Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So then the disciples should empty themselves becoming humble. You just can't use a verse to prove a 'god-man' then backtrack to the real meaning only to reiterate the erroneous conclusion you want to promote. The verse TELLS the rest of them to EMPTY themselves taking on the attitude Christ had.
If Paul is describing kenosis then you advocate that all the 'yourselves' are told to do the same... Become God-men.
How can you have it both ways? If Jesus was emptied and God-man and you accept that, then Paul is telling everyone else to empty themselves to be God-men as well.
I agree. Paul refers to the mind of Jesus in Php 2:5. If you turn back to Php 1:27 Paul starts to speak of the importance of our state of mind. This is developed in the Php 2:2-5. Paul is really saying that it is important to have a mind like that of Christ, which devoted to the humble service of others; hence, we too should take on a ‘form’ of a servant like Jesus. The attitude of Jesus is set up as our example. I also agree that Mike is basically talking out of both sides of his mouth and trying to have it both ways. He is being very inconsistent.
How can you have it both ways? If Jesus was emptied and God-man and you accept that, then Paul is telling everyone else to empty themselves to be God-men as well.
Well, that's not so far-fetched. Others in Christian history have put that theory out there. To my understanding of some of the reading I've done, it was in part to squash that theory and unify the Church (for political reasons) that the Trinity doctrine was officially formulated and adopted by the councils.
So then the disciples should empty themselves becoming humble. You just can't use a verse to prove a 'god-man' then backtrack to the real meaning only to reiterate the erroneous conclusion you want to promote. The verse TELLS the rest of them to EMPTY themselves taking on the attitude Christ had.
If Paul is describing kenosis then you advocate that all the 'yourselves' are told to do the same... Become God-men.
How can you have it both ways? If Jesus was emptied and God-man and you accept that, then Paul is telling everyone else to empty themselves to be God-men as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kids in america_
I agree. Paul refers to the mind of Jesus in Php 2:5. If you turn back to Php 1:27 Paul starts to speak of the importance of our state of mind. This is developed in the Php 2:2-5. Paul is really saying that it is important to have a mind like that of Christ, which devoted to the humble service of others; hence, we too should take on a ‘form’ of a servant like Jesus. The attitude of Jesus is set up as our example. I also agree that Mike is basically talking out of both sides of his mouth and trying to have it both ways. He is being very inconsistent.
Because neither of you believe, nor do you want to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and because you reject the numerous clear statements in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is God, you are incapable of understanding any of what Paul is talking about in Phil 2.
Again, and for the last time, Paul used the example of Jesus Christ's willingness to temporarily set aside His divine rights as God in order to provide salvation for man, as an illustration of the kind of attitude of humility that believers are to have. Paul was not saying as Katjonii erroniously concludes that anyone had to empty themselves to be God-men.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-28-2011 at 10:20 AM..
Mike, I appreciate the amount of work you must be doing on your end to look up a lot of words and the grinding work of putting your thoughts down in a post as it were. However, I also have to agree with those who have pointed out the illogic and the errors in your interpretations. I do not think you are going to be able to create a theology that is any better than the original Christian theology.
1) REGARDING YOUR PRIOR INTERPRETATION OF PHILLIPIANS 2:6 WHERE JESUS “THOUGHT NOT THE BEING OF GOD AS A THING TO BE SEIZED” AS MEANING JESUS AND GOD ARE EQUALS.
Thank you for even the subtle changes you are able to make. I very much agree with your updated definition of αρπαγμος (‘harpagmos’), THAT IS A FORM OF ROBBERY, a taking of a thing which does not belong to one rather than a simple “grasping” I agree with your active form of this better translation :
Quote:
mike offered the definition :
In Phil 2:6 'harpagmos' is defined by The New Testament Greek Lexicon as:
1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
a. booty to deem anything a prize
b. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained
I also agree with you that the word in the NA 26th contains the erroneous use of the word “grasp”. However, the express PURPOSE OF the NA critical text is specifically to DEMONSTRATE variations in manuscripts (including mistakes, omissions, additions, etc). You and I now seem to agree that the more correct rendering is “seized”. As you and I seem to agree at this point, αρπαγμος is NOT to “grasp”, but instead, it is to “seize” as a form of robbery, and, it is a thing which a moral being should NOT do.
It is in this context that Phillipians 2:6 was read by the ancients and was understood by those who wrote concerning Jesus
Quote:
”who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be seized”
. To the ancients who wrote this verse and to the ancients who read this verse, it did not mean Jesus was equal to God his Father.
2) REGARDING "REAL WORLD" USAGE OF THE THEORY OF “KENOSIS”
Quote:
mike555 said : 1) I went into some detail about what kenosis means.
The problem is that you gave a definition of this new doctrine and only gave CURSORY details and a CURSORY explanation of it that was insufficient to answer any important question.
Quote:
Mike said in Post #91 : “... Jesus Christ was willing to set aside His rights as God in order to come into the world as a man and go to the cross where He was judged for the sins of the world….....Jesus Christ AGREED to become subservant to the Father's will during His incarnation on this earth. … The First Person of the trinity (God the Father) gave the command to create the universe. The Sovereignty and Omnipotence of Jesus Christ is manifested in that He did the actual act of creation.
To simply define a theological theory does NOT tell us how it works in any detail, nor how one would apply this new theory to any difficult question the theory is supposed to answer.
When a boy asks his father, “How does a car motor work?”, the answer may be insufficient to be of any value to the boy. The Father may explain “Well, the motor is the thing that turn’s round and round and it turn’s the wheels.” The Father may then claim he both defined at the movor AND explained how it worked, but such a superficial information is not particularly helpful since the teenager could have gotten that far by intuition alone and was really wanting to know about pistons and valve timing and ignition and how fuel systems worked.
In the same way, you gave a cursory definition and example that doesn't tell us enough to answer important questions. You define Kenosis as Jesus having “set aside His rights as God” and as agreeing “to become subsservant to the Father’s will”. However if your theory/doctrine of Kenosis cannot answer any of the important questions, then it is of limited value in supporting your claim.
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus claims that there are simple things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? (keeping their “essences” equal), or is Jesus truly ignorant of the answers to some simple questions, or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful (feigning ignorance) or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know?
Does Kenosis tell us that Jesus was simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does your theory of KENOSIS actually MAKE Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does it assume that Jesus pretends to less intelligence, or does Jesus simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did jesus “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory?
However, When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, how is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Jesus’ Sovereignty temporarily? Does a sovereign Jesus pretend not to be sovereign?
If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being? For example : I do not think your example that Jesus is sovereign because he obeys the command of the Father during creation shows sovereignty, but rather subservience.
If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, does Kenosis you assume that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him?
Does Kenosis assume that jesus simply pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
You have introduced another complicated theory (kenosis) in order to help explain and support your first theory (equality in the “essence” of the Godhead). However, this new theory of Kenosis is fraught with its own set of difficulties which must be answered BEFORE it will be helpful or applicable to your claim of Equality in the Godheads “essence”. There was no need for complicated schemes in the earliest Christian model that believed Jesus was NOT the same as his Father, but that he was, instead, a beloved Son, subservient and obedient to his Father, and that the Son loved and honored the Father..
3) WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrines) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
Quote:
mike said : This too has already been addressed in post #91.
You imply in post #91 that there were some “heretics anciently” and you gave us an example where early Christians “disagreed” with your personal theology.
Are these the reasons you want us to give your personal interpretations of scripture (which we’ve already shown to be inaccurate) more weight than the interpretations of the Earliest Judao-Christians who had more original texts and actually understood them better than you as a non-greek reader and who’s gospel was removed from the apostles by only a few years?
Your two reasons are both subjective in the extreme. Do you have any objective supporting reasons?
If the ancient Christians read the superior text and interpreted the most original text according to the most original understanding and you read an inferior modern text and interpret it according to your modern understanding, why do you assume that your interpretation is superior?
Regarding your claim that we should believe in you "because heresies existed anciently" : There are obviously detractors on the forum who have labeled your doctrines as heresy just as you label other Christian doctrines as heresy,just as your doctrine is heretical to the earliest and clearest Christian doctrines. The fact that there were some heresies anciently, does mean there are not heresies now nor does it mean that ALL ancient Christians and Christian doctrines may be dismissed as heretical. Your potentially heretical doctrines have no advantage over potential ancient heretical doctrines. To intimate that ALL such doctrines that disagree with yours are “heretical” is silly and self-centered in the extreme.
Regarding your claim that the early Christians spoke of Jesus differently than God the Father (e.g. Clement). This makes perfect sense if the original Christians had been taught by the Apostles and by prophetic traditions that the Father and the Son were different. All you can claim by this is that you teach a different doctrine than the most original Christians. This is NOT a reason to give your opinions more weight than theirs.
In view of all of this, are we to take your two subjective claims that there were “heretics” anciently and they taught that Jesus was the Son of God rather than equal TO God as being sufficient to give your interpretations and theories more weight than the more original Christian interpretations and more original Christian theory?
Clear
eitxsetzoi
Last edited by Clear lens; 06-28-2011 at 12:12 PM..
Mike, I appreciate the amount of work you must be doing on your end to look up a lot of words and the grinding work of putting your thoughts down in a post as it were. However, I also have to agree with those who have pointed out the illogic and the errors in your interpretations. I do not think you are going to be able to create a theology that is any better than the original Christian theology.
1) REGARDING YOUR PRIOR INTERPRETATION OF PHILLIPIANS 2:6 WHERE JESUS “THOUGHT NOT THE BEING OF GOD AS A THING TO BE SEIZED” AS MEANING JESUS AND GOD ARE EQUALS.
Thank you for even the subtle changes you are able to make. I very much agree with your updated definition of αρπαγμος (‘harpagmos’), THAT IS A FORM OF ROBBERY, a taking of a thing which does not belong to one rather than a simple “grasping” I agree with your active form of this better translation :
I also agree with you that the word in the NA 26th contains the erroneous use of the word “grasp”. However, the express PURPOSE OF the NA critical text is specifically to DEMONSTRATE variations in manuscripts (including mistakes, omissions, additions, etc). You and I now seem to agree that the more correct rendering is “seized”. As you and I seem to agree at this point, αρπαγμος is NOT to “grasp”, but instead, it is to “seize” as a form of robbery, and, it is a thing which a moral being should NOT do.
It is in this context that Phillipians 2:6 was read by the ancients and was understood by those who wrote concerning Jesus . To the ancients who wrote this verse and to the ancients who read this verse, it did not mean Jesus was equal to God his Father.
2) REGARDING "REAL WORLD" USAGE OF THE THEORY OF “KENOSIS”
The problem is that you gave a definition of this new doctrine and only gave CURSORY details and a CURSORY explanation of it that was insufficient to answer any important question.
To simply define a theological theory does NOT tell us how it works in any detail, nor how one would apply this new theory to any difficult question the theory is supposed to answer.
When a boy asks his father, “How does a car motor work?”, the answer may be insufficient to be of any value to the boy. The Father may explain “Well, the motor is the thing that turn’s round and round and it turn’s the wheels.” The Father may then claim he both defined at the movor AND explained how it worked, but such a superficial information is not particularly helpful since the teenager could have gotten that far by intuition alone and was really wanting to know about pistons and valve timing and ignition and how fuel systems worked.
In the same way, you gave a cursory definition and example that doesn't tell us enough to answer important questions. You define Kenosis as Jesus having “set aside His rights as God” and as agreeing “to become subsservant to the Father’s will”. However if your theory/doctrine of Kenosis cannot answer any of the important questions, then it is of limited value in supporting your claim.
Regarding your claim of equal sovereignty and omniscience For God the Father and his Son :
When Jesus claims that there are simple things he does not know, does KENOSIS assume there are things his Father does not know? (keeping their “essences” equal), or is Jesus truly ignorant of the answers to some simple questions, or does KENOSIS then claim Jesus is not being truthful (feigning ignorance) or is there another reason an “omniscient” being would claim there are things he does not know?
Does Kenosis tell us that Jesus was simply pretending not to know certain things or did he actually not know certain things? Does your theory of KENOSIS actually MAKE Jesus “less intelligent” for a period of time or does it assume that Jesus pretends to less intelligence, or does Jesus simply appear less intelligent because of KENOSIS?
If Jesus lacks knowledge that he had at some point in the past, did jesus “forget” prior knowledge and acquire a bad memory?
However, When you claim that Jesus is sovereign and yet jesus indicates he was “sent” by and “obedient to” his Father, how is it that a supremely sovereign being is “sent by” and “obedient to” and a “servant of” any other being? Does KENOSIS remove Jesus’ Sovereignty temporarily? Does a sovereign Jesus pretend not to be sovereign?
If Jesus was given his mission and commanded by the Father to do certain things, how is it that a completely sovereign being is commanded by any other being? For example : I do not think your example that Jesus is sovereign because he obeys the command of the Father during creation shows sovereignty, but rather subservience.
If Jesus obtains his mission from and is annointed by the Father; and if Jesus receives authority from the Father, does Kenosis you assume that Jesus did not need authority the father gave him?
Does Kenosis assume that jesus simply pretending not to have certain authority for some reason?
You have introduced another complicated theory (kenosis) in order to help explain and support your first theory (equality in the “essence” of the Godhead). However, this new theory of Kenosis is fraught with its own set of difficulties which must be answered BEFORE it will be helpful or applicable to your claim of Equality in the Godheads “essence”. There was no need for complicated schemes in the earliest Christian model that believed Jesus was NOT the same as his Father, but that he was, instead, a beloved Son, subservient and obedient to his Father, and that the Son loved and honored the Father..
3) WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE (and your doctrines) MORE WEIGHT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANS (who had more original texts)?
You imply in post #91 that there were some “heretics anciently” and you gave us an example where early Christians “disagreed” with your personal theology.
Are these the reasons you want us to give your personal interpretations of scripture (which we’ve already shown to be inaccurate) more weight than the interpretations of the Earliest Judao-Christians who had more original texts and actually understood them better than you as a non-greek reader and who’s gospel was removed from the apostles by only a few years?
Your two reasons are both subjective in the extreme. Do you have any objective supporting reasons?
If the ancient Christians read the superior text and interpreted the most original text according to the most original understanding and you read an inferior modern text and interpret it according to your modern understanding, why do you assume that your interpretation is superior?
Regarding your claim that we should believe in you "because heresies existed anciently" : There are obviously detractors on the forum who have labeled your doctrines as heresy just as you label other Christian doctrines as heresy,just as your doctrine is heretical to the earliest and clearest Christian doctrines. The fact that there were some heresies anciently, does mean there are not heresies now nor does it mean that ALL ancient Christians and Christian doctrines may be dismissed as heretical. Your potentially heretical doctrines have no advantage over potential ancient heretical doctrines. To intimate that ALL such doctrines that disagree with yours are “heretical” is silly and self-centered in the extreme.
Regarding your claim that the early Christians spoke of Jesus differently than God the Father (e.g. Clement). This makes perfect sense if the original Christians had been taught by the Apostles and by prophetic traditions that the Father and the Son were different. All you can claim by this is that you teach a different doctrine than the most original Christians. This is NOT a reason to give your opinions more weight than theirs.
In view of all of this, are we to take your two subjective claims that there were “heretics” anciently and they taught the Jesus was the Son of God rather than equal TO God as being sufficient to give your interpretations and theories more weight than the more original Christian interpretations and more original Christian theory?
Clear
No, we do NOT agree that the word 'grasp' is erroneous in Phil 2:6. I have explained in detail why Phil 2:6 is better translated as 'grasp' and you just do not get it. As I said, I have provided in posts #86, 91, and 98, sufficient information on kenosis. I am finished wasting my time trying to explain things to someone who has no interest in understanding the matter. I told you to go into the link I provided if you want more information. Do it or don't. It's your choice. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
Because neither of you believe, nor do you want to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and because you reject the numerous clear statements in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is God, you are incapable of understanding any of what Paul is talking about in Phil 2.
Again, and for the last time, Paul used the example of Jesus Christ's willingness to temporarily set aside His divine rights as God in order to provide salvation for man, as an illustration of the kind of attitude of humility that believers are to have. Paul was not saying as Katjonii erroniously concludes that anyone had to empty themselves to be God-men.
No you are incapable of understanding that Paul viewed Jesus as a man like us, the same Paul who (traditionally) wrote the book of Hebrews. In Heb. 2:14-18 Paul placed extraordinary emphasis upon the fact that Jesus was totally of human nature.
Here's the passage (full text here, if you're interested):
Quote:
“Since, therefore,children share flesh and blood, he (Jesus) himself likewise shared the same things,so that through death he might destroy… the devil… For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.Therefore he had to become like his brothersand sisters in every respect, sothat he might be a merciful and faithful high priest… to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested”.
So the subject of Php. is the “historical Jesus”. I doubt Paul had in mind a preexistent heavenly being when he wrote PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9. I also would like to add that Christ “was in all points tempted like we are” (Heb. 4:15). “God cannot be tempted” (James 1:13). ‘God’ cannot be 'tempted' but Jesus was 'tempted'. There’s a difference between ‘god’ and Jesus.
Last edited by kids in america_; 06-28-2011 at 03:00 PM..
Because neither of you believe, nor do you want to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and because you reject the numerous clear statements in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is God, you are incapable of understanding any of what Paul is talking about in Phil 2.
Again, and for the last time, Paul used the example of Jesus Christ's willingness to temporarily set aside His divine rights as God in order to provide salvation for man, as an illustration of the kind of attitude of humility that believers are to have. Paul was not saying as Katjonii erroniously concludes that anyone had to empty themselves to be God-men.
Then you must believe that Paul was exhorting his cohorts to be willing to temporarily set aside Their divine rights to being God. The wording of the verse is such that there is no "example" stated... Paul expected them to emulate christ's "kenosis."
Well, that's not so far-fetched. Others in Christian history have put that theory out there. To my understanding of some of the reading I've done, it was in part to squash that theory and unify the Church (for political reasons) that the Trinity doctrine was officially formulated and adopted by the councils.
Yes... But perpetuated for only God know what reason!
1) REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT “GRASP” IS A BETTER TRANSLATION OFΑρπαγμοστ than “SIEZE”
Quote:
“Mike555 claims : No, we do NOT agree that the word 'grasp' is erroneous in Phil 2:6. I have explained in detail why Phil 2:6 is better translated as 'grasp' and you just do not get it.
Mike, forum posters are not ignorant of the fact that you are not a translator of biblical text and both biblicists AND non-biblicists alike know that it is wrong to attempt to force the biblical text to say what you want it to say in order to able to support your personal theory. It’s simply dishonest scholarship. To do this on a public forum is to squander your credibility. Surely you see this?
Suppose we check your claim and replace the correct usage of αρπαγμος (implying robbery, stealing, plundering, taking by force, swindling, extortion, etc.) and attempt to use YOUR translation by use of the word “grasp” as you suggest.
Mtt 2:25 Instead of scribes and Pharisees… being “full of extortion and rapicity”
γεμουσιν εξ αρπαγηςκαι ακρασιασ Your rendering makes them “full of grasping and rapicity”.
Lk11:39 Instead of the Lord saying : “inside you are full of extortion and wickedness.” Αρπαγης και πονηριας. Your rendering makes the Lord say “inside, you are full of “grasping and wickedness”
Heb 10:34 Instead of the early saints joyfully accepting “the plundering of your property…”
Και την αρπαγην των θπαρχοντων υμων μετα χαρας... Your rendering has them accepting the “grasping of your property”. A clumsy sentence IF the reader can get a sense of what it might mean.
Ezek 22:25 and vs 27 :
Instead of V25 saying “Of whom the ones guiding in her midst are as lions roaring, seizing by force the prey, devouring souls by domination and taking honor…”
Ως λεοντες ωρυομενοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματα, ... Your rendering has the lions roaring and “grasping by force the grasped”
And vs 25 : “Her rulers … are as wolves seizing prey to shed bloods that their desire for wealth should overabound” (LXX)
Αρχοντες ...ως λυκοι αρπαζοντες αρπαγματατου εκχεαι αιμα Your rendering has the wolves “grasping [the] grasped.
Αρπαξ is someone who, instead of being “rapacious” becomes “graspious”; a “swindler” becomes a “grasper”, an “extortioner” also becomes a “grasper”.
Please mike555; the ancients said what they said. They wrote what they wrote. We cannot simply pick and choose words like a smorgasbord and plug them in where we will in order to support our personal theologies. If you do this, it will be counterproductive. You will lose all credibility with the very people you are attempting to influence. This very decision you make on this point may become an example of what lengths Christians will go to in order to believe what they want to believe. Don’t do this mike. Please reconsider.
2) REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THE THEORY OF KENOSIS TO ANSWER THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Quote:
mike555 said “I am finished wasting my time trying to explain things to someone who has no interest in understanding the matter. I told you to go into the link I provided if you want more information. Do it or don't. It's your choice. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.”
Please do not simply become frustrated mike555. That won’t do either of us any good. IF kenosis CAN answer the important questions, then it may be a vitally important theory and to have someone want to examine it for its ability to clarify important issues is an opportunity for you to show us the value of Kenosis beyond being a simple “sound bite”.
What specific information in the link makes you think Kenosis can answer the questions I’ve repeated at least three times and which, so far, it has been unable to answer? Is there ANYTHING of value in Kenosis which allows us to answer these questions? Does Kenosis offer ANY clarification of these issues?
Please mike555, I am NOT simply trying to give you a hard time. If Kenosis is authentic ancient doctrine that explains important issues, then it is EXTREMELY valuable. If it is simply a name of something someone came up with to increase unearned credibility, then it is unimportant and we should stay away from it. However, unless you allow us to examine the doctrine, we will never know. I do not think that I am alone in wondering if Kenosis can answer any of the questions the theory itself raises.
Tell us what specific information in the link will explain any of the questions I asked.
Because neither of you believe, nor do you want to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and because you reject the numerous clear statements in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is God, you are incapable of understanding any of what Paul is talking about in Phil 2.
RESPONSE:
The Gospel we call John's was written between 96 and 106 AD. It's more developed than the earlier gospels and is really a theological discourse.
But using the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and Acts of the Apostles written earlier, please provide any citation which claims that Jesus was divine. I don't think there are any. But there are some that show he was not divine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
