Question about John 3:5 & salvation

[thetazlord]

Show me which Church declared what books make up the inspired Word of God, without which no one would know. The reality is that without Her teaching, Protestants do not even know of the fact of Purgatory and its cleansing for heaven.

The only reason that anyone knows that Sacred Scripture is “inspired” is precisely because Christ’s own Catholic Church has declared them to be so. Only She has the authority to interpret what She has given the world through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the reality of salvation is possible for some non-baptised by water is taught by the same Church Christ founded – She who declared what are the Sacred Scriptures.

No one would have that knowledge apart from the fact that Christ founded His Church on St Peter and the Twelve and those Catholics wrote the New Testament and His Church declared 73 books to be the Sacred Scriptures, with 46 books in the O.T., and 27 books in the N.T. – no more, no less.

St Paul’s epistles stress that there are “some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” [2Pet 3:16]

“…no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man but, but holy men of God spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” [2Pet 1: 20-21].

The Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah was asked by Philip who had been moved by the Holy Spirit – “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, ‘How can I unless some man show me?’ And he asked Philip to come and sit with him.” [Acts 8:30-31].

This is a Red Herring. The fact that we both believe that the same 27 books of the NT are Inspired Scripture & agree on at least the same 39 books in the OT, it becomes a moot issue. So, since we both agree on this point, then - Scripturally - what does the “water” refer to based on the OT & NT? If it refers to water baptism, there is no OT support for it. If it refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, there “is” support for it. Plus, it doesn’t create the Scriptural contradictions that “water baptismal salvation” does.

 

[thetazlord]

What are you asking? Are you asking if the word theopneustos is used elsewhere? Or are you asking if anything other than Scripture is divinely inspired?

No, I’m asking where in Scripture where it says anything other than Scripture is God-breathed/Inspired/theopneustos.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is fair game any time someone brings his (or her) own private interpretation into the discussion and presents that interpretation as Truth.

Discussing “sola scriptura” will cause a split on the forum, since it doesn’t have to do with the OP. If you wish to discuss this, please start another thread.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, Adam was God-breathed. See Genesis 2:7.

And the Apostles were God-breathed. See John 20:22.

So clearly there are things OTHER THAN Scripture–men, in fact–which are God-breathed.

Also, remember that St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. Everything he preached could not have been contained to writ. But surely that which he preached was theopneustos, yes?

Genesis 2:7 is in Hebrew, not Greek. In John 20:22 Jesus “breathing” on them didn’t have anything to do with doctrine, nor does Genesis 2:7. The “events” of God/Jesus “breathing” didn’t have to do with “correction & reproof of doctrine.” And although Paul preached, we can’t “assume” that everything he preached was “God-breathed,” anymore we can with Peter, who Paul had to rebuke to his face for siding with the Judaizers. I think you’ll also missing the point. Paul EXPLICITLY states that all Scripture is God-breathed. But he, nor any other Bible writer, states that anything else is God-breathed, in context of what Paul is referring to as Scripture being God-breathed for correction & reproof.

 

[Sandraaustin]

Second, I understand Catholic teaching, including that “born of water & the Spirit” is one “birth.” But what you’re still not “getting,” is that “if” this “one-birth” occurs at the moment of baptism & the Holy Spirit descends on a person, then in John 3:5, Jesus would be saying that this ONLY happens at the moment of water baptism, BECAUSE of the EXCLUSIVE used by Jesus in John 3:5,7 (“Unless,” “cannot,” “must.”) So, I’m understanding what you’re saying, but the interpretation of that verse contradicts UNbaptized people getting into Heaven, like baptized by desire, of blood, etc. Not so with the “water” referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which is backed up by OLD Testament Scripture that I mentioned in my explanation.

Thetazlord, I think your interpretation maintains that “born of water and the Spirit” also equals one-birth, correct? I asked my evangelical friend and she said “born of water” means baptism, too, as you stated early on-- (that some Protestants also interpret the passage as meaning water baptism.)

I read on the gotquestions site all about how this passage is interpreted this way and yes it does make sense how one can come to that conclusion. I still don’t understand how “born of water” means “spirit” or “outpouring of Spirit” when it comes to the translation, though:
Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’
Your interpretation =. 'Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born of the "outpouring of the spirit" and the "spirit", he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' It sounds redundant. What, practically speaking, does it mean? How does one become born again of the "outpouring of the spirit" and the spirit?

 

[thetazlord]

But what is your answer to this dilemma?

Does Christ actually mean that you can’t get to heaven unless you eat his flesh?

And it is actually on the topic of this thread, since we are talking about soteriology.

Jesus said “UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” The same Greek word for “unless” in this verse is the same one in John 3:5, which means “Except, or if not.” So, if you base your understanding of this verse - from the Greek - as would in John 3:5, then Jesus is saying this is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God,” & “have life in you.” Therefore, if this verse in John Ch.6 is referring to eating Jesus’ flesh, then people who do “not” do this can’t have eternal life. In fact, based on this consequence of these verses, Jesus would be saying you have to be baptized in water and eat Jesus’ flesh & drink His blood, or you won’t go to Heaven. You don’t have this issue with the “water” in John 3:5 referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit.

But you are creating a Red Herring. Please stay on topic. I only answered your question to show you consequence of taking “unless” in both verses to their logical conclusion.

 

[Sandraaustin]

Actually, I have read that particular article, & have visited that site frequently. Very good resource! And if you read the entire article, it doesn’t support that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism, but a “spiritual” cleansing. In fact, it echoes what I said that in the OT, when “water” is used in this way, it symbolically refers to “spiritual cleansing,” not literal use of water. The article basically backs up what I wrote. Thanks for sharing!

Yes, I know, I just posted about that-- I do understand the logic. To tell the truth, I couldn’t follow your posts that well and I needed to research the topic. Just don’t understand cause the new interpretation seems redundant, but you’ll see in my other post…take your time cause it’s getting late, will probably check back in the AM. Happy New Year to All!!

 

[thetazlord]

I understand that “water” & “Spirit” are linked. What you’re not understanding is that “if” the water refers to the waters of baptism, based on the exclusive words of Jesus (“unless,” “cannot,” “must”) in John 3:5,7, then Jesus would be saying that water baptism is the ONLY way to “enter the kingdom of God.” I understand that you believe the former (water = water baptism), but you don’t believe the latter (water baptism is the ONLY way to enter Heaven). But what you’re not seeing, is that you embrace the former, then you can’t reject the latter. Let me illustrate by substituting “water” with “baptized in water” in John 3:5:

“UNLESS one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”
“A person who is not baptized in water, CAN enter the kingdom of God.” (ie: baptized by desire, of blood, etc.)

Do you see the problem now? You don’t have this problem with the ‘water’ in John 3:5 referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit.

 

[thetazlord]

Yes, I know, I just posted about that-- I do understand the logic. To tell the truth, I couldn’t follow your posts that well and I needed to research the topic. Just don’t understand cause the new interpretation seems redundant, but you’ll see in my other post…take your time cause it’s getting late, will probably check back in the AM. Happy New Year to All!!

Good night, Happy New Year, & God

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord in post 161 (here) with bold and ul mine:QUOTE:

Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). . .

Cathoholic (me) in post 182: QUOTE:

What verse says “only” thetazlord?

What verse are you alluding to? You quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 but THAT doesn’t have “ONLY” in it. So what verse are you talking about?

Thetazlord’s response in post 184:QUOTE:

That’s not what I said. I said that Scripture only states that Scripture is Inspired.

.
**Draw your own conclusions. **

This is the same type of careless exegesis we are seeing here from thetazlord concerning John 3:5. (Hopefully these errors are merely “careless”)

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord, I still don’t understand how “born of water” means “spirit” or “outpouring of Spirit” when it comes to the translation, though:
Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’

  Your interpretation  =. 'Truly truly I say to you, unless one is born of the "outpouring of the spirit" and the "spirit", he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' It sounds redundant. What, practically speaking, does it mean? How does one become born again of the "outpouring of the spirit" and the spirit?

What Jesus is saying is “unless one receives the ‘outpouring’ of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is what is commonly referred to as being “born from above,” which is what “born again” means…just without water baptism. One becomes “born again,” “born of water & the Spirit,” receives the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit “from above” is “outpoured” on an individual, whether that individual is a believing adult - whether an OT or NT saint - a baby who is incapable of either accepting or rejecting Christ & then dies, or someone who is mentally incapable of doing the same.

I hope this helps. Have a pleasant sleep.

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord in post 161 (here) with bold and ul mine:QUOTE:

Only Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). . .

Cathoholic (me) in post 182: QUOTE:

What verse says “only” thetazlord?

What verse are you alluding to? You quoted 2nd Timothy 3:16 but THAT doesn’t have “ONLY” in it. So what verse are you talking about?

Thetazlord’s response in post 184:QUOTE:

That’s not what I said. I said that Scripture only states that Scripture is Inspired.

.
**Draw your own conclusions. **

This is the same type of careless exegesis we are seeing here from thetazlord concerning John 3:5. (Hopefully these errors are merely “careless”)

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater & purposely creating a Red Herring (sola scriptura) to avoid addressing the OP, & the implications of the “water” referring to the waters of baptism, rather than the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit. Plus, you are yet to show me - from Scripture - where it says anything other than Scripture is “Inspired” or “God-breathed.” That’s why I said ONLY Scripture is God-breathed, because Scripture only says that Scripture is God-breathed. This should have been self-explanatory.

Now that we’ve completely exhausted this Red Herring, would you like to address the OP or the response that people have been asking me to post?

 

[Cathoholic]

JOHN 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say TO YOU, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Thetazlord. I asked you (several times) . . .

WHO is the “TO YOU” that Jesus is giving this command to here in John 3:5?

A. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Nicodemus (who represents mankind).
B. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself.
C. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself AND Nicodemus.
D. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to nobody.
.
You finally answered directly albeit implicitly (thank you for finally answering this). You said:

Thetazlord. You said in post 185: QUOTE:

Although Jesus is “addressing” Nicodemus . . .
.
Thank you! That would be “A”.

“A” is correct (as you implicitly asserted).

The fact that this commandment is given for Nicodemus (mankind) to obey, this commandment is directed to mankind for us to obey, and there are no exceptions for “mankind” (Nicodemus) . . . the Church teaches . . . .
. Excerpt from CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. . . . . The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;
.
Jesus is giving this command to Nicodemus (mankind). That’s WHY answers B, C, and D above would have been wrong.

And you thetazlord, correctly implicitly picked “A”.

You are correct.

So for mankind, we need to follow Jesus’ command.

WE need to follow this command exactly, explicitly, without exception, in the Greek, in the Hebrew, in the English, . . . in a house, on a train, in a plane, etc.

WE NEED to follow this COMMAND we are given. You don’t need to keep repeating this over and over again because the Church already affirms it.

Since you already correctly recognized that Jesus is NOT giving this command to Himself, He Himself—Jesus—is not bound by such a commandment OK?

Jesus is not giving this command to Himself (as you have been implicitly asserting to make your case against the Catholic position on John 3:5).

This is WHY the Church ALSO teaches (parenthetical placement mine and bold and ul mine) . . . .
. Another excerpt from CCC 1257 The Lord himself . . . commands his disciples . . . . to baptize them (“all nations”) . . . . .God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
.
Jesus is NOT (as you have recognized implicitly) “bound” by His command to us. We on the other hand . . . are bound.

Jesus may grant the Holy Spirit outside of these means (Baptism), we cannot.

Thetazlord in post 185: QUOTE:
So, if Jesus is referring to water baptism, then Jesus would be saying EVERYONE would have to be baptized in water . . .
.
No thetazlord.

It means, Jesus would be saying this is the command WE are to follow—not what He (Jesus) is bound to. Truly I say “TO YOU” . . .(Just as you already implicitly recognized about John 3:5).

This is the answer to your original question thetazlord.

QUOTE (from post 1):
. . . “how” can Jesus allow . . . people . . . into Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting Himself in John 3:5

 

[thetazlord]

JOHN 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say TO YOU, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Thetazlord. I asked you (several times) . . .

WHO is the “TO YOU” that Jesus is giving this command to here in John 3:5?

A. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Nicodemus (who represents mankind).
B. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself.
C. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to Himself AND Nicodemus.
D. Jesus (God) is giving this commandment to nobody.
.
You finally answered directly albeit implicitly (thank you for finally answering this). You said:

Thetazlord. You said in post 185: QUOTE:

Although Jesus is “addressing” Nicodemus . . .
.
Thank you! That would be “A”.

“A” is correct (as you implicitly asserted).

The fact that this commandment is given for Nicodemus (mankind) to obey, this commandment is directed to mankind for us to obey, and there are no exceptions for “mankind” (Nicodemus) . . . the Church teaches . . . .
. Excerpt from CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. . . . . The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;
.
Jesus is giving this command to Nicodemus (mankind). That’s WHY answers B, C, and D above would have been wrong.

And you thetazlord, correctly implicitly picked “A”.

You are correct.

So for mankind, we need to follow Jesus’ command.

WE need to follow this command exactly, explicitly, without exception, in the Greek, in the Hebrew, in the English, . . . in a house, on a train, in a plane, etc.

WE NEED to follow this COMMAND we are given. You don’t need to keep repeating this over and over again because the Church already affirms it.

Since you already correctly recognized that Jesus is NOT giving this command to Himself, He Himself—Jesus—is not bound by such a commandment OK?

Jesus is not giving this command to Himself (as you have been implicitly asserting to make your case against the Catholic position on John 3:5).

This is WHY the Church ALSO teaches (parenthetical placement mine and bold and ul mine) . . . .
. Another excerpt from CCC 1257 The Lord himself . . . commands his disciples . . . . to baptize them (“all nations”) . . . . .God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
.
Jesus is NOT (as you have recognized implicitly) “bound” by His command to us. We on the other hand . . . are bound.

Jesus may grant the Holy Spirit outside of these means (Baptism), we cannot.

Thetazlord in post 185: QUOTE:
So, if Jesus is referring to water baptism, then Jesus would be saying EVERYONE would have to be baptized in water . . .
.
No thetazlord.

It means, Jesus would be saying this is the command WE are to follow—not what He (Jesus) is bound to. Truly I say “TO YOU” . . .(Just as you already implicitly recognized about John 3:5).

This is the answer to your original question thetazlord.

QUOTE (from post 1):
. . . “how” can Jesus allow . . . people . . . into Heaven without being baptized in water, & without contradicting Himself in John 3:5

You’re missing the point of what I said, & the implication of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. When Jesus tells Nicodemus, that unless “one” is born of water & the Spirit, “he” cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven - which applies to not only Nicodemus but everyone else (save Jesus) - this is an exclusive statement about how to enter Heaven. Therefore, since Jesus is God, He can’t contradict Himself. And that is exactly what He’d be doing if He allowed people into Heaven that were not “born of water & the Spirit.” Again, Jesus is not giving a command in John 3:5, but rather answering Nicodemus’ question. Jesus is making a statement, not giving a command. So, if Jesus makes an EXCLUSIVE statement, then He can’t contradict that statement. And that is what He’d be doing “if” the water refers to the waters of baptism, & if He’d also allow UNbaptized people into Heaven. The same is not true if the “water” refers to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, but not water baptism “too.” ONLY those born of water & the Spirit (receive the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit) can “enter the kingdom of God.”

 

[ready]

Dear Thetazlord,

You truly need to read the information found at the following link, as you have fallen into the same error as Fr. Leonard Feeney in interpreting Jesus’ words as you do: romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.html
Your question will be answered by your reading of this information, so please read it. I checked the Catena Aurea for you, but did not think it would be of much help to you. God bless you!

Yours in Mary Immaculate Queen,
ready

P.S. Please tell us what you think of the information found at the link I have provided for you, after you have read it.

 

[ready]

Actually, you “do” have the same problem there.:

Not so. We just can’t read these two texts like Protestants (as you are doing), but with the mind of the Church. God bless you.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord. When I called you on your criticism of me for allegedly misquoting you (here), but I wasn’t misquoting you at all, you said: NO QUOTE: Sorry Cathoholic. You are right. I didn’t say that. I MEANT that though and I just didn’t accurately remember my own post–sorry about that. As I said, that is what I MEANT, not what Scripture SAID.
.
NO! That’s not what you said.

Rather, you accuse me of “creating a red herring” to avoid addressing the issue (without initially acknowledging you DID say “only” concerning 2nd Timothy, but rather denying it). QUOTE (here):
You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater & purposely creating a Red Herring (sola scriptura) to avoid addressing the OP
.
This is an inappropriate response from you.

I was implicitly pointing out your laissez-faire attitude of the 2nd Timothy issue and later your subsequent incorrect criticism of my quote of you and impugning my motives (“to avoid addressing the OP”) . . .

. . . . is the exact same type of laissez-faire Scripture exegesis I am observing from you concerning John 3:5 thetazlord.

And this just is not going to work.

---

You need to address the issues. And you repeating about the necessity of Baptism isn’t addressing the issues because I already affirm the necessity of Baptism (as does the Church as I have shown you from the CCC) .

But I have ALSO shown WHY Jesus isn’t held to such a command.

That’s WHY Jesus’ command to US Baptize and receive Baptism (without exception for us), is not applicable to Jesus (and the Baptism of desire).

---

Now it is time for you to tell me HOW you think you receive the Holy Spirit, . . . . HOW you are “born again” or HOW you are “born from above”?

Do you “accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” or some other invention that is not in John 3:5?

It is time for you to answer this thetazlord. Just saying you receive the Holy Spirit isn’t going to be good enough. I want to know “HOW” in your estimation, you receive the Holy Spirit? HOW you are “born again”? HOW, you are “born from above”?

 

[thetazlord]

Dear Thetazlord,

You truly need to read the information found at the following link, as you have fallen into the same error as Fr. Leonard Feeney in interpreting Jesus’ words as you do: romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.html
Your question will be answered by your reading of this information, so please read it. I checked the Catena Aurea for you, but did not think it would be of much help to you. God bless you!

Yours in Mary Immaculate Queen,
ready

P.S. Please tell us what you think of the information found at the link I have provided for you, after you have read it.

I skimmed through the article, but it really doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of the OP. Here is the issue:

1. Jesus said “you MUST be born again” (John 3:7)
2. Jesus said “UNLESS one is born again, he CANNOT see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)
3. Jesus said “UNLESS one is born of water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5)
4. “born again” = “born of water & the Spirit”
5. #1 could easily read “you MUST be born of water & the Spirit”
6. If the “water” refers to the waters of baptism, John 3:5 would read:
   “UNLESS one is baptized in water & the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God.”
7. If this is true, Jesus is saying you CAN’T enter Heaven, UNLESS you are baptized in water.
8. If this is true, people who are “not” baptized in water (baptized by desire, of blood) CAN’T enter Heaven, BECAUSE they weren’t baptized in water.

This is the contradiction that occurs by believing that the “water” in John 3:5 refers to the waters of baptism and believing in baptism by desire. This contradiction doesn’t occur with the “water” referring to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, which is also backed up by OLD Testament Scripture, which Nicodemus was a “teacher” of (John 3:10), not water baptismal salvation.

Hope this helps!

 

[thetazlord]

But I have ALSO shown WHY Jesus isn’t held to such a command.

That’s WHY Jesus’ command to US Baptize and receive Baptism (without exception for us), is not applicable to Jesus (and the Baptism of desire).

Again, Jesus isn’t giving a command. He’s answering Nicodemus’ question. He’s making a statement, not giving a command. And since Jesus is God, unlike us, God/Jesus can’t make an exclusive statement about “how” a person gets into Heaven, & then give “exceptions” to that exclusive statement. If He did, God/Jesus would be lying, which God/Jesus can’t do.

Now it is time for you to tell me HOW you think you receive the Holy Spirit, . . . . HOW you are “born again” or HOW you are “born from above”?

Do you “accept Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior” or some other invention that is not in John 3:5?

It is time for you to answer this thetazlord. Just saying you receive the Holy Spirit isn’t going to be good enough. I want to know “HOW” in your estimation, you receive the Holy Spirit? HOW you are “born again”? HOW, you are “born from above”?

I’ve answered this already - several comments ago:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12619280&postcount=159

 

[ready]

The Catholic Encyclopedia [1907] has this to say regarding the ordinary teaching of the Church on baptism:

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.** It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.**

(Emphasis mine).

 

[Cathoholic]

The tazlord. You said (bold and ul mine):QUOTE:
You’re missing the point of what I said, & the implication of Jesus’ words in John 3:5. When Jesus tells Nicodemus, that unless “one” is born of water & the Spirit, “he” cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven - which applies to not only Nicodemus but everyone else (save Jesus) - this is an exclusive statement about how to enter Heaven.
.
It IS an exclusive statement. And I am not missing the point at all.

BUT it is an exclusive statement for the one commanded.
It is an exclusive statement for US (we must be “born of water and the Spirit”).

Not an exclusive statement for Jesus (Jesus can carry out a Baptism of desire which He does not address here, but He also does not bind the command to Himself here or anywhere else though).

thetazlord:QUOTE:
Therefore, since Jesus is God, He can’t contradict Himself. And that is exactly what He’d be doing if He allowed people into Heaven that were not “born of water & the Spirit.”
.
Your point falls into the fallacy of equivocation thetazlord. You are changing your premises and I am not going to abide by it.

Now I want to know HOW you think you are “born from above”? You’ve kept the tread in suspense for over 200 posts. Now it is time to not merely criticize the Catholic position. Now it is time to show what you think the alternative is.