The Gospel according to Jesus

[drpepper]

Jan 10, 2010 14:56:52 GMT naz said:

Jan 10, 2010 6:56:30 GMT tar said:

naz,

If, and this is an if, for discussion purposes, to better understand your thinking, Jesus was refering to his own projection of his own consciousness, onto the universe, when he spoke of the father, and his own will and ideals when speaking of heaven, could he not have uttered the same words?

Regards, TAR

Jesus was a liberal. God a conservative. How do Christians reconcile these two conflicting philosophies. If they were both God.
P.S. And is the comment about the rich man and the camel going through the eye of a needle not more of a social and political comment, that one would expect from a man, than the kind of directive one would expect from an objective creator being?

I'm not sure I fully follow either of your questions. What I am most interested in understanding is Jesus' own thinking. I don't think he was thinking what you suggested.

I think Jesus was totally right about the rich. Their preoccupation with wealth was not in harmony with the spiritually centered lifestyle Jesus was proposing.

[naz]

What makes you think God was a conservative? Or Jesus a liberal? Actually some things Jesus taught were more conservative than the Pharisees in a sense. Although "stricter" might be a better word.

[tar]

naz,

Don't think the universe has a political party. Don't think the universe has a point of view. People however do. If a religion expouses a point of view, its a human one its expousing.

Regards, TAR

[tar]

naz,

Interesting thing about all the religions I have run into. They all seem to have a common theme where the leaders have a special understanding or a special connection with the universe or God, and because of this, validate their authority over certain resources and actions of their followers. The leaders usurp the power and authority of the universe and call it their's. Political power.

Regards, TAR

[slamminsam]

Jan 8, 2010 15:05:44 GMT ydoaPs said:

Care to offer your answer?

Jan 8, 2010 7:16:23 GMT slamminsam said:

ydoaPs, i think I've read a book...with a similar theme.

The Bible?

No, dawg.
There's a book out there called The Gospel According to Jesus and I'm pretty sure it's about this very subject-what Jesus meant to say.

[limbicloser]

Jan 6, 2010 1:48:26 GMT ydoaPs said:

What is the 'good news' about which Jesus spoke? Support your answer.

A good and hard question, problem, and, might I add, a very good response to it (see ydoaps' post number 2). Additionally, some fair, good, and more thinkably correct (in various ways) points have since been made; as I see it.

I would like to point out that care must be taken in collecting our basics, as a platform of sorts, from which to wander off into this particular inquiry; and wish to restate some, and expound on a few others here, firstly (if I may):

1. practically all of anything on the content of what this one particular Yeshua would have been teaching is to be found in the texts of believers. This will equally include not only documents which have made it into our present day canon, but those which have not; such as gospel of the Nazareans, ospel of the Ebionites, the gospel according to the Hebrews, the coptic gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi; Papyrus Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy.) 1, 654, 655), the unknown gospel (Egerton Papyrus (P. Egerton 2, and P. Koln 255, etc, etc. Even in Flavius Josephus, the more likely spurious comment about this particular Yeshua give us no indication of message content to speak of. (Antiqities of the Jews XVIII.III.3)

For this reason, care must be taken to extract what can more considerably be seen as the actually message, teaching of Yeshua--as opposed, more usually, to the later central (but pre-Eusebius) church's 'correct' re-take. In other words, we cannot simply read from a copy of an English translation of some document, and then summarize with ' . . . thus said Jesus.' (on the historical and textual matters of the gospels, much can (and likely will) come later)⁽¹⁾

2. To re-state for emphasis, yes . . . Yeshua was a practicing Jew who more thinkably upheld the Mosaic Law, but had seeming been in opposition to both the Sadducees and the Pharisees (and thinkably Herodian group). Of course, this was no great big deal, as in the late Second Temple period there had been a number of splinter cults (used here in the original, correct usage) within Judaism (we all know of the Essenes and/or the cult of the Qumran texts).

For this reason we should not accept at face value, any assertion that the historical personage had made claims to be the incarnate of YHWH, and neither that he would have been looking beyond the Jewish system, really. In other words, that 'son of man' usage would have been a typical Jewish idiomatic phrase, the Didache would be a good base (and According to Matthew was very much based upon that and a more thinkable Q source) upon which to ground Yeshua's teachings (more so than on the final product as we have it today, of any, or all, gospel narratives, or even Paul's [in his authentic epistles] in our 'slightly corrected' [truth and sarcasim] canon).⁽²⁾

Let me post this much, and continue with more later.


1. Bernhard, Andrew E. (2007)Other Early Christian Gospels--A Crtical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts, T&T Clark Biblical Studies;

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003) Lost Scriptures--Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament, Oxford University Press;

Horton, Charles (ed), (2004) The Earliest Gospels--The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels - The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P⁴⁵[/i]. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, T&T Clark;

Whiston, Wm. (1981 Ed.) The Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Publications;

2. Bernhard, Andrew E. ibid.;

Horton, Charles ibid.;

Burridge, Richard A. (2004) What are the Gospels?--A comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd Ed. , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.;

Hock, Ronald F., et al. (1998) Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, number 6, Society of Biblical Literature (SBL)
[/size]

[ydoaPs]

Jan 31, 2010 5:05:48 GMT limbicloser said:

Jan 6, 2010 1:48:26 GMT ydoaPs said:

What is the 'good news' about which Jesus spoke? Support your answer.

A good and hard question, problem, and, might I add, a very good response to it (see ydoaps' post number 2). Additionally, some fair, good, and more thinkably correct (in various ways) points have since been made; as I see it.

I would like to point out that care must be taken in collecting our basics, as a platform of sorts, from which to wander off into this particular inquiry; and wish to restate some, and expound on a few others here, firstly (if I may):

1. practically all of anything on the content of what this one particular Yeshua would have been teaching is to be found in the texts of believers. This will equally include not only documents which have made it into our present day canon, but those which have not; such as gospel of the Nazareans, ospel of the Ebionites, the gospel according to the Hebrews, the coptic gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi; Papyrus Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy.) 1, 654, 655), the unknown gospel (Egerton Papyrus (P. Egerton 2, and P. Koln 255, etc, etc. Even in Flavius Josephus, the more likely spurious comment about this particular Yeshua give us no indication of message content to speak of. (Antiqities of the Jews XVIII.III.3)

For this reason, care must be taken to extract what can more considerably be seen as the actually message, teaching of Yeshua--as opposed, more usually, to the later central (but pre-Eusebius) church's 'correct' re-take. In other words, we cannot simply read from a copy of an English translation of some document, and then summarize with ' . . . thus said Jesus.' (on the historical and textual matters of the gospels, much can (and likely will) come later)⁽¹⁾

2. To re-state for emphasis, yes . . . Yeshua was a practicing Jew who more thinkably upheld the Mosaic Law, but had seeming been in opposition to both the Sadducees and the Pharisees (and thinkably Herodian group). Of course, this was no great big deal, as in the late Second Temple period there had been a number of splinter cults (used here in the original, correct usage) within Judaism (we all know of the Essenes and/or the cult of the Qumran texts).

For this reason we should not accept at face value, any assertion that the historical personage had made claims to be the incarnate of YHWH, and neither that he would have been looking beyond the Jewish system, really. In other words, that 'son of man' usage would have been a typical Jewish idiomatic phrase, the Didache would be a good base (and According to Matthew was very much based upon that and a more thinkable Q source) upon which to ground Yeshua's teachings (more so than on the final product as we have it today, of any, or all, gospel narratives, or even Paul's [in his authentic epistles] in our 'slightly corrected' [truth and sarcasim] canon).⁽²⁾

Let me post this much, and continue with more later.


1. Bernhard, Andrew E. (2007)Other Early Christian Gospels--A Crtical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts, T&T Clark Biblical Studies;

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003) Lost Scriptures--Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament, Oxford University Press;

Horton, Charles (ed), (2004) The Earliest Gospels--The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels - The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P⁴⁵

[/i]. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, T&T Clark;

Whiston, Wm. (1981 Ed.) The Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Publications;

2. Bernhard, Andrew E. ibid.;

Horton, Charles ibid.;

Burridge, Richard A. (2004) What are the Gospels?--A comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd Ed. , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.;

Hock, Ronald F., et al. (1998) Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, number 6, Society of Biblical Literature (SBL)
[/size]

[/quote]That's a really good post and I like that you gave some sources.

[tar]

Naz,

Cause the universe itself, would have no preference of one of its creations over another. The money changer or the rich person is just as much a product of the universe as the leper or the slave.

Any political choice, any moral judgement that is made by the universe, in a single person's estimation, is that person's projection of his/her own values, onto their image of the universe, their "putting themselves in the shoes of" the universe.

The criteria we use to establish the nature of the universe, is, almost by definition, an anthropomophic view. If the universe was a person, then this would be objectively valid. However, we have no evidence that the universe is a person. It looks scientifically to be somewhat like collections of atoms into elements, structure, planets, solar systems, galaxies, groups of galaxies and strings of groups of galaxies...for as far as we can see. Thus the universe would have no particular reason to value a leper over a rich man, or a person over a frog, or a frog over a rock, or a rock over a snowflake.

The values we have, the morals we have, are based on human concerns of survival, group cohesion, personal values, and all in all, what would satisfy a human.

This is a selfish type of view we have. Not in an objectively bad way, or an objectively good way, because a pure objective view would not be a human view. Only in a human's estimation, could something be bad or good. Only a human would feel human pain or human pleasure. And when we assign our feelings to something that is not human, we are partially if not completely, imagining that that entity exists, and is capable of human feelings, human perceptions, and human desires.

So in my estimation, the creator of the universe would not play favorites toward anything in or about the universe. To the universe, it all exists, its all the way its supposed to be, it all fits, and there is nothing wrong with any of it.

What we, together as humans, establish and maintain, both physically and conceptually, is another matter. In the realm of human concerns, human selfishness, picking human survival over the survival of a snowflake, is absolutely correct. And perhaps picking the leper over the moneychanger is a wise choice, to keep us all humble, and looking out for each other, but it is our choice and our values that are at issue, not the values of the universe.

Regards, TAR

[limbicloser]

Jan 31, 2010 15:56:06 GMT ydoaPs said:

That's a really good post and I like that you gave some sources.

Thank you. I try, as often as possible to provide source material, and although it requires more time to do that (at times I have to go to my studio and track down a paper, or a section from some book, and so on, and then take the extra time to write them up in the usually accepted fashion, and all), but I think it is a better form. (seldom found on internet discussion boards, actually)

Allow me, then, to continue a bit, picking up after point two of my #20 post.

3. While a general, relative notion of the body of doctrine which more likely can attributed to this particular Yeshua, any number of pericopes, motifs, or idiomatic phrases attributed (by both direct and indirect quotation format) to Yeshua can be seen to be simply elements of the cultural sphere at that time, and thus not original to this personage. Taking the textual area related to the Beatitudes (note relation to post #6 comment), I will give some examples (some of this is my own research, so no citations, per se):⁽¹⁾

• A. The essential element of Mt 5:2 can be found in Sirach 25:7~9.
  
• B. That of Mt 5:3 can be found in Isaiah 57:15; 61:1.
  
• C. Mt 5:4 can be found in Isaiah 61:2l Sirach 48:24,
  
• D. Mt 5:5 can be found in Psalms 37:11; 1 Enoch 5:7b.
  
• E. Mt 5:6 can be found in Psalms 107:5, 8, 9.
  
• F. The essential element of Mt 5:7 can be found in Proverbs 14:21; 17:5 (LXX)⁽²⁾
  
• G. That of Mt 5:8 can be found in Psalms 24:4; 73:1.
  
• H. Mt 5:9 can be found in Proverbs 10:10 (LXX).
  

Also, a number of motifs (such as that found in Mt 5:23, 24 [though here not related directly to our area on inquiry] being found in the Babylonian Talmud, Ros Hassana 17a~18b) can be found in Rabbinic material with pre-Christian oral tradition. Such can be found more directly, or at times by mere alluding, throughout the gospel narratives, and, to a lesser extent, the other documents as well.

4. In that we do have two versions of the same said historical event, and evidence for multiply source material used to create the documents which we today have, we naturally find different words attributed to speakers in the stories. Sometimes we can grasp a general essence which might well reflect an intended historical event, and at other times, cannot. What that means is that we cannot fairly pin historical significance on single words (and at times phrases) as is often done.

For example, we will find that Mt 5:3 gives us a seemingly (on the surface) generally same concept as does Lk 6:20b, but the better textual choice shows that that is not so. Mt 5:4 uses a very commonly used word which does not match the very commonly used word of Lk 6:21b. This has been born out through careful research on harmonies of old. If one or both of the words had been very rarely used words, we could say that there would be the essence which had been the core concept intended to have been put across by the speaker or the author, but we cannot do so here.

Luke gives us four makarioi (happy) and also four oiai (woe to) to create balance; Matthew does not. Mark, which is the most likely earlier exemplar, does not give us any such event although we can find those general Hebraic idiomatic sayings there too--such as Mk 9:50a - Mt 5:13 (notice difference in contextual setting); Mk 10:10~12 - Mt 5:31 (again, notice contextual setting).

Also interesting (but of no big deal, since we know that it is far most likely that our According to Matthew document is not from any actual disciple of that Yeshua) is that according to the Matthew narrative, the disciple Matthew, the tax collector, had not been taken in as a disciple until after the 'sermon on the mount' event (Mt 4:23, followed by 4:25, followed by 5:1, 2, followed by 7:28, followed by 8:1, then 8:5, 14, 16, 18, 23, 28, followed by 9:1, then 9:9, where he is said to have encountered Matthew. (compare Lk 6:6, 12~17, followed by 6:20 s)

As is often pointed to, only Luke (among the synoptics) makes any positive and specific claim to accuracy in reporting on 'historical facts' (Lk 1:1~4), regarding this Yeshua's activities, teaching, and so on. Even with that, we know that some non-historical elements are in the text (maybe through later, second and third hands, perhaps?), so we cannot give full credence to every little single thing. Additionally, Mark was the earlier document, and, of course, oral tradition preceded that all.

Therefore in summary on these four matters which we would soon enough come to recognize as being necessary, as a 'working platform' from which to wade into this rushing river of inquiry from, we can clearly determine that to find the message, the teaching of this particular Yeshua, we can only take the sense of the general bulk of the overall, overlapping points within the synoptics and According to John, and the earliest authentic letters of Paul--especially 1 Thessalonians⁽³⁾ Moving from this base, I will argue that ydoaPs #2 post is very much on target, with perhaps a little refinement needed.

1. It must also be kept in mind that we have two different versions of the event; not two different events: According to Matthew 5:1~7:28; 8:1~6 s [NOTE: 's,' or 'ss' mean 'and following verses'] ,and, According to Luke 6:20~7:1, 2 s.

2. 'LXX' is used to refer to the Septuagint, and shows a different reading than M (the Masoretic text [which is based on, primarily, the Leningrad B 19^A text, and is the basic BHK, BHS (Biblical Hebraica Kittle, and B. H. Stuttgart, respectively]).

3. Paul's authentic letters are considered by the majority of scholarship in this field as being Romans, 1, 2 Cor., Gal., 1 Thes., Philp., and Philemon. 1 and 2 Tim. may have been inspired by something from Paul, but not those exact texts (and thinkable 2 Thes. too).



general (and specific) source material used:

Nestle-Aland (1993/ '98 printing) Novum Testamentum Graece 27th Ed.;

Westcott and Hort (1948 Ed.) The New Testament in the Original Greek;

Alfred Rahlfs (1979 printing) Septuaginta Stuttgart (LXX);

Martin, Francis (1988) Narrative Parallels to the New Testament. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, No. 22, SBL;

Baarda, T. (1999) The Beatitudes of 'the mourning' and 'the weeping': Matthew 5:4 and Luke 6:21b. Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, Vol 1, SBL; pp 168~191;

Davies, W.D., and Allison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW[/b], Vol 1, pp 8~58;

Parker, P, (1981) A Second look at the Gospel Before Mark. Journal of Biblical Literature[/b] (here after JBL), Vol 100, No. 3; p 395;

Smith, D.M., (2000) When did the Gospels Become Scripture? SBL, Vol 119, No. 1; pp 3-20;

Torrey, C.C., (1929) The Influence of Second Isaiah in the Gospels and Acts. JBL, Vol 48, Nos. 1, 2; pp 24~36;

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1,2; 3.39.15; 5:8:3; 6.25.5.




[/size]

[soms]

Feb 1, 2010 4:34:45 GMT limbicloser said:

Jan 31, 2010 15:56:06 GMT ydoaPs said:

That's a really good post and I like that you gave some sources.

Thank you. I try, as often as possible to provide source material, and although it requires more time to do that (at times I have to go to my studio and track down a paper, or a section from some book, and so on, and then take the extra time to write them up in the usually accepted fashion, and all), but I think it is a better form. (seldom found on internet discussion boards, actually)

Allow me, then, to continue a bit, picking up after point two of my #20 post.

3. While a general, relative notion of the body of doctrine which more likely can attributed to this particular Yeshua, any number of pericopes, motifs, or idiomatic phrases attributed (by both direct and indirect quotation format) to Yeshua can be seen to be simply elements of the cultural sphere at that time, and thus not original to this personage. Taking the textual area related to the Beatitudes (note relation to post #6 comment), I will give some examples (some of this is my own research, so no citations, per se):⁽¹⁾

• A. The essential element of Mt 5:2 can be found in Sirach 25:7~9.
  
• B. That of Mt 5:3 can be found in Isaiah 57:15; 61:1.
  
• C. Mt 5:4 can be found in Isaiah 61:2l Sirach 48:24,
  
• D. Mt 5:5 can be found in Psalms 37:11; 1 Enoch 5:7b.
  
• E. Mt 5:6 can be found in Psalms 107:5, 8, 9.
  
• F. The essential element of Mt 5:7 can be found in Proverbs 14:21; 17:5 (LXX)⁽²⁾
  
• G. That of Mt 5:8 can be found in Psalms 24:4; 73:1.
  
• H. Mt 5:9 can be found in Proverbs 10:10 (LXX).
  

Also, a number of motifs (such as that found in Mt 5:23, 24 [though here not related directly to our area on inquiry] being found in the Babylonian Talmud, Ros Hassana 17a~18b) can be found in Rabbinic material with pre-Christian oral tradition. Such can be found more directly, or at times by mere alluding, throughout the gospel narratives, and, to a lesser extent, the other documents as well.

4. In that we do have two versions of the same said historical event, and evidence for multiply source material used to create the documents which we today have, we naturally find different words attributed to speakers in the stories. Sometimes we can grasp a general essence which might well reflect an intended historical event, and at other times, cannot. What that means is that we cannot fairly pin historical significance on single words (and at times phrases) as is often done.

For example, we will find that Mt 5:3 gives us a seemingly (on the surface) generally same concept as does Lk 6:20b, but the better textual choice shows that that is not so. Mt 5:4 uses a very commonly used word which does not match the very commonly used word of Lk 6:21b. This has been born out through careful research on harmonies of old. If one or both of the words had been very rarely used words, we could say that there would be the essence which had been the core concept intended to have been put across by the speaker or the author, but we cannot do so here.

Luke gives us four makarioi (happy) and also four oiai (woe to) to create balance; Matthew does not. Mark, which is the most likely earlier exemplar, does not give us any such event although we can find those general Hebraic idiomatic sayings there too--such as Mk 9:50a - Mt 5:13 (notice difference in contextual setting); Mk 10:10~12 - Mt 5:31 (again, notice contextual setting).

Also interesting (but of no big deal, since we know that it is far most likely that our According to Matthew document is not from any actual disciple of that Yeshua) is that according to the Matthew narrative, the disciple Matthew, the tax collector, had not been taken in as a disciple until after the 'sermon on the mount' event (Mt 4:23, followed by 4:25, followed by 5:1, 2, followed by 7:28, followed by 8:1, then 8:5, 14, 16, 18, 23, 28, followed by 9:1, then 9:9, where he is said to have encountered Matthew. (compare Lk 6:6, 12~17, followed by 6:20 s)

As is often pointed to, only Luke (among the synoptics) makes any positive and specific claim to accuracy in reporting on 'historical facts' (Lk 1:1~4), regarding this Yeshua's activities, teaching, and so on. Even with that, we know that some non-historical elements are in the text (maybe through later, second and third hands, perhaps?), so we cannot give full credence to every little single thing. Additionally, Mark was the earlier document, and, of course, oral tradition preceded that all.

Therefore in summary on these four matters which we would soon enough come to recognize as being necessary, as a 'working platform' from which to wade into this rushing river of inquiry from, we can clearly determine that to find the message, the teaching of this particular Yeshua, we can only take the sense of the general bulk of the overall, overlapping points within the synoptics and According to John, and the earliest authentic letters of Paul--especially 1 Thessalonians⁽³⁾ Moving from this base, I will argue that ydoaPs #2 post is very much on target, with perhaps a little refinement needed.

1. It must also be kept in mind that we have two different versions of the event; not two different events: According to Matthew 5:1~7:28; 8:1~6 s [NOTE: 's,' or 'ss' mean 'and following verses'] ,and, According to Luke 6:20~7:1, 2 s.

2. 'LXX' is used to refer to the Septuagint, and shows a different reading than M (the Masoretic text [which is based on, primarily, the Leningrad B 19^A text, and is the basic BHK, BHS (Biblical Hebraica Kittle, and B. H. Stuttgart, respectively]).

3. Paul's authentic letters are considered by the majority of scholarship in this field as being Romans, 1, 2 Cor., Gal., 1 Thes., Philp., and Philemon. 1 and 2 Tim. may have been inspired by something from Paul, but not those exact texts (and thinkable 2 Thes. too).



general (and specific) source material used:

Nestle-Aland (1993/ '98 printing) Novum Testamentum Graece 27th Ed.;

Westcott and Hort (1948 Ed.) The New Testament in the Original Greek;

Alfred Rahlfs (1979 printing) Septuaginta Stuttgart (LXX);

Martin, Francis (1988) Narrative Parallels to the New Testament. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, No. 22, SBL;

Baarda, T. (1999) The Beatitudes of 'the mourning' and 'the weeping': Matthew 5:4 and Luke 6:21b. Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, Vol 1, SBL; pp 168~191;

Davies, W.D., and Allison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

[/b], Vol 1, pp 8~58;

Parker, P, (1981) A Second look at the Gospel Before Mark. Journal of Biblical Literature[/b] (here after JBL), Vol 100, No. 3; p 395;

Smith, D.M., (2000) When did the Gospels Become Scripture? SBL, Vol 119, No. 1; pp 3-20;

Torrey, C.C., (1929) The Influence of Second Isaiah in the Gospels and Acts. JBL, Vol 48, Nos. 1, 2; pp 24~36;

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1,2; 3.39.15; 5:8:3; 6.25.5.




[/size]

[/quote]


wow! thank you so much for your informed posts on this topic. (i too love the references )

I cannot explain how difficult it is to begin to look at the Bible with a historical critical approach, (when raised an evangelical christian) having memorized so much of the Bible growing up, many of the inconsistencies taught in doctrine, and in the text itself were practically invisible. It is rather like eating flat bread, and never knowing you were supposed to add the yeast for you had never tasted it that way.

From what you are saying, the teachings I love from Jesus were mostly bits he had gleaned from his studies...yes?

i picture him as someone who saw the poor being ill treated, the rich cats getting richer, and rather wanted to stand up against it all.

I remember silently questioning at one point (for to say it out loud would have been horrendously offensive to my family) i wonder what effect the 40 days of fasting had on him? could that have been a cause in beginning to believe he must be something more?

soms