Was Jesus/Yeshua born with a Sin Nature?

[face2face]

I do not want to interrupt your conversation with Angelina, I am just wondering if this is a denominational belief or a personal belief?
Of course I disagree with everything you "said" but we can talk about that later.

I've studied many denominations and I've found those who are Unitarian appear to be the closest to God's Atoning participles. Christianity has imported philosophical concepts into the Word which only provides confusion and erroneous conclusions. Over the years I've spoken to many believers who see the issues with the Trinity so I am not alone as some like to portray.
Thanks for your question.
F2F

 

[Angelina]

I've studied many denominations and I've found those who are Unitarian appear to be the closest to God's Atoning participles. Christianity has imported philosophical concepts into the Word which only provides confusion and erroneous conclusions. Over the years I've spoken to many believers who see the issues with the Trinity so I am not alone as some like to portray.
Thanks for your question.
F2F

Just a note to remind folks to keep to the O/P as it would mean having to delete off topic comments...Thank you xox

 

[face2face]

He didn't have a sin nature but I believe he was capable of sin.

The issue with this statement is it's contrary to how God dealt with sin. For God to condemn sin (Romans 6:23) and save humanity from death He required a method of reconciliation which upheld and declared His Righteousness as per Romans 3:25. Now the sacrifice of animals would not suffice because they cannot reflect the Character of God. God required a man (Son) who was us in everyway (Hebrews 2:14-17) born into the line of Adam with a condemned nature, which we know God removed through his sacrifice as per Romans 8:1-3. Yes, God gave him conception in the womb of Mary but that was it...he was flesh and blood just like you, no difference! Otherwise, it could be said God did not truly overcome sinful flesh in a Son who had free will to choose God over the temptations of the flesh. This is why the Apostle Paul makes so much of Jesus's victory of flesh because he is the only man to perfectly obey God's principles and commands.

So here is the first principle of the Atonement:

Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh (Christ) is in the blood: and I have given it (Christ) to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls (lives): for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul (life)."

Leviticus 17:14, "For it (the blood) is the life of all flesh ... for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof."

The question for every person in this forum is this: When Christ bleed out on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, what type of life was he giving and how was it represented on the tree?

The life of Jesus was in his blood - in other words, the blood in Jesus's body literally gave him life (as it does us), without it, he couldn't exist! In Jesus giving us his blood he was giving us his obedient life lived in perfect obedience to God, and His Word - he was in agony everyday overcoming the flesh and its temptations as per Luke 12:50; Hebrews 5:7.

So if you read Hebrews 10 you will see the blood of bulls and goats couldn't take away sin for reasons already explained but he required a son who could say and live these words:

“Here I am: I have come to do your will"

God didn't send Himself to do this Angelina; He raised up a Son in whom He could train and grow in faith and obedience.

2 Corinthians 5:19 "God was in Christ (in Word) reconciling the World to Himself" ...not God is Christ reconciling the World...because God can not dwell in a body which is condemned to die, nor can He be unclean in any way, whether in birth or death.

So the reason God raised up Christ in the seed of David Romans 1:3 is to place a human king on David's throne who is also a Priest who can hold both offices in mediating between God and Man. He also raise up Christ in sinful flesh as per Romans 8:3 to show God's principles can be manifested in a life perfectly and show all mankind He is right! Right to condemn our nature in the crucifixion of His Son as per Galatians 5:24 we are to also put to death the lusts and passions as he did as per Hebrews 4:15.

The Trinity removes every single principle of the atonement starting with the type of life and blood given on that tree.

F2F

 

[Grailhunter]

I've studied many denominations and I've found those who are Unitarian appear to be the closest to God's Atoning participles. Christianity has imported philosophical concepts into the Word which only provides confusion and erroneous conclusions. Over the years I've spoken to many believers who see the issues with the Trinity so I am not alone as some like to portray.
Thanks for your question.
F2F

The debate over the sin nature has little to do with the Trinity.
The issue of Yeshua's divinity does.
I do not believe in the one God formula for the Trinity....I see the Trinity as a unity or a Godhead of three full-fledged Gods that can sit on three thrones and Yeshua seat is to the right of Yahweh.

The big issue is Yeshua's divinity. By scripture and Yeshua's actions it is clear that a God walked this earth.
The phrase "sin nature" does not appear in the scriptures. There is no such thing as a sin nature other than the nature of humans without God, the natural man. Which is part of the debate, Yeshua was never without God. Could Yeshua be a natural man considering what all He knew? Divine awareness is not comprehendible by humans.

But then the body of Yeshua functioned like any other human....He grew and He aged. His needs and desires were the same as any man. What Yeshua had going for Him that was an advantage over others was Devine knowledge and connection. He knew why it was important not to sin....He knew what doing wrong would cause. He knew that wealth was insignificant to His ministry. How He dealt with the human sex drives is not explained in the scriptures, but I am sure He had them as well as temptations.

The sacrifice would have meant nothing if He did not have the capability to sin, but refused. The Lamb of God is a symbol of purity. The sacrifice to end all sacrifices. There is so much of this in the scriptures, both God and Man walked among humanity and set the example. Both God and Man took His clothes off and got on His knees and washed the feet of the Apostles. As both God and Man talked to the dead, casted out demons, healed the sick and injured and raised the dead and walked on water and calmed the seas and commanded fish into the fishing nets and feed the multitudes and knew the thoughts of others. There is absolutely no way that Yeshua was just a man.

And then the questions that is generally not pondered.....When Yeshua ascended to the Father and joined the unity....did He retain a portion of humanity as He did so?

And what about God the Father's sacrifice?....God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Sure He knew they could not kill a God, but the suffering that His Son endured was horrendous.

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus' nature was no different than ours.

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham..r."

Whatever kind of nature had the "seed of Abraham", Jesus had that nature.

Those of you who claim Jesus had some unfair advantage over humanity to live a perfectly obedient life are the best players on Satan's team, for if Jesus had just one ounce of advantage over us, Satan would daily be in the face of God accusing Him as unjust before the entire universe for demanding humans meet the same standard as Jesus did, yet without His advantage...and Satan would be absolutely right.

Yes, apart from Him we can do nothing, but we "can do ALL THINGS through Christ".

See, I really like this post, Phoneman; thank you.

However, I would say that Jesus did have an "advantage" (if you want to call it that) over us in the sense that, while 100% man ~ took "the form of a servant... born in the likeness of men... found in human form" ~ He was (and is, of course) 100% God ("in the form of God"). [Philippians 2:7-8 and Philippians 2:6, respectively] He was and is both the Son of Man and the Son of God.

But in His state as 100% man during His time on earth, I agree that He had no "advantage," at all, especially considering the fact that He had humbled Himself and completely set aside for a time ~ though He always did and always will possess, so did not use ~ His nature and position of being fully God. He completely cast aside, for our sake, any advantage over us that He most certainly had; THIS is what it means that He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..." and "...emptied himself" (Philippians 2:6-7) He was tempted in every way we are (Hebrews 4:15). And this is why He is able to mediate ~ to be our Mediator ~ between the Father and us.

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

The holy spirit is called the spirit of Jesus Christ....? That is very interesting.
It is a unique belief that does not bear up to much scrutiny and it has its variances.
Some believe that the Trinity is not a Trinity at all, but more of a duo, referring to Yahweh's Holy Spirit and Yeshua's Holy Spirit as THE Holy Spirit.

Of course there is a scripture that names the members of the Trinity....
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19

Then you have scriptures that refer to the Spirit of Christ like Romans 8:9 and scriptures that refer to the Spirit of God like Romans 8:14. Some people people believe that these verses are referring to THE Holy Spirit.
Although this is an incorrect interpretation of the scriptures I do not condemn the belief because the fault lays with the lack of definitive information in the scriptures about the Holy Spirit.

Part of the reason for the confusion is the third member of the Trinity was never given a name. Holy Spirit is not a name, it is more of a designation and the scriptures treat the Holy Spirit differently than Yahweh and Yeshua.

If they called the Holy Spirit....Air....then anytime the word air occurred in the scriptures some could interpret it as the third member of the Trinity. This is not the only topic like this and it effectively skews the meaning of the scriptures. Can I blame the people that believe it? No. Beliefs, Truths, Facts.

For example; The scriptures sometimes treat Yahweh and Yeshua differently, referring to Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord, sometimes in the same verse. Some examples are; 2nd Corinthians 13:14 Ephesians 6:23, Philippians 4:23, Thessalonians 3:18, Philemon 1:25, 2nd Peter 3:18. It can be a little confusing and it is probably one of the reasons that the Jehovah's Witnesses came up their heresy. Yeshua is generally referred to as 100% God and 100% man and there are variances to that but still define Yeshua as a God.

Yahweh has a Spirit that is Holy....Yeshua has a Spirit that is Holy....and the Holy Spirit has a Spirit that is Holy. But the Holy Spirit is designated as a member of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is a God and is not any more or less a Spirit than Yahweh or Yeshua.

Thank you.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

PQUOTE="Mr E, post: 1392238, member: 21516"]Was Jesus (in your opinion) more than a man? -Like a super-man? Or was he less than a man? -like, lacking some kind of DNA or 'nature' that all other men have?[/QUOTE]
Can God sin? Is it God's that human sin nature saves humans from their sinful state?

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 10:30 ''I and the father are one.''


Ephesians 4: 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

Philippians 2:6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

 

[1stCenturyLady]

What a testimony! Thank you for sharing that with us. It was moving.

I would love to know those 8 sentences that were seared into you that you remember to this day. And I'm certain you do. How could you not?
However, I also know that is deeply personal.
I know what you mean about hearing God's voice. It's unmistakable.

Again, your testimony is a blessing.

I'll tell you the first ones.

"YOU LOOK TO MAN FOR YOUR LOVE
I WANT TO BE YOUR LOVE
YOU LOOK TO MAN FOR YOUR SECURITY
I WANT TO BE YOUR SECURITY
(PRIVATE)

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

I'll tell you the first ones.

"YOU LOOK TO MAN FOR YOUR LOVE
I WANT TO BE YOUR LOVE
YOU LOOK TO MAN FOR YOUR SECURITY
I WANT TO BE YOUR SECURITY
(PRIVATE)

Beautiful. Amen. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

No I've looked!
I found the Son of Man & the Son of God but God the Son is man-made

I believe you.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

No I've looked!
I found the Son of Man & the Son of God but God the Son is man-made

and @Blue Dragonfly's

Maybe this is what you found. I know I was shocked by this verse some 40 years ago and I even wrote in my Bible next to it "Jesus is God!" I hadn't known that until then.

Titus 1:3-4
3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith:
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

It parallels God and the Lord Jesus Christ. That is a Semitic writing style with the common word being Savior.

Here is another example of a parallel:
Acts 4:33
33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

That time great was the common word and the parallel is grace is power.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Jesus' nature was no different than ours.

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham..r."

Whatever kind of nature had the "seed of Abraham", Jesus had that nature.

Those of you who claim Jesus had some unfair advantage over humanity to live a perfectly obedient life are the best players on Satan's team, for if Jesus had just one ounce of advantage over us, Satan would daily be in the face of God accusing Him as unjust before the entire universe for demanding humans meet the same standard as Jesus did, yet without His advantage...and Satan would be absolutely right.

Yes, apart from Him we can do nothing, but we "can do ALL THINGS through Christ".

You are right to compare our nature with the nature of Jesus, and, yes, it is because of the seed of Abraham which is Jesus, but more importantly the seed of God that Jesus was conceived with, and we were born again with. 1 John 3:9 means Jesus never sinned. Jesus was born with the same nature we have once we are born again, but not before.

1 John 3:9 "9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

cc: @Blue Dragonfly's and @face2face

So, Phoneman did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit if he knew the true meaning of seed. Jesus was the firstborn of many brethren. Romans 8:29-30. When we are born again we have the same nature as Jesus when he was on the earth.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

One of many problems with your blasphemy against the holy spirit.

You also misrepresent what is actually written in Hebrews 2.

The nature of angels? Is not that of sinless perfection. Angels rebelled against God in the war in heaven.

The actual Hebrews 2 verse reads like this:
Hebrews 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Jesus was tempted and suffered,fasting 40 days and nights in the desert.
He did not succumb to temptation because he was made like his brothers in every respect except being divine, he could not have a sin nature.

Why? He was begotten of God.
To insist Jesus had a sin nature is to say God's divine nature shared space with the fallen sin nature.

And while some here do insist Jesus saved himself when he saved us, because they claim he had a sin nature, that's blasphemy against the holy spirit too.

tempted just means tested. Jesus always passed the test, and so can we because God always provides a way of escape.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

You are right to compare our nature with the nature of Jesus, and, yes, it is because of the seed of Abraham which is Jesus, but more importantly the seed of God that Jesus was conceived with, and we were born again with. 1 John 3:9 means Jesus never sinned. Jesus was born with the same nature we have once we are born again, but not before.

1 John 3:9 "9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

cc: @Blue Dragonfly's and @face2face

So, Phoneman did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the firstborn of many brethren. Romans 8:29-30. When we are born again we have the same nature as Jesus when he was on the earth.

He blasphemed the holy spirit. As does anyone who denies Jesus divinity and insists he was born with a sin nature.

God is the holy spirit. Jesus
is/was God.

When someone insists Jesus, who was begat by God, made flesh and bone human by his power and will to bring his new covenant to the world, was a mere man and born with a sin nature, the nature that condemns us, that's blaspheming the holy spirit as dead and of sin by nature, not holy.

It's a characteristic of the fallen. The natural man woman.

It is still blasphemy to call Jesus a sinner. Which is exactly what that which says Jesus is born with a sin nature is telling us.
Sin nature is what compelled us to commit sin.

Insisting Jesus was fallen in a sin nature is blasphemy of the holy spirit.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

tempted just means tested. Jesus always passed the test, and so can we because God always provides a way of escape.

The temptor was Satan. He can tempt anyone he chooses. It does not mean Jesus was able to succumb to temptation. Therein is the difference.

Satan can act out. Jesus is not vulnerable to Satan's efforts,as we know, because Jesus had a divine nature within a human form.

Jesus was the perfect lamb without spot or blemish. If he had a sin nature that would not be the case.
And he would not be a sacrifice for sin because he would need to be saved himself.

 

[BeyondET]

tempted just means tested. Jesus always passed the test, and so can we because God always provides a way of escape.

It's more than a test, evil wants people to sin. satan wanted Jesus to comply but that didn't happen

 

[Mr E]

Insisting Jesus was fallen in a sin nature is blasphemy of the holy spirit.

Frankly, I don't think that's your call to make- but more to the point, I don't think "sin nature" has even been properly defined for the purposes of this discussion. Sin nature means different things to different people and as some have mentioned there is no one definition provided in scripture to which we could all default to in agreement.

What is made clear in scripture is a distinction between two natures. The natural and the spiritual. Some might say between good and evil, or spirit and flesh, or spiritual and physical... these are all examples of the duality that exists between two parts distinctly different, yet inexorably linked-- like heaven and earth, or even God and man with one a reflection or image of the other.

If you can grasp this idea, it might change your perspective entirely.

 

[Pierac]

Well, it does; Jesus's emptying of Himself should not be understood as Jesus not being God during His time on earth. Satan was tempting Jesus; we agree on that. But on this point, we disagree. Hey, the demons possessing the man in Matthew 8 knew exactly Who Jesus was, so don't you think Satan did, too?
Grace and peace to you.

Bend over and grab your ankles... Time for a Biblical Spanking!!!

Really.... Jesus Emptied Himself!!!

Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes YOU a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2. This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

So pay close attention.... PinSeeker.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Get your biblical facts straight for once!!!
Paul

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Frankly, I don't think that's your call to make- but more to the point, I don't think "sin nature" has even been properly defined for the purposes of this discussion. Sin nature means different things to different people and as some have mentioned there is no one definition provided in scripture to which we could all default to in agreement.

What is made clear in scripture is a distinction between two natures. The natural and the spiritual. Some might say between good and evil, or spirit and flesh, or spiritual and physical... these are all examples of the duality that exists between two parts distinctly different, yet inexorably linked-- like heaven and earth, or even God and man with one a reflection or image of the other.

If you can grasp this idea, it might change your perspective entirely.

It is my call to make. It's the call of every holy spirit indwelt Christian to make.

Because I read the Bible and know God is the holy all powerful spirit that created all things.
I don't presume to insist our nature that makes us in need of saving must have been present in the one God sent to save us.
That he was a mere man. And we have to perpetually repent or die unsaved.

I don't make the call that says God lied when he said we have in him eternal salvation that is a free irrevocable gift of his grace.

I don't make the call that insists contrary to what Jesus died to seal for eternity as his new covenant, that he can lose us from his hand. Because we can choose to leave. And as such overcome what God planned before he created the world.
God is sovereign. Blasphemers insist our will overcomes that.

Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.


Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.

2Timothy 4:3-4
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

I don't make the call that blasphemes holy spirit by calling Jesus a sin nature human!

It's rather the call upon every Christian to rebuke blasphemers, liars, and trolls.
Not to save their soul because that's not our job.
But to follow also what God said.

Matthew 7

 

[PinSeeker]

Thanks for your "thoughts," Pierac. Quite obviously (well, to you it should be, after you read this post), the one not paying attention is you. We've had this discussion before, and your understanding of what I've said is terribly is wrong, resulting in all kinds of silliness, misdirected rants and insulting remarks on your part. I'll just address what seems to be the summation of your rant:

"The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity." (Pierac, Post #498)​

What I have said in response to this ~ several times; I don't know (and don't care) whether you have ignored what I've said or, well, something else... ~ is that Kenoticism, which is also known as kenotic theology or kenotic Christology, is an unbiblical view of Christ’s nature and Christ Himself. Yes, Kenoticism teaches that the divinity of the Son of God was somehow lost or lessened when the Lord took on human flesh and entered our world. And I have rejected this many times, to which you seem to still be oblivious. Let me say just one last time very clearly: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Kenoticist. I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated in any way Kenoticism or subscribed to the Kenotic Doctrine. It is totally antithetical to God's infallible, inerrant Word.

Your ranting and raving, as it regards me, is empty.

Grace and peace to you.