Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

There have been metal scrolls found one as part of Dead Sea Scrolls.. From the The Jerusalem Post we read:
[B][INDENT]Though part of the official Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, the Copper Scroll differs from the others in that it is written entirely on thin sheets of alloyed copper rather than papyrus or leather.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found after 1947.

James, you say:

It is my contention that never was scripture ever written and preserved on metal plates or scrolls.. It is always papyrus or vellum, never metal.. That is still a strike against the idea of the BofM..

And yet...

Nearly all surviving documents from Italy before the third century BC, when Rome began its conquest of the peninsula, are in Etruscan. The vast majority of these inscriptions are simply names on tombstones.53 The Bonfantes list only eight Etruscan documents of any length, half of which are written on metal.54 These four metal plates are also the oldest of the eight major surviving Etruscan documents; all of them are sacred texts.

4.1. The lead plate of Santa Marinella (500 BC), written on both sides, was a religious text.55

4.2. The Pyrgi plates (early 5C BC) have been discussed above (2.9). They represent not only one of the earliest lengthy Etruscan documents, but also sacred writing on gold plates in both Phoenician and Etruscan. Although not quite a "Rosetta Stone," these plates were important in the deciphering of Etruscan.

4.3. The lead tablet of Magliano (475—450 BC) (inscribed on both sides) is a religious text discussing rituals and sacrifices.56 Since both the Santa Marinella (4.1) and the Magliano lead plates were inscribed on both sides, it clearly indicates that they were not intended as dedicatory inscriptions to be mounted on walls but were to be handled while read.

4.4. The famous bronze haruspicina (liver divination) model Settima (3C—1C BC) is not precisely a metal plate but is nonetheless an example of sacred prophetic writing on bronze.

That the three oldest Etruscan texts of any length (4.1, 4.2, 4.3) are all sacred writing on metal is certainly indicative that the practice was widespread in pre-Roman Italy. The dual Phoenician/Etruscan inscription from Pyrgi (4.2, 2.9) indicates that the practice was most likely adopted from Phoenicia, where examples of writing sacred texts on metal plates date much earlier.

http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publ...um=1&id=637#15

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;90916][QUOTE]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found after 1947.

James, you say:



And yet...

Did you even read what I said or is it that you couldn't understand. There is no books of scripture written in all Israel or by the Church on metal plates or scrolls.. the metal copper scrolls found with the DSS do NOT contain scripture.. All your other "proofs" that sacred writings were written on metal plates are NOT the scriptures but texts of the idols and false gods of the nations.. All you have done in all these examples you pick up from mormon sources is prove that what I have said here in true and accurate. The Books of scripture (Not just religious texts of other gods and people that were not of Israel, or the Church) were never written on metal but instead papyrus and velum.. Nothing you have said here has shown that statement to be inaccurate.. What it does show is that the God plates were less and less likely to have ever existed.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Did you even read what I said or is it that you couldn't understand. There is no books of scripture written in all Israel or by the Church on metal plates or scrolls.. the metal copper scrolls found with the DSS do NOT contain scripture.. All your other "proofs" that sacred writings were written on metal plates are NOT the scriptures but texts of the idols and false gods of the nations.. All you have done in all these examples you pick up from mormon sources is prove that what I have said here in true and accurate. The Books of scripture (Not just religious texts of other gods and people that were not of Israel, or the Church) were never written on metal but instead papyrus and velum.. Nothing you have said here has shown that statement to be inaccurate.. What it does show is that the God plates were less and less likely to have ever existed.. IHS jim

Oh---you think that Nephi had to follow exactly what Israelites did--the fact that metal plates were used way back that other religions used for their sacred writings in the same area doesn't matter as long as metal plates have not been found yet for the Biblical writings. Interesting--and that is why you noted the Dead Sea scrolls, which were Biblical writings and in which metal plates were found with them, but the metal plates were not Biblical text.

So, then, a discovery like this should make you believe the Book of Mormon since you seem to think you need proof of metal plates with Biblical text dating from the time of the Book of Mormon in order to believe:

Discovered in 1979, these scrolls were found inside one of a series of burial caves called Ketef Hinnom in a hillside just west of Jerusalem. They were two small silver scrolls, about 1″ x 4″ in size, and much care was taken over a three year period to unroll them to read them. They had archaic Hebrew text on them. They determined that the scrolls date to approximately 600 BC, very near the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

Amazingly, the scrolls contain the oldest surviving citations of the Hebrew Bible, in addition to the oldest surviving reference to Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD). The text comes from primarily Numbers 6:24-26, which is a priesthood blessing (or ordinance) the Lord instructed Moses to teach Aaron to give to the Israelites.

http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/0...-metal-plates/

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;90914] Gen 4:3-4 And in process of time it came to p***, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

It appears that the Lord was involved from the beginning teaching of His ways of what is acceptable to Him and what is not.

Just how does this show that the Church existed in the days that Able's sacrifice was accepted by the Lord?? That makes no sense. Please show where the Church existed at that time..

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

But, baptism, either time, meant the same thing. When and how are you changing the meaning of the word baptism? Regardless of what it symbolizes, baptism is baptism.

One Lord, NOT THREE, One faith in that Lord, and one baptism into that Lord.. I do hope one day you will come to know that..

I see the meaning of Baptism is now in question so lets see what it means in the language we both speak..

Baptism
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

Any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

A trying or purifying experience or initiation. (Dictionary,com)

Looks like you are right in definition number one.. But that isn't the whole meaning. Looks like I am right as well saying that it can be an action of dedicating ones self or dedicating ones self to God.. The second and third meaning of the word don't seem to require water..

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You can't be righteous and ignore what Christ asks us to do.

No you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus in being baptized. But you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus is all that he commanded.. In short you can't ever be righteous! You can't be righteous and lust, lie, covet, or get angry. You can be righteous if you are perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.. All these are His commandments and carry the same penalty as not being water baptized.. Don't you understand that we all are sinners? That we never see after God but go out of the way? (Romans 3:11-12).. Remember Jesus is the Way! As I said in the last post when you have obeyed Jesus in all things, then come back to me and tell me that baptism is required for salvation.. Until then I will rely on His grace though a faith that He Himself has provided for me..

And yet, the Spirit descended on him like a dove and His Father spoke, behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

So when I tell you that the Holy Spirit came on me as He did in Acts 2:1-4. Then there is the conversion of How about Christ taught us what baptism is and we see it through His example. We also see that it is through the laying on of hands that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to those who are not Christ rather than just as a dove descending. It is interesting for me to meet the Christian who claims that they don't need to be baptized as Christ was in water and then somehow, as if they were Christ, the Holy Ghost just descends on them.

It would seem that God doesn't always follow your pattern or require that the hand of one in "authority" touch a believer to give then the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Caesarea, a Roman centurion, Cornelius, was taught by Peter and the Holy Spirit fell on him and all that heard Peter's words, as He had fallen on the diciples at Pentecost. Then they were offered baptism.. How did that work.. It broke all your rules (Acts 10).

I was thinking more like a pastor or preacher or someone who God has ordained in that position rather than just living together and calling it good--which is what we see quite a bit of.

God appointed anyone that goes out to teach His Gospel to baptize.. He has given all Power as the Holy Spirit can into them. A pastor of a church has no more authority from God than a person who has just proclaimed faith in Jesus.. Why is it an LDS woman who believes in a non professional clergy would have to hear that from a person who believe in having a paid professional clergy?

You are going on on some sort of tangent here to justify your position on baptism. So, are you saying that two people can just committ to each other and that a "spiritual" marriage is good enough--no ceremony, etc?

No you are the one that brought other ordinances into the conversation I just gave you a Biblical answer to what you stated..

No, I used the baptism of Christ--that seemed like quite enough to teach us how we should be baptized. I used Maria Van Trapp because what she noticed is true . And if you notice all of these also involve our physcial bodies (except you want to exclude baptism)---birth, marriage and death all involve a physical manifestation. Even the Sacrament is a physical manifestation of our spiritual state. As Maria Van Trapp said, we wouldn't think to say we love someone and then deny them a hug. Why would we think we can tell God we love Him and then deny what He asks us to do?

And I rightly pointed out that John's baptism, the baptism that Jesus submitted to is not Christian baptism.. I used the scripture to make that point. Did you read what in written about John's baptism in Acts 19? It doesn't sound like you checked it out before you ran back in here with more posting when you haven't any biblical idea of what you are talking about.. You go out to show that a Austrian child had to say about what Love is.. Love doesn't require a hug any more than baptism is required for salvation.. Ho you don't hug anyone you don't love but you don't have to hug anyone to love them either.. She had a very childlike idea how to show love.. I ask you again, why do you say you love Jesus but you don't do as he commanded.. He commands perfection remember? Yet you have admitted many times that you are NOT perfect.. You must not love the Lord!

And your point was that you follow the teachings found within the Bible. When one group can say they see baptism by water and by the spirit and another by the spirit alone...and you are okay either way, I say, this is not following the Bible.

And I have told you that Baptism doesn't always require water.. A person can commit themselves to God and devote themselves to Him and being in His service without water baptism.. That life is also a baptism as I have shown you.. You have admitted to me that in the waters of baptism there is no power to cleanse a person of sin. That the power to do so in found only in the Blood that he shed. That is the baptism many that deny water baptism see where their baptism lays. They look to birth not baptism. One of water one of Spirit.. One natural one spiritual (John 3:6-6).. Baptism is becoming one with Him, being taking into the Body of Christ, the Church.. That is something Jesus does not man (Acts 2:47).. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Just how does this show that the Church existed in the days that Able's sacrifice was accepted by the Lord?? That makes no sense. Please show where the Church existed at that time..

The Lord was involved and teaching the children of Adam how to follow Him. What exactly is your definition of Christ's church? Isn't it, those who are taught of and follow the Lord?

One Lord, NOT THREE, One faith in that Lord, and one baptism into that Lord.. I do hope one day you will come to know that..

I do--but it appears that you don't.

I see the meaning of Baptism is now in question so lets see what it means in the language we both speak..

Baptism
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

Any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

A trying or purifying experience or initiation. (Dictionary,com)

Looks like you are right in definition number one.. But that isn't the whole meaning. Looks like I am right as well saying that it can be an action of dedicating ones self or dedicating ones self to God.. The second and third meaning of the word don't seem to require water..

Yes, what ACTION or ceremony is that exactly then if it isn't baptism by immersion as taught by Christ? As I said--what is the difference with someone who says that living together is just the same as marriage as long as it in their heart?

No you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus in being baptized. But you can't be righteous if you don't obey Jesus is all that he commanded.. In short you can't ever be righteous!

So, what are you saying then--never mind even trying to do as He did such as be baptized?

You can't be righteous and lust, lie, covet, or get angry. You can be righteous if you are perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.. All these are His commandments and carry the same penalty as not being water baptized.. Don't you understand that we all are sinners? That we never see after God but go out of the way? (Romans 3:11-12).. Remember Jesus is the Way! As I said in the last post when you have obeyed Jesus in all things, then come back to me and tell me that baptism is required for salvation.. Until then I will rely on His grace though a faith that He Himself has provided for me..

Yes, we are all sinners, which is why are commanded to repent and be baptized. Christ is who saves and it is listening to Christ that changes us--and one of the things He tells us is to be baptized and even showed us how it is done. I don't think His intent was for us to throw our hands up in the air and say, well, since it is impossible to keep all He says, I might as well as not even try to do as He does.

So when I tell you that the Holy Spirit came on me as He did in Acts 2:1-4. Then there is the conversion of

What??

It would seem that God doesn't always follow your pattern or require that the hand of one in "authority" touch a believer to give then the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Caesarea, a Roman centurion, Cornelius, was taught by Peter and the Holy Spirit fell on him and all that heard Peter's words, as He had fallen on the diciples at Pentecost. Then they were offered baptism.. How did that work.. It broke all your rules (Acts 10).

It doesn't--one receives a witness of the Holy Ghost before one receives a gift of the Holy Ghost--which is why I am sure after Cornelius was baptized, he received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as is taught in the Bible. I am sure that Paul did not feel like he needed to spell this out to those who already had and understood the gospel. What was needed to be taught is that God is not a respecter of persons and that a non-Jew can receive a witness of the Holy Ghost to the truthfullness of Christ as well and then proceed with baptism.

God appointed anyone that goes out to teach His Gospel to baptize.. He has given all Power as the Holy Spirit can into them. A pastor of a church has no more authority from God than a person who has just proclaimed faith in Jesus.. Why is it an LDS woman who believes in a non professional clergy would have to hear that from a person who believe in having a paid professional clergy?

What? Even in the NT, men were ordained. It is only when the break occured from Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy that Protestism EVENTUALLY gave up the belief in authority to baptize, etc. My catholic friend said that it took a bishop to do the "laying on of hands" to receive the Holy Ghost. I think it became a matter of convenience for Protestantism to believe "all believers" had authority. This is also the reason there are so many fractions within Protestantism--the minute you believe, you are an authority to do whatever you want and if you disagree--just start a new sect--as long as you agree with a few fundamentals--all the rest is up for debate.

And I rightly pointed out that John's baptism, the baptism that Jesus submitted to is not Christian baptism..

And I say, oh brother. Christ gave us the example--now you want to disqualify it?

I used the scripture to make that point. Did you read what in written about John's baptism in Acts 19?

So, what do you think this second "baptism" looked like? Since they were already believers---shouldn't they just already be spiritually baptized and have no need of even a second baptism? These scriptures speak more to the need for baptism than for some automatic spiritual baptism once believed and that is enough. All I hear is that they had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, but merely the prophecying of Jesus Christ to come. Hence, they were baptized into the fold and received the Holy Ghost.

I ask you again, why do you say you love Jesus but you don't do as he commanded.. He commands perfection remember? Yet you have admitted many times that you are NOT perfect.. You must not love the Lord!

Once again, oh brother. So, you excuse yourself from following Christ because you can't do ALL he commands you to do? Lame excuse.

And I have told you that Baptism doesn't always require water.. A person can commit themselves to God and devote themselves to Him and being in His service without water baptism..

Why on earth the second baptism then? Seems strange in light of this belief of yours.

That life is also a baptism as I have shown you.. You have admitted to me that in the waters of baptism there is no power to cleanse a person of sin. That the power to do so in found only in the Blood that he shed. That is the baptism many that deny water baptism see where their baptism lays. They look to birth not baptism. One of water one of Spirit.. One natural one spiritual (John 3:6-6).. Baptism is becoming one with Him, being taking into the Body of Christ, the Church.. That is something Jesus does not man (Acts 2:47).. IHS jim

Yup, and there are plenty of people who view marriage in the same way--as long as they love each other and are committed, who needs a ceremony or piece of paper. They are "spiritually" bound and that is enough to them. The problem is--God seems to care about a physical manifestation of an inward decision. Christ, even being perfect, and in no need of any spiritual change was obedient and baptized to fulfill all righteousness. I guess your Christian friends see themselves as above this.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The Lord was involved and teaching the children of Adam how to follow Him. What exactly is your definition of Christ's church? Isn't it, those who are taught of and follow the Lord?



I do--but it appears that you don't.


Yes, what ACTION or ceremony is that exactly then if it isn't baptism by immersion as taught by Christ? As I said--what is the difference with someone who says that living together is just the same as marriage as long as it in their heart?

So, what are you saying then--never mind even trying to do as He did such as be baptized?

Yes, we are all sinners, which is why are commanded to repent and be baptized. Christ is who saves and it is listening to Christ that changes us--and one of the things He tells us is to be baptized and even showed us how it is done. I don't think His intent was for us to throw our hands up in the air and say, well, since it is impossible to keep all He says, I might as well as not even try to do as He does.


What??


It doesn't--one receives a witness of the Holy Ghost before one receives a gift of the Holy Ghost--which is why I am sure after Cornelius was baptized, he received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as is taught in the Bible. I am sure that Paul did not feel like he needed to spell this out to those who already had and understood the gospel. What was needed to be taught is that God is not a respecter of persons and that a non-Jew can receive a witness of the Holy Ghost to the truthfullness of Christ as well and then proceed with baptism.

What? Even in the NT, men were ordained. It is only when the break occured from Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy that Protestism EVENTUALLY gave up the belief in authority to baptize, etc. My catholic friend said that it took a bishop to do the "laying on of hands" to receive the Holy Ghost. I think it became a matter of convenience for Protestantism to believe "all believers" had authority. This is also the reason there are so many fractions within Protestantism--the minute you believe, you are an authority to do whatever you want and if you disagree--just start a new sect--as long as you agree with a few fundamentals--all the rest is up for debate.



And I say, oh brother. Christ gave us the example--now you want to disqualify it?

So, what do you think this second "baptism" looked like? Since they were already believers---shouldn't they just already be spiritually baptized and have no need of even a second baptism? These scriptures speak more to the need for baptism than for some automatic spiritual baptism once believed and that is enough. All I hear is that they had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, but merely the prophecying of Jesus Christ to come. Hence, they were baptized into the fold and received the Holy Ghost.

Once again, oh brother. So, you excuse yourself from following Christ because you can't do ALL he commands you to do? Lame excuse.

Why on earth the second baptism then? Seems strange in light of this belief of yours.

Yup, and there are plenty of people who view marriage in the same way--as long as they love each other and are committed, who needs a ceremony or piece of paper. They are "spiritually" bound and that is enough to them. The problem is--God seems to care about a physical manifestation of an inward decision. Christ, even being perfect, and in no need of any spiritual change was obedient and baptized to fulfill all righteousness. I guess your Christian friends see themselves as above this.

The Church is the Body of Christ an organism that began the Day God came to live in those that believe.. It is called Pentecost. The Church are those in His body He called out of the world to be His Children. The Church is not those that lived on the other side of the cross.. The Church is not the children of Israel but all who are reborn of God, forgiven and made pure by His blood.. None of that happened before Pentecost.

We can do a "IS SO, IS NOT"argument all day about the one Lord, one Faith one Baptism.. I know you have a different Jesus than the Church holds to be Her Lord.. Her Lord is God, the God that is God from everlasting to everlasting.. Not was once a man who became a God by obedience to laws and ordinances.. One Lord? Not in mormonism for there are three with whom you have to do!

You are missing the definition that baptism is also a trying or purifying experience.. I allow people to hold that definition and don't try to force them to believe every point that I hold.. Since we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus just how is baptism required in that statement.. And that was the statement of both Paul in Eph 2:8-9 and Jesus in John 3:15-16..No where in all the scripture is it said that salvation saves us by putting way the filth of the flesh.. But the scripture says that it gives us a good conscience toward God.. Just where is your authority to say that baptism is a saving ordinance.. In Mark 16? Do you also pick up snakes and drink poison to prove that you believe? Why not? It is just as much part of that context as "those who believe and are baptize" is..

You aren't listening again.. I never said "DON'T BE BAPTIZED". All I said was that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by Him.. Not by water, not by someone's invented authority just by Faith in Jesus as He made Clear in John 3:15-16.. I said baptism has nothing to do with salvation.. Just like not being a murderer or a thief has nothing to do with it.. just like being perfect has nothing to do with it.. Salvation is not of works of righteousness it is of God's grace though faith in the Jesus who has always been God plus NOTHING!

That was a bit confusing and I understand your confusion.. But the Holy Spirit came on me as he did the believers in Acts 2:1-4. That happened at my conversion.. My conversion of how Jesus taught what baptism is and see it in his example.. We also see that the Holy Spirit came to Jesus as He did to the believers.. No one touched them. Only by the authority of God did this power from on high come to all who believe.. I hope that is better..

No where in the scripture is an important step of receiving the Holy Spirit not explained in the scripture.. This p***age says that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit the "same as we".. I am in agreement with the scripture here you are NOT.. Peter received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and no one had to touch Him! Cornrlius received the Holy Spirit and no one touched him. These are Biblical facts.. You can disagree but it is you out od agreement with scripture not I.
How about when Jesus gave Him the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Why don't you breath on people to give them the Holy Spirit? The method or the timing isn't important.. The promise that He would come to us is. The promise was fulfilled at Pentecost and every time a person first believes.. What you are sure of totally disagrees with what the scripture teaches.. You actually think Paul was the teacher of these truths? You didn't check my references at all did you..

Yes men were ordained but you won't like that definition either.. To ordain was yo choose for a purpose.. Priesthood is NOT the power to act in God's name.. That is the reservation of the children of God.. Jesus said "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:18-20). See Jesus has all power if we are one with Him whether we are male, female, bond or free we share His power because we are His children, heirs of all He has. That isn't because of priesthood it;s because of our family connection to Him.. Priesthood was always spoken of in connection with sacrifice. Even is judging leprosy sacrifice is involved.. LDS priesthood is more priest craft than the power of God..

Unless you have recognized the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as the the One true eternal God, the creator of all things including the elements, the sub atomic particles that all thing are built from you are not my sister for you are of your father (John 8:44). I do not claim even spiritual family relationship with those that deny God.. The example of christian baptism lays in those in acts that took their lives in their hands and be seen as a Christian in a Roman world. It was a death sentence..

This baptism of John was not a first baptism it was no baptism at all. The ordiance isn't to wash away sin.. How many times must you be told.. Only the blood of Jesus has that power. You are looking for the permission of men for everything you do, whether it's baptism, or marriage. So do it that way.. I look for the approval of my Lord.. The Bible tells us that the physical world doesn't matter it's what is spiritual that counts.

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

So fight for gaining physical victories in baptism, in marriage. Fight against pornography and ****sexuality. These are just somtyms of the real illness the evil hearts of men.. These can only be cured in the blood of Jesus only He can change the heart away fro sin and bring it toward God.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Was Jesus' Gospel only intended for the "known world" at the time?

Matthew 28:19
19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

It seems illogical and unreasonable to believe in a God who would take the position: "When you Evangelicals finally invent big boats to take their missionaries across the sea in 1500 years or so, then Jesus can be a Savior to the western Hemisphere too...but not until then."

Fig's comment is totally goofy and is simply aimed at making his false Mormon teaching about Jesus being in America look not so crazy.......(But they are still crazy by the way)

Here is the real answer:
The word from the Lord was "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,..."

That is the command we have received...and that is what the church is doing.

Case Closed