Christian
Biblical Church of God

Biblical Truth
Ministries: “…the truth shall set you
free.”

Order Books
Online | Website Index | Mp3 Audio

Dogmatic Development
Three:

Marius Victorinus and
Consubstantiality The Co-Equality of Father and Son

(Circa 281/291-370
A.D.)

“(3) The doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father.

“This was affirmed against Arianism at Nicaea, where the
concept—if not as yet the actual term—homoousios [a philosophically
defined term that was borrowed from the Enneads of the pagan
philosopher Plotinus] (...) as applied to the eternal Son was amply
vindicated.  As Athanasius taught, in jealous regard for the
divineness of the Christian incarnation and redemption, there was an
absolute likeness between the Father and the Son, and also a co-inherence
or mutual immanence (...) of their Persons [Jn 17:21]”  (Fulton,
Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p.
459).

“It is interesting to note that the principal term for
substance in the writings of Aristotle is ousia, a word which in
earlier Greek writers means “property” in the legal sense of the word,
that which is owned.  (This sense is familiar in English in the
old-fashioned expression “a man of substance.”)  The word
ousia also occurs in philosophical writings before Aristotle as a
synonym for the Greek word physis [nature], a term which can mean
either the origin of a thing, its natural constitution or structure, the
stuff of which things are made, or a natural kind or species.  The
Latin word substantia, from which the English term [substance] is
derived, is a literal translation of the Greek word hypostasis
[usually translated person in the New Testament] (“standing under”).
This term acquired its philosophical connotations in later Greek and
occurs principally in controversies among early Christian theologians
about the real nature of Christ....” (Substance and Attribute, The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 36).

“Thus, what the Greeks call nature [physis or
physica, i.e. physics or natural philosophy.  See Catherine
Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy:  Hippolytus of Rome
and the Presocratics, Cornell University Press, 1987, pp. 29, 387] ,
Victorinus calls substance [substantia], and what the Greeks call
hypostasis, Victorinus calls existence.  Apparently a
substance has individuality by the character of its action, and so action
is self-revelatory.  The term consubstantial is used by Victorinus to
safeguard the divine equality.  But even substantia although the
common name for Father, Son and Spirit, may be used as a synonym for
existentia [existence], for in Victorinus the common names are also
the predominant names of each of the Three.  Indeed, he tries to show
that each divine Person is the Three, rather than following the more usual
way of arguing that all Three are one or even that one God is in three
Persons” (Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the
Trinity, p. 42).

“The use to which Victorinus put the word substantia
as referring primarily to the pure “To Be [i.e. pure Act transcending
every form, the potentiality of the being—the One]” of God necessitated
his use of a new word existentia to refer to esse [i.e. to be, a
being actualized—the Many or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
revealed] that is determined by a form.  Of course, substantia
is not understood by him in the Aristotelian sense of what is opposed to
accidents and qualities.  Substance for him means a concrete being,
and this seems to be one of his Plotinian reminiscences (Enn(eads),
6.1.3; 12.8; ch. adv. Ar. I 30).  This may be the individual
substance later used by Boethius to define person.  For Victorinus,
however, this substantia was pure esse (cf. Adv. Ar.
II 4,23), and therefore designated the commonness of the Three
Persons.  It is thus used to designate Esse improperly, but
the word Esse is used as the proper name of the Father” (Clark,
Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity, p.
41).

“In view of the above, Victorinus found it necessary to make
use of existentia to indicate what stands outside the
commonness.  Hence, existentia means “to be” [the Many] with
form or determination and is used to distinguish each of the Three:
one substance [the One] and three existences [the Many].  And so when
he is speaking strictly of his own Trinitarian doctrine, Victorinus has
bypassed hypostasis and persona (used freely by Hilary of Poitiers
[bishop of Poitiers ca. 315-367 A.D.]), perhaps to keep his doctrine
distinguished from the Plotinian triad and perhaps because the Sabellians
conceived God as triprosopos (of three [non-distinct] persons).  It
is not quite certain that Victorinus is the first to use
subsistentia.  He generally uses “subsistence” to denote the
individual indicated by existentia; thus, subsistentia is properly
used of the Son because it designates Esse cum forma (“To Be” with
Form)”  (Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the
Trinity, pp. 41-42).

The Nicaean Council
(325 A.D.)

“At Nicaea (A.D. 325) the Council Fathers had expressed in
the language of reason [philosophy] what Scripture said of the Son’s
equality [homoousion in Greek Neoplatonic Philosophy and
consubstantialitas in Latin Neoplatonic Philosophy and
consubstantial in English] with the Father and, his status as true Son
really begotten by the Father in the way in which spirits beget.
That the Son is consubstantial [although they had no philosophic construct
for the concept] with the Father was declared at the Council of
Nicaea.  It does not follow that this statement was clearly
understood.  There was no ready-made philosophy to clarify it.
The word homoousion appears in the Enneads of Plotinus [a
third century Chaldean Philosopher], but there it refers to the
Intelligible Triad [the Many], not to the One.  Victorinus translated
the Greek word homoousion [homoousion is a philosophic
construct and as such is not found in the New Testament] used at Nicaea
into the Latin word consubstantialitas.  The word
homoousion was used to express the relations of the Father and the
Son within the Godhead in order to exclude the Arian heresy, which denied
the divinity of the Son.  Arius [ca. 250-336], a Libyan by birth and
ordained at Alexandria, championed a subordinationist [hierarchical]
teaching which was condemned, first at Alexandria, then at Nicaea.
Arianism held that the Son of God was not eternal but created by the
Father from nothing as an instrument for the creation of the world;
although a changeable creature, the Son was dignified with the title of
Son because of his righteousness.  The Arians divided into three
groups:  the Anomoeans (dissimilar) spoke of the Son as unlike
the Father; the Homoeans (similar) spoke of the Son as like the
Father in all things according to the Scriptures; the semi-Arians or
Homoiousians (of similar substance [with the Father]) thought that
similarity rather than consubstantiality left more room for distinctions
in the Godhead”  (Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises
on the Trinity, pp. 10-11).

In a footnote the author adds:  “Three Greek roots
underlie the terminology, ancient and modern, concerned with the Son’s
relationship with the Father. (1) homo, same; (2) homoi- (or
homeo-), similar; (3) ousia, being (as a noun) [in the Greek New
Testament ousia is used either as a masculine, feminine or neuter
present participle of the verb eimi but not as a noun] or
substance.  The first root plus the third yields
homoousios-homoousion, signifying identity in substance [with the
consequence that the gods are co-eternal and co-equal].  The second
root plus the third yields homoiousios-homoiousion or
homoeousios-homoeousion, signifying similarity in substance [with
the consequence that one God is subordinate to another—in divine
hierarchical fashion].  These terms apply either to the Son himself
or to a doctrinal position concerning him in relation to the Father.
The theologians and their followers who espouse these terms with their
theological implications are called Homoousians, those holding
identity in substance [Athanasius of Alexandria and his supporters],
or Homoiousians (Homoeousians), those holding similarity in
substance [Arius of Alexandria and his supporters].  Furthermore,
the ousia element can be left out, yielding Homoeans
(Homoians).  Those who hold total dissimilarity in substance are
called Anomoians, a word formed by combining a negative prefix with
homo”  (Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on
the Trinity, p. 10).

The Syncretistic Nature
of the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds

“The trinitarian doctrine of the Christians was neither an
outright adoption of the philosophic triads popular among the Middle and
Neoplatonists, nor was it any mere adaptation of triadic thought.  At
the moment of the Nicene formulation the acceptance of the Christian dogma
of the Trinity meant a rejection of the philosophic triads as they were
understood.  Arius did not rise to this rejection.  The
statements he offered were reasonable [that is, they conformed completely
with recognized and accepted Neoplatonic principles of logic] but were
contrary to the mystery revealed in Scripture [actually, contrary to the
Chaldean mysteries].  Victorinus found nothing ready at hand within
his philosophical milieu that did not require some good, hard, creative
interpretation on his part.  When he tried to interpret, he turned to
the tradition of Neoplatonism, where many of the best insights in
Platonism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism had come together.  In some
Neoplatonic source he found a reconciliation of Plotinus and Numenius, and
it was Numenius who had influenced the ‘Chaldaean Oracles’ “
(Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity,
pp. 17-18).

The Nicaean Creed
Violated an Absolute Principle of Neoplatonism

“...in quarrels concerning the nature of the Trinity—which
set Arius and his supporters, who believed that the Son was a creation of
the Father, against orthodox [Catholic] Christians, such as St. Athanasius
[of Alexandria, Egypt] and the Cappadocians [of Asia Minor], who accepted
the consubstantiality of the persons—it seems that the question posed is
completely alien to philosophy.  Generation and procession, words
used by the Christians to designate relations between the Son or Spirit
and the Father, by no means retain the precise meaning that they have for
Plato and the Platonists.  This meaning, if preserved, would imply a
doctrine such as Arianism since one of the absolute principles of
Neo-Platonism is that the reality that proceeds is inferior to the reality
from which it proceeds.  But belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
contradicts this principle and prescribes a dogma that no longer has the
slightest affiliation with philosophical speculation”  (Brehier,
The History of Philosophy:  The Hellenistic and Roman Age, pp.
245-246).

Relating the Three
Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:

(3) The
Consubstantiality of the Son

“There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons
(Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature
or Substance, which is Love.  The Persons are co-equal,
inasmuch as in each of them the divine Nature is one and undivided, and by
each the collective divine attributes are shared.  As a ‘person’ in
Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground
of experience and function,  each divine Person, while less than a
separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or
characteristic property (...).”

(1) The Philosophic Logos of the Greeks

“The hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from
an internal and an external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner
constitution of the Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos
or world of manifestation. “

(2) The Philosophic
Eternal Generation of the Logos

“Viewed ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is
ingeneration (...), of the Son; filiation, of the Spirit
procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor
proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy
Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii,3].  Viewed ab extra (for Love functions
externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal
[Cf. S.A. McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity,
Cambridge, 1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made
manifest in creation, whereby a world is provided for beings who should be
capable of experiencing fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic
character of the Son in redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is
overcome; and the hypostatic character of the Spirit in sanctification,
whereby human nature is quickened and renewed and shaped to the divine
likeness.  Yet, while this is said, as there is no separation in the
unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the threefold work
of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of the Persons
as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work, if with
varying stress of function.  Verily the doctrine of the Trinity
exit in mysterium”  (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of
Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).

Dogmatic Development
Four:

Basil of Caesarea Cappadocia Gregory of
Nyssa Cappadocia Gregory of Nazianzus
Cappadocia

(Circa 330-395 A.D.)

“(4) The doctrine of eternal distinctions within the
divine Nature, according to the formula of ‘three Hypostases [persons in
the philosophic, not the natural or legal sense] in one Ousia or
Substance’ (...).

“To the Cappadocian theologians (Basil, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) we owe the final settlement, for which this
formula stands, of the dogmatic terminology.  In distinguishing
between hypostasis and ousia, the former denoting a real
principle of distinction [but not a being with personality] within the
divine Nature and the latter the divine Substance or Nature (ousis)
itself, they sought to lift the orthodox doctrine out of the Sabellian
modalism which recognized no distinction in reality between the Father and
the Son, so impairing the significance of the historical Christ, and at
the same time to vindicate it against the opposite error of heathen
polytheism (tritheism) [the belief in three indistinguishable Gods in the
Godhead], of which it was so often accused.  Moreover, the
Cappadocians gave to the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the
definite place and character which He now possesses in Eastern orthodoxy,
as being also a Hypostasis in the Godhead, consubstantial with the Father,
and proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Fulton,
Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p.
459).

Concerning the error of linking a plurality of Gods in the
Godhead with heathen polytheism, remember what we have already
studied.  It is not polytheistic to believe in more than one God in
the Godhead.  Notice again:

“The notion of unity has appeared in Chapter IV, where I
discussed some theoretical implications of Aristotle’s theology.  It
remains to consider how this notion was actually treated by the early
Christian writers and their pagan contemporaries; and this for two
reasons; first, because unity was considered to be an important property,
or even the distinctive property, of the godhead; and secondly, because
discussions of God’s ‘substance’ were increasingly influenced by the claim
that one substance was common to the three divine
persons.

“Christians of course discovered the notion of unity in the
Bible; the Old Testament claims that God is one; the New Testament
endorses this claim, but also lays down that there is only one Lord
Christ, and refers to the unity of the Christian fellowship in the Holy
Spirit.  There is no need to review this biblical material, which is
no doubt familiar; in particular, the emergence of monotheism in Israelite
and other religions has been thoroughly investigated.  But it is
perhaps worth noting that there seem to be in principle two ways in which
a monotheistic belief can replace an earlier polytheism.  Polytheism
rarely implies a strictly equal society of gods; some divinities will
normally be greater and more powerful than others.  Thus it is
possible for one divine being to take the lead so decisively that the
others are degraded to the status of attendant spirits, or of mere
manifestations or powers of the supreme god.  He then is ‘the one
God’ in the sense of the only being who can rightfully claim this dignity”
(Stead, Divine Substance, pp. 180-181).

Relating the Four
Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:

(4) The Philosophic
Eternal Distinctions of Pater, Logos and Pneuma in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons
(Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature
or Substance [ousia], which is Love.”

(3) The Philosophic
Consubstantiality of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“The Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the
divine Nature is one and undivided, and by each the collective divine
attributes are shared.  As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more
than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and
function, each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality,
possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic property
(...).”

(1) The Logos of
Greek Philosophy in the Trinitarian Formulation

“The hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from
an internal and an external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner
constitution of the Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or
world of manifestation. “

(2) The Philosophic
Eternal Generation of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“Viewed ab intra, the hypostatic character of the
Father is ingeneration (...), of the Son filiation, of the Spirit
procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor
proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost
eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii,3].  Viewed ab extra (for Love functions
externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal
[Cf. S.A. McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity,
Cambridge, 1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made
manifest in creation, whereby a world is provided for beings who should be
capable of experiencing fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic
character of the Son in redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is
overcome; and the hypostatic character of the Spirit in sanctification,
whereby human nature is quickened and renewed and shaped to the divine
likeness.  Yet, while this is said, as there is no separation in the
unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the threefold work
of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of the Persons
as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work, if with
varying stress of function.  Verily the doctrine of the Trinity
exit in mysterium”  (Trinity,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).

Dogmatic Development
Five: St. Augustine of Hippo (Circa 354-430
A.D.)

“(5)  The doctrine of the double procession from
the Father and the Son (the filioque clause, added to the
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed on canonically indefensible
grounds)

“—a doctrine which represents the difference between Western
orthodoxy and Eastern (with its view of procession as from the Father
alone, the unitary source of deity); which was conceived, in the interests
of the divine unity, as counteractive of the subordinationism contained in
the Eastern formulas; and which under Augustine’s influence found its way
into the Athanasian Creed. Curiously enough, the Athanasian Creed (so
called) thus differs theologically from the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan
Creed in its original Eastern form on a point on which Athanasius’s own
sympathies would have lain with the Eastern symbol.  The Greek
(Athanasian) theology found the divine unity, in the Father, the one
fountainhead of Son and the Spirit as subordinate to the Father.  The
Roman (Augustinian) theology found the divine unity in the divine Nature
or Substance, with the result that, as the distinctions between the three
Hypostases or Persons became weakened under the doctrine of the
co-inherence, so attractive to the non-metaphysical Westerns, there
remained no proper foothold—so to speak—for the doctrine of
subordination”   (Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics, p. 459).

Relating the Five
Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:

(4) The Philosophic
Eternal Distinctions of Pater, Logos and Pneuma in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons
(Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature
or Substance [ousia], which is Love.”

(3) The Philosophic
Consubstantiality of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“The Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the
divine Nature is one and undivided, and by each the collective divine
attributes are shared.  As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more
than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and
function, each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality,
possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic property
(...).”

(1) The Logos of
Greek Philosophy in the Trinitarian Formulation

“The hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from
an internal and an external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner
constitution of the Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or
world of manifestation.”

(2) The Philosophic
Eternal Generation of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation

“Viewed ab intra, the hypostatic character of the
Father is ingeneration (...), of the Son; filiation, of the Spirit
procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor
proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost
eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii, 3].”

(5) The Philosophic
Double Procession in the Trinitarian Formulation

“Viewed ab intra, the hypostatic character of the
Father is ingeneration (...), of the Son; filiation, of the Spirit
procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of none, neither begotten nor
proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost
eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii, 3].”

Viewed ab extra (for Love functions externally
as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A.
McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge,
1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made manifest
in creation, whereby a world is provided for beings who should be capable
of experiencing fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic character
of the Son in redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is overcome;
and the hypostatic character of the Spirit in sanctification, whereby
human nature is quickened and renewed and shaped to the divine
likeness.  Yet, while this is said, as there is no separation in the
unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the threefold work
of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of the Persons
as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work, if with
varying stress of function.  Verily the doctrine of the Trinity
exit in mysterium”  (W. Fulton, Trinity,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).

The Chaldean Mystery of
the One and the Many

“What lends a special character to the Christian doctrine of
the Trinity is its close association with the distinctive Christian
view of divine incarnation.  In other religions [”...we meet with
the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion
with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a
divine family, like the Father, Mother, and Son in mediaeval Christian
pictures” (W. Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
p. 458)] and religious philosophies [”...the Neo-Platonic view of the
Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato in the
Timaeus; e.g., in the philosophy of Plotinus the primary or
original Realities (...) [Enn(eads), v.1, cited by C. C. J. Webb, God
and Personality (Gifford Lectures), London, 1918, p. 43] are
triadically represented as the Good or (in numerical symbol) the One,
the Intelligence or the One-Many, and the World-Soul or the One and
Many.  The religious Trinity associated, if somewhat loosely,
with Comte’s [the father of modern Sociology—modern humanism] philosophy
might also be cited here:  the cultus of humanity as the Great Being,
of space as the Great Medium, and of the earth as the Great Fetish
[Comte’s view of the Chaldean Many].”

While the philosophical connection of Trinitarianism with
ancient Greece is openly acknowledged by both historical and theological
authors, the true origin of that philosophy has been grossly overlooked
and ignored.  Few have been honest or thorough enough in their
research to trace this so-called “Western philosophy” back to its original
roots in the ancient Near East.  However, sufficient historical
evidence can be found in reference libraries to show that the highly
acclaimed philosophers of ancient Greece acquired their ideas of the
nature of God and the Universe from the Magi of Persia, who in turn
received these teachings from the Chaldeans.  This Chaldean
connection is clearly revealed in a study of the life of the famous Greek
philosopher Plato.

The
Canaanite Ancestry of Plato

In 2189 B.C., Arcadius and Emathius, white sons of Canaan,
began to move their peoples into Greece under the leadership of Eber,
father of the Hebrews.  Emathius settled his people in the region of
Emathia in Macedonia.  He is the father of the Hamathites (Gen
10:18).  According to Trogus, early Macedonia was made up of many
different tribes.  Their names were Emathia, Paeonia and Pelasgoi
(Trogus, VII,1).   By 1707 B.C., the sons of Emathia had
migrated south from Macedonia and had settled in the Argolis of
Peloponnese, where they became known as Achaeans.  The Achaeans
settled with the Pelasgoi and Ionians in Attica, founding Athens under
Cecrops in 1556 B.C.  Herodotus states that the Pelasgoi were
also the ancestors of the Aeolians (Herodotus 12, 231).  As
the Achaeans, Ionians and Pelasgoi freely mixed or co-habited the same
regions, they are undoubtedly peoples of the same ancestor,
Emathius.  In the 1100’s the Dorians [Midianites from Spain and
Italy] forced the Ionians to migrate into what became Achaia
Peloponnese.

“Now these Ionians, during the time that they dwelt in the
Peloponnese and inhabited the land now called Achaea [which was before the
arrival of Danaus and Xuthus in the Peloponnese], were called, according
to the Greek account, Aegialean Pelasgi, or ‘Pelasgi of the Sea-shore’;
but afterwards, from Ion the son of Xuthus, they were called Ionians
[western philosophy began with these Ionians in the sixth century
B.C.  This beginning corresponds with the arrival of the Persians and
the Magi]”  (Herodotus, 231).

[
Home | Search | Site Map | About Us | What's New | Beliefs

|Sermons | Publications | Books | Archives | Links | Contact Us | Español ]

Christian Biblical Church of God ©
2006

Hollister, California
95024-1442

Contact Fred
Coulter

**In order to receive a reply when writing to Fred Coulter,
please include your home  mailing
address.**

Contact the
Webmaster

Phone:  1-831-637-1875

Fax:  1-831-637-9616

http://www.cbcg.org/