The Author of Luke Did Not Share Paul’s Views On Resurrection

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you.

–Luke, chapter 1

Gary: If the author of the two volume work Luke/Acts was a close associate of the Apostle Paul, as traditional Christianity claims, one would assume that he would at least share Paul’s view of “bodily resurrection”. Such is not the case.

Bart Ehrman, NT scholar: Luke is a firm believer believer in the resurrection, both of Jesus and of believers at a later time. Luke goes out of his way to stress that Jesus was actually, bodily raised from the dead. In fact, he insists that precisely the body that went into Jesus’s tomb is the one that came out of it—a view that actually contradicts Paul.

Paul believed that Jesus’s body was completely glorified and transformed, turned from a “flesh and blood” being to a “spiritual one”. That is why “flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”. Not so Luke. For him, Jesus’s resurrected body is his revivified body.

This is shown in a remarkable passage after Jesus is raised, found only in Luke. Jesus appears to his disciples, who are understandably terrified, mistakenly thinking they are seeing a “spirit” (i.e., a ghost [Luke 22:37]). The [Greek] word Luke uses for spirit here, strikingly, is pneuma. That is the word Paul uses to describe the kind of body a person has at the resurrection (I Corinthians 15: 44). But not Luke. He wants to deny that Jesus had a pneumatic body. And so, in his account, Jesus convinces his disciples that he is decidedly not pneuma but a fleshly being, the corpse brought back from the dead intact.

To prove that he is not pneuma, Jesus tells his disciples to touch him.

For a spirit (pneuma) does not have flesh and bones as I have.

(Luke 22: 39)

The disciples still aren’t sure, so Jesus asks for piece of broiled fish, which he then eats. That proves it! He is the same as he was before, a body made of flesh physically returned from the dead—presumably with an alimentary canal—not the glorified spiritual body as Paul imagined.

—Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, p. 195.

Gary: Good grief. Evangelical and conservative Protestant NT scholars know the meaning of these Greek words and still claim that Paul and “Luke” were traveling companions! Come on! There are only three plausible options based on the above evidence:

–“Luke” knew Paul and understood the nuances of Paul’s teachings regarding the concept of resurrection but chose to invent his own, brand new, resurrection theology. That would make him a liar as he promised his readers (see passage above) that he was passing on a “well-ordered” account of what the original eyewitnesses (i.e., Paul) saw and said.

–Luke didn’t know Paul or Paul’s views and was simply repeating the latest gossip and legends of his day (circa 80 CE) about Jesus.

–the original disciples claimed to have seen a flesh and blood (resurrected) body but Paul only saw a pneuma (ghost).

Whichever is true, this is bad, very bad news for anyone who believes in the divine inspiration of “Luke’s” books. He and Paul cannot both be right. People either saw a ghost or they saw a flesh and blood body. Which was it??

Paul claimed to have seen this resurrected being. “Luke” never once claims to have seen this “fleshly being” he describes. He received all his information, eyewitness information or rumor and legend, from others. So, if the resurrected being Paul saw was only a pneuma (ghost), traditional Christianity collapses. Why? Everyone and his uncle was seeing pneumas in the ancient world!

“Luke”, a very clever Greek Christian author, saw the problem. Most educated Greeks and Jews were laughing at Paul’s pneuma (ghost) sighting story. Luke therefore invented a story of Jesus appearing in a (upper) room and telling the disciples to touch him and to give him food to eat. Luke invented this appearance tale to save [Christianity’s] face. Luke put flesh and bones on Paul’s ghost!

The Gospels are not historically reliable.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

The Gospels Are Not Historically Reliable: Luke Altered Jesus Words At His Trial

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” –Gospel of Mark

This passage in Mark clearly states that the high priest, Caiaphas, would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds: Caiaphas would see the Second Coming. Caiaphas would see the establishment, on earth, of the Kingdom of God. (The traditional Jewish perspective of the Kingdom.)

Let’s take a look at what the author of Luke says Jesus said at his trial before the Sanhedrin.

“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;  and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 

Bart Ehrman, NT scholar: When Jesus is placed on trial at the end of his life in Mark’s Gospel and is being interrogated by Caiaphas the high priest, Jesus tells him that he, Caiaphas himself, will see the cosmic judge of the earth, the Son of Man, arrive from heaven. In other words, the end of history and the Day of Judgment will come in the priest’s own lifetime.

Luke, writing later, has the same scene but changes Jesus’s words. Now Jesus says instead that “from now on the Son of Man will be seated” with God the Father on high.

Thus Jesus’ statements about the future Kingdom of God on earth has now become about the present Kingdom of God in heaven.

—Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, p. 194

Gary: How can any Christian apologist claim that the Gospels are historically reliable when Luke blatantly changed Jesus’ words at his trial before the Sanhedrin? And it wasn’t something minor. It involved nothing less than the timing and location of the Kingdom of God.

The Gospels are not historically reliable. Period.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Christian Theology: The Dramatic Change in the Location of the Kingdom of God

 

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.

–Gospel of Mark 1

The Gospels of the New Testament date from forty to sixty years after Jesus’s death. That is a long time.

Jesus expected God’s Kingdom to come right away, within his disciples’ lifetime, but it didn’t happen. Naturally, later [Christian] authors would have been inclined to change his teachings, either to alter his predictions of the imminent end of the age—postponing it a bit—or to change their very essence so that he no longer preached the coming Kingdom of God in history at all but began to talk about what happens to each individual at death. The Kingdom of God on earth became the Kingdom of God in heaven, available [immediately] to everyone who believes [at his or her death].

Later Christian communities were composed primarily of former pagans raised in Greek ways of looking at the world that stressed the immortality of the soul rather than the resurrection of the body [the perspective of Jewish Christians]. For [these former pagans], eternal life would involve rewards and punishments after death [as Greek philosophy and culture had taught them].

It is possible to trace a trajectory in our surviving Gospels away from the deeply apocalyptic teachings of Jesus in Mark and Matthew, to less apocalyptic teachings in the later Gospel of Luke, to non-apocalyptic teachings in the still later Gospel of John, to anti-apocalyptic teachings in the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas, written a couple of decades after John.

In short, the words of Jesus came to be de-apocalypticized.

While Jesus’ original [Jewish] conception of the Kingdom of God emphasized God’s kingdom to come in the future on earth, this new [Greek Christian] conception proclaims God’s kingdom now, to be enjoyed in the world above [at the moment of one’s death].

When one looks at the longest corpus in the New Testament [Luke/Acts] it is striking that throughout these two books the understanding of the afterlife differs from what was proclaimed some fifty years earlier by the historical Jesus himself.

–Bart Ehrman, NT scholar in Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, pp. 191-193

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Did Early Followers of Jesus Change His Teachings?

Paul was not the only early follower of Jesus who developed and even transformed Jesus’ teachings. It is inevitable that the majority of his followers would do so. The imminent end of all things that Jesus expected with the appearance of a cosmic judge from heaven never occurred. Rather than simply conclude that Jesus had be wrong, his followers believed that he had been misunderstood or misquoted. And so they took his teachings and translated them into a new idiom for a new day, making them relevant for their current situation.

Christians have always done this, and always will.

For this reason it is no surprise that the Christian authors who later recorded Jesus’ teachings [e.g., the author of the Gospel of John] actually altered his words to make them reflect their own understandings, which had developed over time after his death. That included his teachings about the Afterlife.

–NT scholar Bart Ehrman, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, p. 191

[emphasis, Gary’s]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Like Jesus, The Apostle Paul Did Not Believe In Hell

Paul’s [thinking] involved a kind of “three story” universe. There is “up there” where God lives (along with Jesus, after his resurrection). There is “down here” where we exist on earth. And there is the “farther down below” where the dead reside. When Jesus comes back “down” [in the Second Coming] those who are down below (deceased believers) will be raised “up” first, then living believers will follow them to meet the Lord in the clouds. …Paul does not mean that people will live forever hovering in the air between earth and heaven but that the believers in Jesus have gone up to meet him there [in the clouds] to escort him down to earth, where he will establish his kingdom.

…Paul stresses that the followers of Christ will not be like those who are “destined for wrath” (I Thessalonians 5:9). What is that wrath, though? Is it eternal torture? Paul does not say so. Instead he says that the unbelievers, at the return of Jesus, will experience “sudden destruction” (I Thessalonians 5:3). That is to say, as Jesus also taught, the wicked will be annihilated at the Day of Judgment that was coming soon.

…[Unbelievers] will simply not exist anymore. They aren’t tortured. They are taken out of existence, never to return.

This appears to have been the teaching of both Paul and Jesus. But it was eventually to be changed by later Christians, who came to affirm not only eternal joy for the saints but eternal torment for the sinners, creating the irony that throughout the ages most Christians have believed in a hell that did not exist for either of the founders of Christianity.

–Bart Ehrman, NT scholar in Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, excerpts from chapter 9.

Gary: If true, how very, very shocking. Millions of human beings, for two thousand years, have lived in fear of a burning, eternal, torture pit called Hell. Yet, not even Jesus or Paul believed in it. This is what happens when your worldview includes the supernatural. Reason and logic are pushed aside by irrational superstitions.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Ex-Evangelical Bart Ehrman: Paul Believed In Baptismal Regeneration

Paul makes it very clear that salvation does not, in fact, come to those who lead good lives but only to those who have faith in Christ.

[However,] the initiation rite of Baptism was absolutely fundamental to Paul’s understanding of salvation and the afterlife. According to Romans 6, a person who is baptized is united with Christ. Just as Christ was “buried” in death, so too the person goes “under the water” and is symbolically buried. But for Paul this is not simply symbolism. It is a real mystical experience, a participation with Christ in his death. …Those who are baptized in Christ “die to sin”. Sin no longer has any control over them. They therefore will not be subject to the destruction of sin and sinners on the day of God’s wrath [Judgment Day]. [Because] they have already died with Christ in baptism, they will be made alive with him [at the Second Coming]. For Paul this is the key to the future resurrection of the dead: [The future resurrection of the dead comes] only to those who believe in the messiah Jesus and have participated with him in his death [in Baptism].

[Summary of Paul’s theology:] Baptized believers in Jesus alone will enjoy the blessings of happily ever after when the imminent Day of Judgment arrives.

–Bart Ehrman, NT scholar in his book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, pp.173-174

Gary: What happened to Ehrman’s evangelical interpretation of these passages? He attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, for goodness sake.

Growing up evangelical (Baptist) I would read passages regarding baptism and say to myself: “What?? That sure sounds like Baptism is necessary for salvation!” Of course, my evangelical teachers and pastors would tell me that I must read these passages in context: “Scripture must interpret Scripture.” If in one passage Paul says “for by grace are you saved, through faith, …not of works…” he would not turn around and in another passage insist that the of work of baptism has a role in eternal salvation.

But he did!

Since my deconversion I have learned that the New Testament teaches at least three “Plans of Salvation”: how one attains eternal life.

Jesus: in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats Jesus very clearly states that your eternal destiny is based solely on your good deeds; helping the less fortunate. (Universalist liberal Christians most closely follow Jesus’ theology on salvation, in my opinion.)

Paul: In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul very clearly teaches that faith (belief) in Christ is the only means of eternal life. However, he considers the rite of Baptism to be an essential and absolutely necessary component of one’s faith. It is not a “work” to Paul. Without Baptism, one does not truly have faith in Christ. One has not “died” with Christ. And if one has not “died” [in Baptism] one cannot hope to be one day resurrected to new life [at the Second Coming]. (Lutherans most closely follow Paul’s theology on salvation, in my opinion.)

The author of James (the brother of Jesus?): His message was clear: Faith without works is dead. Period. Belief alone does not save you. This version of salvation sounds like a mix of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. (Catholics and Orthodox most closely follow “James’ ” theology on salvation, in my opinion.)

Question: What must I do to be saved?

Answer: Depends which early Christian you ask!

More evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of an all-knowing God.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Jesus Taught Salvation By Good Deeds Alone

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. ³⁴ Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 

³⁷ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸ And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹ And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,^[f] you did it to me.’ ⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 

—Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25

One good reason for thinking some such words were spoken by Jesus involves the very point of the passage. People will enter the Glorious Kingdom of God, or be painfully excluded from it, because of their ethical activities and for nothing else. Living a good life by helping those in need will earn a person eternal life. The earliest [Christians] were firmly convinced that it was faith in Jesus that could make a person right with God. [It is therefore very unlikely that an early Christian invented these Jesus sayings as they are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Paul.]

–Bart Ehrman, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, p. 164

Gary: [The] Jesus [of the Synoptics] did not teach that faith in him or anything else would grant you eternal life (regardless of what the author of the Gospel of John says). Jesus taught that being a good person, being kind and generous to the less fortunate, was the ticket to eternal life.

Question: If Paul really did learn Jesus’ teachings from the original disciples of Jesus, how did he get “for by grace are you saved, through faith” out of Jesus’ very clear teaching in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats that good deeds earn eternal life, not what you believe?

To me this is more evidence that Paul was mentally deranged. It is more evidence that Paul invented a completely new religion! Jesus did not preach salvation by faith.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Jesus Did Not Believe In Hell

…at least according to Bart Ehrman.

How many Christians know what Jesus’ own views of the afterlife actually were? My sense is: very few indeed.

Jesus is the most important figure for Christianity…but he did not leave us any writings. We do not have a word from his pen. If words attributed to him come to us only in the accounts written by others at a much later date—even if they are allegedly quoting him—how can we know they are things he really said?

You might think that people living in oral cultures would make sure that, when telling accounts of what famous teachers said, they would preserve those words accurately, without changing a thing. But research into both oral cultures today and ancient modes of telling stories shows that this in fact was not the case. Words change as they come to be transmitted—they always have changed and always will change.

There can be no doubt that as ancient Christian storytellers recounted the sayings of Jesus they sometimes altered them by shortening, expanding, modifying, and even inventing them. We know this for a fact because we have sources from outside the New Testament with sayings of Jesus that no one can seriously argue he said. Where did they come from? Someone made them up. Critical scholarship is unified in thinking that the same is true even for some sayings of Jesus in the New Testament. Not all of them, of course.

Scholars have devised a series of critical methods that can help us determine which sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (or in any other source) are ones that Jesus most likely said.

…A close reading of Jesus’ words shows that in fact that he had no idea of torment for sinners after death. Death, for them is irreversible, the end of the story. Their punishment is that they will be annihilated, never allowed to exist again, unlike the saved, who will live forever in God’s glorious kingdom.

Most of Jesus’ teachings about the coming judgment focus on this idea of ultimate and complete destruction. In this he was very much like his predecessor, John the Baptist, [who taught that] those who failed to bear good fruit would be “cut down and thrown into the fire”. What happens to trees that are felled and burned? They are consumed out of existence. They don’t keep burning forever.

Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna)

…So too when Jesus teaches of Gehenna, he is thinking of annihilation, not torment: “Fear the one who can annihilate both the soul and body in Gehenna.” Note that here Jesus does not merely say that God will “kill” a person’s soul: he will annihilate (or exterminate) it. After that it will not exist. Worse than that, the enemies of God would be cast, unburied into Gehenna (a cursed, desecrated valley at the edge of Jerusalem), infamous as a place of utter desolation, a place despised and abandoned by God. …Sinners would end up as cadavers, gnawed on by worms and burned by fire. For them there would never again be any hope of life.

[And for the righteous?]

The coming Kingdom of God will entail a fantastic banquet where the redeemed eat and drink at leisure with the greats of the Jewish past, the Patriarchs. This is a paradisal image of great joy.

…at the resurrection, no one will be married. Instead, those who are raised [from the dead] will be “like the angels in heaven”—unmarried and, presumably, eternally happy about it. The righteous will not be simply revivified and brought back from a very long near-death experience to eventually die a second death. They will be given a glorified, immortal existence comparable to that of the angels.

[And how does one attain eternal life, in Jesus’ view?]

One good reason for thinking some of the words [of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats] were actually spoken by Jesus involves the very point of the passage: People will enter the glorious Kingdom of God, or be painfully excluded from it, because of their ethical activities and nothing else. Living a good life by helping those in need will earn a person salvation. The earliest followers of Jesus after his death were firmly convinced that it was faith in him—in particular, his death and resurrection—that could make a person right with God. This was the belief not only of the Apostle Paul but of all the early Christians we know about, including, of course, the authors of the Gospels. This passage is unlikely, therefore, to have been invented by later Christians.

–excerpts from chapter eight of Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife by NT scholar, Bart Ehrman

Gary: I for one am so relieved to hear that Jesus did not teach eternal torment in the flames of Hell, a torture pit at the center of the earth. It is such a comfort to know that Jesus taught that I and other nonbelievers like me will simply be burned alive…until dead. Annihilated. Like being burned at the stake. A few brief minutes, fifteen tops, of horrific pain and suffering, writhing and screaming in unimaginable agony, but then the peace and comfort of eternal non-existence.

You are a good guy, after all, Jesus! Thank you!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Did The Concept Of Resurrection Derive From A Non-Biblical Book? Oh My!

The idea of a future bodily resurrection of the dead first occurs in a book that was not included in the Bible. [However,] it was one of the most popular Jewish writings in the final two centuries BCE. A book known today as I Enoch.

The pseudonymous author of the book claims to be none other than Enoch, the first person never to have died.

When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. ²² Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years and had other sons and daughters. ²³ Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. ²⁴ Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. –Genesis 5:21-24

Who better to pen an apocalypse, the account of heavenly secrets that could explain earthly realities? A man who actually lived with God above! The book of I Enoch contains …special revelations given to this human resident of the heavenly realms.

This book gives a full exposition of one of the most mysterious passages in the entire Hebrew Bible, not connected with Enoch but with the flood in the days of Noah. In the lead up to the [flood] story, we are told that:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, ² the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, warriors of renown. –Genesis 6:1-2, 4

This strange passage seems to be referring to angelic beings, “the sons of God,” who came down [to earth] and impregnated women, leading to a mighty clan of mixed beings who were half-divine and half-human. The flood that God sent to earth was, in part, meant to annihilate them.

[Gary: Good grief. And Christians swear that the Bible is completely unlike the supernatural tales of the pagan cultures that surrounded the children of Israel. Not.]

A section of I Enoch, referred to as the Book of Watchers, is our first known apocalyptic text, a book filled with cosmic battles between good and evil. God intervenes to destroy the evil embodied in the Watchers [the half angel/half human offspring of his angels] so that good can return to the earth. In the course of the battles a number of visions and experiences of Enoch reveal heavenly realities, including those connected with the future judgment and resurrection of the dead.

In a key passage, Enoch is taken by the angel Raphael and shown that the souls of those who have died are held until the Day of Judgment (chapter 22). [Raphael takes him to a location containing several “hollows” which contain different types of deceased souls. There is a hollow which contains the righteous and then several other hollows with different types of wicked souls (the very wicked and the less wicked)]. The basic idea is: There is a future Day of Judgment; there are more unrighteous people than righteous; and there will be different degrees of punishment and reward; depending on the degree of righteousness.

The angelic Watchers will be bound for 70 generations under the earth before their destiny is decided. Then they will be led “to the abyss of fire; in torment and in prison they will be shut up for all eternity. …The judgment is not reserved for the fallen angels alone, however; it will also be the fate of the humans who sided with them.

The righteous, on the other hand, will be rewarded with an existence of unbelievable pleasure forever.

–NT scholar, Bart Ehrman in Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, pp. 114-117

Gary: For those of you who read my earlier posts reviewing Ehrman’s book you should notice how the evolution of the Jewish Afterlife concept seems to be following a similar pattern: to that of the Greeks! Why is that, dear Christians??

So much for Judeo-Christianity’s unique, divinely inspired scriptures! It certainly looks to me like blatant human copycatting. The Christian Heaven and Hell are pagan-inspired superstitions!

Dear ex-Christians: You have nothing to fear from these imaginary entities.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Did The Jewish View Of The Afterlife Change?

If the key to a life happy and blessed by God is keeping his law, and the path to pain and misery is breaking it, why is it that the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer?

Maybe it would make sense that God ordained the destruction of the nation of Israel at the hands of the Assyrians as a punishment for the sins of the people. But if that’s the case, why, when the people repented and returned to God’s ways…did they continue to experience social upheaval, political disaster, economic crisis, and military defeats?

It would make sense if there were no God. Or if there were many gods, some of whom were nasty. But how can it make sense if there is only one God who is truly good and completely in control of this world? It was a problem for Jewish thinkers. And eventually, about two centuries before Jesus, they came up with a new solution. …It is not God who causes the problems. Instead, God has cosmic enemies. They are the ones doing it.

It was in this period that some Jewish thinkers propounded the idea that God has a cosmic antagonist, the devil. The devil went by different names in the Jewish tradition—for example, Satan and Beelzebul. You will not find him in the Hebrew Bible. To be sure, a figure known as “the satan” does appear in a couple of places, most famously in the book of Job (chapters 1-2), but there he is not the devilish opponent of God. He is one of God’s counselors who opposes humans but still does God’s bidding. For later Jewish thinkers, however, this figure was transformed into a massively powerful being opposed to God and all who worship him.

–Bart Ehrman, NT scholar, in his book, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, pp. 106-107

Gary: The Jewish view of the Afterlife changed due to cognitive dissonance. How can God be good if he allows his people, who have repented and are diligently obeying his commands, to continue to suffer? Is he a sadist? First the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans. When will the suffering end, God? Hmm. It must not be God’s fault.

It is the Devil!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.