!
C
!
³ , .
, , , .
³ – , ' . , , , . , . , . – .
³, , .
, ', - , , , .
, . : « » (II, 3). , « 䳺». , . , 27 1992 .. : « , 볿, , ». , , « ».
, 䳺 , 13 2014 , , « ».
ֳ , ' : « : , ; ͳ, , – , ». ̳ , 䳿.
, , , 2016 . , ', ' ' .
Christian-Jewish dialogue - 2015-12-10 Vatican Radio - See comments - Part 1 |
http://tapirr.livejournal.com/5239177.html
+++
-
22 , 2016 at 9:12 PM
.
close-to-corinth
. , .
.
( ) .
.
, mikhail_zeleny
-
10 , () . .
( , , ), , .
, " ": ( ) ( ) . .. ( , , .. ), ( , , ) - .3:17 (" , , , , ") .27:6 (" "). ( .. , ) ( "") ( ""). , , - 1- .
, ", - , , , ? , - , ?" "". , , . - , , " " " " - " , ? - , !" :)
, , " " - . , , , . , - , .. ... , ? , , , , " " - , .. , , .
:
, -, , , ,
+++
+++
|
Christian-Jewish dialogue - 2015-12-10 Vatican Radio - See comments - Part 2 |
Start of text - Part 1
( http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/paul_v_lashkevich/post385171708/ )
+++ +++ +++
End of text - Part 2
[url]http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/paul_v_lashkevich/post385172451/[/url]
+++
5. The universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel
Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith. Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. So too does the confession of the one God, the God of Israel, who through his revelation in Jesus Christ has become totally manifest as the God of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the God of Israel as the one God (cf. Is 56:1-8). The document “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church” published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985 therefore maintained that the Church and Judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but that the Church must “witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all” (No.I, 7). The Christian faith confesses that God wants to lead all people to salvation, that
Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).
From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22). God entrusted Israel with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his “first-born son” (Ex 4:22). From this it is self-evident that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as decisively he asserts: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom 11:33). Bernard of Clairvaux (De cons. III/1,3) says that for the Jews “a determined point in time has been fixed which cannot be anticipated”.
Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel. It is the belief of the Church that Christ is the Saviour for all. There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles. Here we confront the mystery of God’s work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, “when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ ” (“Nostra aetate”, No.4). The Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the fourth article of “Nostra aetate”, is located within a decidedly theological framework regarding the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel. That does not mean that all theological questions which arise in the relationship of Christianity and Judaism were resolved in the text. These questions were introduced in the Declaration, but require further theological reflection. Of course, there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed on Judaism, but “Nostra aetate” (No.4) provides the first theological overview of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jews.
Because it was such a theological breakthrough, the Conciliar text is not infrequently over-interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. An important example of over-interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that God made with his people Israel perdures and is never invalidated. Although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into “Nostra aetate” (No.4). This statement was instead first made with full clarity by Saint Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never bee n revoked by God: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God ... and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible” (No.3). The same conviction is stated also in t he Catechism of the Church in 1993: “The Old Covenant has never been revoked” (121).
The Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism
It is easy to understand that the so-called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.
The concept of mission must be presented correctly in dialogue between Jews and Christians. Christian mission has its origin in the sending of Jesus by the Father. He gives his disciples a share in this call in relation to God’s people of Israel (cf. Mt 10:6) and then as the risen Lord with regard to all nations (cf. Mt 28:19). Thus the people of God attains a new dimension through Jesus, who calls his Church from both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:1122) on the basis of faith in Christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his Body which is the Church (“Lumen gentium”, 14). Christian mission and witness, in personal life and in proclamation, belong together. The principle that Jesus gives his disciples when he sends them out is to suffer violence rather than to inflict violence. Christians must put their trust in God, who will carry out his universal plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to Christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salvation of humankind. Zeal for the “house of the Lord” and confident trust in the victorious deeds of God belong together. Christian mission means that all Christians, in community with the Church, confess and proclaim the historical realisation of God’s universal will for salvation in Christ Jesus (cf. “Ad gentes”, 7). They experience his sacramental presence in the liturgy and make it tangible in their service to others, especially those in need.
It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a different impression. Just as after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ there were not two unrelated covenants, so too the people of the covenant of Israel are not disconnected from ‘the people of God drawn from the Gentiles’. Rather, the enduring role of the covenant people of Israel in God’s plan of salvation is to relate dynamically to the ‘people of God of Jews and Gentiles, united in Christ’, he whom the Church confesses as the universal mediator of creation and salvation. In the context of God’s universal will of salvation, all people who have not yet received the gospel are aligned with the people of God of the New Covenant. “In the first place there is the people to whom the covenants and promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom 9:4-5). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for he does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. Rom 11:28-29)” (“Lumen gentium”, 16).
The goals of dialogue with Judaism
The first goal of the dialogue is to add depth to the reciprocal knowledge of Jews and Christians. One can only learn to love what one has gradually come to know, and one can only know truly and profoundly what one loves. This profound knowledge is accompanied by a mutual enrichment whereby the dialogue partners become the recipients of gifts. The Conciliar declaration “Nostra aetate” (No. 4) speaks of the rich spiritual patrimony that should be further discovered step by step through biblical and theological studies and through dialogue. To that extent, from the Christian perspective, an important goal is the mining of the spiritual treasures concealed in Judaism for Christians. In this regard one must mention above all the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. In the foreword by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the 2001 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”, the respect of Christians for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is stressed. It highlights that “Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research.” In the field of exegesis many Jewish and Christian scholars now work together and find their collaboration mutually fruitful precisely because they belong to different religious traditions.
This reciprocal acquiring of knowledge must not be limited to specialists alone. Therefore it is important that Catholic educational institutions, particularly in the training of priests, integrate into their curricula both “Nostra aetate” and the subsequent documents of the Holy See regarding the implementation of the Conciliar declaration. The Church is also grateful for the analogous efforts within the Jewish community. The fundamental changes in relations between Christians and Jews which were initiated by “Nostra aetate” (No. 4) must also be made known to the coming generations and be received and disseminated by them. One important goal of Jewish-Christian dialogue certainly consists in joint engagement throughout the world for justice, peace, conservation of creation, and reconciliation. In the past, it may have been that the different religions - against the background of a narrowly understood claim to truth and a corresponding intolerance - contributed to the incitement of conflict and confrontation. But today religions should not be part of the problem, but part of the solution. Only when religions engage in a successful dialogue with one another, and in that way contribute towards world peace, can this be realised also on the social and political levels. Religious freedom guaranteed by civil authority is the prerequisite for such dialogue and peace. In this regard, the litmus-test is how religious minorities are treated, and which rights of theirs are guaranteed. In Jewish-Christian dialogue the situation of Christian communities in the state of Israel is of great relevance, since there - as nowhere else in the world - a Christian minority faces a Jewish majority. Peace in the Holy Land - lacking and constantly prayed for - plays a major role in dialogue between Jews and Christians.
Another important goal of Jewish-Catholic dialogue consists in jointly combatting all manifestations of racial discrimination against Jews and all forms of anti-Semitism, which have certainly not yet been eradicated and re-emerge in different ways in various contexts. History teaches us where even the slightest perceptible forms of anti-Semitism can lead: the human tragedy of the Shoah in which two-thirds of European Jewry were annihilated. Both faith traditions are called to maintain together an unceasing vigilance and sensitivity in the social sphere as well. Because of the strong bond of friendship between Jews and Catholics, the Catholic Church feels particularly obliged to do all that is possible with our Jewish friends to repel anti-Semitic tendencies. Pope Francis has repeatedly stressed that a Christian can never be an anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity.Justice and peace, however, should not simply be abstractions within dialogue, but should also be evidenced in tangible ways. The social-charitable sphere provides a rich field of activity, since both Jewish and Christian ethics include the imperative to support the poor, disadvantaged and sick. Thus, for example, the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) worked together in 2004 in Argentina during the financial crisis in that country to organise joint soup kitchens for the poor and homeless, and to enable impoverished children to attend school by providing meals for them. Most Christian churches have large charitable organisations, which likewise exist within Judaism. These would be able to work together to alleviate human need. Judaism teaches that the commandment “to walk in His ways” (Deut 11:22) requires the imitation of the Divine Attributes (Imitatio Dei) through care for the vulnerable, the poor and the suffering (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 14a). This principle accords with Jesus’ instruction to support those in need (cf. eg. Mt 25:35-46). Jews and Christians cannot simply accept poverty and human suffering; rather they must strive to overcome these problems.
When Jews and Christians make a joint contribution through concrete humanitarian aid for justice and peace in the world, they bear witness to the loving care of God. No longer in confrontational opposition but cooperating side by side, Jews and Christians should seek to strive for a better world. Saint Pope John Paul II called for such cooperation in his address to the Central Council of German Jewry and to the Conference of Rabbis in Mainz on 17 November 1980: “Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing for the world ... , by committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples, with the fullness and depth that God himself intended us to have, and with the readiness for sacrifices that this goal may demand”.
10 December 2015
Cardinal Kurt Koch President
The Most Reverend Brian Farrell Vice-President
The Reverend Norbert Hofmann, SDB Secretary
+++
+++
|
. |
+
. , , , , « », 282 .
.
: « «», (, ) () . «», , . : , , . . , . , , , , ».
, , ? , , , . ?
:
:
;
, ,
.
,
,
,
.
.
« , , ,
?
, -,
?
, :
».
« ,
;
.
;
,
:
— ;
;
;
;
.
,
, ,
…
;
.
:
, ,
,
,
.
».
—
.
, ,
;
.
«, , ,
:
!
.
, — .
, -, !
, ;
:
, ;
».
,
.
.
,
…
, …
« ? — ,—
, ?
? ?
, ?»
:
.
: « ?
, , !
!
».
.
,
,
: , ,
;
, ,
.
: «, !
:
, ,
!
!
!»
;
, :
.
, ,
:
;
;
, .
1822, ..
, . « », , , 282 . , — , , . 282 , , . - , ? .
, ?
« ,
;
»
. , , « ».
– , .
, . – -, , , .
. .
, , .
. « » , , .
– – «, », , .
, , .
, , , , , . .
, , , , .
282 . , , - . , , .
2007 . « ». 500 . , . , «» , « », , . « ». , « », «».
, , .
: . , . , . . , . .
. , .
, . , XIX , , , . . ?
++
( http://www.liveinternet.ru/…/paul_v_lashkev…/post385130625// )
+++
( https://www.facebook.com/kievplashkevich/posts/10206957614636246 )
++
|
- - |
http://historybooks.com.ua/prosmotr_podrobnuy.php?id=2770
+++
 |
|
| : X | |
|
: . , , . . ' HAH ;
. ., , , " "; . , , , " "; - . , " ". " " ( 3 28 2013 .) 1. ²Ҳ ² в § 1. § 2. ͳ § 3. . , . . . § 4. . § 5. . . ²̲ в ˲ֲ ̲ § 1. . . § 2. § 3. . § 4. . § 5. . 3. ײ ť ˲-ײ § 1. - . § 2. - § 3. "". § 4. - . 4. ʲ ײ Ѳ ²˲ ² ² ̲ § 1. . § 2. , . § 3. . § 4. § 5. () . . - 5 ² ز Ȫ § 1. § 2. § 3. § 4. . 6. " " ղ 947 § 1. " " 981 . § 2. " " 947 . § 3. § 4. 7 ί ί ²˲ ̲ 'ʲ § 1. -- . § 2. § 3. X - XII § 4. ' . 8. ղ 947 ² Ͳ ² "Ͳ " § 1. "" ϳ § 2. § 3. ˳ , . § 4. ⳿ . . 9 '' ˲ί ² 947 § 1. § 2. '' - § 3. '' -' § 4. ϳ X § 5. - 10. Dz -ʲ Ͳ ˲ § 1. ' ' § 2. ' ' § 3. '' . § 4. § 5. '' Ӳ- 11. ʲ ֲ Ͳ § 1. § 2. . § 3. ? § 4. 12. в § 1. . § 2. 糿. § 3. X . § 4. 糿 . -² , . . |
|
|
|
ֳ: 280 .
752
|
,
+++
: X
: X
: . , , . . ' HAH ;
. ., , , " ";
. , , , " "; - . , " ".
" " ( 3 28 2013 .)
1. ²Ҳ ² в
§ 1.
§ 2. ͳ
§ 3. . , . . .
§ 4. .
§ 5. .
. ²̲ в ˲ֲ ̲
§ 1. . .
§ 2.
§ 3. .
§ 4. .
§ 5. .
3. ײ ť ˲-ײ
§ 1. - .
§ 2. -
§ 3. "".
§ 4. - .
4. ʲ ײ Ѳ ²˲ ² ² ̲
§ 1. .
§ 2. , .
§ 3. .
§ 4.
§ 5. () . . -
5 ² ز Ȫ
§ 1.
§ 2.
§ 3.
§ 4. .
6. " " ղ 947
§ 1. " " 981 .
§ 2. " " 947 .
§ 3.
§ 4.
7 ί ί ²˲ ̲ 'ʲ
§ 1. -- .
§ 2.
§ 3. X - XII
§ 4. ' .
8. ղ 947 ² Ͳ ² "Ͳ "
§ 1. "" ϳ
§ 2.
§ 3. ˳ , .
§ 4. ⳿ . .
9 '' ˲ί ² 947
§ 1.
§ 2. '' -
§ 3. '' -'
§ 4. ϳ X
§ 5. -
10. Dz -ʲ Ͳ ˲
§ 1. ' '
§ 2. ' '
§ 3. '' .
§ 4.
§ 5. '' Ӳ-
11. ʲ ֲ Ͳ
§ 1.
§ 2. .
§ 3. ?
§ 4.
12. в
§ 1. .
§ 2. 糿.
§ 3. X .
§ 4. 糿
.
-²
, .
.
ֳ: 280 .
752
,
+++
|
- - |
|
|
|
|
+
1968 . - . , . .
24-28 , , . , ;
, 18 . , ; , , . , , , , , .
, . . 1968 . .
. , , , . 70 . ..
, — — . . , , ; , .
1968 . , - , , . . , , , .
, (II . .. - 70 . ..), -. , , , , . , .
( 1) , , . (, , ). , 10 . ( ). , . , , ( B ), , . B, .
, (loculus), 1,5 - 1,8 30 - 45 . 4 , - 8, . .
, , . . , , .
9 12 , . (5, 7 9) . — (40 - 70 , 30 - 40 25 - 30 ) . . , , , . : . , . , . . , , ( 37 . ..) 2 II . ..
. , . , , .
, . : , . . , .
, , , .
. , . ( 180 . ..) II (70 ...). ( 37 . ..). (, ), ( )[i], .
, . , , , . 17 . 1 5 . , , . .
, . , , , , .
, 5 17 , , 7- . 75 % 37 . 17 50 . , .
, , . 24 28 . , , , . 4 1 , , - — 17 - 18 .
, . , . , I .. , . , , , , [ii].
. 323 . .. , .
(. . 21:22-23: « , , , , , , , , , »)[iii]. . , . 800 7 . ..[iv] I . .. , , . , . , . , furca () patibulum ( , ), . , . . , . , , .
, , . , I . .., . , , , . . 71 . .. , 6000 , 6000 . 7 . .., , , , 2000 . 70 . .. 500 .
, , . , . , . , , . . , , , , .
, , , Carnifix Serarum (). , , . (flagellum), , , . , , . , , , . titulus, , , . . , . . patibulum, , ; . , , , . , . . , ( 2-3 ) . ; , , . 30 - 60 , , .
, , . — sedile, , . ( « », ). , ; , , . , , . , , suppedaneum, . , , . , , . , .
, , .
, . , , . , , . , , . (. 1 - 2 ), , , .
, , . . , , , 4- . , . , , .
, (calcaneum). . , , . (sustentaculum tali) , . , , . [vi].
, . , , 4 , , , . , . , , , .
, . . , , , . , . . . . 167 , 24 . , . , , , , . , . , , - . - .
. — , . , (). , , . , , . .
- , ( ) , 2-3 , , . , . . . , - : 2-3 .
38 , 28 4 . , , . , , . , , . , .
, , , . , , . , .
, . , , , . -: «, ». , . .
, - . .
, , . . . , . , , . , sedile. . , , , , . : tibia, , fibula .
tibia. . , , . , , . , , . : , , , .
, . , , , . , . , . , - . , , radius ulna.
, . , , . , , , .[vii] : , ; , ; ; , .
, — , . , , . , , , , , . , , , , , (. 19.18), [viii]. , , , , .
, . , , . , , .
, , , , , . () . () . , .
, . . , , : «, ()».
+
+
+
+
|
C , , |
|
http://www.president.gov.ua/news/zvernennya-prezidenta-ukrayini-do-coboru-yepiskopiv-ukrayins-36678
+
29 ѳ 2016 - 10:05
!
C
!
³ , .
, , , .
³ – , ' . , , , . , . , . – .
³, , .
, ', - , , , .
, . : « » (II, 3). , « 䳺». , . , 27 1992 .. : « , 볿, , ». , , « ».
, 䳺 , 13 2014 , , « ».
ֳ , ' : « : , ; ͳ, , – , ». ̳ , 䳿.
, , , 2016 . , ', ' ' .
+++
|
(Theophanes Greek, Andrei Rublev, Dionysius) |
|
-- |
+++
:
, 22 2015
, " ", , , , . , .
, , , ' - .
, "Romfea" , , 10 ' .
, Kalavritski, , .
, arhijeraja, , , " - ".
, .
, - , ̲:
10 ' - - -
!
14.4.2006.
" . . ³ . , , , . , (2005) . antikanonskom , . , , ³ - , ( - " ».). III, . . , . . , , ".
: ̲ , novotarca Vraniskovski !?
2012
III 2011 , , Feljdman. , III ( "... "). 2012 , III , Feljdman. , III ³ . , - . . , "drabinkovsku " 1, "samosvajata" 2 uarbano "" ...
ϳ , , , : ", " ( 24,4 SR.) ..
__________
1 drabinki 볿 - . " "
2 䳿 15 2000 , () - "samosvjatima" . : " ", "" Ljvovski "" г (ekaljuk), . " ", "" Isienko "" Kudrjakov. , neraskoljeni ( ). - . ' UAPC, " ", " " 쳿 egzarahata . .
« » , '- ³ -'- ulinskog. , ulinski . , , 2000 , " ".
(, 24 2015)
< >
[]
+++
| : |
 |
 |
| , 22 2015 | |
|
, , , ' - . , "Romfea" , , 10 ' . , Kalavritski, , . , arhijeraja, , , " - ". , . , - , ̲: 
10 ' - - -
!
14.4.2006. " . . ³ . , , , . , (2005) . antikanonskom , . , , ³ - , ( - " ».). III, . . , . . , , ". 
: ̲ , novotarca Vraniskovski !?
2012 III 2011 , , Feljdman. , III ( "... "). 2012 , III , Feljdman. , III ³ . , - . . , "drabinkovsku " 1, "samosvajata" 2 užarbano "" ... ϳ , , , : ", " ( 24,4 SR.) .. __________ 1 drabinki 볿 - . " " 2 䳿 15 2000 , () - "samosvjatima" . : " ", "" Ljvovski "" г (Čekaljuk), . " ", "" Isičenko "" Kudrjakov. , neraskoljeni ( ). - . ' UAPC, " ", " " 쳿 egzarahata . . « » , '- ³ -'- Žulinskog. , Žulinski . , , 2000 , " ". |
|
| (, 24 2015) |
| < | > |
|---|
+++
|
-- |
+
| : | |
|
| , 22 2015 | |
|
, , - . „“, , , 10 . , , . , , , , „ – “. . – , : 10 - - -
!
14.4.2006. „ . . . , . (2005. ) . . , . – , ( – . „ “). III, . . , . . , .“ : , !?
2012. III 2011. , , . III ( „... “). , 2012. , III , . III . – . . „ “1, ""2, „“ ... , , : „ “ (. . 24,4). __________ 1 – . „ “ 2 15. 2000. , () – „“, . : „ “ „“ „“ (), . „ “ „“ „“ . , , ( ). – . , „ “, , „ “ . . „“ , - . - . , . , 2000. „ “. |
|
| ( , 24 2015 ) |
+++
|
, " ", , , , . , .