate than that.

"Don't be a partaker of another man's sin" seems to be pretty clear in saying "even if they're doing it, don't you be doing it" rather than saying that simply laying hands on them will result in their sicknesses being transferred to him. And if healing was guaranteed it wouldn't matter if sicknesses were transferred to him anyway, because he would be healed of them anyway, right?

Timothy traveled with Paul and Silas to Macedonia and had hardship along the way.

He eventually ended up in Corinth,and helped Paul minister there.

1st Timothy is a Epistle of Paul giving advice knowing he would not be with Timothy to guide him.

... which is great, but doesn't address the issue of the infirmities. So moving on ...

As far as underlying infirmity:

Timothy was 1/2 Greek to appease the Jews for Timothy to be accepted Paul circumcised Timothy himself!

The effects of this may have lasted and could have been painful.

Shame he didn't think to present himself to the elders to be healed of the effects.

Until the Church was established in Corinth there would not have been elders to pray for Timothy.

I'm sure Paul could have prayed in the interim, if the prayer of a righteous man was all that was needed. Unless God is somehow limited by whether a man literally puts physical oil on someone, in which case it would be a shame if the elders ran out of oil along the way and nobody else could be healed until the next shipment arrived.

You have to see what kind of man Paul was as well.
Before he met Christ he was a cruel man who violently opposed Christians.

He was beaten,shipwrecked,snake bit and jailed.
None of these things affected his passion for the Gospel.

Paul as I see him would have been a mans man.

Him telling Timothy to drink a little wine was a euphemism for suck it up kid and do your job.

So why not simply pray for him so he could do the job without having to suck anything up? If "suck it up" is a valid spiritual response, why does James talk as if healing is guaranteed? Should we claim our guaranteed healing, or should we "suck it up"? We're back to the question of whether healing is guaranteed or not - if it is there's no need to "suck it up", and if it isn't then the WOF teaching falls apart.

I hope this helps.

I don't believe it does support the idea that healing is guaranteed, but I do appreciate getting into the text and having a good dig into the meaning.

 

[Hebrews 11]

So what sort of disease can one catch, as a result of sin, that can be transmitted by merely laying hands on someone? I can think of all sorts of nasty things that get passed around as a result of other sins but you typically won't get them by laying hands on someone - you need to get somewhat more intimate than that.

"Don't be a partaker of another man's sin" seems to be pretty clear in saying "even if they're doing it, don't you be doing it" rather than saying that simply laying hands on them will result in their sicknesses being transferred to him. And if healing was guaranteed it wouldn't matter if sicknesses were transferred to him anyway, because he would be healed of them anyway, right?



... which is great, but doesn't address the issue of the infirmities. So moving on ...



Shame he didn't think to present himself to the elders to be healed of the effects.



I'm sure Paul could have prayed in the interim, if the prayer of a righteous man was all that was needed. Unless God is somehow limited by whether a man literally puts physical oil on someone, in which case it would be a shame if the elders ran out of oil along the way and nobody else could be healed until the next shipment arrived.



So why not simply pray for him so he could do the job without having to suck anything up? If "suck it up" is a valid spiritual response, why does James talk as if healing is guaranteed? Should we claim our guaranteed healing, or should we "suck it up"? We're back to the question of whether healing is guaranteed or not - if it is there's no need to "suck it up", and if it isn't then the WOF teaching falls apart.



I don't believe it does support the idea that healing is guaranteed, but I do appreciate getting into the text and having a good dig into the meaning.

Well I took a shot anyway,you asked for deeper explanation of why Timothys condition and the Book of James were not related.
The semantic I added in explaining the course of events was not ideal.

There is a fundamental difference between the two text.

James is teaching the elements of the Gospel.

Paul's Epistle to Timothy and the events and his travels are done in a Narritive.

In other words picture James in a pulpit or temple giving instruction.

James gives his teaching to the general assembly's.

Paul does both he gives teaching a gives accounts of his mission.

Paul's Epistle to the Galatians for example,would parallel the book of James.

Yet his Narrative of travel and events do not,from a literary context.

 

[Hebrews 11]

From this statement I gather that you subscribe to the theology of Open Theism.

I have no malice toward your belief,all though I disagree.

I do not believe God changes in any way.

Christ bore our afflictions our sickness and infirmity that was a result of the curse of the Law.[see Deuteronomy for curse]
Paul affirms this in Galations chapter 3 vs 38.

God is no respecter of persons: [Acts 10 vs 34
Romans 2 vs 11]

God does not Change:
Numbers: 23. 19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 20. Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

So now we have to ask why would God heal some and not others?

We do have a enemy ,a roaring lion going to and fro seeking who he may devour.{paraphrase}

No one in Word of Faith teaches that we live a trouble free life.
We know weapons will be formed against us but we deny by the Word of God their right to prosper.

We believe Christ work is a finished work all we are or will be was already done,including healing.

 

[tango]

Well I took a shot anyway,you asked for deeper explanation of why Timothys condition and the Book of James were not related.
The semantic I added in explaining the course of events was not ideal.

There is a fundamental difference between the two text.

James is teaching the elements of the Gospel.

Paul's Epistle to Timothy and the events and his travels are done in a Narritive.

In other words picture James in a pulpit or temple giving instruction.

James gives his teaching to the general assembly's.

Paul does both he gives teaching a gives accounts of his mission.

Paul's Epistle to the Galatians for example,would parallel the book of James.

Yet his Narrative of travel and events do not,from a literary context.

The context the messages were given isn't really relevant. Regardless of where individual men gave individual messages, either healing is guaranteed or it isn't. It can't be both, it can't be "kinda sorta guaranteed", we either have a guarantee of healing or we don't.

If healing is guaranteed, as some would say is implied by the book of James, then guaranteed healing is a universal truth. If that were the case we still have to ask why Paul told Timothy to "take a little wine" rather than "present himself to the elders" or indeed praying for him to be healed directly.

Since Timothy was not healed it blows a hole in the idea that God will always heal, which in turn means that particular interpretation of what James is saying is wrong.

 

[tango]

From this statement I gather that you subscribe to the theology of Open Theism.

I have no malice toward your belief,all though I disagree.

I wouldn't say my beliefs are representative of Open Theism.

I do not believe God changes in any way.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the teaching of guaranteed healing.

Christ bore our afflictions our sickness and infirmity that was a result of the curse of the Law.[see Deuteronomy for curse]

If you want to say the curse of sin is broken, why not also the curse of death? It's needlessly selective.

Paul affirms this in Galations chapter 3 vs 38.

Galatians 3 only goes to verse 29, so I assume you mistyped something there

God is no respecter of persons: [Acts 10 vs 34
Romans 2 vs 11]

Again I don't see how this is relevant to the teaching of guaranteed healing. God is not a respecter of persons - God has the absolute right to heal the pauper and not heal the king, to heal the slave and not the master, as he sees fit.

God does not Change:
Numbers: 23. 19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 20. Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

Still not relevant to guaranteed healing.

So now we have to ask why would God heal some and not others?

Because God gets to decide what he does. It's one of the perks of being God I guess.

We do have a enemy ,a roaring lion going to and fro seeking who he may devour.{paraphrase}

Sure, but it's still not clear how that is relevant to the topic at hand.

No one in Word of Faith teaches that we live a trouble free life.
We know weapons will be formed against us but we deny by the Word of God their right to prosper.

Some teachers do seem to like messages incorporating a guarantee of financial prosperity, perfect health and the like. Maybe not an entirely trouble-free life but still not entirely in tune with "take up your cross and follow me".

We believe Christ work is a finished work all we are or will be was already done,including healing.

I think what WOF believes is quite clear by now, but restating what you believe doesn't add anything to the discussion regarding the merits or otherwise of that belief.

It still seems to me that this particular WOF teaching at least is trying to take things that are intended for the future and bring them into the here and now. The new heaven and the new earth is the place with no more sickness, no more pain, no more sorrow, no more death. That's for the future, not for now. Trying to take it in the here and now seems presumptuous at best.