|
|
 |
A Response to Heresy Charges by In 1999, I and other Preterist-adherent authors, as well as a rapidly
growing multitude of fellow Christians, stood accused of “heresy” (p-15) and
of being “enemies [of] Christ” (p-203) by C. Jonathin Seraiah in his new
book titled The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future.1
He further declared that “the ramifications
of this [our] teaching are not only dangerous for individuals but
destructive to the Church of Jesus Christ” (p-15).2 What Is Our Damnable Offense?
We believe that Jesus, on several occasions, literally said what He
meant and meant what He said when He promised to coming again on the clouds
in age-ending judgment [return – see again “He Never Left” on home page]
within the literal lifetime of his contemporaries. Likewise, we believe
that “the end of all things” was literally “at hand” and came to pass within
that same 1st-century time frame in which these inspired words were penned
(1 Pet 4:7). Seraiah, however, doesn’t agree. This, of course, is his
prerogative. But to accuse, demonize, and condemn fellow Christians for
believing that all fulfillment took place within the literal time parameters
imposed by Scripture itself and upon itself must be seen for what it truly
is¾“anger…subject
to judgment” (Matt. 5:22) and “darkness” (1 John 2:9-11). Such is the
overriding shame of Seraiah’s book.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven… (Matt. 5:11-12a).
Sad to say, the history of Christianity has been beset with Christians
persecuting other Christians. Seraiah and Sproul Jr. carry on this
unfortunate tradition. But Jesus did say that persecution is a blessing if
it is “because of me.” This is certainly the case here. It is also a time
of testing for those of us under attack¾and
not just a testing theologically, but a testing in how we show our love for
any brother or sister in Christ who disagrees with us (1 John 4:7-21; Matt
5:44).
A Hermeneutical Issue, a Paradigm Problem Bible eschatology (the study
of last things) is a hermeneutical issue, but it’s also a paradigm problem.
Nowhere is this tension better illustrated than in Seraiah’s book.
Throughout its pages, Seraiah attempts to understand “the end of all things”
through an unscriptural paradigm. This paradigm is this book’s fatal flaw.
It drives his logic, and, in many instances, forces him to overrule sound
hermeneutics and to reach many unsound conclusions. The Biblical ‘Time of the End’ Paradigm Seven centuries
before Christ, the Old Testament prophet,
Habakkuk, prophesied of “an appointed time…of the end.” Neither he nor anyone
else knew when it would come. All Habakkuk prophesied at the time was that
this end would “not prove false,” “will certainly come,” and “will not
delay” (Hab. 2:3). · The coming again of Christ on the clouds in judgment (his parousia) · The day of judgment · The resurrection of the dead Hermeneutically, Christ Himself had promised that his literal, personal, and bodily parousia would occur within the lifetime of his contemporaries¾the “this generation” to whom He spoke (Matt 24:3, 27, 34). Likewise, the Apostle Paul tied the other two events into this coming (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15; 2 Tim. 4:1). Even the 1st-century scoffers correctly associated the destruction of Jerusalem with this coming of Christ—his parousia (2 Pet. 3:3-4; Jude 17-19)¾something most Christians have failed to do. It all transpired within forty years (one biblical generation – Heb. 3:17-18) from the time Jesus uttered his Olivet Discourse prophecy and died on the cross. It also happened precisely as and when every New Testament writer expected, as they were guided “into all truth” and told “what is yet to come” (John 16:13).Seraiah admits that he cannot comprehend this fulfillment. He has a good reason. His ability, or willingness to understand, is overpowered by his false paradigm. Seraiah’s Non-scriptural ‘End of Time’ ParadigmThe Bible never speaks of an “end of time,” “end of the world,” or “end of history.” These terms and concepts are foreign to Scripture.4 Yet these phrases and concepts form the paradigm through which Seraiah and many partial preterists, amillennialists, and post-millennialists attempt to understand end-time Bible prophecy. This false paradigm forces them to create more non-scriptural and non-creedal terms as well as unscriptural concepts, such as: · A “Final (or) Last Judgment” – after which there will be no more judgment. (The Last Judgment was popularized by Michelangelo’s fresco on the wall of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican in Rome [A.D. 1534-1541].) · A “Final Advent (or) Coming of Christ” – after which there will be no more “comings” of Christ of any kind. · A “Final [physical] Resurrection” – after which there will be no more resurrection(s). It bears repeating; nowhere does Scripture ever mention a "final judgment," "last judgment," "final advent," "final coming," or "final resurrection." Nor does it tie anything like these into an unscriptural “end of time,” “end of the world,” or “end of history.” There are no such expressions or concepts in the Bible or in the creeds of the undivided church. This is a biblical fact that anyone familiar with a concordance can easily confirm.On the other hand, the judgments (plural) of God have been revealed many times and in many applications throughout Scripture - “thy judgments are a great deep” (Ps. 36:6). Similarly, the many comings/appearings (plural) of Jesus run like a thread throughout both the Old and New Testaments. They took many different forms and happened to many different people, in many different places, and for many different purposes. These intervention acts of Deity are, and always have been, intrinsic components of God’s kingdom. Likewise, Jesus added many “better resurrections” (plural) of believers to this kingdom.5 Then, upon his incarnation, Jesus brought into existence the new, final, and everlasting form of God’s kingdom, along with its “age to come.” Both this kingdom and age are without end (Isa. 9:7; Dan. 2:44; 7:14, 18, 27; Luke 1:33). And what’s true of the whole is true of the parts. It’s also a biblical fact that no verse of Scripture ever limits or terminates these occurrences and the ongoing nature of these three intrinsic components¾even following the Lord’s parousia in A.D.70.¾and neither should we. Their established realities and multiple, ongoing applications are comparable with that of salvation—i.e., salvation comes to many different everyday. Seraiah confuses matters even more, when he acknowledges that most end-time prophecy has already been fulfilled. But then he screens numerous end-time scriptures through his unbiblical “end-of-time” paradigm and is forced to conclude that there are: · Two “ends” – one in A.D. 70 that Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 and another at an unscriptural “end of time” that Paul was supposedly speaking about 1 Corinthians 15:23-25. [The Bible consistently proclaims only one end. Again, its defining characteristic and historical setting for “the time of the end” would be "when the power of the holy people has finally been broken..." (Dan. 12:4, 7).] · Two “parousias” (or two returns of Christ) – a spiritual one in A.D. 70 to destroy Jerusalem and to which “most of the passages in the New Testament…refer” (p-183), and a universally visible, final one at an “end of time”¾taken from passages containing no “near” time references.[This insistence on a physical/visible criteria for the Lord’s parousia/return is part of the deception of the elect (see Matt. 24:23-26). Jesus stated that this deception was possible back in the 1st century, when this event happened. It’s still a deception affecting the elect today.6] · Two “last days” periods – one in the 1st century and associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and Old Covenant Israel. Another after a protracted wait of thousands of years at a supposed “end of time” and the last days of the Church.[Because of this twofold mindset, Seraiah must pick and choose which scriptures to place with which “end,” with which “parousia,”and in which “last days” period. Hence, he is forced to weave in and out of the Bible’s divinely determined, appointed-time-of-the-end, time context - a daunting task.] A Daunting ‘at Hand’ Challenge Seraiah’s most-glaring and most-telling omission is, no doubt, his failure to address, hermeneutically and exegetically, the verse from which his book’s title is taken¾”But the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7 KJV). He merely asserts that this verse must be divided into two parts as he follows the dictates of his unscriptural “end-of-time” paradigm. Therefore, he insists that one end “is referring in this context to the end of all things in the Jewish age” (p-83). Then, he postulates an “ultimate end of all things” for some time yet in the future (p-84). Once again, this is purely a paradigm-driven interpretation and not good biblical hermeneutics.Throughout the New Testament, the Greek word engys, which is translated as “at hand” in KJV and “near” in other versions, is frequently employed. According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, it’s derived from the verb eggus meaning “to squeeze or throttle.” It’s an idiom and conveys the idea of graspable, sizeable, there or almost there for the taking. Jesus said: · “Behold, the hour is at hand” for his betrayal (Matt. 26:45). · The one who betrays me is “at hand” (Matt. 26:46). · “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15) and sent his Twelve disciples out to proclaim the same thing (Matt 10:7) · John said the Jews’ passover was “at hand” (John 11:55). Engys is the ultimate imminency idiom and consistent in its meaning. So what “end” was Peter talking about that was “at hand” back there and then? Please note, these are not complicated words. Peter did not say “the end of some things,” or “the middle of all things,” or “the first end.” Nor does he write of two ends or one end divided into two parts. He only mentioned a single “end of all things.” Ask yourself, if you were living back then, how would you have understood his words? And just how much of Peter’s statement was relevant to its original audience? Premillennialists answer “none of it.” Seraiah says, “most of it.” But we preterist adherents insist on “all of it.” Why the different answers? Again, it is because of different paradigms.Most notably, conservative biblical scholars confirm that every New Testament writer and the early Church expected this “end of all things” to occur in their lifetime, as they were guided by the Holy Spirit “into all truth” and told “what is yet to come” (John 16:13). So I ask, if history has proven that their expectations were wrong about this very significant issue, how can we trust them to convey other aspects of the faith along to us accurately? The first two lines of the old and familiar church song, Tis So Sweet, says it best: “Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at his word.” If we are willing just to take Jesus at his word, why not take Peter at his word, too, simply and plainly? Problem is, most interpreters have been unwilling to do that, literally. Why? One word¾paradigm. So in defense of his paradigm, Seraiah must ignore the many and consistent uses of “at hand” in the New Testament. He prefers, instead, to argue the meaning of “nearness” terms from the Hebrew of the Old Testament (pp-97-102). He suggests that there is “no justification” for applying nearness in all cases as an “exegetical method” in the New Testament. Almost unbelievably, he calls this consistency “possibly the most fatal flaw…”of the total past-fulfillment view. He further suggests that “if a text does not make any reference to “nearness,” we must not assume it…” (p-102). Apparently, Seraiah thinks he knows more about that 1st-century declaration, “the end of all things is at hand” (1Pet 4:7), than the New Testament writers themselves. But remember this; his understanding is driven by an unscriptural paradigm. Once again, this is why the exact, literal, chronological, and sequential fulfillment of Daniel’s two time prophecies is so important. It cuts right through this type of ambiguity and confusion. It frames the end times. Without Daniel, we could argue the meaning of “nearness” words and phases forever. Usurping the Historic “Preterist” Name In the book’s Introduction, Seraiah makes a bold attempt to usurp the historic term and name “preterist” for himself and those of his partial-preterist persuasion. He obligingly coins a new term for we full preterist adherents accused of “heresy.” He wants to call us “pantelist,” meaning “all is completed” (p-13), and hopes we might accept this reference. But we are not this naïve. We recognize this sleight-of-hand trick for what it is.First, the word “preterist” comes from the Latin praeter meaning “beyond” or “past.” This is the pure eschatological position we take ¾past in fulfillment without qualification. Seraiah adds the qualification of “mostly.” Therefore, the onus is on him to add an appropriate qualifier, such as “partial,” to accurately describe his preterist position. Secondly, Seraiah undoubtedly knows that we would suffer great disadvantage if we accept his newly coined “pantelist” label. By so doing, we would be disconnecting ourselves from the historic Preterist position of the historic Church. And since most Christians are extremely skeptical of anything “new,” our credibility in their eyes would be dealt a severe blow. Contrary to his assertion, we affirm that the term and name “preterist” is sufficient to define the position of past fulfillment. Historically, this term has been used to distinguish both preterist groups¾partials and fulls. Moreover, most the preterist adherents I know began by becoming “partial preterists” or “preterist-in-process.” Therefore, we welcome all partial preterists and encourage them to keep studying and considering the advantages that the full Preterist position offers. For one, it stops the liberal/skeptic attack on the Bible dead in its tracks. (For more, click on my book Dead In Their Tracks on this site’s home page). On Resurrection It is not surprising that Seraiah finds it impossible to comprehend how all resurrection promises were bodily fulfilled and this redemptive reality made everlastingly available at the “time of the end.” This is the resurrection view presented in my booklet, Your Resurrection Body and Life, Here, Now, and Forever and enhanced and expanded in my Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion. But my view of resurrection fulfillment and reality is not by all past-fulfillment Preterists.Saddled with his unscriptural “end-of-time” paradigm and the grotesque notion of long-decayed corpses rising up out of earthen graves, Seraiah can only conclude that resurrection has not yet happened. But rather than completely restate my position on bodily resurrection, I will only address ten key and faulty conclusions on Seraiah’s part. Each is followed by my short response. 1.) For starters, Seraiah totally misrepresents my booklet on resurrection. He writes that I produced a booklet “criticizing [R.C.] Sproul’s [Sr.] discussion of the resurrection” (p 151). Response – I know of no such criticism on any of its pages. Quite the opposite is true. My booklet’s Introduction is even titled, “Thank You R.C. Sproul” and is most complimentary. Seraiah’s misrepresentation must be called for what is apparently is¾more shame. 2.) He chides pantelists (his term for Preterists who believe all prophecy was fulfilled) for only advocating a spiritual resurrection in A.D. 70., for minimizing resurrection to something nonphysical, and for denying the orthodox resurrection. Response – I believe and have written that biblical resurrection is “bodily” with both spiritual and physical attributes. 3.) Seraiah states, “there is a wealth of passages that proves the orthodox understanding of the [physical] resurrection…at the end of time” (pp-105, 114). Response – Not only does the Bible never mention an “end of time,” it also never uses the terminology “physical resurrection,” “resurrected body,” “resurrection of the body,” “resurrection of the flesh,” or “spiritual resurrection,”¾and for good reason. These phrases are inadequate and inappropriate to describe this phenomenon. Instead, the Bible only uses two inspired phrases, “the resurrection of the dead” and “resurrection from the dead.” Seraiah still insists on the unscriptural wording “physical resurrection.” But bodily resurrection via a “spiritual body” which God gives is real resurrection and biblical and bodily (1Cor 15:38, 44). What is this body like? It is like Jesus’ resurrected body.7 4.) Seraiah makes a completely ridiculous and easily refutable statement, “death is always portrayed in Scripture as a horrible and unnatural experience; it is never seen as something that God lovingly created as a blessing for the believer” (p-147). Response – Oh? What about Revelation 14:13: Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”5.) He succumbs to the unbiblical idea of a future raising of old decayed physical corpses from earthen graves (as do the Premillennialists). Response – Seraiah brushes over Paul’s teaching to the contrary. “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else” (1 Cor. 15:37). To get around Paul’s statement, Seraiah claims Paul meant, “If our physical body dies, it must grow into another physical form” (p-137). But that is not what Paul said. Paul clarified what he meant and cleared up any possible confusion by using a seed analogy. One of the prime points of this analogy¾and one which Seraiah totally misses or tries to avoid¾is, the outer shell of a seed stays in the ground and decays. It does not become part of the new plant substance. By analogy, this outer shell compares with our physical body. It, too, stays in the ground and does not become part of the “spiritual body” that God gives (1 Cor. 15:38, 44-46).8 But Seraiah refuses to accept this obvious parallel. Hence, he arbitrarily dismisses Paul’s seed analogy by saying, “Such a crucial doctrine as this cannot be relegated to a shakey (sic – his misspelling not mine) interpretation of an analogy” (p-147). Too bad the Apostle Paul didn’t know this. Seraiah surmises that “the [whole] seed becomes the plant, at which point there is no longer a seed…in the same way, our bodies will be redeemed…” (p-160). Yet no seed germinates in this manner. Seraiah’s cursory and inadequate treatment of Paul’s seed analogy is a glaring hermeneutical omission in his “physical resurrection” position. 6.) Seraiah falsely defines my view of post A.D. 70 resurrection to mean “going to Hades and coming back out” (p-161). Response – Nowhere do I say this. Seraiah contrives it and attributes it to me¾more of Seraiah’s shame. To the contrary, Hades was closed down, locked up, and is no longer relevant after the “last day” (singular) of “these last days” (plural – Heb. 1:2). The hermeneutical association of the biblical “last day” with the biblical “last days” of the Old Covenant, animal-sacrifice, type-and-shadow, biblical Judaic age and system (1 Cor 7:31) must be maintained. And because of Christ’s completed redemptive work, from that “last day” on, believers have been forever freed from going to that Old Covenant holding place of the dead. 7.) I believe that Seraiah is equally erroneous in contending that “Since the day Christ ascended into heaven [in A.D. 30], believers have been ushered immediately into the presence of Christ at their death” (p-148). Response – He totally ignores Jesus’ statements to the contrary in John 3:13; 13:33, 36; 14:1-3.9 His and this coming again was a definite prerequisite to heaven being opened. Inspired New Testament writers were still anticipating it as yet-future as they wrote some 20 to 30 years later. Similarly, in both Philippians 1:21-24 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul was only expressing his desire, a yearning, or a preference about dying and being present with the Lord. Let’s not make more of this than Paul did.10 8.) Seraiah is forced to conclude that those saints now in heaven are in a disembodied bodiless form (p-165), and are still awaiting another or the ultimate “last day” when their original souls will be reunited with their revived physically dead old bodies for all eternity. Response – Not one verse of Scripture verse supports this bodiless conclusion. Like the paradigm that drives it, this conclusion and its “intermediate state” assumption are unscriptural.11 9.) He further claims that this resurrection event will be a “single, universal, unrepeatable event like Christ’s” (p-149) after which there will be no more. Response – First, Christ was the only one ever promised his self-same body back. That promise was made only for the Messiah and for no one else (Ps 16:10; 49:9; Acts 2:25, 27, also 31). This biblical fact is a major point made in my book. Yet Seraiah ignores it. Yes, we get a “spiritual body” and it is like Christ’s. But our physical bodies are not raised like his body was.12 Secondly and regarding the idea of a single and terminating resurrection event, Paul followed his famous resurrection passage (1 Thess. 4:13-18) by saying, “Now, brothers, about times and dates…” (1 Thess. 5:1). Why the plural times and dates? This is no mere slip of the pen or whim of the writer. It’s because there are many occurrences. And ever since Resurrection Day in A.D. 70, each saint receives his or her resurrection spiritual body immediately after physical death¾each in his/her own turn/order.13 10.) Seraiah and some of his colleagues have attempted to associate we all preterist adherents who believe the biblical resurrection of the dead occurred in the 1st-century with the error or heresy of Hymeneaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 17-18) (p158). Response – After the “last day” in A.D. 70, this is a bogus charge. Hymeneaeus’ and Philetus’ error was one of timing. But who can blame them for arriving at this assumption? Most likely, they personally witnessed, or at least heard about, this spectacular resurrection parade through the streets of Jerusalem: “the bodies of many [not all] holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matt. 27:51-53) Let’s also recall that 2 Timothy was written prior to A.D. 70. and prior to the resurrection that came on the biblical “last day” (singular) of the “last days” (plural). Therefore after A.D. 70, believing that “the resurrection” has taken place is no longer error. It’s part of our Christian heritage. Furthermore, literal and bodily resurrections are still taking place, immediately after physical death (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 5:1; Phil. 1:6).Conclusion – The Bottom Line According to R.C. Sproul Sr., “It has been argued that no less than two thirds of the content of the New Testament is concerned directly or indirectly with eschatology.”14 Other scholars estimate that 25% to 30% of the whole Bible is so concerned. Hence, the study of end-time Bible prophecy is not a fringe issue. One’s particular view, non-view, or confusion about its fulfillment will greatly impact one’s understanding, or lack of understanding, of many other things in the Bible.The bottom line is, eschatology (its events and consummated realities) is a hermeneutical issue, but it’s also a paradigm problem. Seraiah’s book is a classic case in point. As long as he and other partial preterists are hamstrung by an unscriptural, contrived, and false “end-of-time” paradigm, they will always find the full preterist view of past fulfillment of all end-time prophecy senseless. “The end of all things” must be understood, hermeneutically, as “at hand”¾within the terminology and time parameters, divinely and consistently, imposed by Scripture upon itself (1 Pet. 4:7). Obviously, much more could have been addressed in this brief review and response. I’ll leave that to my colleagues. I’m sure some of them will not sit quietly by and let many of Seraiah’s other assertions and accusations go unchallenged. But please be assured, I find nothing in Seraiah’s false-paradigm-driven arguments that gives me cause for pause nor a scriptural corrective warranting a change of anything I’ve written and had published, regarding the A.D.70 return of Christ, bodily resurrection, judgment, and the fulfillment of all end-time prophecy. [Since this was written my position on A.D. 70 being the “return” of Christ has changed. Click on “He Never Left” booklet on this site’s home page.] My sincere hope is that Mr. Seraiah and R.C. Sproul Jr. would read my book, BEYOND THE END TIMES: The Rest of…The Greatest Story Ever Told. I believe this book would help them see how well grounded our hermeneutics truly are and how solid our biblical paradigm truly is. Consistently, the Bible proclaims only one “end.” That end is behind us and not ahead of us. Its end time is past and not future. My greater hope and earnest prayer, however, for these brothers in Christ and others of their persuasion is that they would repent and receive forgiveness for their shameful treatment of fellow Christians. Otherwise, I would not want to be them at the time of their individual judgment (Heb 9:27). In conclusion, the Preterist view that all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled is, in my opinion and in the opinion of a growing number of others, the most Christ-honoring, Scripture-authenticating, and faith-validating of the six major end-time positions in the historic Church. [But I no longer find it sufficient. Instead I now advocate a Preterist-Idealist position]. All end-time events were flawlessly accomplished and all redemptive realities everlastingly established by A.D. 70, “in the fullness of time” in that 1st-century period biblically also known as the "last days." The challenge for us today is to better understand all that Christ has done on our behalf¾and done within the time parameters Scripture consistently imposes upon itself. [And, as well, what He continues to do.] If this puts us outside Mr. Seraiah’s and Sproul Jr.’s understanding of what is orthodox, so be it. Perhaps, what needs to be done is to better determine and define exactly what is “orthodox” in regards to “the end of all things?” 1 Published by Canon Press, Moscow, Idaho, 1999 2 Seraiah specifically interacted with my booklet titled, Your Resurrection Body and Life, Here, Now and Forever (Fishers, IN: The Prophecy Reformation Institute, 1999). It has been rewritten and re-released as a book by the International Preterist Association under the new title, Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion. Also cited were Stevens Response to Gentry, by Edward E. Stevens (Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publications, 1997) and Overcoming Sproul’s Resurrection Obstacles, by Daniel E. Harden, (Bradford, PA: Kingdom Publications, 1999). 3 For more, see my book BEYOND THE END TIMES: The Rest of…The Greatest Story Ever Told, chapters 6, 7, and 8. 4 For more, see Ibid, chapter 3. Some might have cited Revelation 10:6 – “…that there should be time no longer” (KJV) or “…”There will be no more delay” (NIV). Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in a footnote on p-134 of his book, Before Jerusalem Fell, explains that this phrase is a “temporal expectation” and an “internal indicator of time in Revelation.” It is also part of the whole of the prophecy which was “at hand” (Rev 1:3; 22:10), “things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev 1:1; 22:6), and not to be seal up in the lives of its original recipients (Rev 1:10). 5 See chapters 3 and 4 in Your Resurrection Body and Life or in Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion. 6 Futurists argue that this portion of Christ’s Olivet Discourse only refers to “false Christs” of that time, and not to Christ’s visible appearance sometime in the future. I disagree. See Beyond the End Times, pp-218-219, and 198-200. 7 See Your Resurrection Body and Life booklet or Shattering the ‘Left Behind’ Delusion, chapter 5. 8 For more, see Ibid, chapter 5. 9 For more, see Shattering, pp-33-34. 10 For more, see Ibid, pp-93-99. 11 For more, see Ibid, chapter 5. 12 For more, see Ibid, pp-143-145. 13 For more, see Ibid, pp-99-101. 14 R.C. Sproul Sr., “A Journey Back in Time,” Tabletalk, January 1999, p-5. |
|||
|