Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[clapstyx]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

[clapstyx]

Following on from all that the more useful and pertinant discussion point is whether or not a second coming event is plausible. Lets face it what happened 200 years ago is now ancient history and our minds, hopes and beliefs would be much better utilised focussed on the future.

 

Jesus was a perfectionist who was always trying to create positive opportunities of the greatest scale possible. He was trying to find a way to save mankind. His followers I suspect believed that it was Hope which lead the strongest army and so in order to ensure that it did not die the record was created to show that it had not. The best that we can make of history now to create the maximim possible benefit for all life (which is the ideal of every religion to achieve) is to understand his mindset. If we want to be religious (and I know this will piss off the scientists) we probably should realise that by understanding the logic of nature we can essentially distil the logic of God.

 

One thing we have discovered is that nature seems to be focussed upon the creation of perfect ideals. The evolution of the flower has progressed on a course that has seen its success founded on the creation of symbiotic relationships to aid the survival of other species (in return gaining benefit), just as much as it has progressed toward a point of making a pollination outcome more certain. Modern flowers are much more attractive than ancient ones. They are more elaborate and brightly coloured. The fruit they produce are less toxic. These "improvements" are all focussed on increasing the chances of perpetual survival.

 

Mankind does not think this way. He does not take every opportunity to create positive opportunities for himself, and he does not make decisions which favour a long term existence. He knows that destroying massive areas of forest reduces (rather than increase) his long term chances. He knows that polluting the atmosphere is bad rather than good. He knows that consuming resources fast rather than slowly accelerates the rate of their depletion. Every other species that has survived a long time does not exhibit this kind of behaviour. The crocodile has survived since the age of the dinosours by developing a way to minimise food resource consumption whereas we seek to maximise it with advertising because there is money in it.

 

Getting back to the point if we dismiss the resurrection and we dismiss the possibility of a second coming then we had sure as hell better start looking for someone else who can lead us out of this mess..because it aint gonna be Jesus Christ MKII or whatever name he might choose this time around.

 

I set up an experiment on another post which included a theoretical way to create global harmony for I saw in its creation expanded possibilities for dealing with our other global issues and because I thought living in a world where people recognised that glabal harmony was a possibility that was enetering our reality might lift the spirits of those who had given up hope. Many of us of course have already concluded that the planet is ****ed. I would say that if JC MKII was here and he saw how few people actually sought its creation and how few amoung us were searching to create ways of solving the climate change problem (getting hotter hint hint) He would probably say "why bother ..they dont give a rats arse" .

 

At some point we have to take our own future into our own hands.

[atthisaddress]

One thing we have discovered is that nature seems to be focussed upon the creation of perfect ideals. The evolution of the flower has progressed on a course that has seen its success founded on the creation of symbiotic relationships to aid the survival of other species (in return gaining benefit), just as much as it has progressed toward a point of making a pollination outcome more certain. Modern flowers are much more attractive than ancient ones. They are more elaborate and brightly coloured. The fruit they produce are less toxic. These "improvements" are all focussed on increasing the chances of perpetual survival.

I respectfully, strongly disagree. Nature - ourselves included - is filled with adaptations that serve no useful purpose, or an existing purpose in a less than perfect way.

While descent by natural selection is an important, vital part of evoluion, catastrophic events, both in nature and in genes, play their own role. The form and substance of evolutionary theory will not be one path, a directed path.

 

Perhaps you may draw some wisdom from the following, it is very applicable to what I am saying:

 

 

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.

 

At some point we have to take our own future into our own hands.

 

It isn't a matter of when, but whether.

[clapstyx]

"It isn't a matter of when, but whether."

 

I would agree with this part of the post, as for the rest of it I think you missed realising my ultimate point.

 

My point is this :

Evolution is guided by the nature of chance. An alteration to the structure or behaviour of an organism which improves its chances yields a positive survival outcome over the long term. Abnormalities that reduce its chances of survival (including those that send the organism on path to an evolutionary dead end where they lose relevence to the circumstance that they exist within) tend not to last because in the long run it is a game of probabilities. The probability of long term survival as against the probability of long term extinction.

 

We know already that some species have an extremely tenuous grip on life, where even if a speceis remote to it became extinct that extinction would reverberate through the chain of symbiotic relationships that makes up the ecosystem impacting eventually on its lifecycle completion process or upon its long term chances of survival.

 

My point is that its best ultimately to find yourself in the ideal situation where the chances of extinction are eliminated and the chances of survival are so strong as to be considered a certainty. The only way that this situation can be brought into being from a human point of view is to imagine a "world" where this is so, detremine what the pre requisites to its creation are and then imagine how it might be so..compounding the chances of that eventuality so that in the long run with the population focussing on the same outcome and compounding the chances at every opportunity (to multiply the ways it is possible and providing aid to the objective through the reapplication of symbiotic logic). Given that our long term survival chances are tied to that of the natural world our best option is to structure our existence so that we aid the success of the ecosystem to which we rely. That means imagining the ideal way for this to be so. If the ideal is high enough then the reapplication of logic based on nature would say that the support of that strategy would be greater and the strongest possible motivator (survival) would be harnessed towards a mutually beneficial goal. In this case the symbiotic support structure would be between the talented individuals that co-operate in a common pursuit. We are not at the point where we can launch a multi talented multi national campaign to save the planet. In order to do this we must adopt a common logic of understanding (I will call my offering compound probability) and prove to ourselves that it has the capacity to work on a reasonably large scale..so that we can have some advance faith in it. (For we will be choosing with our own future dependent upon it..so its important to choose the most well founded form of common logic to rely upon. I am suggesting that the fundamental logic behind the success of the worlds oldest species is the best place to start looking).

 

This means essentially that if we can agree that the best way to harness our collective imagination towards common goal focus is to have every individual (where they have the opportunity) acting in favour (rather than in denial) of that common goal being reached using the full extent of their potential and capacity to influenec the chances..then we will have found a strategy to save the planet..because then we can move to the point where we define a common list of ideals that we shall seek to create.

 

From my point of view as an individual trying to save the world for my own sake, the best test of the above logic is to define a potentially "common ideal" which I shall call Global Harmony and see if people can advance the probability of it occurring on the 14th February 2006. This will be kind of judgement day for the theory. If we cant create some literal measure of global harmony to show that we as humans all share a common interest then we will know that compounding the chances of our long term survival prospects at every opportunity is a flawed or innapropriate strategy for mankind to adopt. The sad thing of course is that having failed to create global harmony its is unlikely that we will aver attempt it again or attempt to have this publicly acknowledged as a goal of our species aligned to our ultimate best interests.

[lindagarrette]

Perhaps you may draw some wisdom from the following, it is very applicable to what I am saying:

 

 

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.

 

 

 

It isn't a matter of when, but whether.

Ecclesiastes 9:11

 

(You should reference your sources.)

[clapstyx]

Thank You..for I do.

 

There was a time in my past when I chose not to read the bible or any of the other texts, because a mind like mine is able to imagine a way for almost anything to be so. The path is very often an unlikely conceived one. "Chance coincidences" some times play a part.

 

The quotes that you have given me can be taken in two ways. One of them aids me to rise to a further challenge and the other all but destroys my faith in humanity. I am choosing for my own sake to believe that it was given in good spirit.

 

There shall not be one amoung us who does not come to some realisation when news that global harmony is a possiblity reaches the mainstream consciousness. This alone and even by itself will be like a vein of common experience and then history that will flow through us all.

 

It is true that the smallest possbility can be increased (comounded) in nature from the chance of ridiculously small (next to impossible on the scale) closer to the point of certainty (and in so doing crossing the chances in favour as against threshold).

 

If there is a mathematician amoungst you I would like to offer you an equational challenge.

 

The hopes cycad growing in the rainforest in my backyard has the worlds most primitive flower. The next nearest flower (that of the female cycad) is 100 metres away through dense forest. It has produced its first flower in 800 years. In order for pollination to occur it must attract with its perfume a small weevil which considers the flower to be the best possible site for its annual mating orgy. Ordinarily the survival of the weevil is increased and so this enhances the future pollination chances of the cycad..more weevils = better pollination rate of cycad = more seeds = more cycads. Unfortunately this year the flower has been fooled by the weather into blooming at Christmas time instead of February when the weevils emerge from their annual carthisis..(hatch and go looking for mating opportunities).

 

The first is an impossible question of "what are the chances of the weevil population ending the year the same as it did last year?" and secondly can you construct a mathematical formula that contians an organic growth feedback loop..where the probabilities grow by using simbiotic probability chance enhancement ? ie one that represents nature.:lol:

 

Like I said earlier the survival chances for some species are only marginally past the threshhold. The weevil of course would have felt fairly self assured in his lifestyle continuing into perpetuity since the cycad has been around longer than any other tree I can think of. More than 100 million years if science is true.

 

Ultimately we must ourselves reach a point in our own evolution where we can imagine us doing exactly what we do today into perpetuity without noticing any flaws that could bring us unstuck. No trend that could compound or continue to a negative conclusion. For my way of thinking CO2 rising as it is now is not something that can go on indefinately. Whilst I would like to believe that there is a long time remaining to solve it, logic says that this will not be the most likely case. This means we must co-ordinate quickly, determine what responses will work in theory and aim for the ideal. There are some nations that may look to solve the problem of over population with war. This means that a better solution must be found for the sake of those lives which would be lost if that point of view were to succeed. Part of our long term solution must be to increase the degree of forest cover. Creating a place in the shade has multiple benefits. (Free healthy food and medicine amoung them) Having said that it will take a very large population of to replant the forests to the degree to which we need in order for the rate of carbon sequestration (and latent solar energy absorbtion) to reach equilibrium levels with our emissions. This will take several generations even working at our fastest possible rate.

[atthisaddress]

Ecclesiastes 9:11

 

(You should reference your sources.)

 

I imagine that verse would be instantly known to be Biblical verse by anyone in the Western world, but since we are on the internet, their might be those not familiar with it. I see your point.

[clapstyx]

What is your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:11 ? And do you believe the words to be true ?

[atthisaddress]

What is your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9:11 ? And do you believe the words to be true ?

I don't have a religious interpretation, my personal interpretation is that it talks about a basic truth, a thread that runs through many, many aspects of reality, society, individual achievement, and, for the example in this thread, evolution.

 

What I think it is saying is that circumstances beyond your control, not just the most favorable, talented ability for getting a specific goal, can have as much to do with an outcome as any other factor. We are all people, we are all human, subject to tripping over our own feet, forgetting a formula, watch our fields flood while a neighbor has a perfect amount of rainfall, or in the case of evolution, having the best combination of traits to allow your genes to prevail over others - except for that meteor that just wiped out every member of your tribe.

Yes, I think it is true. I think it is self-evident. I used it because I thought the person in the post I was replying to was Christian, it was a way for me to show I don't have a rabid hatred of faith, or deny that there are things of value to be found in religion, even for an Atheist like me.

[clapstyx]

Hello atthisaddress,

 

For someone who is an athiest you sure do seem to be well centred on the truth and honesty, but then who is to say that religion is the sole holder of the crucible of truth. For me I have reached the personal conclusion that God exists and that his wife is probably mother nature. I set out to prove one way or another with an open mind in an experiment. After a while it became kind of like a game of cat and mouse he would do something that made me do a double take and I would find some other reasoning to deny Him the winning blow. Thats when I was starting to catch on. I saw an inexplicable light in the night in the sky that looked like the arch of a rainbow but of white light..twice on different nights. I asked around and nobody else had seen it or seen anything like it so I put it down to some sort of cloud reflection. I didnt really think it was that but you know how it is when things like that happen..or maybe you dont.

 

Then came the night of the fireflies I was camping alone in the worlds oldest rainforest and I was watching two fireflies. They were in a kind of courtship, one would follow and then then the tables would turn, one would try to sneak around the long way to pretend they werent interested all that stuff. I remember that it was as if they were tied at different ends of the same piece of string. I followed as they disappeared into the forest and away from the clearing I was in. It was pitch black but I began to feel my way along a small gravel track by the cruching under my shoes. I could see them in the distance and wanted to follow but as I walked the gravel became obscured by leaves. So I took of my shoes so that I could feel my way. As I walked i noticed luminous funghi and mould growing along the edge of the track and this became my guide. As I ascended a small hill I knew from memory that the track lead to the left and yet there was luminous funghi which had laid out steps that looked to me like a staircase to my right. Since I had been relying on its guidance I decided to follow on the right path and as I climbed I turned and saw two perfectly formed stars of David glowing there before me. One was about the size of a basketball and the other about half the size. I felt no fear or sense of trepidation in fact I thought to myself "nice one that just about does it for me" and so I started singing as I made my way back to camp. The next afternoon I drove to collect a friend who was suffering terribly with the flu but I knew that it was something he should see and as I retraced the experience and lead him to a point where he could see for himself he had a cassette tape rolling in the pocket of his jacket.

 

The cassette had been at my insistance because I had been working on a movie screenplay idea for a fundraising movie to save the forest and I realised that already so much of it had been based on my own experience as a man trying to save as much and as many as I can that I thought a scene like that could be justified if only because it was the perfect truth.

[atthisaddress]

As it happens I am an avid wild mushroom hunter, and familiar with many different types of mushrooms to be found in the forest. There are many varieties that glow in the dark, many that have geometric shapes on the fungus itself, and many that will grow in a geometric pattern like you describe.

 

I don't for a moment suggest that what you felt was false, or that it was not an authentic experience for you. That's the whole point to being human, to see things through human eyes. I hope this doesn't seem condescending to you.

 

Just because someone can draw a different perspective, a different aesthetic experience from a natural event doesn't deny the natural event.

 

At the same time, in my opinion, faith shouldn't look to the real world for confirmation or justification. When you say "I thought a scene like that could be justified if only because it was the perfect truth", I'm thinking that as an expression of faith "I felt a scene like that could be justified if only because it was the perfect truth" is closer to the actual experience you had.

[Saitia]

You might note that I will concede at the outset that the proof case for the resurrection is not as strong as the proof case for the empty tomb. They are certainly related, but the number of witnesses to Jesus after His resurrection is only about 500.

I assume that number reflects the biblical account. The Urantia Book's account lists 19 separate appearances after the resurrection, and puts the number of human beings who saw the resurrected Christ at nearly one thousand.

 

 

 

It is wholly a different statement to suggest that we can prove Jesus was God. My only intent in this argument is to establish that a reasonable, rational person could view the evidence that Christ rose as credible.

 

If we operate under the presumption that a Divine intelligence, the source of the operative laws of science and the universe, could order such a universe, it's logical to assume that Intelligence (hereafter referred to as "he") should also be able to respect his own laws and operate within them, the same way he requires of us.

 

If Jesus was God, and lived and died to instruct us in the ways he expects us to live and understand life, why would he violate his own observable universal law which shows us that when life leaves a human body, that body dies, and immediately begins a process of deterioration and decay, and returns to the elemental level of the material world?

 

I think he would not, and did not, violate that law. Nor do I think the scriptural account is sufficiently detailed to explain what actually occurred after his death. The empty tomb is a good example. Since there was no record of conflict between the posted guards and the apostles and followers of Jesus, it's reasonable to assume they didn't attack and steal the body to claim it had been resurrected; which also assumes they were nothing more than the worst kind of hypocritical liars if they would betray the divine value of truth that Jesus spent years trying to teach them. So what happened to the material body, if Jesus did not resurrect in it?

 

Because we can't see them, the human mind is slow to perceive that the same Creator of the universe that has provided us with the gift of life and consciousness has also seen fit to people it with countless other beings, and that many of them constantly serve to do the bidding of their Creator. The "hosts of heaven" are thinking, free will beings, who in this instance, asked to be spared the memory of enduring the sight of the slow decay of the human form of the Creator of a universe. I believe the body of Jesus was afforded a unique dissolution.

 

The tomb of Joseph was empty, not because the physical body of Jesus had been resurrected, but because the celestial hosts were allowed to afford it a special dissolution, without the intervention of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay.

 

The body of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as all human bodies do except that, in point of time, the natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated, to the point that it was well-nigh instantaneous.

 

We can well imagine when the two huge stones sealing the tomb began to move, apparently of their own accord, the guards panicked and fled. The women who made their way to the tomb to properly bandage and in-balm it found the tomb open and unguarded, and the body missing. In the dim light of approaching dawn, Mary Magdalen thought she saw a gardener, and, forgetting the social decorum of the day, approached him directly and demanded to know where the body was. Long story short, Jesus spoke to Mary in a tone that revealed it was him, despite the different appearance of his new body; John reflects this fact when he writes that Jesus instructed Mary not to touch him, for he was not as she knew him in the flesh.

 

Of course we have the account of Thomas and the wounds of Jesus. But this account is absurd on its face. Even it we assume it was the same body, A divine being on the order of Creator and "one" with God the Father who could reverse physical death, is certainly able to restore it to pre-wound condition.

 

Normal material bodies do not have the ability to appear and disappear at will in the material world, which the resurrected Jesus repeatedly did. It becomes more logical to assert his body was of a higher spiritual nature, imperceptible by material vision; his appearances were numinous presentations, controlled by the Creator, who was incarnate in, and as the very type of beings mortals will become after experiencing death.

 

These appearances before believers had to be among the most powerful of all experiences any of them had observed during his life among them. It is at first disappointing to think that none of those who wrote of these appearances included the fact he appeared in a different body; but the absence of such information is more understandable when we consider the inclinations of later editors to add their own understanding to the narrative they found.

 

—Saitia

[Biochemist]

If we operate under the presumption that a Divine intelligence, the source of the operative laws of science and the universe, could order such a universe, it's logical to assume that Intelligence (hereafter referred to as "he") should also be able to respect his own laws and operate within them, the same way he requires of us.

Suggesting that Christ rose does not in itself confirm that he violated physical laws.

If Jesus was God, and lived and died to instruct us in the ways he expects us to live and understand life, why would he violate his own observable universal law which shows us that when life leaves a human body, that body dies, and immediately begins a process of deterioration and decay, and returns to the elemental level of the material world?

This is another assumption. You might recall that the Biblical prophesy was that He would not undergo decay. Again, any assumption that the resurrection is at odds with natural law is an hypothesis.

I think he would not, and did not, violate that law.

I suspect this is true. In fact, one could argue it is true by definition.

Since there was no record of conflict between the posted guards and the apostles and followers of Jesus, it's reasonable to assume they didn't attack and steal the body to claim it had been resurrected;

Agreed.

So what happened to the material body, if Jesus did not resurrect in it?....The tomb of Joseph was empty, not because the physical body of Jesus had been resurrected, but because the celestial hosts were allowed to afford it a special dissolution, without the intervention of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay....We can well imagine when the two huge stones sealing the tomb began to move, apparently of their own accord, the guards panicked and fled.

It seems to me that the notion of "celestial hosts were allowed" is a little at odds with the notion of compliance with natural law. Are you suggesting these two are consistent?

Of course we have the account of Thomas and the wounds of Jesus. But this account is absurd on its face. Even it we assume it was the same body, A divine being on the order of Creator and "one" with God the Father who could reverse physical death, is certainly able to restore it to pre-wound condition.

I don't think we have enough historical examples of resurrected bodies to know what is or is not absurd. To suggest that the special spiritual handling of Jesus is explicable but that the wounds are absurd seems a little incongruous to me.

These appearances before believers had to be among the most powerful of all experiences any of them had observed during his life among them.

Agreed. It profoundly affected ther subsequent behaviors. I also suspect that some were not believers until after they saw Him.

[ughaibu]

A study of resurrection: Amazon.com: Reviews for The SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW: Books: Wade Davis http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0684839296/102-7209526-9094531

[Biochemist]

A study of resurrection: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0684839296/102-7209526-9094531

This is a bit of a stretch. Although concievable, it is not particularly likely that Jesus was in a pharmacologically-induced coma.

[Saitia]

Saitia said:

If Jesus was God, and lived and died to instruct us in the ways he expects us to live and understand life, why would he violate his own observable universal law which shows us that when life leaves a human body, that body dies, and immediately begins a process of deterioration and decay, and returns to the elemental level of the material world?

This is another assumption. You might recall that the Biblical prophesy was that He would not undergo decay.

 

It may be an assumption, but it is based on thousands of years worth of observation of the facts of human death. Having personally witnessed a number of autopsies, it's my experience that material bodies do indeed decay. (If you're referring to Acts 2 as a prophecy, I'd have to say it's every bit as much an assumption that it refers to Jesus, and highly suspect since it was written long after the events it supposedly prophecies.)

 

 

It seems to me that the notion of "celestial hosts were allowed" is a little at odds with the notion of compliance with natural law. Are you suggesting these two are consistent?

Yes; and I agree it appears at odds with our understanding of natural law. But our rudimentary understanding of time is hardly sufficient to preclude a hypothesis advancing the notion that the abrogation of the normal flow of time regarding the decay of a material organism does not violate natural law. We simply don't have the requisite perspective, i.e., from the spiritual world, to determine the correct answer. But we do have a couple of historical examples to consider; other wise the only plausible solution outside of crossing over would appear to be revelation.

 

I don't think we have enough historical examples of resurrected bodies to know what is or is not absurd. To suggest that the special spiritual handling of Jesus is explicable but that the wounds are absurd seems a little incongruous to me.

 

Perhaps "absurd" implies too strong a conviction; I'll settle for your word, "incongruous." Yes, as far as I know we have no examples of resurrected bodies outside of Lazarus and Jesus. Lazarus was in the tomb four days, the Bible commenting on the stench of decay (“Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”)

 

A physician could explain the approximate amount of decay that will occur in a dead human body in a warm climate, but in my personal experience, advanced decomposition is associated with a putrid odor that lingers very thickly in the air, as microorganisms begin dissolving the internal organs almost immediately after death; lividity appears, the body bloats with gas, the skin blisters, the eyes cloud; all of these things and more can occur during this period of time (four days).

 

Yet if the accounts available to us are to be believed, Jesus restored these protracted conditions in a mere moment or two, one reasonably assuming he restored them to their previous normal condition. Clearly time was abrogated; what's more, natural processes of decay were stopped and all damage healed. Jesus thereby demonstrated a power over life and death that could only be assigned to a being with ultimate creative prerogatives, imo; those normally reserved for "God."

 

So in the two most remarkable cases known to me, the abrogation of time is consistent; Jesus uses it with Lazarus, and celestials use it with the body of Jesus. Of interest then, is the purported conversation between Jesus and Thomas regarding the "wounds." At his second appearance before all the apostles, Jesus suddenly appeared directly in front of Thomas, and after making extensive remarks directed at all of them:

 

. . .he looked down into the face of Thomas and said: "And you, Thomas, who said you would not believe unless you could see me and put your finger in the nail marks of my hands, have now beheld me and heard my words; and though you see no nail marks on my hands, since I am raised in the form that you also shall have when you depart from this world, what will you say to your brethren? You will acknowledge the truth, for already in your heart you had begun to believe even when you so stoutly asserted your unbelief. Your doubts, Thomas, always most stubbornly assert themselves just as they are about to crumble. Thomas, I bid you be not faithless but believing and I know you will believe, even with a whole heart."

 

When Thomas heard these words, he fell on his knees. . . and exclaimed, "I believe! My Lord and my Master!" Then said Jesus to Thomas: "You have believed, Thomas, because you have really seen and heard me. Blessed are those in the ages to come who will believe even though they have not seen with the eye of flesh nor heard with the mortal ear."

 

And then, as the Master's form moved over near the head of the table, he

addressed them all, saying: "And now go all of you to Galilee, where I will presently appear to you." After he said this, he vanished from their sight.

 

Paper 191, APPEARANCES TO THE APOSTLES AND OTHER LEADERS

5. Second Appearance to the Apostles —The Urantia Book

[Biochemist]

It may be an assumption, but it is based on thousands of years worth of observation of the facts of human death.....

So in the two most remarkable cases known to me, the abrogation of time is consistent;

I don't have a problem with your postulate, but it is hardly a proof case. We don't know the mechanism that was used to raise either Jesus or Lazarus. The Bible does not posit one (except to state that Christ did not "undergo decay"). In the Lazarus example, it appears similar in that the locals were afraid it would smell, but it apparently did not in actuality.