MDYK: Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?

Everyone, this is a new series called "Mary, Did You Know?" Not to be confused with "Mary, Did You Know?" No, this is "Very Did You Know?" That's the name of this series that you're watching. "Mary, Did You Know?" It's a play on words for the song. That I am watching. I apologize. Please subscribe for notifications when I post. Like the vid. It's just one click. Now, let's get to the shelter. It's "Very Did You Know?" Well, that was entirely necessary.

Okay, so for this series, we're gonna be talking about stuff related to Mary. Today, the question is, was Mary a perpetual virgin? The answer is either yes or no. She either was or she wasn't. The Christians who will say that Mary was a perpetual virgin are Catholic Christians and some Protestant Christians. And guess what? I'm happy to share that this guy right here, Martin Luther, he's among the some Protestant Christians who believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin. So why don't you come over here, join me on the couch? All right, get over here, man. Get over. Did we, did we move on to the couch yet? Editor, is he there? I can't see him. I imagine he's somewhere in this vicinity. This is just so much extra work on the editor. You have no reason to be next to me. Get back behind the couch. Broken clocks are right twice a day, so not a big deal. Someone complained once because I made fun of Martin Luther. That's not actually Martin Luther, just so people know that. So, yeah, this some Protestant Christians includes people like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli. That's a fun name. Anyway, it's not that much of a surprise that we do see Protestants on this side because when the Protestants decided to follow this guy's lead and leave the church that Jesus Christ created, they did end up creating their own churches. But they brought a lot of stuff from Jesus's church into their church. They kept the teachings from Jesus that they enjoyed, and then anything they didn't like from Jesus, they're just like, "No, we don't, we don't need that." And we actually have some videos that go over this in more detail, so feel free to check those out. The links are in the description below.

But yeah, the Christians who say that Mary was a perpetual virgin are the Catholic Christians and some Protestant Christians. While the people who say Mary was not a perpetual virgin are some other Protestant Christians. Today, we're gonna start off by looking at what these Protestants are saying because, let's face it, if this side can provide even just one little fact, like the tiniest, tiny little fact that states that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, then this side wins. There will be nothing Miss I could do to bounce back from that. They have lost. If this side proves even with one tiny little fact that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, because she can't be both. So if you can prove this side's right, there is nothing Miss I can do. It's kind of like if we had this case here, which we do. It is here. So not if we have it here, we have this case here. If we have one side over here saying there is enough in this case, and then we have a site over here saying there's something in this case. All this side has to do is open up the case and show us that there's something in it. As soon as that happens, there's no saving this side. This side has lost. So again, if this side can prove that something happened while this side is saying nothing happened, as soon as they prove something happened, the side's done. So that's why we're gonna start with that. And they have three main arguments. They've got the "until" argument, they've got the "firstborn" argument, and they've got the "brothers" argument.

Me and my boy Luther here, we're gonna start with the "until" argument. "Until the Scriptures tell us that Joseph did not know his wife until after Jesus was born, so we know that Mary did not remain a virgin throughout her life." All right, so these scriptures don't actually tell us all of that. So let's look at what the actual information from scriptures is. "The birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,' which means God with us. When Joseph woke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary as his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son, and he called his name Jesus."

Now, the part that Jason Morrison is getting correct here is that Joseph knew Mary not until she had given birth to a son. But that doesn't help out Jason at all because both sides believe that. Both sides believe that Joseph knew Mary not until she had given birth to a son. The difference is, one side believes that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph continued to know Mary not. While the other side, Jason's side, believes that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph ceased to know Mary not. Neither side can prove that they're correct simply by using this passage from Matthew 1 because this passage from Matthew 1 doesn't tell us what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. It just tells us about what happened until that point. Jason's argument is this: "The Scriptures tell us that Joseph did not know his wife until after Jesus was born, so we know that Mary did not remain a virgin throughout her life." So to write that as an equation, Jason thinks that if X does not happen until a certain point in time, then X must happen after that point in time. No, that's not true. But let's have some fun with it. Let's imagine that Mr. Morrison heard this statement: "Nancy never stops speaking fondly of her husband until the day he died." If Mr. Morrison follows the same faulty logic that he followed from Matthew 1, he would have to say that Nancy stopped speaking fondly of her husband after the day he died. And while it is possible that Nancy could have stopped speaking fondly of her husband after that day, it's not necessarily true. All the sentence is telling us is how Nancy behaved until this point in time. It tells us nothing about what happened after that point in time. Nancy might have ceased to speak fondly of her husband after that day, but she also might have continued to speak fondly of her husband after that day. So Mr. Morrison is making the word "until" say so much more than it actually has to say. The same is true in this situation with Joseph. We're only being told what happened up until that point. And it makes sense why that point is being emphasized because people believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. So if you want people to understand there wasn't a chance that Joseph could have been the father of Jesus, this is how you can do it. You can highlight the fact that until Jesus's birth, nothing happened with Joseph and Mary that could possibly discredit the virgin birth belief. So both sides believe that Joseph knew Mary not until she had given birth to a son. That's not an area where they disagree. The part where they disagree is what happened after the birth of Jesus. And nothing in Matthew 1 can support either of these claims. So when this side brings up that "until" argument, it's really just a waste of time because both sides would say, "Yeah, we know Joseph knew Mary not until she had given birth to a son." But the disagreement here is not what happened until that point, it's what happened after that point.

Now, Mr. Morrison's doing here is something I like to call the "Protestant patch." They don't have anything they can actually prove their side. So what they do is they create a patch, something to fix the hole in their belief. Like with Mr. Morrison here, his patch is to say, "Well, it says 'until,' so that means after that, whatever was happened before that, it got flipped." That's his Protestant patch. That's how he's holding his teaching together. But then when you take that same patch and you apply it to every place in the Bible that says "until," you end up with teachings that just don't make any sense. Like, "Paul told Timothy, 'Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.'" If you plug that into Mr. Morrison's equation, his Protestant patch, then we can learn that Paul wants Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, and to teaching until Paul comes. But then after Paul comes, he wants Timothy to stop doing all that. No longer would it be important for Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, or to teaching. Would that be true? No. But that's what happens when you take this Protestant patch and you apply it equally across the entire Bible. If you go to Mark 13, you can read, "For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be." So that would actually break the patch because it's talking about those days, whenever those days are. And we're being told that the tribulation that will be in those days, there has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. So even the Bible gives us an example where it's entirely possible for something to not occur until a certain point and then continue to not occur after that point. So it's saying this tribulation is going to happen. There are going to be days when this happens. But when comparing those days to the rest of the timeline, the author is saying that the tribulation that will be in those days has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. So it's entirely possible that Joseph did not know her until she had given birth to a son and also never knew her after that. But again, that passage in Matthew 1 doesn't tell us anything about what happened between Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. So neither of these sides get any support for their differing claims from Matthew 1. Which means that this side's "until" argument is just a huge waste of time. For me, I'm a pal here. Our side's still safe. High five. Okay, you are just all types of disappointments today. This boy.

"And she brought forth her firstborn son." By the way, if you have a firstborn son, guess what you have? You can't have a part one without a part two, right? So she brought forth her firstborn son, which means that she had other children. Now, this argument is definitely my favorite from this side. And I do want to be fair here, not all of this side is using that argument because I think most of them realize just how dumb it is. Having a firstborn son does not mean Mary had other children. Being a firstborn is not dependent on there being other children born after you. Exodus 13 tells us this about the term "firstborn": "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me all the firstborn. Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beasts, is mine.'" So yes, the Bible does say that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. But having a firstborn son doesn't mean that she had to have more children after having Jesus. It just means Jesus was her firstborn son. And the Bible defines firstborn as "whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beasts." So just like the "until" situation, both sides agree that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. The area where the two sides disagree is what happened after that. One side says Mary did not have more children after that. The other side says Mary did have more children after that. Again, though, just like the passage in Matthew 1 didn't help or hurt either side, this verse here in Luke 2 doesn't help or hurt either side. So again, just like the "until" argument, the "firstborn" argument is a completely useless thing to bring up in this discussion because both sides agree Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary. But we're not trying to figure out if he was the firstborn, we're trying to figure out if Mary had more children after him. And actually, even if this side were able to prove that Mary gave birth to other children, that's not the end of the line for them. They have to prove that she lost her virginity in order to do so. Because let's face it, she's had a kid before without losing it. So the girl's got skills. But we don't even have to get into that because they have not been able to prove that Mary had other children. But I'm saying, even if they did, they would still need to prove she lost her virginity. Believe it or not, it is possible, though very rare, for a virgin to give birth to a baby. So yeah, just in case this side didn't have enough monkey wrenches to deal with already, that's one more. So Martin, if you could just, yeah, yep, do me a favor and put that in there. And Martin, get back behind the couch. Okay, just, just get back behind the couch. The monkey actually cushioned it, so it wasn't as bad as I made it seem. But I just wanted to God know.

One of the things that I think is funny about this firstborn argument that Stephen Anderson is making is that if you go to Numbers 3, it says, "And the Lord said to Moses, 'List all the firstborn males of the people of Israel from a month old and upward, taking the number of their names.'" So if we take Steven Anderson's Protestant patch, his patch is, "If you have a firstborn son, that means you had other children." So when we take that Protestant patch and we apply it to this part of the Bible, then the Lord just gave Moses an impossible task. Well, maybe not impossible. I mean, if Moses has a time machine or the ability to see the future, then he could definitely do this task. But notice how the Lord wants a list of all the firstborn males starting from a month old. If a male child is one month old and they don't have any other siblings at that point, then how is Moses supposed to know if they're firstborn or not? Because according to Steven Anderson, firstborn means that your mother had other children as well. Unless Moses has some way of knowing the future where he can just take a baby and you're like, "Okay, let me see. Yeah, you're gonna have a brother, so you are a firstborn. Good for you. Let's take this one. Oh, only child. Not a firstborn. Sorry. It's one in all. All right, take this one over here. Let's see. I'm not getting anything on this one. Oh, that's a Cabbage Patch Kid. All right, somebody's just messing with Moses. That's a reality show if I've ever heard one. Messin' with Moses on Fox." But yeah, if this Protestant patch were true, then there's no way that Moses could complete this task without some way of knowing the future. Of course, we don't have to worry about that scenario because this Protestant patch is complete nonsense.

All right, so now for the last argument on this side, the "brothers" argument, which will very kindly mentioned is not a great argument because proving someone had a brother is not the same as proving someone lost their virginity. That's they're two different topics. But let's hear him out. "Brothers, I have to find another source for the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin because the Bible doesn't support that. Says Jesus had brothers." All right, so that was the Protestant Mike. When you're, we've seen him before. If you want to watch more of his adventures in Protestantism, aka making stuff up, feel free to click the link in the description below. So Mike is saying that the Bible doesn't support Mary's perpetual virginity because the Bible tells us that Jesus had brothers. And guess what? The Bible does tell us that Jesus had brothers. Jesus had brothers and sisters. Galatians 1 says, "I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." Matthew 13 says, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters here with us?" And actually, I was really not telling us that Jesus had brothers, it's just people asking, "Doesn't he have brothers?" But let's just say for the sake of argument, these people were right when they were questioning these things. These were Jesus's brothers. His sisters were all there with him. That still wouldn't hurt or help either of these sides because the words being used for a brother and sister here, they don't necessarily need to mean biological brother or sister. Even today, we don't use those words just to mean biological brother or sister. And actually, the words that we're translating into English as brother and sister are words that, while they could refer to a biological brother or sister, that's not off the table. They could also be used to refer to cousins or close relatives or even people who are sharing the same belief. For instance, Paul writes to the Corinthians, "Christ appeared to this guy whose name I have no idea how to pronounce, then to the twelve, then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time." So does the word "brothers" here have to mean biological brothers? No. I mean, it could be biological brothers. Maybe this was just one really busy mother popping out at least 500 sons and who knows how many daughters. But also, it could have just meant people who shared the same faith. The word "brothers" is like the word "chicken." It can have multiple meanings. If I were to say, "Howard is the chicken," am I saying that Howard is an animal known as a chicken? Or am I saying that Howard is a coward? Oh, that was not an intentional rhyme. That just happened. You weren't witnessing the birth of a poet, didn't even know it. Been an A. But I, what I know is it's my turn to go behind the couch. I'm sorry. That was so tough.

The point is, when it comes to words like "chicken" or "brother," words that have multiple meanings, the text doesn't always tell you which meaning you should be using. Matthew 23 says Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "You have one teacher, and you are all brothers." And in Acts 3, Peter addressed the men of Israel and he calls them brothers. So both of these sides are gonna be perfectly fine saying, "Yeah, yeah, Jesus had brothers, whatever." The difference is that this side is saying when it's talking about brothers in reference to Jesus, it's talking about followers or close relatives. Well, this side is saying, "No, it's only talking about biological brothers, those are Mary's children." Which, by the way, throwing another monkey wrench into this side, if you're saying that the brothers here are Mary's children, then they would actually be half-brothers, not full brothers. Unless, of course, Scott and Mary did another Son of God type deal. But nobody's saying that happened. So then the question for the "Mary lost her virginity" side is, if you're saying that the word "brothers" can mean half-brothers from Mary and Joseph, then why aren't you considering the other option that they could be stepbrothers from Joseph alone? Joseph could have caused Jesus to have stepbrothers without any involvement by Mary. I'm not saying Joseph cheated on Mary. I don't think he would have done that. But some people believe that Joseph had children from a prior marriage, and then when Joseph was widowed, he married Mary. Which would mean when Jesus was born, he would have brothers and sisters who were actually stepbrothers and sisters from Joseph's prior marriage. So even if someone could prove that the brothers and sisters here were sibling-like brothers and sisters, that doesn't hurt this side at all. This side could easily say, "Yeah, that's a possibility too. They could have in Jesus and stepbrothers." And even if someone were to prove that Jesus had half-brothers from Mary, that is still not a guarantee that Mary lost her virginity. Again, virgin births are possible, and not just with Jesus. And I know that last part might seem really nitpicky because you're like, "Well, she's pregnant, she had a kid. If they can prove that, then just give him the virginity thing." Honestly, if this side could prove that Mary actually had another child, and I would just give him the win. I would say, "All right, that probably means that Mary lost her virginity at some point." But the thing is, I don't even have to worry about that because this side can never prove that Mary actually had other children, like gave birth to other children. So that's the three arguments from this side. We've got the "until" argument, that's no good. We've got the "firstborn" argument, that's hilarious and also no good. And we've got the "brothers" argument, which again, is no good.

Now, just to be clear, neither of these sides is helped or hurt by any of the passages we looked at so far. So the "until" stuff, the "firstborn" stuff, the "brother" stuff, those passages didn't make either of these sides any more or less right. Neither of these sides should be going to those passages to try to prove their side because they're not gonna be able to do it. So at this point in the video, this side is not proven, this side is not disproven, this side is not proven, this side is not disproved. But again, we looked at this side first because if they could prove their point, there's no point in even looking at this side because there's no way they could have won had this side actually found a fact that proved that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

So now let's listen to this side. "Will go to Luke's Gospel, first chapter. In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, 'Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!' But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.' And Mary said to the angel, 'How will this be, since I am a virgin?' And the angel answered her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.' And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her."

So of all the things you can teach using the Bible, this is probably my favorite teaching because it doesn't just come right out and tell you everything. You kind of got to Sherlock Holmes it. The passage gives you a bunch of different pieces, and then you can put them together to figure out what they're saying. So what do we know from this passage? First of all, we're gonna set up a timeline. We've got the past, we've got the future. At this point in time, when the angel Gabriel visits Mary, she is a virgin. So Mary was born back here. She lives her life until she gets to this point here, where the angel Gabriel visits Mary. So all this time here, Mary is a virgin. Another thing we know from this passage is that Mary understands how babies are typically made. More specifically, Mary understands that in order to conceive a child, women will usually end up losing their virginity. Again, that's typically the case. There are very rare cases where it doesn't happen that way, but typically, in order to conceive a child, a woman will tend to lose her virginity. Now, why am I saying that Mary knows this? Because the angel told her that, "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son." And Mary said, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" So Mary understands that virgins don't typically conceive children. And there's another piece of the puzzle that's hiding out in that conversation. Notice that the angel said, "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son." Gabriel didn't say that you conceive already. He said, "You will conceive." So let's go back to the timeline. Here's when Gabriel visited Mary. He tells her at this point in time, "You will conceive." That means that at some point in the future, when Mary is going to conceive, it could be two seconds after he said that, it could be two minutes after he said that, it could be two days after he said that. All we know is that Mary's being told this is going to happen. She will conceive in her womb and bear a son at some point in the future. So with that in mind, let's go back to the question that Mary asked the angel. She said, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" So Mary is also referring to this as a future event. "How will this be? How is this gonna happen?" She understands what Gabriel is saying. At some point in the future, she will conceive. So she's asking, "How will this be?" And what is Mary's reason for asking? "Since I am a virgin." So Mary seems to clearly understand that being a virgin will usually get in the way of actually conceiving a child. Now, we already know from this passage that up until this point, Mary is a virgin. But see this space here? This space and the time between when Gabriel first meets Mary and starts talking to her, and this undefined point over here, when Mary actually conceives her son. For Mary, that bit of time hasn't happened yet. So why is Mary asking, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" Because again, Mary still needs to live from this point, when she's told the news that she will conceive, to this point, when she actually will conceive. So even though Mary's a virgin right here, she still has time before she reaches this point in time where she can actually lose her virginity in order to conceive the child. So Mary, when she's told by the angel, "You will conceive," she knows how babies are made. She knows that people would typically stop being a virgin in order to conceive. And she knows that the angel is talking about an event in the future because she says, "How will this be?" So unless you think that Mary is smart enough to realize that being a virgin gets in the way of conceiving most of the time, but she's too dumb to realize that she could just stop being a virgin at any point in time between those two points, the only real reasonable explanation for this question is that Mary planned to be a virgin her entire life. Because again, this point is in the future. The angel didn't say when she will conceive, he just said, "You will conceive." So this point could have been anywhere in Mary's future. Mary didn't know if it was gonna happen here, but she did know it was a possibility. And she said, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" But also, Mary knew it could have happened here too. And yet her response was still, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" Well, the angel Gabriel told Mary is that this would happen in the future. So Mary knew this point could be here, or here, or here, or here, or anywhere in the future. And yet her question is, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" The only reasonable explanation for asking that question would be that Mary planned to be a virgin her entire life. Because if Mary could see any point in time in the future where she might not be a virgin anymore, that question would make no sense. And by the way, look at that passage again. The angel just told her she was gonna have this amazing son. "He will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." So first of all, she's talking to an angel. He's telling her, "You're gonna have this amazing child." And she's on board for all that. But the one thing that she can't even imagine changing is the fact that she's a virgin. Hence the question, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" And then the angel explains how it's gonna happen, and she's like, "All right, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." People did take vows of virginity back then. I don't think it was a common thing, but it could happen. And even though Mary believed the angel when he said, "You will conceive a son," she couldn't see a future in which she was not a virgin. It will be like if somebody told me that I was gonna win the gold medal in Olympic figure skating. I've never figure skated in my life. But if an angel appeared to me right now and said I was gonna win the gold medal in Olympic figure skating, I wouldn't ask, "How will this be, since I am not a figure skater?" Because even though I'm not a figure skater right now, if an angel was telling me that I was going to win the gold medal in Olympic figure skating in the future, my guess would be I'm probably gonna learn how to figure skate at least at some point in time before I win the medal. The only reasonable explanation, at least that I can think of, why I would say, "How will this be, since I am not a figure skater?" will be if I knew that I was never gonna be a figure skater at any point in the future.

Now, if anyone on this side has any other explanation for why Mary would say, "How will this be, since I'm a virgin?" then please feel free to leave it in the comments below, and we'll check it out. But so far, the only reasonable explanation for this question comes from this side. This side has never given a reasonable explanation for that question. Again, they can say that Mary was smart enough to know that being a virgin would get in the way of conceiving a child, but also too dumb to realize that she could just stop being a virgin at any point before conceiving the child. But that's not really a reasonable explanation. Because if this side is just gonna start reading things out of the Bible and saying, "Well, that person was too dumb when they said that, so we're just gonna ignore that part," then you can just do that to anything in the Bible. If you don't feel like agreeing with it, you just say, "Well, that person was dumb." Now, does that passage from Luke prove that this side is right? No, it doesn't. But it does give us this conversation which supports the belief that Mary planned to be a virgin her entire life. But planning to be a virgin your entire life and actually being a virgin your entire life, those are two different things. So for just using the Bible to figure this out, this side isn't completely dead yet. But the fact is, Christians don't just use the Bible. There are other infallible sources of authority out there. For instance, God. The Bible records some of God's words, but God is the source of all of his words. There is stuff God has taught that didn't make it into the Bible. For instance, the canon of the Bible. And we have videos that go over this in more detail, so please feel free to check those out. The links are in the description. But yet, when you take all of God's Word, and not just God's Word that's found in the Bible, then this side ends up winning. But that's a topic for another video. Yes, this side is correct. If you want to know how to be Christian, the correct answer to "Was Mary a perpetual virgin?" is yes. But the point of this video is not to prove that. The point was to show you how this side has absolutely nothing from the Bible to support your case, whereas this side actually has biblical support for what they're saying. And there's more biblical support for what they're saying. I just didn't include it in this video because it's getting pretty long, and I just wanted to focus on the Luke 1 stuff because that is literally my favorite teaching to find in the Bible, just because it is so much taking the pieces and putting it together to figure out what it's saying. So if anyone from this side feels like putting into the comments more biblical support for the claim that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, feel free to do so. Until next time, does that be Christian? And just so you folks on this side are aware of this, even after next time, this is that a big Christian. So you all have a great day. And you, you don't have to get down. You did good today. Good boy. I'd say I'd stop this before it gets weird, but I think it already has. We're doing [Music]