What is your justification for believing in a God?

[deluxe]

The rest of that post is worthless preaching. You sound like a parishioner leading a sunday school class. I wonder if that's how you talk in real life.

 

Though what I said is accurate. That is how it works.

 

No, Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli, not Mary. Care to try again?

 

 

Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

 

I don't need to try again.

 

What I said for both of these answers stands.

[Iggy]

Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

 

I don't need to try again.

 

What I said for both of these answers stands.

You haven't answered either. Please curtail the gibberish if you want to converse.

 

These versus contradict each other:

 

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of

Joseph, which was the son of Heli

(Luke 3:23)

 

And

Jacob begat Joseph

the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16)

 

Luke says that Heli is the father of Joseph -- it does not say that Heli is the father of Mary. I don't know where you got that idea but as you can plainly see it is false.

[deluxe]

iggy wrote

Luke says that Heli is the father of Joseph -- it does not say that Heli is the father of Mary. I don't know where you got that idea but as you can plainly see it is false.

 

 

The father of Mary and maternal grandfather of Jesus Christ. (Lu 3:23) Joseph's being called the "son of Heli" is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli.

 

Luke did this before with ( Luke 3:27) refering to Jeconiah's son Shealtiel as the son of Neri? Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel. However, Neri gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife. Luke referred to Neri's son-in-law as Neri's son just as he did in the case of Joseph, calling him the son of Mary's father, Heli.—Luke 3:23.

 

Luke 3:23

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

 

 

The Ancestors of Jesus

 

(Matthew 1.1-17)

²³When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli,

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Luke 3:23

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

 

 

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

²³ As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be ^[a] the

son of Joseph, [son] ^[b] of Heli,

 

 

Footnotes:

1. Luke 3:23 People did not know about His virgin birth; [Lk 1:26-38]; [Mt 1:18-25]
2. Luke 3:23 The relationship in some cases may be more distant than a son.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Luke 3:23

New Century Version (NCV)

 

 

The Family History of Jesus

²³ When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph's son.

Joseph was the son^[a] of Heli.

 

Footnotes:

1. Luke 3:23 son "Son" in Jewish lists of ancestors can sometimes mean grandson or more distant relative.

 

So if you check out the foot notes , this is consistent, with the way Luke comments on this.

Luke did this same thing with Jeconiah's son Shealtiel.( son in law)

Edited October 3, 2011 by deluxe

[Iggy]

Joseph's being called the "son of Heli" is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli.

Before I explain how ridiculous that is, can you tell me where the bible says the following?...

 

However, Neri gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife.

I will apologize profusely if I am wrong, but I suspect it is a complete fabrication -- completely made up. If the bible nowhere says that Neri gave a daughter to Shealtiel I will seriously question your intellectual honesty.

[deluxe]

No need to apologize, this can be very confusing, most because how the lines of decent were done back then. It can be read many different ways. And how women were considered at that time, when it came to the line of decent.

I could find no other reference in the bible on this.

 

 

 

 

 

Prof. M.M.Ninan THE PROBLEM OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS

 

 

3.4.1 Jeconiah, Neri and Shaelthiel

However the problem is solved with the assumption of levirate custom. Jeconiah was carried away as a prisoner and his queen was also taken as captive. But it is unlikely that she was put in prison with the King. Women were never considered important enough to be put in prison and that would

have been considered improper Babylonian culture. It is therefore normal to expect her to follow the levirate

custom as the King was in the babylonian prison and unable to procreate and keep his name in the tribe. There

was no knowing whether he would ever come out of the prison alive. But he did after 37 years. I would plaace

him at 55 years old when he was released. So it is quite reasonable to assume that Neri took the Queen and

begat children for Jeconiah. Neri was of the same tribe and family of David and therefore the Kinsman of

Jeconiah

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/409755/Genealogy-of-Jesus

 

So there is no contradiction, it is just a study of the genealogy of that time.

[Phi for All]

The father of Mary and maternal grandfather of Jesus Christ. (Lu 3:23) Joseph's being called the "son of Heli" is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli.

Is the above a good example of this:

 

The genius of the bible is that it interprets itself, that is why the bible says there is one interpretation and it is from God.

... or is it a bad example?

 

And do I believe the above statement or this:

 

It can be read many different ways.

... because they seem to say different things. One interpretation, or can it be read many different ways?

[doG]

However, Neri gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife.

You failed to cite the verse where this is written. Still waiting.....

[deluxe]

Is the above a good example of this:

 

 

... or is it a bad example?

 

And do I believe the above statement or this:

 

 

... because they seem to say different things. One interpretation, or can it be read many different ways?

 

We were talking about genealogy. If you look at the way the Jews kept there records, they are accurate. But their concern was for Jesus to come in the correct line. But things can happen, where maybe you do not have sons, or you may have only daughters. In that time they used the word 'son' a lot different than we do today. At least in North America.

It's really a matter of which way the writer, used the lists. They are accurate, for their way of looking at it.

So there is no contradiction in this at all.

 

You failed to cite the verse where this is written. Still waiting.....

Actually I should have said there that it was a strong possibility, that Shealtiel was given Neri's daughter.

 

SALATHIEL (.7.aXaBti7X, answering to the Heb. asked of God), the father of . Zerubbabel (Matt. i. 12 ; Luke iii. 27 ; comp. Ezra iii. 2 ; Neh. xii. ; Hag. i. 14 • 11. 2). In the genealogy of our Lord given by Matthew he appears as the son of Jeconiah ; in that given by Luke lie is the son of Neri. With Matthew ac cords Chron. 17. It thus appears that in some sense Salathiel was reckoned the son both of Jeconiah and of Neri. There are two ways of ac counting for this : either he was really the son of Jeconiah, and was counted for a son to Neri from having married his daughter ; or he was really the son of Neri, and was counted the son of Jeconiah from having succeeded to him on the failure of the line of descent from Solomon through him. The former is the more probable hypothesis ; the state ment of both the Chronicler and St. Matthew lead ing to the conclusion that Jeconiah was the real father of Salathiel, and there being no evidence of any failure of the line of descent in Jeconiah's family through his having no sons, seeing he had not fewer than seven besides Salathiel. It has Indeed been said that the 'supposition that the son and heir of David and Solomon would be called the son of Neri, an obscure individual, because he had married Neri's daughter, is too absurd to need refutation' (Smith's Dia of the Bible, art. 'Neri'). But this is said without reason. For—r. Though Neri malbe an obscure individual' to us, it by no means follows that he was so to his contempo raries ; 2. He is not more obscure than Salathiel ; we know as much of the one as of the other ; 3. He was as much a descendant of David as was Jeconiah, so that his daughter would be a fitting match for Jeconiah's son ; 4. Supposing Salathiel the son of Jeconiah married Nen s daughter he could not help being his legal son, and, if Ned 'had no other son, he would of course be reckoned in the genealogies as the son of Neri, however obscure the latter might have been. From all which it appears that the absurdity' exists only in the fancy of the critic, and does not attach to the sup position he criticises.—W. L. A. .

 

http://www.magnumarc.../Salathiel.html

 

 

The point of all this is that the bible is not in contradiction. The scriptures are correct. You do have to do some research to find out how the Jews did their lineages.

 

 

 

 

 

So what the bible says is absolutely correct.

Edited October 4, 2011 by deluxe

[Iggy]

No need to apologize, this can be very confusing, most because how the lines of decent were done back then.

There is no confusion. You presented a complete fabrication as a cited biblical account. I'll assume you did so by accident based on further comments you made saying that you misspoke. And, as long as I'm assuming you're a penitent Christian, I'll go ahead and assume that your implication that I'm somehow confused is your way of thanking me for astutely correcting your honest accident.

 

But their concern was for Jesus to come in the correct line.

That is an interesting admission you make. Luke and Matthew also disagree on the story of the nativity. Would you again say that the author's concern was that Jesus "of Nazareth" be born in Bethlehem. It's almost like we have two different witnesses in two different rooms giving wildly different stories to support the main points of a mutual alibi.

 

If you look at the way the Jews kept there records, they are accurate.

I wouldn't feel comfortable taking your word on this. There are many genealogies in the bible. Can you give some examples where a confirmed (not fabricated) father-in-law is called "father" in a genealogy? For example, if there were a genealogy which said "Jethro begat Moses" -- that type of thing.

 

If that is how they did it, then can we have some examples of them doing it?

[deluxe]

There is no confusion. You presented a complete fabrication as a cited biblical account. I'll assume you did so by accident based on further comments you made saying that you misspoke. And, as long as I'm assuming you're a penitent Christian, I'll go ahead and assume that your implication that I'm somehow confused is your way of thanking me for astutely correcting your honest accident.

 

 

That is an interesting admission you make. Luke and Matthew also disagree on the story of the nativity. Would you again say that the author's concern was that Jesus "of Nazareth" be born in Bethlehem. It's almost like we have two different witnesses in two different rooms giving wildly different stories to support the main points of a mutual alibi.

 

 

I wouldn't feel comfortable taking your word on this. There are many genealogies in the bible. Can you give some examples where a confirmed (not fabricated) father-in-law is called "father" in a genealogy? For example, if there were a genealogy which said "Jethro begat Moses" -- that type of thing.

 

If that is how they did it, then can we have some examples of them doing it?

 

I have given 2 examples so far.

 

This is interesting.

 

1 Timothy 1:4

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 

 

⁴neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which promote questions rather than godly edifying in the faith, so do!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 1:4

Amplified Bible (AMP)

 

⁴Nor to give importance to or occupy themselves with legends (fables, myths) and endless genealogies, which foster and promote useless speculations and questionings rather than acceptance in faith of God's administration and the divine training that is in faith (^[a]in that leaning of the entire human personality on God in absolute trust and confidence)--

 

 

 

Footnotes:

1. 1 Timothy 1:4 Alexander Souter, Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

The Jew had blood lines, they also had legal lines, and sometimes they left out a number of generations there lists, because of important occurrences.

 

 

It is interesting, that God knew that , for some people, it was not the truths they were interested in, but, were interseted in useless speculations and questionings.

Besides the researcher's into this have given reasonable, evdience as to what happened back then.

 

 

 

Do you remember when I said the bible interprets itself.

 

 

 

[Iggy]

I have given 2 examples so far.

I could give 100 fabricated examples. That's not what I asked for. Read my question and get back to me if you have an example, otherwise your "that's how Jews did their genealogy" point will just be something else that's apparently made up.

[deluxe]

I could give 100 fabricated examples. That's not what I asked for. Read my question and get back to me if you have an example, otherwise your "that's how Jews did their genealogy" point will just be something else that's apparently made up.

Actually this is not made up, it is a fact the the Jews looked at the records in different ways, because Jesus was coming so they were very careful in that. Also Son's were considered differntly in their day than we do today. There is the same sort of thing with the natives. When it comes to is entitled monies from the government, if a woman mairred a white man, and they lived off the reserve, their children were not considered native any more. So they were taken off the registry.

 

None of this is made up, the bible is correct in what it said. People just have to understand at what point of view it was looked at. I have given you plenty of evidence. It is known that the Jews did it this way.

People definitely can not say the bible was wrong, or inaccurate., or contradicted itself.

The bible also correct when it says endless genealogies, which foster and promote useless speculations and questionings. God knew the ones that will support him will have all these kind of useless speculations and questionings, . The people at that time knew all about these genealogies . It is only centuries, later when people did not understand or take into account how and why the Jews did their records the way they did. So if some want to look at this useless speculations and questionings as a small fulfillment of prophecy, they can.

But no one can claim this is a contradiction. But if some don't want to accept it then that is up to them. They just fulfill prophecy.

[Iggy]

Actually this is not made up

Actually, every point you've made appears to be completely made up. Nowhere does the bible say that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. Not only is that completely fabricated, it is further fabricated that Jews often list a father-in-law as a father in their genealogies. You've stacked lie upon lie to try and cover up what is clearly an obvious contradiction.

 

Also Son's were considered differntly in their day than we do today.

I seriously doubt this as well. Both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew have words for father-in-law and son-in-law and they are used liberally in the bible.

 

Luke says exactly the opposite of your fabricated lie. Why do you feel the need to lie about what the bible says?

 

None of this is made up, the bible is correct in what it said.

The bible is correct when it said that Jacob was the father of Joseph and the bible was correct when it said that Heli was the father of Joseph... and that is no contradiction... What more is there to say...?

 

Your faith is beyond reason.

[deluxe]

In true Jewish tradition, as we have already seen, the Bible does not say anything to distinguish between genetic birth and adoption. In this case it is not even possible to tell from the context who is the genetic father of Zerubbabel and who is the adoptive father.

 

This, of course, provides the answer to all the Jewish anti-missionary groups that try to ridicule Christians with the suggestion that if the New Testament can't even get the genealogy of Yeshua right, how can we believe anything else it says? They should be aware that the same apparent contradictions occur in the Tanakh, for the same reasons. Not only do we have two different fathers of Zerubbabel, but we have also seen how Michal, the daughter of Saul, was childless until the day of her death, yet she bore five sons to Adriel.

 

 

http://www.annomundi...irgin_birth.htm

 

iggy you will like this one because it uses the 1-2-3 scenario, you used in your post.

 

 

If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are the same,

Then the facts we have to keep in mind are:

1. The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be a blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above.
2. The verses above name Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the son of Neri
3. The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel.

We will have to assume the following, which are actually not entirely described in the Bible:

 

• (a) Salathiel was the biological son of Jechonias. This makes (2.) halfway true.
• (b) Salathiel died without child, but left behind a widow
• © Pedaiah was Salathiel's brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true.
• (d) Pedaiah can not be Salathiel's biological brother, since then he would be the biological son of Jechonias and therefore Zorobabel would become biological grandson of Jechonias and violate (1.) Therefore Pedaiah has to be only adopted son of Jechonias and only half brother of Salathiel. This makes (1.) true.
• (e) Jechonias has to have Neri's daughter as a wife, and this way we can call Salathiel as son of Neri, referring to his grandfather through his mother. This makes (2.) true.
• (f) Pedaiah has to be a son of Neri's daughter. This way he can be called as son of Jechonias when (e) happens and Pedaiah becomes Jechonias' adopted son as it is required by (d)

The assumptions between (a) and (f) could be shown with the following family tree:

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are NOT the same,

Then the facts we have to keep in mind are:

 

1. The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above.
   This is automatically true.
2. The verses above name one Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the other Salathiel a son of Neri
   This is automatically true.
3. The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel.

The only thing we have to assume is:

 

• (a) Salathiel (Jechonias' son) died without child, but left behind a widow
• (b) Pedaiah was Salathiel's biological brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true.

This could be shown with the following family tree:

 

 

 

Zorobabel and Salathiel Answer

There are only two reasons to assume that the two persons listed in Matthew's genealogy are the same as in Luke's:

 

1. They lived approximately during the same time
2. Their names were rarely used

As we compare the two possible answers above, we can conclude that we stay closer to the facts described in the Bible if we accept that the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew's genealogy are NOT the same as the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Luke's list.

 

Missing names in Matthew's genealogy

Matthew's list leaves out Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim from the generations of the kings. The reason for why their names were omitted is not known, but as we can see throughout the Bible, the terms "son", "father" and "begat" are not always used literally.

Because of this, the list is still correct and does not contradict the Old Testament genealogies: 1Chr 3:11-16

 

 

 

 

http://www.complete-...gy_of_jesus.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not make any of this up , it is common knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

[Iggy]

I did not make any of this up

I never said you made it up. It would clearly take a creative mind some time to manufacture what you just quoted.

[Realitycheck]

Are you all trying to prove that the genetic line of Jesus was Jewish or something? I happened to read that the line of Eve was proven to be Jewish, which was something of a surprise, and since the line of the mother is all that matters in Jewish law, I guess that settles it. What's the big deal? Still doesn't explain talking serpents, living hundreds of years, the exact nature of God "supposedly" talking to them, parting waters, turning the Nile red, sticks to snakes, etc. If God made us in his image, he was made in our image? Who bore God? Where did he come from? And this man gave form to the heaven and earth, breathing life into it, etc? Doesn't really make sense compared to the other heavens and earths. But I'm listening. All of this geneological stuff is really off-topic and irrelevant to what drives people to believe in an omnipotent, yet invisible God.

 

I guess the God of today bears little resemblance to that of old, but I guess with all of the different names and forms of the God of old, it's kind of hard to pin him down into one likeness.

[deluxe]

Are you all trying to prove that the genetic line of Jesus was Jewish or something? I happened to read that the line of Eve was proven to be Jewish, which was something of a surprise, and since the line of the mother is all that matters in Jewish law, I guess that settles it. What's the big deal? Still doesn't explain talking serpents, living hundreds of years, the exact nature of God "supposedly" talking to them, parting waters, turning the Nile red, sticks to snakes, etc. If God made us in his image, he was made in our image? Who bore God? Where did he come from? And this man gave form to the heaven and earth, breathing life into it, etc? Doesn't really make sense compared to the other heavens and earths. But I'm listening. All of this geneological stuff is really off-topic and irrelevant to what drives people to believe in an omnipotent, yet invisible God.

 

I guess the God of today bears little resemblance to that of old, but I guess with all of the different names and forms of the God of old, it's kind of hard to pin him down into one likeness.

 

Actually man has a talking horse, Mister Ed. and other barn yard animals. You are talking a a creator that created the universe and all life. That also means all the laws of nature.

So what you have to do is show, that the bible, is Gods word and can be relied on. Does it explain what we see, about man today and in the past?

[Iggy]

Are you all trying to prove that the genetic line of Jesus was Jewish or something?

Deluxe was explaining that the two genealogies in the NT that try to establish that Jesus comes from the line of David are consistent.

 

Actually man has a talking horse, Mister Ed. and other barn yard animals.

Did Mr. Ed just get issued as evidence of talking snakes? I'm literally as speechless as that crazy talking horse!

[Realitycheck]

I don't have to show anything. You're the one making all of the unverifiable claims. All of my beliefs are in accordance with generally accepted scientific principles. There's nothing preventing my beliefs from being the product of nothing more than circumstance, a filtered chain of events of simple cause and effect set back against a background of infinitely more undesirable, unfortunate, unimportant minutaie, unanswered prayers until the next best alternative comes along. I make no claims that the Bible is true word-for-word, in its entirety, holding up logic and facts over emotion and symbollism, fantasy even, that God saves people by any mechanism more than their ability to save themselves. I do not deny that a creator exists, unexplainable and unfathomable to all, just the version of events set forth. It's only your own law which keeps you from fixing it. It's not my law that forces me to believe in that which is improvable, setting myself up for failure. Most every prayer is answered to the extent that it is answerable, and even then, there's no guarantee. What guarantees that it was anything more than luck? Ask yourself, why doesn't it make sense? Why isn't it provable? It's a small consolation that 40% of the people in the world's most advanced country have come to realize. Or are we supposed to go back to burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the obvious facts of tested science and glorifying figments of our imagination and nonexistent parchment and stories told around the fire over the constant tried and true? I'll take reason over irrational any day.

[deluxe]

Deluxe was explaining that the two genealogies in the NT that try to establish that Jesus comes from the line of David are consistent.

 

 

Did Mr. Ed just get issued as evidence of talking snakes? I'm literally as speechless as that crazy talking horse!

If man can do it why not Satan? I knew a man that could throw his voice, he drove a little dog nuts because it couldn't find where the barking was comming from. It really was unusual.

[Iggy]

If man can do it why not Satan?

If man can climb down a chimney then why not Santa Claus?

 

You assume that snakes can talk because you assume that Satan is real the same way that a child assumes that someone from the north pole can leave them presents because Santa Claus is real.

 

The evidence is against articulate snakes and elves living at the north pole. Do you follow?

[deluxe]

If man can climb down a chimney then why not Santa Claus?

 

You assume that snakes can talk because you assume that Satan is real the same way that a child assumes that someone from the north pole can leave them presents because Santa Claus is real.

 

The evidence is against articulate snakes and elves living at the north pole. Do you follow?

We even have Parrots that talk. But that isn't what this was. It was Satan talking through the snake to Eve. The snake had nothing against Eve, it didn't know how to talk. Or did it have any thoughts on good and bad. Or what the test was with Adam and Eve.

 

 

Revelation 12:9

Amplified Bible (AMP)

 

⁹And the huge dragon was cast down and out--that age-old serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, he who is the seducer (deceiver) of all humanity the world over; he was forced out and down to the earth, and his angels were flung out along with him.

 

This scripture tell us that it was Satan who seduced Eve. It was Satan through the use of a serpent, that talked to Eve.

 

 

Matthew 23:33-36

Common English Bible (CEB)

 

³³ You snakes! You children of snakes! How will you be able to escape the judgment of hell? ³⁴ Therefore, look, I’m sending you prophets, wise people, and legal experts. Some of them you will kill and crucify. And some you will beat in your synagogues and chase from city to city. ³⁵ Therefore, upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been poured out on the earth, from the blood of that righteous man Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. ³⁶ I assure you that all these things will come upon this generation

 

This talking about the Pharisees, saying they are children of Satan ( serpent). Now the Pharisees were not literal snakes. They are called that because, they followed the original serpent ( snake) Satan. And Satan is called the serpent ( snake) becasue he used the snake to deceive Eve. The snake didn't talk, it was Satan using the snake.

[doG]

We even have Parrots that talk.

No we don't. Parrots are simply birds that mimic just like mocking birds. Would you say we have parrots that ring simply because they mimic the sound of a ringing phone?

[deluxe]

No we don't. Parrots are simply birds that mimic just like mocking birds. Would you say we have parrots that ring simply because they mimic the sound of a ringing phone?

 

Parrots can talk. You can understand what they say. They may only say what they learn to say , but they still talk. Babies do the same thing. Gradually they learn to use speech, to express their ideas, but at first they just say what they have been taught to say.

[doG]

Parrots can talk. You can understand what they say. They may only say what they learn to say , but they still talk. Babies do the same thing. Gradually they learn to use speech, to express their ideas, but at first they just say what they have been taught to say.

No. Babies learn the meaning of the words they are taught. Parrots just learn to copy sounds they hear. I've got two of them and they don't understand any of the words they vocalize and it is evident since they never use them in any correct context. One of them says 'good morning' every time I come in the front door, at any time of day. He is not expressing any idea, he is just making a sound. Sometimes the sound is a word and sometimes it is one of the sounds of my cell phone, my microwave, my doorbell, etc.