- Status
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I am not sure what you mean by that. Even some popes have used the exact word “dictated” to describe what happened. I can agree that the scriptures were not dictated word for word, but were cooperatively written by authors under the guidance of the Spirit. Still, it is the spirit who “dictates” what was written and (still) protects it from all error.
Please see paragraphs 16 and 19, especially.
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
ibid, paragraph 19.
The word “error” carries a strong connotation of misrepresenting the truth.
Either, it’s not what you really mean – or else, I think your understanding must be flawed.
Scriptures are translated by various people, and these people have and occasionally still do introduce ambiguities and copyist mistakes. But, I personally don’t accept that the original text had “error”.
I suggest you spend a little time praying for God to open your mind to consideration of how to clarify your mind, then.
We’re not talking about a single sentence, that is contradicted anywhere else in scripture. We’re talking about a sentence, which, in the original language, bears witness to an ongoing, perpetuating issue of virginity at that time.
If the sentence was a copyist mistake, then there ought to be other ancient bibles which do not contain the same phrasing. There are none. All bibles that we have say exactly the same thing.
There is also no other evidence in the scriptures which contradict her assertion that there was a problem of some kind involved with her having sexual relations with a man.
There is, however, other evidence which all favors virginity and consecration. A preponderance of credible evidence in scripture points in one direction: virginity.
Mary clearly had no children of her own besides Jesus, and there is evidence that she entered a covenant relationship (also mentioned explicitly by the angel) with people who are not of her bloodline in Judah. For Elizabeth and Zechariah are both purebred Aaronites, and Mary’s bloodline (as witnessed by scripture) has no claim on the Aaronite priesthood. See: Hebrews 7:14.
The very fact that the angel mentioned these two people as “kinsmen” directly in response to Mary’s question concerning her virginity, corroborates the oral traditions that she was consecrated to the temple. For a young child is given to the priest on duty in the temple for such consecrations (see the story of Samuel in the OT), the consecrated child becomes part of the priest’s family.
That is precisely what the Angel brings to Mary’s attention when she questions “how” she will become pregnant without knowing a man. And, notice, Mary actually goes to see her heretofore sterile relatives. Mary proves through a dangerous journey and an extended stay of several months, in a position of serving her relatives as a member of their household (no one else did), that Mary personally knew Elizabeth and Zechariah in an especially intimate way.
Although traditions, which can be exaggerated, supply many details of exactly what her covenant relationship entailed with Zechariah and Elizabeth; none the less, the relationship and covenant is clearly tied to the annunciation and Mary’s question about virginity. The Scriptures do this very explicitly by Gabriel.
So; It is not just “one” sentence in scripture which we are discussing. It’s a sentence who’s meaning is supported by surrounding circumstances and evidence. The Tradition of the church merely affirms that any speculation contrary to what the scriptures actually do assert would be in error.
You have both scripture and Tradition; why would you still doubt?
P
prodromos
Guest
Regarding taking vows to remain celibate, it was apparently a common enough practice among the Israelites.
Read Numbers 30, the whole chapter.
Read Numbers 30, the whole chapter.
S
speters33w
Guest
Mary was dedicated to the temple, as a virgin.
Joseph was chosen by sign to be her husband and protector.
It would have been unthinkable for him to have intercourse with Mary, his wife.
This isn’t Canon, but it is a very early Christian written account of the oral traditions.
And it makes sense.
Without this document, who is St. Anne?
The Protoevangelium of James
Joseph was chosen by sign to be her husband and protector.
It would have been unthinkable for him to have intercourse with Mary, his wife.
This isn’t Canon, but it is a very early Christian written account of the oral traditions.
And it makes sense.
Without this document, who is St. Anne?
The Protoevangelium of James
T
TMC
Guest
Why do you feel it necessary to question my faith merely because you disagree with me on scriptural interpretation? I assure you that it is entirely possible to pray and have a mind open to God and still not have your particular interpretation of scripture. As to your apparent belief that the Church teaches a fundamentalist, zero-error view of scripture, that is simply incorrect. Have you read Pope Benedicts books? He does not take the position that scripture was dictated word for word by God and hence contains no errors.
But, of course, none of that has anything to do with whether Mary was perpetually virgin or not. My point is not that the Church is wrong about that, it is that scripture is silent on that point. The teaching comes from Sacred Tradition. The tradition (small ‘t’) that Mary was consecrated to the temple come from the Protoenvangelium of James, and is neither confirmed or contradicted by scripture.
Finally, if it is so obvious from scripture that Mary was consecrated to the temple, why is it that so many Christians don’t see that?
S
SnoopSword
Guest
Reading the Bible by onesself and letting it form your beliefs is VERY DANGEROUS. Bare with me on this… The Bible is ‘divinely booby-trapped’ with nothing being totally proven at all in it. This is divenely done on purpose to ensure Free Will can be exorsized within the scriptures themselves. This is the double edge sword. The Bible is literally designed to curse those with darkness who read it outside of guidance of the Church. I know this sounds crazy.
Mary NOT being a perpetual Virgin is OFF THE TABLE because it places Mary as a sinner and thus not in heaven, not able to come down, not a co-chair on the throne, not an intercessor, and a slew of other possible issues.
This is why BOTH Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in her perpetual virginity. These kinds of modern denials stem from Judaism and Rabbinical attacks as well as growing contempt and hatred from ither sons of Cain practicing Psuedochristianity as they are no longer even mainline Protestant.
The slightest denial of Mary’s virginity cause a chain reaction which can make a person deny Jesus as Messiah without knowing it. That is why the sons of Cain ensure they first and foremost attack denial of Jesus through Mary’s virginity. They stop at nothing. They make up word definitions for fake words using fake languages all to deny Mary’s virginity because it has the effect of you denying Jesus is Lord.
Its never Ok to just believe either or. The Bible expects you to pick, and there is always concequences if you pick the wrong side. These will result in legitimate curses if you chose the wrong side and can completely blind your faith.
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, this is crazy. God gave us the Bible to trick people into damning themselves? That is not a Catholic belief, sorry.
There are several problems with this statement. First, having sex does not make one a sinner or put one in hell, which seems obvious. Second, your post suggests Mary is divine or co-equal with God, which is not Catholic teaching. Also, I have not said that the doctrine is wrong, just that it is not in scripture. Catholicism is not limited to scripture.
Perpetual virginity is not required for Jesus to be the Messiah. Also, one cannot deny Christ “without knowing it.”
I am not sure what you mean by this. If you are suggesting that salvation turns on a correct theological understanding of Mary, I strongly disagree. That is also not Catholic teaching - the Church does not teach that salvation is a theology test.
S
SnoopSword
Guest
The errors are divine in my opinion. I believe these to be on purpose, without coincidence, and all through the Bible… literally everything can be denied at some level. If people stray from the Church teaching and let their own logic of the ‘text’ speak to them, they will receive curses and be left in darkness.
In John 6:50’ish, Jesus said “I tell you for certain that Moses did NOT hand down bread from heaven, but i bring the TRUE bread from heaven”. That is a very loaded statement.
In John 4? The Samaritan woman askes if Jesus is GREATER than Jacob. Jesus answered saying that those who drink Jacobs water will thirst again. Jesus water will never thirst again.
Jesus NEVER refers to The Law of Moses as ‘Gods Law’… which is very common right now.
Does the Holy Spirit truly testify to the law of Moses and the whole Bible? Is everything in the Bible of God? Is viewing the Bible the same way Muslims/Jews view their books such a wise idea? Does God really reside in a book? Would Jesus ask us, like Abraham, to sacrifice our own son which clearly contradicts the law of Moses? Does Jesus really testify to all this? And what are the concequences for us believing God did these things ‘just because its in scripture’? Or is it in scripture for a greater divine reason? Literally a punishment for trying to read the Bible and get lead off course from Jesus through our own will.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Which is exactly what I was saying.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I just GAVE you a link to pope Benedict’s encyclical. Your remark shows incredible gall. Benedict even explicitly says that the Spirit transmits the Scripture “without error” right there in his encyclical. Please READ paragraph 19.
“we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth…”
And “Yes”, I obviously have read some of Benedict’s books.
Pope Benedict speaks about error in a much different way than you do.
That’s exactly why I’m questioning (not outright condemning) the nature of your faith.
What you say is very unclear.
Neither do I. You’re obviously twisting what I said.
I said “I can agree God did NOT dictate scripture word for word”
Stop twisting my words.
YES it does ?!
Scripture speaks the truth until proven otherwise.
I never quoted anything from the protoevangelium of James. Not a thing.
I quoted scripture, and papal encyclicals.
You’re denying the Greek tenses of what was actually said in scripture, if you claim scripture is “silent.” You’re simply wrong.
Also: Scripture provides additional implicit evidence. I will clarify again: scripture says that Mary’s not knowing of man (AKA virginity) was continual and scripture provides evidence that Mary was consecrated, although I’ll agree it’s not explicit proof.
Evidence does exist in scripture that Mary was in a covenant relationship with Elizabeth and Zechariah.
I call it “evidence” because Pure-blood Aaronites are by definition not intermarried with the other tribes, so a covenant is required.
Zechariah is a pure-blood priest of the high priestly line of Abia. See: Luke 1:5 – Scripture also explicitly confirms that not only is Zechariah pure-blooded, but Elizabeth also. Not even Zechariah’s wife is from another tribe.
This is important, because Aaronites were told to preserve the priesthood by only marrying virgins from their own tribe; they were not supposed to even marry a divorced woman. Aaronites were to be holy and pure-bred in a way that not even Levites (normal priests) were.
Therefore, when scripture says Zechariah and Elizabeth were both “blameless” according to the law of Moses, it’s showing that even the blood pedigrees are totally unsoiled/mixed. ( CF: Luke 1:6. Which is Luke proving the purity of their genealogy. )
But Mary CLEARLY descends from the tribe of Judah, which can not be of a pure-blood Aaronite line.
Hebrews 7:14 “It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah,* and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”
usccb.org/bible/hebrews/7
Therefore, Mary has no ties to the Aaronite priesthood by pure-blood. Therefore, Jesus’ blood-line can not claim the priesthood of Aaron. Therefore: Neither Jesus nor Mary can claim either Zechariah or Elizabeth as a close blood relative.
If any of these facts is wrong, then the author of Hebrews has committed a serious error by saying Jesus has no claim on the priesthood. For if Elizabeth and Zechariah are blood relatives to Jesus, then Jesus could claim Aaronitic priesthood.
The “obvious” argument is irrelevant.
I’ll throw it back in your face.
How can you be so blind as to STILL not see that scripture explicitly tells us Mary has close/intimate “kinsman” who obviously is in covenant with her? eg: because she CAN’T be blood relations ?? (I mean, Jew’s were all related back at Abraham, and we’re all related back at Adam… but those do not qualify as close/intimate/blood relations. )
So, I’ll answer your question:
Some people have more open-ness to the Spirit of God than others.
That’s why it’s not as obvious to some people as others.
The question is NOT “why isn’t scripture so easy to read that anyone can understand it.”
The question is not even, “Can it be absolutely proven from scripture?”
The question is about what is a better translation of what is said in the bible, and what is “correct.” Go back and look at the O.P.
You’re the one objecting to what is said in scripture with no sound basis for doing so.
Scripture DOES explicitly say she was continually virgin, using synonyms, you just continue to ignore what scripture actually does say.
T
TMC
Guest
Obviously we are not going to agree. I am not sure why you have invested so much emotion in this issue, or feel the need to insult me to try to make your points. I remain confident in my statements, and in my knowledge of what the Church teaches and what scripture says (and does not say). I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.I just GAVE you a link to pope Benedict’s encyclical. Your remark shows incredible gall. Benedict even explicitly says that the Spirit transmits the Scripture “without error” right there in his encyclical. Please READ paragraph 19.
“we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth…”
And “Yes”, I obviously have read some of Benedict’s books.
Pope Benedict speaks about error in a much different way than you do.
That’s exactly why I’m questioning (not outright condemning) the nature of your faith.
What you say is very unclear.
Neither do I. You’re obviously twisting what I said.
I said “I can agree God did NOT dictate scripture word for word”
Stop twisting my words.
YES it does ?!
Scripture speaks the truth until proven otherwise.
I never quoted anything from the protoevangelium of James. Not a thing.
I quoted scripture, and papal encyclicals.
You’re denying the Greek tenses of what was actually said in scripture, if you claim scripture is “silent.” You’re simply wrong.
Also: Scripture provides additional implicit evidence. I will clarify again: scripture says that Mary’s not knowing of man (AKA virginity) was continual and scripture provides evidence that Mary was consecrated, although I’ll agree it’s not explicit proof.
Evidence does exist in scripture that Mary was in a covenant relationship with Elizabeth and Zechariah.
I call it “evidence” because Pure-blood Aaronites are by definition not intermarried with the other tribes, so a covenant is required.
Zechariah is a pure-blood priest of the high priestly line of Abia. See: Luke 1:5 – Scripture also explicitly confirms that not only is Zechariah pure-blooded, but Elizabeth also. Not even Zechariah’s wife is from another tribe.
This is important, because Aaronites were told to preserve the priesthood by only marrying virgins from their own tribe; they were not supposed to even marry a divorced woman. Aaronites were to be holy and pure-bred in a way that not even Levites (normal priests) were.
Therefore, when scripture says Zechariah and Elizabeth were both “blameless” according to the law of Moses, it’s showing that even the blood pedigrees are totally unsoiled/mixed. ( CF: Luke 1:6. Which is Luke proving the purity of their genealogy. )
But Mary CLEARLY descends from the tribe of Judah, which can not be of a pure-blood Aaronite line.
Hebrews 7:14 “It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah,* and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.”
usccb.org/bible/hebrews/7
Therefore, Mary has no ties to the Aaronite priesthood by pure-blood. Therefore, Jesus’ blood-line can not claim the priesthood of Aaron. Therefore: Neither Jesus nor Mary can claim either Zechariah or Elizabeth as a close blood relative.
If any of these facts is wrong, then the author of Hebrews has committed a serious error by saying Jesus has no claim on the priesthood. For if Elizabeth and Zechariah are blood relatives to Jesus, then Jesus could claim Aaronitic priesthood.
The “obvious” argument is irrelevant.
I’ll throw it back in your face.
How can you be so blind as to STILL not see that scripture explicitly tells us Mary has close/intimate “kinsman” who obviously is in covenant with her? eg: because she CAN’T be blood relations ?? (I mean, Jew’s were all related back at Abraham, and we’re all related back at Adam… but those do not qualify as close/intimate/blood relations. )
So, I’ll answer your question:
Some people have more open-ness to the Spirit of God than others.
That’s why it’s not as obvious to some people as others.
The question is NOT “why isn’t scripture so easy to read that anyone can understand it.”
The question is not even, “Can it be absolutely proven from scripture?”
The question is about what is a better translation of what is said in the bible, and what is “correct.” Go back and look at the O.P.
You’re the one objecting to what is said in scripture with no sound basis for doing so.
Scripture DOES explicitly say she was continually virgin, using synonyms, you just continue to ignore what scripture actually does say.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
You’ve been twisting my words. That alone is enough to get a response.
If you don’t want abrasive remarks, be kind enough to read carefully and pay attention.
You just claimed Church teaching regarding this issue. Back it up with a direct quote. That’s what you should have done in the first place.
Show where the church officially teaches that the Greek of the sentence I outlined is mistaken. I have NEVER seen a statement like that from the church.
I don’t care whether you believe based on scripture or Tradition; but it’s wrong to tell people that scripture has “error” without a clear explanation, especially when you clearly don’t know.
You teach by your example, and you can scandalize by your example.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Oh brother…
S
SnoopSword
Guest
Some might ask why the Bible doesnt go out of its way to further explain things and tidy this matter up. This is very divine reasons so Free Will can be excersized even in the scripture itself. God wants the Holy Spirit to complete this mystery for us - not our IQ’s. I often equate Holy Spirit to ‘common sense’ which is a certain simplicity in Christ.
LUKE 11:27-28 (NABRE,WYC… im on ipad so hard to copy paste)
-The woman says that the womb IS blessed because it bore Jesus. If she wasnt a virgin after that, the womb would no longer be blessed as it would be in a ‘defiled’ status making mary’s pure flesh defiled.
-The WYC calls her a ‘woman of the company’ implying her to have been ‘fan-following’ Jesus’ enterage and an enthusiastic believer! Also her statement alone makes her credible that she was privey to the story first hand. (Remember to take this as a real event with real people and judge the sources).
-She would have likely been in the ‘womens wing’ of the crowd and likely privey to first hand info due to her statement. Always keep in mind Mary was always seen as a wise woman until 50 years ago.
-I will spare going on about astrological fertility, divine feminine ‘womb worship’, but it was practiced worldwide and how the Magi knew a king was born. That lady would have definitely know about such things as she praises the femine aspect as a way of praising Jesus.
-Jesus responds to her saying ‘better yet, blessed are those who hear Gods word and observe it’. Jesus is implying point blank that his mother hears Gods Word and observes it. Observe could pertain to Law at THAT time of him saying it.
-Jesus only fulfilled the Law fully because is Mother helped to fulfill it as a parent. We know Mary was compliant on Jesus behalf at the 8th day for circumcision into the covenant. You can say Mary made the first act for Jesus to fulfill the Law.
-Heres what a lot of people do NOT know - Mary actually was sinless after Jesus birth. However, if she had a girl, or ANOTHER CHILD, she would have made a sin offering and been blemished raising Jesus which could cause legalistic problems.
-Jews and Pseudochristians CONSTANTLY use her offering as FALSE evidence Mary was a sinner.
-Each time we listen to Satan and his children’s influence, we entertain such ideas that Mary had more children. God will not stop us from this. We must use our free will responsibly because if Mary had one more child, she would have been in sin.
-Remeber, ritually unclean is NOT a sin and doesnt make the flesh unclean or changed. Jesus implies many times that the Law of Moses has been compromised. Jesus says above that his mother was able to hear Gods word, and observe it - This implies she fulfilled the Law perfect as a woman. Keep in mind this was before Acts and the upper room etc.
-Since we no do not Judge sin by the Law, it would be foolish to judge Mary as a sinner based on the Law because we immediatly become cursed when we do such things. However, putting ourselves into the ‘middle of the story’ while Jesus is in the process of fulfilling the Law, Mary also plays a huge role.
So. considering all these things, do you REALLY BELIEVE Mary was having casual, lustful relations at home when GOD HIMSELF empregnated her womb? Joseph had a visitation? Considering the spilled seed stuff ontop of all this and other suerstitions. Considering all the Pagan beliefs on secuality, transfer of spirits, etc? This SHOULD BE common sense.
What if I told you that just IMPLYING Jesus had brothers or sister, puts dishonor on Jesus… that Jesus himself implies red letter… and furthermore ties this dishonor to ‘unbelief’. And yes he’s talking about US! See Mark 6:1-10? if you dont believe me. Try to see the OBVIOUS reason it dishonors Jesus. This is the 2 edge sword of the Bible.
Also something to note:
The first Hebrew Bible in the Hebrew language (Leningrad Codex) came out of Russia dated the between the 11th-13th Century - NOT A TYPO. Yes the Quran is roughly twice as old as the ‘Torah’.
The LXX is some 1500 YEARS OLDER than the OLDEST KNOWN ‘TORAH’. ‘Block Hebrew’ should NOT have recognition or usage in the Catholic world. The Hebrew letters are strange looking and alien to the human soul.
Did Jesus speak Hebrew? Never! Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Greek - as well as the whole wider region. What about ‘paleo Hebrew’? Simply fables as those ancient ‘pre-Greek’ scripts are all Phoenecian. Todays modern, and ever evolving Hebrew is akin to a ‘sorcerer’s script’ that is being used to disprove and change the Bible at will. Numbers 12:8 takes on a new meaning and ends up getting denied. Kind of like the word alma magically becomes 2 words - young woman.
If Hebrew was a true language, why wasnt the Talmud written in Hebrew when they CLAIM it was written in 600AD? And how is it that the FIRST KNOWN COPY of ANY Rabbinical writing at all is in 1490 Printed in Naples Italy? Yes read that last sentence again I was also shocked to find this. ANY Hebrew manuscripts of any kind before the 13th century is extremely rare.
Sorry for the rant but people really need to seek the facts on what they’re reading or believing. Be cautious it can claim you faith as our own ego takes the driving seat and drives us into the darkness away from the truth. I see it everyday.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I agree that God sends the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth; so that there is a mystery revealed in scripture which progressively becomes clearer throughout a person’s life.
I have never looked at it so much as that “free will” can be exercised, but more along the lines of having a gentle learning curve so that some truth can be found by everyone; and each time we return to the fountain of truth we find more wisdom.
But I see something totally different in that passage.
This woman is in a crowd of Pharisees who are trying to destroy/kill Jesus.
They have been trying to accuse Jesus of being Beelzebul, the prince of demons.
And Jesus takes their argument apart, and midway through his rebuttal (“while he was STILL speaking”) this woman raises up and exalts her own voice.
Sure, she wanted to appear to be a fan of Jesus, but she was being extremely rude and calling attention to herself. It reminds me of what prostitutes do on a sidewalk to get a man’s attention. They call out compliments that are empty flattery in order to call attention to themselves. Often, people’s words reveal that they are more interested in themselves and their relationship with a man, than with that man’s mother.
When I read the scripture, carefully, I notice that the lady never even says “mother”. Then, I notice this rude woman talks about wombs and breasts in the Aorist tense, which doesn’t really tell us the event strictly happened in the past at all. The woman clearly doesn’t use the past perfect tense, which is the tense meaning “over and done with”; Therefore, the wombs and breasts being mentioned can still considered to be “bearing” in order to still be blessed. It is ONLY the bearing of Jesus’ weight upon the womb, and suckling at a woman’s breast, which the woman is talking about.
It’s a statement gravid with double meanings:
While he was still speaking, a woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb bearing you and the breast that got to nurse you.”
biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/11-27.htm
I suppose that’s one way to look at it. But Jesus reprimands this woman, and explicitly says “RATHER”; so if the statement the woman made was really about Mary; Jesus appears ( in some limited sense ) to be denying that the bearing of himself by the womb and breast is the true blessing.
Notice, precisely what Jesus says:
So, Jesus shows a divine awareness of the potential slander the woman’s double entendre could heap on him by other pharisees.
He answers the woman by setting his own mother’s blessing at a higher level.
If the woman is innocent, then Jesus has set her “straight” to a better blessing;
if she is devious, he effectively has cut her off.
In either case, we know Mary is a woman who “observed” what God told her.
Therefore, Jesus ends up blessing his mother.
Indeed… and perhaps she knows it too well.
yes.
I haven’t been reading or following the protoevangeluim of James; so that I’m not certain how you come to the conclusion that Joseph was not involved in the circumcision. As a couple, they were the first to offer him up for a ceremonial cutting. And during the circumcision, when his blood was first shed according to the law – they gave him the name “God Saves” (Jesus) according to what the Angel told Mary.
True. It says in scripture that they offered according to the law, not that Mary did so.
I’m out of time for today; so I’ll have to comment on the rest tomorrow.
Your brother in Christ, Jesus, Andrew.
P
prodromos
Guest
Our tradition regarding Joseph and Mary does not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but rather, much of the Protoevangelium comes from Church Tradition. No one would ever claim that the information recorded in the Gospels was unknown in the Church until Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote down their accounts. Neither were details of the lives of Joseph an Mary unknown, although it was primarily at Jerusalem where that knowledge was maintained.
M
MT1926
Guest
I think I know where you are going with this but it isn’t “OBVIOUS” to me. Could you please elaborate a little more on Mark 6:1-10.
Thank you,
Matthew 19:26
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this but Jesus favored virginity.
S
SnoopSword
Guest
Once you see the obvious, then you’ll know exactly how you should be reading the Bible and how the Bible is not ‘The Word Of God’ as it has words of many different types of people. Everything being a TRAP that can ruin your faith and even curse you. I had no idea the Bible was this divine. It really is without error. Be back later to finish the post.
- Status