|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 30, 2009 22:46:24 GMT -5
Hi kenm Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 10:30Here are some recent meditations on this passage that I shared with someone else. It seems like the idea is that those who believe and follow Jesus have eternal life and that Christ and God are in perfect agreement in this. My sheep hear my voice ... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ... no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. ... I and my Father are one. It doesn't seem to be a unity of being at all. There is no suggestion that they are one being or one entity. They are "one" in the sense that both God and Christ have the power of giving eternal life as Jesus said in chapter 5. the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth (John5:20) as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ( John5:21) as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself ( John5:26) The fact that God gave his son the power of giving life does not have anything to do with the trinity doctrine. also when Jesus said that he and the father are one, it didn't necessarily mean "one in quantity". It could have meant one in spirit, one in will or purpose, etc. For example Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Therefore whatever way the Father and Son are "one" the disciples of Christ will also be "one" in that same way. someone objected But the context of John 10 is very different from 17.In John 10:30 Christ is claiming that He and the Father ARE ONE AS GOD.It is NOT a spiritual union or unity of purpose etc. which He is refering to and His listeners knew it when they tried to kill Him for that claim. but here's what I think the surrounding passage is about. John10:24-38
Jews: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus: I told you ... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. My sheep ... shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Jews: thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus: Ye are gods I said, I am the Son of God the Father is in me, and I in him.
paraphrased as Jews: Are you the Christ? Jesus: I told you already. And I've shown you plainly by miracles but you don't believe because you are not my followers. No one can steal my followers because no one can steal from my Father. He is omnipotent. We are so in agreement that trying to harm one of my followers is like trying to steal from God. To answer your question about whether I am the Christ I have just told you that- I give eternal life to my followers. - no man can stop me. - my Father is greater than all. Jews: Blasphemy, you are saying that God is your father! Jesus: Of course. Believe the miracles if you don't believe me.
The last statement (10:38 "the Father is in me, and I in him") ties in perfectly with the sense of unity from the prayer in chapter 17.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee
that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me It seems like taking that passage to prove oneness or a trinity is totally isolating it from the surrounding dialogue.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.. 1 John 5:7I think it means they are one in testifying to the truth of the Gospel. It brings this verse to mind. Mat18:16 "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Here is the context of the passage which makes me think it means a unity of testimony rather than a Trinitarian unity of minds in a single entity. 1Jn5:6-11 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 30, 2009 22:56:44 GMT -5
Quote: Christ IS GOD thus He is ONE being with the Father and Holy Spirit.
Yes the Son of God remained everywhere,including heaven after becomming man.
The Son of God had two natures after becomming man:MAN and GOD.
Christ as GOD is the SAME being AS GOD,NOT as MAN.
The nature of Jesus Christ NEVER at any time changed.
The SON became MAN friend;there is no such thing as becoming partially man. None of this makes any sense to me except for the last line.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 22:58:03 GMT -5
Hi kenm Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 10:30Here are some recent meditations on this passage that I shared with someone else. It seems like the idea is that those who believe and follow Jesus have eternal life and that Christ and God are in perfect agreement in this. My sheep hear my voice ... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ... no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. ... I and my Father are one. It doesn't seem to be a unity of being at all. There is no suggestion that they are one being or one entity. They are "one" in the sense that both God and Christ have the power of giving eternal life as Jesus said in chapter 5. the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth (John5:20) as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ( John5:21) as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself ( John5:26) The fact that God gave his son the power of giving life does not have anything to do with the trinity doctrine. also when Jesus said that he and the father are one, it didn't necessarily mean "one in quantity". It could have meant one in spirit, one in will or purpose, etc. For example Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Therefore whatever way the Father and Son are "one" the disciples of Christ will also be "one" in that same way. someone objected But the context of John 10 is very different from 17.In John 10:30 Christ is claiming that He and the Father ARE ONE AS GOD.It is NOT a spiritual union or unity of purpose etc. which He is refering to and His listeners knew it when they tried to kill Him for that claim. but here's what I think the surrounding passage is about. John10:24-38
Jews: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus: I told you ... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. My sheep ... shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Jews: thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus: Ye are gods I said, I am the Son of God the Father is in me, and I in him.
paraphrased as Jews: Are you the Christ? Jesus: I told you already. And I've shown you plainly by miracles but you don't believe because you are not my followers. No one can steal my followers because no one can steal from my Father. He is omnipotent. We are so in agreement that trying to harm one of my followers is like trying to steal from God. To answer your question about whether I am the Christ I have just told you that- I give eternal life to my followers. - no man can stop me. - my Father is greater than all. Jews: Blasphemy, you are saying that God is your father! Jesus: Of course. Believe the miracles if you don't believe me.
The last statement (10:38 "the Father is in me, and I in him") ties in perfectly with the sense of unity from the prayer in chapter 17.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee
that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me It seems like taking that passage to prove oneness or a trinity is totally isolating it from the surrounding dialogue.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.. 1 John 5:7I think it means they are one in testifying to the truth of the Gospel. It brings this verse to mind. Mat18:16 "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Here is the context of the passage which makes me think it means a unity of testimony rather than a Trinitarian unity of minds in a single entity. 1Jn5:6-11 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. I would like to hear what you think the trinitarian doctrine is because this post was 100% trinitarian.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 30, 2009 23:07:06 GMT -5
I would like to hear what you think the trinitarian doctrine is because this post was 100% trinitarian. haha. Maybe I just haven't realized that I am a trinitarian yet. I thought I explained it earlier in the thread. I was taught that the trinity means that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three centers of consciousness or three minds in a single entity, a single being. Just like conjoined triplets basically. That's the best analogy I've been able to come up with. I got the impression that you view the trinity a little different than some. I was raised Roman Catholic so that's probably where I learned this. I don't understand how that post was trinitarian in any sense.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 31, 2009 8:40:55 GMT -5
I would like to hear what you think the trinitarian doctrine is because this post was 100% trinitarian. haha. Maybe I just haven't realized that I am a trinitarian yet. I thought I explained it earlier in the thread. I was taught that the trinity means that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three centers of consciousness or three minds in a single entity, a single being. Just like conjoined triplets basically. That's the best analogy I've been able to come up with. I got the impression that you view the trinity a little different than some. I was raised Roman Catholic so that's probably where I learned this. I don't understand how that post was trinitarian in any sense. Unfortunately many who claim to believe in the plural nature of God see the Godhead as conjoined triplets. I'm also aware that the Catholic church portrays God in this manner (See the link I posted earlier.) The true view of the Godhead, within the scriptures, is plural indeed! And some would even claim it to be a "trinity." The Biblical view of God is that there exists a Holy position of ruler and creator. This position or class is called "God." This is much like the word "Mankind." Mankind is a position which is occupied by every person who has ever existed. Many misunderstand the term God as a name and a person instead of a position. Three separate individual persons occupy the position of God. One can only say that these individuals are conjoined if they are to say that I and my wife are conjoined or that every Christian is conjoined with one another. I prefer to use the word "unity." The persons of the Godhead are certainly united in their will, purpose, plan, and intent toward everything that has ever been created. If you wish to say that this is "conjoined" then so be it, but this is not however, like that of conjoined infants. I and my wife are one (Hebrew: Echad) because we have both agreed to be united will, purpose, and truth. The body of Christ, the church of Christ, is but one (Greek: Heis-neuter) body because they are united in will, purpose, and truth. The scriptures teach that the persons of the Godhead are one ( Echad - Heis)in will, purpose, plan, and truth. This is a united plurality and not a numerical singularity. For the most part, if any "trinitarian" is disagreeing with what you're saying it is only because of their lack of knowledge concerning this subject. The only real thing that I've seen you post that could be upsetting is when you quibble over particular phrases and definitions. In such cases, the one defining the terms and phrases always wins. Jon
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2010 14:39:55 GMT -5
I think we need to move away from the Greek philosophical categories of the Church Fathers. These were developed later and have dominated for far too long. Christ came as a Jew in a Jewish culture that was monotheistic. The issue we need to get at is how did the early Christians modify this monotheism so that Jesus was identified with the God of Israel w/o adopting polytheism. Remember, Peter, Paul, John, and many of the writers of the N.T. were Jewish Christians. Polytheism never crossed their minds. In fact, it would have been very easy to move to polytheism because of the surrounding polytheistic culture of the Greco - Roman gods. This they did not do. As I've already said, the N.T. and the O.T. are united in a very clear pronouncement of monotheism. Hi Steve, I understand your conviction about monotheism. Is there anything you could offer as proof for this? I'd like to hear what you thought of my responses to the scriptures you posted. If they can be interpreted the way I did or some other way besides your view then you can't use them to prove your understanding of monotheism. What other proof would there be then? Or why were my thoughts on those scriptures wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 1, 2010 16:14:14 GMT -5
Okay Ben,
I'll go through this a little at a time.
"To you it was shown, that you might know that the YHWH is God; there is no other besides him." - Dt 4:35
Israel has been brought out of a polytheistic culture where the one true God has shown the gods of Egypt to be false. They are getting ready to go into the promised land where, once again, polytheism is dominant. Moses here contrasts the one true God with the false gods of the nations. He says unambiguously that there is no other god besides YHWH. Granted, this is a contrast between YHWH and the gods of the nations and not between the Father and the Son. Regardless, the point is absolutely clear - there is only one God. To come along 1500 years later and say "Well, technically there's more than one God" would deny what was already established. This was the first thing that had to be established. The revelation of the deity of the Son comes primarily from the New Testament. Israel was not ready at this time for that revelation. Why? Because they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures and YHWH wanted them to understand that the God of Israel is the only God. The foundation of monotheism had to be established first. This is called progressive revelation. You seem to be trying to start with the later revelation and reinterpreting the former in light of it. I believe God intended it to be in the order it was revealed. You have to understand the deity of the Son in light of the already established truth of monotheism.
As a side note Ben, I urge you to tread prayerfully and carefully here my friend. This is not a non-essential truth. To get this wrong could be eternally fatal - for all of us. I'm all for questioning everything you've been taught and examining it thoroughly in light of the Scriptures, but make sure you do so with the sobriety that the subject demands.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 2, 2010 22:59:36 GMT -5
"To you it was shown, that you might know that the YHWH is God; there is no other besides him." - Dt 4:35...He says unambiguously that there is no other god besides YHWH. Granted, this is a contrast between YHWH and the gods of the nations and not between the Father and the Son. Regardless, the point is absolutely clear - there is only one God. To come along 1500 years later and say "Well, technically there's more than one God" would deny what was already established. But there is not "technically more than one God" in the sense that the Father is so often called God. The Father is often called God in a way that contrasts him with Jesus Christ. That's the sense I was asking about. If you allow for progressive revelation then why not allow that there is another called God but not in the same exact sense that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3)? Monotheism: "to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:6) Plus God's Son: "and one Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 8:6) I appreciate the advice to pray. I disagree, however, that being mistaken in doctrine can be eternally fatal. That would mean being judged according to our knowledge rather than our righteousness. Thank you. That is very good advice.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 3, 2010 16:45:47 GMT -5
Ben, You have brought up 1 Corinthians 8:6 a couple of times now. If you look at the context you'll see that this is a monotheistic passage. Here's the context: "Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Co 8:4-6) Take note that the intended contrast in this passage is not between the Father and the Son but between the true God and idols. Note the contrast "many 'gods' and many 'lords'" - "one God... one Lord". It's a contrast between the "many" of the polytheistic nations and the "one" of the Christians. Also, if the intention of Paul here is to say that only the Father is God in contrast to the Son, then consistent logic must require that it also teaches that only the Son is Lord in contrast to the Father. Yet Jesus himself says in Mt 11:25, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;" Actually, the application of the title "Lord" to Jesus is an affirmation or his deity not a denial of it. Throughout the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by the N.T. writers) the name of God YHWH is replaced with "kyrios" (Gk: Lord). To ascribe the title "Lord" to Jesus is to call him God. Another thing that I don't have the time to develop or the will to type out here is the fact that most scholars now recognize this passage to be Paul's Christian reformulation of the Shema' (Dt 6:4). “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Dt 6:4)
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Co 8:6) Paul takes the Shema' and includes Christ in it. Not as an additional god (ditheism) but as included in the identity of the one God. It's a Christian monotheism. Remember, the contrast is not with a Christian form of polytheism as compared to the pagan form. It's that Christians are monotheists as compared to the pagan polytheists. One last thing from this passage. Paul says that all things exist from and for the Father and through the Son. Yet in Romans 11:33-36 he says, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." Here all things are said to be from, through, and to God. This point can be seen as well from Colossians 1:16 which says of Jesus: "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." All things were made by, through, and for Jesus! So, contrary to appearance 1 Corinthians 8 does not teach that the Father is God but the Son is not. Steve
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 3, 2010 19:58:33 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 8:6 ... is a monotheistic passage. Sure. I wouldn't have brought it up as a monotheistic passage otherwise. My point was that it seems monotheistic in the sense that the Father alone is God, even the God of Christ. It does not seem monotheistic in the following senses, 1) that Jesus and his father are a single being called God 2) that Jesus has never possessed the attributes of God 3) that Jesus, being God's son, cannot be identified as God in any way Of course. Nevertheless it does contrast God and the Lord Jesus. That is why I brought it up. It shows the contrast between true theology and the pagan worldview and simultaneously contrasts God with Jesus Christ. There are lots of other passages that contrast God and Christ but this one seemed best to bring up because it contains both levels of contrast. The difference is that God is the God of the Lord but the Lord is not the Lord of God. I don't think calling him Lord denies deity. However, Sara called Abraham by the same title. I didn't notice the passage say anything about the nature of the Lord Jesus. I wouldn't say it asserts a Christian "polytheism". But who knows, maybe it does. That's beside the point however. My point was that God is God in a sense that Christ is not. My point was not about the nature of Christ himself or whether there is any sense in which he should be called God. Again, God is God in a sense that Jesus Christ is not. That's where I was coming from in my interpretation of the monotheistic passages. I don't see why it would be wrong to interpret them in light of the fact that God is called God in a sense that Christ is not.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 3, 2010 21:21:15 GMT -5
I don't see anything that indicates Colossians 2:9 was true of Christ before his resurrection or ascension. I still think Jesus' nature was completely human for as long as he was mortal. I don't know if you see that as being very important or not. It seems very important to me. Partially because it refutes the idea that he somehow remained one entity with the Father when he became man. The only way an incarnation doesn't divide the trinity-entity is if the incarnate one retains his previous nature, being, spirit, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 3, 2010 21:56:55 GMT -5
Ben,
1 Co 8 does not teach that the Father is God in a way the Jesus Christ is not. As I laid out in my previous response it actually includes Jesus in the identity of the one God. It does on the other hand distinguish between the roles and relationships of the Father and the Son. The Father is supreme in the Godhead. There is an authority and submission structure within the Godhead. These things distinguish the Father from the Son but do not mean that the Father is God in a sense that the Son is not God.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 3, 2010 23:21:25 GMT -5
Ben, I don't know if you have a way to print this off but I think you would really enjoy it. It's from a leading scholar on Christology - Richard Bauckham. I'm reading his excellent book now called Jesus and the God of Israel. Here's a very good article (26 pages pdf) that I hope you can read: www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Richard_Bauckham.pdfSteve
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Jan 4, 2010 15:19:21 GMT -5
Ben
To believe that God is omnipresent is to believe that God the Father can be in Heaven when God the Son robed in flesh, Jesus Christ, was on earth and now the Holy Spirit can reside in us as Christians. To believe in omnipresence is to believe that God can be all these forms and places yet still be Himself. God the father of Abraham, Isac and Jacob was the way they distinguished the true God in O.T. Now, when we pray in Jesus name, that is the name in which today people distinguish the God of Christianity between the god of buddism etc. Jesus commanded to pray to the Father in His name. The Comforter (Holy Spirit) is God in us as Christians. God is all these in all places but still one.
This is a very quick response because I did not want you to think that I have just been avoiding this post. I have not been on the computer in a few days and I am watching my son today so I only have limited time.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 8, 2010 17:36:55 GMT -5
Ben To believe that God is omnipresent is to believe that God the Father can be in Heaven when God the Son robed in flesh, Jesus Christ, was on earth and now the Holy Spirit can reside in us as Christians. To believe in omnipresence is to believe that God can be all these forms and places yet still be Himself. God the father of Abraham, Isac and Jacob was the way they distinguished the true God in O.T. Now, when we pray in Jesus name, that is the name in which today people distinguish the God of Christianity between the god of buddism etc. Jesus commanded to pray to the Father in His name. The Comforter (Holy Spirit) is God in us as Christians. God is all these in all places but still one. This is a very quick response because I did not want you to think that I have just been avoiding this post. I have not been on the computer in a few days and I am watching my son today so I only have limited time. Ken Hi Ken, I don't understand what you're trying to say about omnipresence. Omnipresent means present in all places. It means the same thing as "being everywhere." I believe God has location and is not a nebulous abstraction. I don't think there is anything degrading about God not being omnipresent. There are plenty of places where God does not dwell. For example, my waste basket, my work boots, my toilet, etc. I think God is in heaven and not in such places. As for the Holy Spirit being in Christians, I don't know enough to comment much on that. Some people seem to think that the Holy Spirit locationaly lives inside of all Christians' bodies. Other people think that the Holy Spirit dwells in them though influence and their being submitted in obedience to the Spirit rather than literally in their bodies. They both probably agree on the second view but not on the first. I don't know what to think yet.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 8, 2010 18:17:52 GMT -5
Ben, 1 Co 8 does not teach that the Father is God in a way the Jesus Christ is not. As I laid out in my previous response it actually includes Jesus in the identity of the one God. It does on the other hand distinguish between the roles and relationships of the Father and the Son. The Father is supreme in the Godhead. There is an authority and submission structure within the Godhead. These things distinguish the Father from the Son but do not mean that the Father is God in a sense that the Son is not God. Steve Of course God is God in a sense that Jesus Christ is not. Almost every time the bible mentions them together it shows this. Over and over again. Every time the Father is called God and Christ is NOT, we see the word "God" used in a sense that is not applicable to the Lord Jesus. To illustrate what I mean, I can refer to God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, that is, I can refer to God and Christ. Notice only one of them is called God. You automatically know that I mean the Father when I say God. This sense of the word God shows that the Father is the God OF Christ. Christ is NOT however, the God of his father. I don't say 'the Father and God'. I say 'God and his son'. The same sense of the word God does not apply to Christ. The Father never calls his son HIS God. As far as I can remember Jesus is never called God (in connection with his father) while his Father is not called God. Even now in heaven the Lord Jesus has a God. The Father does not have a God. He is "the only true God" who has a son who calls him "my God" four times in Rev 3:12. So God is the God of Christ. God is God over all without exception. Christ is NOT God over all without exception as his Father is. His Father is over him. God is the head of Christ. The Lord Jesus is over all with the exception of his Father. There is no exception however for the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. He is simply over all. It seems that in every epistle that Paul wrote, he referred to God in a sense that we do not use for Jesus. The sense being that he can be "exclusively" called God when referring to him AND Jesus whereas Jesus is NOT exclusively called God when referring to him and his Father. See the greeting in every epistle Paul wrote for reference. All I was suggesting about the OT monotheism proof texts is that they may simply refer to the one who can be exclusively called God. The one who is God over all WITHOUT an exception. The one who has NO God over him. The Father. That's what I meant when I said: there is not "technically more than one God" in the sense that the Father is so often called God. The Father is often called God in a way that contrasts him with Jesus Christ. That's the sense I was asking about.
If you allow for progressive revelation then why not allow that there is another called God but not in the same exact sense that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3)?
|
|