http://www.onestickministries.com/One%20Stick%20Reports/Echad_Etz/Teachings/Entries/2007/11/9_ORIGINS_of_the_MASS_of_CHRIST,_by_Rachel_Grier_.html

http://www.onestickministries.com/One%20Stick%20Reports/Echad_Etz/Teachings/Entries/2007/11/9_ORIGINS_of_the_MASS_of_CHRIST,_by_Rachel_Grier_.html

http://www.amazon.com/Cities-God-Christianity-Movement-Conquered/dp/B000WAH00G/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1

http://www.amazon.com/Cities-God-Christianity-Movement-Conquered/dp/B000WAH00G/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1

I wish to note a few things.

First, you mentioned used an example of how you were taught that the Roman Catholics prayed to the Saints and how a priest told you otherwise. The priest, however, did not tell you that the Papacy does not denounce the praying to the saints and expecting the SAINTS to answer it. In fact, while that priest might not believe that, I knew countless Catholics growing up who – when I lost something – told me to pray to St. Anthony to help me find what I was looking for, and when it was found, told me tnat St. Anthony had found it for me. So, to say that the Catholics do not do this is a deceptive lie on his part. It is true that official dogma of Rome does not say that the Saints directly answer your prayer, but God does because they are holy (that is what “saint” means – “holy one”) and we are not, and therefore God answers the prayers of the saints and really doesn’t pay a whole lot of attention to ours unless the saints speak for us. That is, officially, how things are positioned – but they never tell their people it is wrong (and in fact, in most places south of the American border it is the norm) to expect the saints to answer their prayers. But that is a whole different issue.

As to this whole issue of the Canon, you need to recognize something: you are reading a particular line of thought that finds its origin in the Hagelian Dialectic which is used to study history with various anti-Christian (in fact, blatantly atheistic) presumptions are employed. This methodology/philosophy was brought forth in the 18th century, and from it Higher Critical Scholarship (which you are being taught) and Evolutionary Theory (in the reading of Natural History) are employed equally.

What is the Hagelian Dialectic? It is simply an idea that all of history can be read into a simple, ever-repeating set of events that has 3 events that continually repeat themselves. First, a main stream of idea, often called the “Thesis” is produced. Second, in order to bring about balance, a counter idea is produced, which is normally called the “anti-thesis.” Third and finally, from these two coming into great conflict, a “synthesis” (often called “progress” or “evolution”) is derived. And this is how our world continually progressing/evolving.

As a result, when one reads back into history, one sees that one must find the conflict that led to a particular stream of thought, and then behind that, another conflict, and so forth. And, since the synthesis/progress/evolution is the result of two things coming together, it is also presumed that we are moving from simpler ideas/creatures to more complex ideas/creatures as this process takes place.

However, the Biblical view of history is opposed to this theory in every way. According to Scripture, there has always been God’s way and the sinful misrepresentations and imitations of it. There has always been one stream of thought and lots of attempts by Satan and sinful man to imitate it but not submit to the true and right ways of thinking.

The difference in these two lines of thinking is dramatic. First, conflict in the Biblical view is a consequence of Sin and is therefore an inherent evil; in this other viewpoint (which Ms. Pagels and others are building upon) conflict is an inherent good and at worst a necessary evil.

The difference in how history is interpreted is shown most clearly in how she is interpreting events. She is saying that all the Gnostic schools came up at the same time as the orthodox schools, and that the orthodox happened to win out over the gnostics. Now, if this is true, that means that there was NEVER a faithful handing down of the teaching of Christ through the Apostles. It means that a whole lot of people thought about what Jesus meant to them and started talking about it with other people who Jesus had influenced, and that in time a lot of thesis/antithesis/synthesis happened, until two major lines of thought – gnosticism and orthodoxy – conflicted.

Contrast this to the Biblical view of things, as well as the orthodox view – that things were faithfully handed down from age to age to Christ, and from Christ through the apostles and those they taught. When the imposters appeared, it was clear that they were imposters because the orthodox knew that they had received what they had from Christ through the Apostles, and that the writings were always known as Scripture from their very origin, while the gnostic writings were not known and therefore were not trusted by those who were faithful.

Why? Because Jesus had risen from the dead and had given to the Apostles – who were teaching in and around Jerusalem for many years so their message had the chance to be proven false by the Jewish Authorities – the message they had received DIRECTLY from Christ. They taught there so the Jews could say that “Jesus didn’t say that” or “You are making up the resurrection – here’s the body” or something else of the kind.

However, if the higher critical view is correct – and now I note something that Ms. Pagels and her kin are universally in agreement on – Jesus did not BODILY resurrect from the grave, and so whatever happened the disciples were merely reflecting on how good Jesus was and how he made them feel – but not on the message they had received from the flesh and blood bodily resurrected Christ.

I am guessing that Ms. Pagels did not note that the strongest part of Irenaeus’ appeal was not to the illogical nature of the gnostic message but that those living in the 2nd century did not know the origins of the gnostic writings though they did know – without question – the origins of the orthodox ones. And so, the argument was based not on anything less than HISTORICAL FACT and CLEAR TRACEABILITY of the writings to the Apostles themselves – something the gnostics were unable to do.

The problem with the higher critical approach is that it is very popular in the big schools because it is seen exclusively as “scholarly” among “theologians” (as Evolutionary Theory is seen exclusively as “scholarly” among “scientists”). Unfortunately, they are building on a premise that has again and again forced them to revise their prior conclusions closer and closer to the orthodox conclusions. A perfect example is how the Gospel of St. John was dated as mid-2nd century until a scrap of it was found that dated back to the end of the 1st-century or beginning of the 2nd century in Egypt – and that created problems since everything that is known about its composition is that it was composed on the other side of the Mediterranean in Ephesus – which means John was composed in the last decade of the 1st century at the latest.

It also means that Ms. Pagel telling you that the Gospel of Thomas – which almost exclusively is dated to the early part of the 2nd century (though not the 1st decade normally) as well as the other gnostic gospels was written after the writing of John’s gospel, and her conclusion to the contrary shows the desperation of the higher critics just as there is so much desperation on the part of Evolutionary Theorists in defending their ideology that is based on philosophy and not fact.

Oh, and if you want to read a real scholar on these matters, look for the writings of Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, who holds (at last count as I recall) 8 graduate or post-graduate degrees, and understands logic better than most since he is not only an Ivy-League Classicist and a well-trained theologian, but one of the chief lawyers of the European Court on Human Rights, a British Barrister, and one of the few who are licensed to argue cases before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He has also written over 80 books in French, German, and English (of course) – and maybe even Spanish as well.

If we want to bring the scholars to the table, Elaine Pagels doesn’t hold a candle when compared with Dr. JW Montgomery, and he is a former atheist who realizes that what you are being taught is not built on fact as much as it is a particular set of lenses that are inherently hostile to the Christian faith – and that is what they are teaching you to be as well. You will, I can almost be sure – become an intellectual heretical Christian, an atheist, or an agnostic through that – and it is not built on fact but a particular way of viewing things.

By the way, if you want to see how unswervingly clear which writings were accepted and how far back, read the earliest Church fathers and look at the writings they reference – almost unconditionally the same texts that are in today’s New Testament. And that doesn’t matter if you look pre-Irenaeus or after.

Another important thought: Irenaeus in no way would have won out if he didn’t have the strong majority of those who had connections to the Aoostles and those who had known the Apostles behind him. They would have known he was in error, since the churches knew what they had received and where it had come from – or at the very most skeptical – where they had been told it had come from.

The reason the gnostic gospels were not received was because people who had known Thomas or Andrew or any of the other apostles knew what they had done and written. It was public knowledge and in the oral culture of that day, a well-known set of facts among the Christians who had been taught by them and had known them personally. Many people were elders in Irenaeus’ day who had been taught as children by these same men, and so it is no wonder that they easily realized that Thomas had not written the gospel of Thomas and that what they got from St. Matthew was really what Matthew had written.

Even the great heretic Marcion, who is probably the only sect of gnosticism that had any real chance of being considered authentically Christian pre-Irenaeus – utilized a canon of Lukan/Pauline literature, because he knew that the gnostic gospels had no credibility (if they even existed at that time).

The only reason why the church fathers citations of the Gospels isn’t proof enough for the higher critical crowd is because they would have to accept as historically accurate what is written in the texts, and that would just prove their guilt for not buying into them. It isn’t like we are talking about something that is very complicated here.

Also, I should note that the “canon” that was “eventually decided” wasn’t decided until the late 4th century at the earliest (in fact, I don’t know if it every really was formally decided, since I’m not sure what council declared it because as far as I know none actually did until the Council of Trent in the late 16th century), since the first list with the 27 we have is from St. Athanasius in the 330′s, and at the time he was in the midst of his battle with the Arians that led to him being elevated to Bishop of Alexandria and defrocked over and over again.

And the strange thing is, even the ARIANS – who were HERETICS – agreed on the canon at the time – showing that just because there was not a published list didn’t mean there wasn’t one the entire time. The Arians didn’t say, “hey, what about this other gospel from way back when?” They knew better – as everyone did – that these weren’t trustable because no one knew from where they had originated. And that is the point – the Early Church knew the origins and we are arrogant to think that they didn’t.

We are arrogant to think that some group who had clearly Greek Platonic underpinnings and rejected the Old Testament’s validity (and made that God to be a weaker god than the “true” god) could have ever been taken seriously. That is just plain “I don’t want to take seriously the idea that the gnostics came along and tried to piggy back Jesus into their ideology to sound more acceptable” – which is exactly what happened.

I will also say one more thing – saying we rely on “the Holy Spirit” for knowing that what we have in the canon is right is foolish. This is because the way we know that the Holy Spirit is speaking – and not another spirit – is because it lines up with the Holy Scriptures, and if we then set the Holy Spirit as the basis for how the canon was determined we have produced what is called a circular argument – which is thereby unverifiable and thereby demonstrates that we are in fact a very superstitious people.

I wish to note a few things.

First, you mentioned used an example of how you were taught that the Roman Catholics prayed to the Saints and how a priest told you otherwise. The priest, however, did not tell you that the Papacy does not denounce the praying to the saints and expecting the SAINTS to answer it. In fact, while that priest might not believe that, I knew countless Catholics growing up who – when I lost something – told me to pray to St. Anthony to help me find what I was looking for, and when it was found, told me tnat St. Anthony had found it for me. So, to say that the Catholics do not do this is a deceptive lie on his part. It is true that official dogma of Rome does not say that the Saints directly answer your prayer, but God does because they are holy (that is what “saint” means – “holy one”) and we are not, and therefore God answers the prayers of the saints and really doesn’t pay a whole lot of attention to ours unless the saints speak for us. That is, officially, how things are positioned – but they never tell their people it is wrong (and in fact, in most places south of the American border it is the norm) to expect the saints to answer their prayers. But that is a whole different issue.

As to this whole issue of the Canon, you need to recognize something: you are reading a particular line of thought that finds its origin in the Hagelian Dialectic which is used to study history with various anti-Christian (in fact, blatantly atheistic) presumptions are employed. This methodology/philosophy was brought forth in the 18th century, and from it Higher Critical Scholarship (which you are being taught) and Evolutionary Theory (in the reading of Natural History) are employed equally.

What is the Hagelian Dialectic? It is simply an idea that all of history can be read into a simple, ever-repeating set of events that has 3 events that continually repeat themselves. First, a main stream of idea, often called the “Thesis” is produced. Second, in order to bring about balance, a counter idea is produced, which is normally called the “anti-thesis.” Third and finally, from these two coming into great conflict, a “synthesis” (often called “progress” or “evolution”) is derived. And this is how our world continually progressing/evolving.

As a result, when one reads back into history, one sees that one must find the conflict that led to a particular stream of thought, and then behind that, another conflict, and so forth. And, since the synthesis/progress/evolution is the result of two things coming together, it is also presumed that we are moving from simpler ideas/creatures to more complex ideas/creatures as this process takes place.

However, the Biblical view of history is opposed to this theory in every way. According to Scripture, there has always been God’s way and the sinful misrepresentations and imitations of it. There has always been one stream of thought and lots of attempts by Satan and sinful man to imitate it but not submit to the true and right ways of thinking.

The difference in these two lines of thinking is dramatic. First, conflict in the Biblical view is a consequence of Sin and is therefore an inherent evil; in this other viewpoint (which Ms. Pagels and others are building upon) conflict is an inherent good and at worst a necessary evil.

The difference in how history is interpreted is shown most clearly in how she is interpreting events. She is saying that all the Gnostic schools came up at the same time as the orthodox schools, and that the orthodox happened to win out over the gnostics. Now, if this is true, that means that there was NEVER a faithful handing down of the teaching of Christ through the Apostles. It means that a whole lot of people thought about what Jesus meant to them and started talking about it with other people who Jesus had influenced, and that in time a lot of thesis/antithesis/synthesis happened, until two major lines of thought – gnosticism and orthodoxy – conflicted.

Contrast this to the Biblical view of things, as well as the orthodox view – that things were faithfully handed down from age to age to Christ, and from Christ through the apostles and those they taught. When the imposters appeared, it was clear that they were imposters because the orthodox knew that they had received what they had from Christ through the Apostles, and that the writings were always known as Scripture from their very origin, while the gnostic writings were not known and therefore were not trusted by those who were faithful.

Why? Because Jesus had risen from the dead and had given to the Apostles – who were teaching in and around Jerusalem for many years so their message had the chance to be proven false by the Jewish Authorities – the message they had received DIRECTLY from Christ. They taught there so the Jews could say that “Jesus didn’t say that” or “You are making up the resurrection – here’s the body” or something else of the kind.

However, if the higher critical view is correct – and now I note something that Ms. Pagels and her kin are universally in agreement on – Jesus did not BODILY resurrect from the grave, and so whatever happened the disciples were merely reflecting on how good Jesus was and how he made them feel – but not on the message they had received from the flesh and blood bodily resurrected Christ.

I am guessing that Ms. Pagels did not note that the strongest part of Irenaeus’ appeal was not to the illogical nature of the gnostic message but that those living in the 2nd century did not know the origins of the gnostic writings though they did know – without question – the origins of the orthodox ones. And so, the argument was based not on anything less than HISTORICAL FACT and CLEAR TRACEABILITY of the writings to the Apostles themselves – something the gnostics were unable to do.

The problem with the higher critical approach is that it is very popular in the big schools because it is seen exclusively as “scholarly” among “theologians” (as Evolutionary Theory is seen exclusively as “scholarly” among “scientists”). Unfortunately, they are building on a premise that has again and again forced them to revise their prior conclusions closer and closer to the orthodox conclusions. A perfect example is how the Gospel of St. John was dated as mid-2nd century until a scrap of it was found that dated back to the end of the 1st-century or beginning of the 2nd century in Egypt – and that created problems since everything that is known about its composition is that it was composed on the other side of the Mediterranean in Ephesus – which means John was composed in the last decade of the 1st century at the latest.

It also means that Ms. Pagel telling you that the Gospel of Thomas – which almost exclusively is dated to the early part of the 2nd century (though not the 1st decade normally) as well as the other gnostic gospels was written after the writing of John’s gospel, and her conclusion to the contrary shows the desperation of the higher critics just as there is so much desperation on the part of Evolutionary Theorists in defending their ideology that is based on philosophy and not fact.

Oh, and if you want to read a real scholar on these matters, look for the writings of Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, who holds (at last count as I recall) 8 graduate or post-graduate degrees, and understands logic better than most since he is not only an Ivy-League Classicist and a well-trained theologian, but one of the chief lawyers of the European Court on Human Rights, a British Barrister, and one of the few who are licensed to argue cases before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He has also written over 80 books in French, German, and English (of course) – and maybe even Spanish as well.

If we want to bring the scholars to the table, Elaine Pagels doesn’t hold a candle when compared with Dr. JW Montgomery, and he is a former atheist who realizes that what you are being taught is not built on fact as much as it is a particular set of lenses that are inherently hostile to the Christian faith – and that is what they are teaching you to be as well. You will, I can almost be sure – become an intellectual heretical Christian, an atheist, or an agnostic through that – and it is not built on fact but a particular way of viewing things.

By the way, if you want to see how unswervingly clear which writings were accepted and how far back, read the earliest Church fathers and look at the writings they reference – almost unconditionally the same texts that are in today’s New Testament. And that doesn’t matter if you look pre-Irenaeus or after.

Another important thought: Irenaeus in no way would have won out if he didn’t have the strong majority of those who had connections to the Aoostles and those who had known the Apostles behind him. They would have known he was in error, since the churches knew what they had received and where it had come from – or at the very most skeptical – where they had been told it had come from.

The reason the gnostic gospels were not received was because people who had known Thomas or Andrew or any of the other apostles knew what they had done and written. It was public knowledge and in the oral culture of that day, a well-known set of facts among the Christians who had been taught by them and had known them personally. Many people were elders in Irenaeus’ day who had been taught as children by these same men, and so it is no wonder that they easily realized that Thomas had not written the gospel of Thomas and that what they got from St. Matthew was really what Matthew had written.

Even the great heretic Marcion, who is probably the only sect of gnosticism that had any real chance of being considered authentically Christian pre-Irenaeus – utilized a canon of Lukan/Pauline literature, because he knew that the gnostic gospels had no credibility (if they even existed at that time).

The only reason why the church fathers citations of the Gospels isn’t proof enough for the higher critical crowd is because they would have to accept as historically accurate what is written in the texts, and that would just prove their guilt for not buying into them. It isn’t like we are talking about something that is very complicated here.

Also, I should note that the “canon” that was “eventually decided” wasn’t decided until the late 4th century at the earliest (in fact, I don’t know if it every really was formally decided, since I’m not sure what council declared it because as far as I know none actually did until the Council of Trent in the late 16th century), since the first list with the 27 we have is from St. Athanasius in the 330′s, and at the time he was in the midst of his battle with the Arians that led to him being elevated to Bishop of Alexandria and defrocked over and over again.

And the strange thing is, even the ARIANS – who were HERETICS – agreed on the canon at the time – showing that just because there was not a published list didn’t mean there wasn’t one the entire time. The Arians didn’t say, “hey, what about this other gospel from way back when?” They knew better – as everyone did – that these weren’t trustable because no one knew from where they had originated. And that is the point – the Early Church knew the origins and we are arrogant to think that they didn’t.

We are arrogant to think that some group who had clearly Greek Platonic underpinnings and rejected the Old Testament’s validity (and made that God to be a weaker god than the “true” god) could have ever been taken seriously. That is just plain “I don’t want to take seriously the idea that the gnostics came along and tried to piggy back Jesus into their ideology to sound more acceptable” – which is exactly what happened.

I will also say one more thing – saying we rely on “the Holy Spirit” for knowing that what we have in the canon is right is foolish. This is because the way we know that the Holy Spirit is speaking – and not another spirit – is because it lines up with the Holy Scriptures, and if we then set the Holy Spirit as the basis for how the canon was determined we have produced what is called a circular argument – which is thereby unverifiable and thereby demonstrates that we are in fact a very superstitious people.

That having been said, I am extremely disturbed at the lack of mention made to the role of the Holy Spirit as a guiding factor in what actually did take place during those early years when the Church Fathers painstakingly underwent the process that brought us the Cannon of Scripture we hold today. I think that it is crucial to understand that God orchestrated the events that took place in order to preserve the word that He wanted us have. The process definitely took place through men who were fallible, however through the leading of the Holy Spirit these men were able to accomplish the tasks in which God ordained them to. As Christians we cannot discard the role the Holy Spirit played in the compiling of the Cannon of Scripture, or the role He plays now in our understanding of those works that were left out.

Just as the early church fathers applied reason given them by the Holy Spirit, so too must we apply reason guided by the Holy Spirit when reading texts that are outside the Cannon of Scripture. It’s a dangerous thing to approach academics without allowing the discernment of the Holy Spirit to guide us. We need to make sure that we don’t approach academics with the attitude of applying reason or the Spirit, rather we need to apply reason guided by the Spirit.

As a final note I would also say that anything that we read regarding the Scripture or any other works for that matter be approached with discernment and prayer. There are a great many books written on the subject of Scripture and other ancient writings that would lead a believer down the wrong path without the guidance of the Spirit. It’s always a dangerous thing to remove the spiritual aspect from our academic pursuits.

That having been said, I am extremely disturbed at the lack of mention made to the role of the Holy Spirit as a guiding factor in what actually did take place during those early years when the Church Fathers painstakingly underwent the process that brought us the Cannon of Scripture we hold today. I think that it is crucial to understand that God orchestrated the events that took place in order to preserve the word that He wanted us have. The process definitely took place through men who were fallible, however through the leading of the Holy Spirit these men were able to accomplish the tasks in which God ordained them to. As Christians we cannot discard the role the Holy Spirit played in the compiling of the Cannon of Scripture, or the role He plays now in our understanding of those works that were left out.

Just as the early church fathers applied reason given them by the Holy Spirit, so too must we apply reason guided by the Holy Spirit when reading texts that are outside the Cannon of Scripture. It’s a dangerous thing to approach academics without allowing the discernment of the Holy Spirit to guide us. We need to make sure that we don’t approach academics with the attitude of applying reason or the Spirit, rather we need to apply reason guided by the Spirit.

As a final note I would also say that anything that we read regarding the Scripture or any other works for that matter be approached with discernment and prayer. There are a great many books written on the subject of Scripture and other ancient writings that would lead a believer down the wrong path without the guidance of the Spirit. It’s always a dangerous thing to remove the spiritual aspect from our academic pursuits.

There really wasn’t that much debate in regards to which books of the NT were to be included. The real debate was over Arianism and other heresy. Generally speaking the early church father’s agreed on which NT “books” were inspired and felt the gnostic and apocryphal books were either useful for edyfing or not worthy of reading.

As far as Ireneus in concerned he is not the main contributer or dictator of what books of the Bible should be included in the NT canon. That developed as the 2nd century church delt with gnostism and other heresy. Ireneus used the already excepted books of the NT canon to defend against these heresies.

Athanasius, by the 300′s wrote an Easter Letter to his church, in which he included all 27 books as we have them today. So it wouldn’t be a fair assesment to say that one person determined what were to be included in the NT canon.

The prespective of the historian is always going to color the story they tell. People like Dr. Pagels (no matter how distinguished) write about history with a preconcieved conclusion or opinion in mind. I think it is noble to read as broadly as possible, but I think that people like Dr. Pagels are dangerous because of their predetermined position – which is going to color their interpretation of history.

Graig L. Blomberg, Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Shelley, Mark A. Knoll are some good names to check out. Dr. Blomberg is probably on the cutting edge of modern scholarship along with Bruce Shelley and Dr. Knoll. However, Bruce M. Metzger’s work is outstanding can’t recommend it enough.

If you want to read original sources check out http://www.ccel.org. Another outstanding web site is http://www.str.org‘.

Paul Copan wrote a book entitled: “That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith.” This is not so much about church history, but it is a good lesson on basic reasoning. It is not as technical as Blomberg (although his stuff is pretty much written on the popular level) but is still challenging.

Check this stuff out. It is good stuff. I think.

There really wasn’t that much debate in regards to which books of the NT were to be included. The real debate was over Arianism and other heresy. Generally speaking the early church father’s agreed on which NT “books” were inspired and felt the gnostic and apocryphal books were either useful for edyfing or not worthy of reading.

As far as Ireneus in concerned he is not the main contributer or dictator of what books of the Bible should be included in the NT canon. That developed as the 2nd century church delt with gnostism and other heresy. Ireneus used the already excepted books of the NT canon to defend against these heresies.

Athanasius, by the 300′s wrote an Easter Letter to his church, in which he included all 27 books as we have them today. So it wouldn’t be a fair assesment to say that one person determined what were to be included in the NT canon.

The prespective of the historian is always going to color the story they tell. People like Dr. Pagels (no matter how distinguished) write about history with a preconcieved conclusion or opinion in mind. I think it is noble to read as broadly as possible, but I think that people like Dr. Pagels are dangerous because of their predetermined position – which is going to color their interpretation of history.

Graig L. Blomberg, Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Shelley, Mark A. Knoll are some good names to check out. Dr. Blomberg is probably on the cutting edge of modern scholarship along with Bruce Shelley and Dr. Knoll. However, Bruce M. Metzger’s work is outstanding can’t recommend it enough.

If you want to read original sources check out http://www.ccel.org. Another outstanding web site is http://www.str.org‘.

Paul Copan wrote a book entitled: “That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith.” This is not so much about church history, but it is a good lesson on basic reasoning. It is not as technical as Blomberg (although his stuff is pretty much written on the popular level) but is still challenging.

Check this stuff out. It is good stuff. I think.