I happened upon this nugget of Papal blaspheme today:

Vatican City, Dec 27, 2015 / 10:03 am, CNA (Catholic News Agency)


"The Pope reflected on the Sunday reading from the Gospel of Luke in which a young Jesus stayed in Jerusalem in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph when they could not find him.

“For this little ‘escapade,’ Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents,” the Pope suggested. “The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.”

He said that Mary’s question to Jesus, “why have you treated us like this?” contains “a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt.” The Pope that Jesus “surely remained close” to Mary and Joseph as a sign of his “complete affection and obedience.”"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/p...ards-god-20282/


Francis says: "Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness"... "I believe that we can presume it." Since, the Pope claims infallibility when "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church," his statement labels Jesus as a SINNER. A doctrine that over a billion Catholics are now obligated to accept!

Further, his statement: "that Mary’s question to Jesus, “why have you treated us like this?” contains “a certain reproach," appears to suggest that Mary is the accuser of Christ and that it is mainly of her that He must "beg forgiveness"!

Here we have Christ painted as a sinner, and therefore an unworthy sin offering. Sorry folks, no redemption at the foot of the Cross!
We also have Mary as the one "reproached" by Jesus and subsequently "begged for forgiveness"! Guess what folks, according to the Pope, Jesus failed and Mary is your Intercessor!


Papal infallibility:

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Wikipedia

God not divine!?! Wow, the arrogance of Francis leaves me speechless, sometimes!

Thanks for the links. Dave Hunt was so knowledgable about prophesy, it's amazing that he didn't accept the Sabbath truth.

I happened upon this nugget of Papal blaspheme today:

Vatican City, Dec 27, 2015 / 10:03 am, CNA (Catholic News Agency)


"The Pope reflected on the Sunday reading from the Gospel of Luke in which a young Jesus stayed in Jerusalem in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph when they could not find him.

“For this little ‘escapade,’ Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents,” the Pope suggested. “The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.”

He said that Mary’s question to Jesus, “why have you treated us like this?” contains “a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt.” The Pope that Jesus “surely remained close” to Mary and Joseph as a sign of his “complete affection and obedience.”"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/p...ards-god-20282/


Francis says: "Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness"... "I believe that we can presume it." Since, the Pope claims infallibility when "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church," his statement labels Jesus as a SINNER. A doctrine that over a billion Catholics are now obligated to accept!

Further, his statement: "that Mary’s question to Jesus, “why have you treated us like this?” contains “a certain reproach," appears to suggest that Mary is the accuser of Christ and that it is mainly of her that He must "beg forgiveness"!

Here we have Christ painted as a sinner, and therefore an unworthy sin offering. Sorry folks, no redemption at the foot of the Cross!
We also have Mary as the one "reproached" by Jesus and subsequently "begged for forgiveness"! Guess what folks, according to the Pope, Jesus failed and Mary is your Intercessor!


Papal infallibility:

"Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

Wikipedia

"...whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

What do you think about Matthew 5:22, my friend, James Son of Peter?

By telling Alchemy and I not to be "stupidly alarmist", you appear to be
in danger of putting your "immortal soul"in jeopardy of "eternal" hell fire!

An "eternity" of being pitchfork flipped like a demonic hamburger patty hardly seems worth a moment of angry venting over an insult to your "Roman Father".

Alchemy said:

"It seems James wants to interpret Pope Francis his own way. Well, he can do that.

But, I simply take Pope Francis at his word."


I do wish James would come clean. I would love to know what church he attends each Sunday. Catholic would seem to be the obvious choice, but some of the other denominations, particularly the Charismatic ones, have become extremely militant in their pro-Catholic views. The ecumenical movement is hard at work!

It is amazing that evangelical Christians don't show any great abhorrence for what this pope says.

I agree Prodigal that the Pope made a serious mistake that can't be explained away by saying that Jesus would merely be showing humility by confessing his wrong. An "escapade" that required Jesus to ask forgiveness from his parents puts Jesus in a false light. The scriptures say clearly that Christ was "that holy thing" that He knew no sin, that in Him was light and no darkness at all and to the Jews Christ asked "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" John 8:46 If the Pope had read the account and accepted it as it reads he would have seen that in answer to Mary's intended gentle rebuke Jesus, rather than apologizing replied: "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" Luke 2:49.

But my understanding is that the Pope did not bind the church by his falsehood because he wasn't speaking ex cathedra; that is he wasn't making a doctrinal pronouncement but only giving his personal opinion. But as leader of probably the largest world denomination and as someone who has studied the word of God he is accountable to God for this betrayal of the trust of his flock.

RH.1875-04-01
It was a difficult task for the Prince of Life to carry out the plan which he had undertaken for the salvation of man, in clothing his divinity with humanity. He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature.

Christ was put to the closest test, requiring the strength of all his faculties to resist the inclination when in danger, to use his power to deliver himself from peril, and triumph over the power of the prince of darkness. Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed in order to overcome his temptations on man's account.

I'm not sure I understand, dedication. How does Christ overcoming carnal nature equate with elevating human righteousness to the same level as His? Even if we overcome our carnal nature, we will still have lost to it at some point: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God".

Only Jesus has achieved a righteousness that has never been defeated.
Our so called overcoming is merely a faint shadow of the perfection of Christ.


"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin."
Hebrews 4:15

Is it possible to be "in all points tempted like as [we are]" without a carnal nature?

Also, is it a sin to be tempted by one's carnal nature if by the grace of God every battle is won and the humanly inherited nature is overcome?

"As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man's behalf. He redeems Adam's disgraceful failure and fall by coming forth from the trial untarnished. This places man on vantage ground with God. It places him where, through accepting Christ as his Saviour, he becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Thus he becomes connected with God and Christ (Letter 68, 1899). {6BC 1074.7}

“We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. (FW 88)

Perhaps I am not understanding the terms being used. What is the definition of a carnal nature?
Are human beings born with a carnal nature, or is it something we acquire by succumbing to temptations of what dedication calls our natural human nature?

You don't have to teach a toddler how to have a temper tantrum, or how to be selfish with everything he thinks is his, or how to constantly push at restraints.

One wonders, if Christ did not have a temper tantrum, how was He able to overcome that temptation before the age of reasoning?

One wonders, if Christ did not have a temper tantrum, how was He able to overcome that temptation before the age of reasoning?

(bold emphasis mine)

Excellent question I think. What do you think?

The Jews were continually seeking for and expecting a Divinity among them that would be revealed in outward show, and by one flash of overmastering will would change the current of all minds, force from them an acknowledgment of his superiority, elevate himself, and gratify the ambition of his people. This being the case, when Christ was treated with contempt, there was a powerful temptation before him to reveal his heavenly character, and to compel his persecutors to admit that he was Lord above kings and potentates, priests and temple. But it was his difficult task to maintain the level of humanity. {3SP 260.1}

It was a difficult task for the Prince of Life to carry out the plan which he had undertaken for the salvation of man, in clothing his divinity with humanity. He had received honor in the heavenly courts, and was familiar with absolute power. It was as difficult for him to keep the level of humanity as it is for men to rise above the low level of their depraved natures, and be partakers of the divine nature.
Christ was put to the closest test, requiring the strength of all his faculties to resist the inclination when in danger, to use his power to deliver himself from peril, and triumph over the power of the prince of darkness.{RH, April 1, 1875 par. 2}

Satan's temptations for Christ were all geared ... to [make Him] rise above His humanity and use His Divinity.

Yes, He took a human body that was weakened by 4000 years of sin-- with it's hungers and physical weaknesses, there is nothing wrong with hunger -- as long as it is held in control of the "higher power". Yes, our Lord kept those "hungers" perfectly in check in righteousness.

Being tempted in all "points" or "principles", does not mean Christ's temptations were identical to ours.

A man consents to work with a group of people infected with a deadly virus. (HIV or ebola) The man has the same type of body as the infected people; he is a man like they, he needs to eat, sleep, just like them. He looks just like them, he befriends them, talks with them, etc. He is susceptible to the disease. But there is one major difference. He does NOT have the disease.

Just like alcoholic's pass on a hunger for alcohol to their children,...

As a child, Jesus manifested a peculiar loveliness of disposition. His willing hands were ever ready to serve others. He manifested a patience that nothing could disturb, and a truthfulness that would never sacrifice integrity. In principle firm as a rock, His life revealed the grace of unselfish courtesy. {DA 68.3}
With deep earnestness the mother of Jesus watched the unfolding of His powers, and beheld the impress of perfection upon His character. With delight she sought to encourage that bright, receptive mind. Through the Holy Spirit she received wisdom to co-operate with the heavenly agencies in the development of this child, who could claim only God as His Father. {DA 69.1}

"Jesus was misunderstood by His brothers because He was not like them....The example of Jesus was to them a continual irritation. He hated but one thing in the world, and that was sin. He could not witness a wrong act without pain which it was impossible to disguise....
Because the life of Jesus condemned evil, He was opposed, both at home and abroad. His unselfishness and integrity were commented on with a sneer. His forbearance and kindness were termed cowardice.
Of the bitterness that falls to the lot of humanity, there was no part which Christ did not taste. There were those who tried to cast contempt upon Him because of His birth, and even in His childhood He had to meet their scornful looks and evil whisperings. If He had responded by an impatient word or look, if He had conceded to His brothers by even one wrong act, He would have failed of being a perfect example. Thus He would have failed of carrying out the plan for our redemption. {DA 88}

Chapter 1: Do We Have A Problem?

Yes! Here we have a Baby different from any other ever born into this world. This little Fellow is pure, sinless, sweet, unselfish, no temper tantrums. As a Baby, no problem to His mother. And according to Isaiah 9:6 (which tells us "unto us a child is born") "the government" of earth and heaven is laid "upon His shoulder."

Get it? That's the shoulder of a helpless Infant who can't yet hold His bottle! If He as a Child falls into our universal sin, that "government" will crash. Everything has come to depend on Him and His perfect sinlessness, while He is born "unto us" who all are sinners.

How and why is He so different from all other babies?

Roman Catholicism claims it has the answer, "His sinlessness is because He has been born of a sinless Mother who experienced an Immaculate Conception in the womb of her mother. This broke the genetic link and gave her a sinless nature all her life so she never knew sexual desire. Thus she gave to Him her sinless, sexless flesh or nature."

Some Seventh-day Adventists also answer that Jesus couldn't be sinless as a baby unless He had been "exempt" from the common genetic inheritance all our babies have to share.

Could there be another solution? "Though he was in the form of God," Christ left His home in heaven and "emptied himself" to be "born in the likeness of men [and] humbled himself" (Philippians 2:7-8, RSV) Is it possible that He "took" or "assumed" the same heredity of fallen, sinful flesh, the same nature that all humanity has, and yet was sinless as a baby?

The angel told the Virgin Mary that He is "that holy thing which shall be born of thee." Paul says He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Luke 1:30, Hebrews 7:26) And Ellen White speaks of His sinless babyhood:

Christ was not like all children . His inclination to right was a constant gratification to His parents . No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children {5BC 1117}

One temper tantrum would have made Him a sinner, and that would have destroyed Him as a Saviour because He would then have had "an evil propensity." A sinful "savior" couldn't save anybody. The question is, Why was He so different as a baby?

The problem is not trivial. It's way beyond mere theological contention. Ellen White tells us that "the humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to God" {1SM 144} It must have something important to do with our day to day Christian living.

Our Roman Catholic friends also think they see "the humanity of the Son of God" as "everything" to them. They have been pondering this problem for well over a thousand years. That's why they came up with their idea of an "Immaculate Conception" for His mother. For them, this must be a pre-programmed genetic "exemption" from the hereditary stream of fallen mankind. Their idea is a holy separation, the opposite of identity with us. He must not be allowed to come too close to the problem of human sin.

In other words, Mary must have holy flesh so she can pass it on to her Son, so He can come into the world with a sinless nature unlike ours. For Roman Catholics, this answers our question, as a baby Christ couldn't help being good, long before He could reason or think. There was no genetic link with the fallen Adam.

We naturally assume a baby can't reason, can't judge between right and wrong, and it's also true that all our babies are born sinners, by nature selfish. So, do we need that "exemption" for Jesus that excused Him from the legacy that all other babies receive?

Thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists are perplexed. Some see no way for Christ to have been sinless as a baby unless He was "exempt" from our heredity. This idea is usually designated as "pre-Fall," that is, Christ "had" the sinless spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, unlike ours.

Others (equally thoughtful) see that Christ accepted our full human heredity from the beginning of His incarnation and "took" upon Himself the same burden of our genetic download of sinfulness, yet was holy and sinless even as a baby, and all His life. This is known as the "post-Fall" position, and is identical to the 1888 message view.

Protestants in general say they reject the Immaculate Conception dogma, but they also demand some "exemption" somewhere in the genetic line for Jesus. They still carry considerable baggage from Rome such as Sunday sacredness and the natural immortality of the soul. Is their view of Christ's humanity also borrowed from Rome?

The Bible and Ellen White's writings are clear. Jesus "took" or "assumed" our fallen, sinful nature, an idea diametrically opposed to both the Immaculate Conception and the "exempt" idea. The problem that has occupied centuries of discussion finds its focus in Christ's sinlessness as a baby. How could "the government" be upon His "shoulder" even then? Let us reverently inquire why. If there is an answer to our question, it must be part of the Good News of the gospel.

There were no temper tantrums --
What is the cause of temper tantrums?
Isn't it an emotional demonstration to get one's own will?

One can have one's own will before the "age of reasoning"?
Maybe define what you mean by age of reasoning.

Reasoning -- logically thinking things through,-- being able to weigh in one's mind the moral principles -- make sound judgments based on evaluating facts -- have sensible reasons for one's actions. Especially have moral responsibility for one's decisions and actions.

....

Then the age of 30 marked another transition from young adulthood into potential leadership in the community.


So - yes, temper tantrums in some shape or intensity reveal themselves in the lives of children before they have reached an age when they can reason as to their moral conduct.
It's a built in product of the carnal nature that we were born with.

We must be born again.

This "age of reasoning" thing seems a little odd to me.

It sounds like you are saying that before the age of 30, people shouldn't be held responsible for one's decisions and actions.

Therefore, you're so saying, Christ did not do anything morally wrong before 30, but all the rest of us did. Since He would not be responsible, but yet did no wrong, therefore He did not have our same nature.

(Personally, I think you should drop the "age of reasoning" thing in your argument. It leads you to taking odd and difficult to support positions)

Sorry, but you make Christ a sinner.
If you think Romans seven describes the nature of Christ, you make Christ a sinner.

Then you make the Lord's messenger in EGW out to be a false prophet, and the plan of redemption a sham. Christ never participated in our sin. Yet He was made to be sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), does that make Him a sinner in your eyes? He bore our sin IN HIS BODY (1 Peter 2:24), does that make Him a sinner? I guess so in your eyes. Not in mine. It makes Him one who intimately knows our struggle first hand and can save us to the uttermost.

"Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin.... He trod our earth as man. He had reason, conscience, memory, will, and affections of the human soul which was united with His divine nature. {16MR 181.4}
Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. His finite nature was pure and spotless, but the divine nature that led Him to say to Philip, "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" also, was not humanized; neither was humanity deified by the blending or union of the two natures; each retained its essential character and properties. {16MR 182.1}
But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. {16MR 182.2}
The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted. (16 MR 182}

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}


The propensities which reign in the natural heart must be subdued by the grace of Christ, before fallen man can be elevated to harmonize with Heaven, and enjoy the society of the pure and holy angels. When man dies to sin, and is quickened to new life in Christ Jesus, divine love fills his heart; his understanding is sanctified;
he drinks from an inexhaustible fountain of joy and knowledge; and the light of an eternal day shines upon his path, for he has the Light of life with him continually. {LP 125.2}

The more we study the attributes of the character of God as revealed in Christ, the more we see that justice has been sustained in the sacrifice that met the penalty of the law, and that mercy has been provided in the only begotten Son, who bore the penalty of the law in the sinner's place, in order that man might have another probation, another opportunity to be obedient to the law of God's government, RH March 9, 1897 par. 5}

God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1}

Christ lived the law of God's government; he was an expression of God's character; and he died to save men from the penalty of the transgression of this law. {RH, January 30, 1900 par. 2}

The penalty of disobedience is death. The transgression of God's law made it necessary for Christ to die as a sacrifice; for only thus could he redeem man from the penalty of the broken law, and yet maintain the honor of the divine government.

God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force. God's law is the foundation of all law and government. The fact that Christ suffered the penalty of the law for all transgressors, is an unanswerable argument as to its immutable character, and it will justly condemn those who have sought to make it void. When the curse fell upon the beloved Son of God, who became sin for us, the Father made it manifest that the unrepenting transgressor of his law would have to suffer its full penalty. {ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

Dedi - why do you leave out all the other pertinent texts?

Example, you quote Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. But you leave out Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) You quote: Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; but leave out Hebrews 2:16-18 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. You qoute: Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. But leave out: Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

You say: "He was God from the everlasting, He took on human flesh at the incarnation, He was God with us, who had taken on the liabilities of human flesh. " but you mean that his human flesh was not like our human flesh, but something different. So was not really touched with we are afflicted. You say He really did not share our heredity. But that is not what the Bible says. It says he Matthew 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses. He had our sickness. Ellen White agrees: It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

If Christ did not share our fallen sinful human nature, the the whole thing is a shame. You think sin is too powerful for God to take on Himself and wipe it out. You deny the whole plan of salvation! That if the implications of your belief. As EGW writes: He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. {MM 181.3} That is the key to salvation. The whole was NOT a sham. It was the real deal.

Yes there are mysteries we can not fathom! How did Christ take our sinful human nature, which He did, and not fall into sin? It did not start at some "age of accountability" which is a non-Biblical human idea. It started in the womb! And not once did he step over the line from conception to crucifixion.

The man in Romans 7 sins, it says in plain English that even though he wants to obey he can't do it. If that describes Christ you make Christ out to be a sinner who can NEVER SAVE YOU, He would need a Savior Himself.

Romans 7 describes sinful man who is trying to clean himself up.

We must be converted and born again before we can gain true victories over sin, Christ did NOT have to be converted and born again or overcome propensities to sin.

Christ understands us more intimately than you can imagine.

We must address "grace".

Yes, He is our example.
But that example is what HE wants to change us into

Jesus was tempted in all POINTS as we are.
What are the points
" It is by overcoming the world, the flesh, and the devil"
Or from scripture---
1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Satan tailors temptations to match the individual being tempted.
It was on the same "POINTS" that all are tempted, but tailored for the individual.

By dragging Christ down to our level of "sinful nature" people can then elevate their own righteousness, saying, well Christ had to battle this tendency as well, so I don't feel so bad about it.

When we drag Christ down to our level, we drag down the standard. Then we see in Christ a man struggling against sin, not a perfect life.

Christ didn't have to be "born again" -- He didn't have to overcome a carnal nature. He abhorred sin, it pained Him. He had the spiritual nature from the beginning.

The difference is that we are born with a carnal nature that embeds sin into our flesh, and hardens our hearts and minds from an early age, and which then tempts us from within, as our inclinations are towards sin, and all we can do is sin, unless there is Divine intervention.
Whereas Christ was tempted from without, not from within -- He had no sin within. In either case, the flesh is the channel through which we experience temptation, but it is not, of itself, the source.

Obviously you are on a totally different thought path than me.
I have not taken ANY position that you suggest.