The 7 missing books of the protestant bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter concerneduser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First all of the Canons are political!

At the time of Jesus, the Hebrew Canon did not include the 7 Books. It also did not include the 4 Books of the Slavic Chistian Canon that are not in the Roman Canon.
But, as mentioned by earlier writers to this site, there was no real Hebrew Canon
either. What became identified asa the Hebrew Canon was the collection of writings
that were recognized by the Jerusalem Temple cultists.

The problem was Jerusalem politics. Since the time of the exile to Babylon, many Hebrew
exiles became successful in Babylon. By the time of Jesus, the Yeshivas, Hebrew centers of learning, of Babylon were mor efinancially secure and had attracted some of the most outstanding scholars. Alexandria Egypt, where Jeremiah fled was also a great center of Hebrew learning. There was great competition among these centers. The leaders
of the Temple in Jerusalem did not reecognize the validity of the scholars of these other
2 centers. Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe traveled between the 3 centers. The Jersulaem cult
did not recognize his writing becasue he was not from their cult.

It is interesting that the Chanukah is based on Macabees which is not included in the Heb-
rew Canon.

It was the secular politcs of the competition of Rome with Constantinople that led to the inclusion of 4 Books in the Slavic(Eastern) Canon that are not in the Roman Canon.

In the Hebrew Tradition, the Oral Law was just as valid as Scripture. Scripture had been
transmitted for hundreds of years orally before it was every written. The Mishnah was the
first writing oif this, non Scritural, Oral Law.

Luther, having experienced the oppression of the Chruch’s non Scriptural traditions, rejected all such traditions, Christian and Hebrew. Also suffering, as we continue to suffer, from a lack of documentation of 1st century Hebrew culture and writings, Luther embraced the position of the Jersalem cultists with respect to the Hebrew Testament Canon.

Like the irony of Chanukah and the Hebrew Canon, some of the Canticles that are included
in the Book of Common Prayer(Protestant) come from the intertestimentary writings that
are not included in what is commonlyu identified as the Protestant Canon. It is also
important to note that certain Epsicopal Church USA(ECUSA), Canadian Anglican(Can
BAS) and Church of England(CofE) exceptions to the Revised Common Lectionary(RCL)
(Protestant Lectionary) include intertestimentary readings.

Also, the Daily Office, a Roman Rite tradition, survived the Luther schism.
.
 
Hi, Gerry (Clark),

This is Jerry (Parker). I enjoyed your account of the factions among the Hebrews and how it impacts the question of the Old Testament`s canon. I frequently remind Protestants that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Churches, despite the small variations in their lists of the canon of the O.T., use the Christian Bible, with Christian canon for both Testaments. Protestants and sectaries who refuse the deuterocanonon (“Apocrypha”) are Judaizers, against whom the Apostles have warned Christians. WE CATHOLICS USE A CHRISTIAN BIBLE!!!
 
T Qualey,

Thanks for those links:thumbsup:, of which two work. I have put them among my “bookmarks” to read and to consult.

Jerry
 
Hi, Roy5,

1.) You may be surprised to learn that Jewish synagogues do not have a ‘Bible’. The Jews do not believe in the New Testament or that Christ is the Messiah.

2.) St. Jerome did do the translation of the Bible into the common language of the time, Latin. And, then he submitted his work to the Pope for approval. You may benefit from some additonal informaiton on St. Jerome:justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

3.) One of the more conficting terms in use is ‘mainline congregations’. Who makes such a determination? Seriously, with thousands of competing comgrregations what kind of criteria would be used to make such a designaiton?

4.) “Minor Matter”, eh? Minimizing the distinctions and divisions that have been splintering off for the past 500 years really does not do justice to the reality of Protestantism. Private interpretation of Scripture that is taken as the sole authority had done nothing but create havoc in the Body of Christ. Honestly, ‘Minor Matter’, in my opinion, avoids the issue.

5.) By claiming to have a strong argument for something to go in either direction seems like you are saying if someone asks for directions, you can tell them ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ with equal enthusaism - but not equal accuracy.🤷 I think such an ‘argument’ would cause many problems for those seeking directions.

God bless
Roy5 said:
A couple quick thoughts
  1. As had been pointed out already, the Bible you will find in a Jewish synagogue is identical to the one in Protestant churches.
  2. St. Jerome, I have read, who translated the Vulgate, felt that these seven books should not be included in the canon.
  3. Many mainline congregations (and hymnals) use selections from these seven books. They certainly are not condemned, just not part of the canon. Luther, Calvin and others decided to go with the Hebrew Bible as recognized by the Jews.
  4. This is really a minor matter. Far more important is how different denominations (or folks within denominations) differ in their interpretations of the Bible. Evangelicals tend to be sola scriptura. Catholicism emphasizes the interpretation as endorsed by the magisterium. Mainline (usually liberal or moderate) Protestants are inclined to believe that there is great inspiration in scripture but that it is not without contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and a host of other problems. How can a Christian, for example, believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of Jericho, Ai and other cities? How does that fit in with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount?
Code: 
5. A strong argument can be made for including or omitting the seven books.
Click to expand...
 
Vahva98 said:
That is the only non-proven anti-Catholic statement I have made, but I think it was worth showing.
Click to expand...
Does your bible have Jesus saying “God is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him, all are alive”? (Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:27)

Does your bible have Jesus descending to the “dead” to preach the Gospel to them? (1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6)

Does your bible teach you that we are members of Christ’s Body? (1 Corinthians 6:15, 1 Corinthians 12:27)

Are you saying that one part of Christ can communicate to those who have been called from this life, but another part of His Body cannot? Where does your bible say this?
 
Vahva98 said:
Good writings, but not inspired by God for Scripture.
Click to expand...
2 Maccabees makes the first mention in all of scripture of both the resurrection, as well as eternal life. Since Christ is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), please tell us who inspired man to write down these concepts before they came to be, if not God?

Please explain the embarrassing protestant “inter-testamental period” which has cropped up since the rebellion. Protestants claim that God was strangely silent. Yet, it is not in prophecy - not in the bible. How can protestants believe something that is not in the bible? God did not say that He would be silent. So, where did the idea come from? And, when?

Frankly, it makes Christ a liar, as our Lord said clearly that “the law and the prophets prophesied until John (the baptist)” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16)

2 Maccabees prophesied both the resurrection and eternal life, and was written to document the epic battle which restored the Mosaic law to Israel in time for Christ to be born under the law. “So what”, you say?

Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life, had to be born under the law in order to fulfill the law.

The clearly man-made “inter-testamental period” is unsupportable.
 
T Qualey,

Great reply, 👍 fighter, to that Protestant doubter, regarding 2 Machabees. All of the historical books of the Machabees, including 3 Machabees in the Clementine Vulgate`s appendix, are wonderful. (4 Machabees, though, more obviously and deservedly gets left out of the Catholic canon.) This Protestant idea that there was no prophecy in late O.T. times, when the deuterocanonical books were written, just flops in the face of the evidence. Passages in Baruch also are astonishing.

Jerry Parker
 
Hi, Meme1961,

Excellent post! 👍

It is quite obvious that Roy5 has carved his own image of god - and feels that he may worship it as he pleases. Scripture is only there - via private interpretation - to mean whatever he wants it to mean. This gives Protestantism the ‘flexibility’ to change with the times (e.g., Luther and Calvin both had devotions to Mary - but, today’s Protestants howl at such facts!)

I think it is fair to say you have sihined the light of Truth on Roy5’s statements. I seriously think he will be back for more! 👍

Thanks for posting.

God bless
meme1961 said:
They are, in fact, rejected. The process wasn’t a black and white one, but they were rejected by Luther. They were considered by Luther to NOT be scripture. They were left in place by Protestants as being somewhat the Christian version of Hadith, but were not considered scripture.

That is, in fact, what a Catholic means by “removed”, that these books were removed from the Canon of Scripture.

Because the Truth is important. The most important thing, in point of fact. The Truth can be attacked in many different ways, and one way is to slowly erode it, bit by bit (book by book, if you will).

Minor to you, but not necessarily unimportant when seeking the Truth.

Yes, he did. So what? Death is the supernatural consequence of original sin. That God has the right to judge us is indisputable. So, what’s your problem?

You mischaracterize God. God is not just loving, forgiving and compassionate. To reduce God to just those attributes is to make unto yourself a graven idol.

God is also justice and truth. A just and loving God would indeed allow us to exercise our free will, and to garner the conseqences of that exercise. To do otherwise is not loving, it is a form of enslavement.

You have it exactly right: YOUR God. It is hubris to claim the right to control or judge God.

The Ten Commandments are his commands to his creatures, not a contract or covenant, and not binding on him.

I would. What God has judged as righteous, I will happily submit to accepting as righteous. Then again, he is my Lord and Master, and I his creation. Not the other way around.

Yes he would. If necessary, he would even offer up his own son to torture and execution.

The word genocide is, all by itself, a straw man argument in this context. A better phrasing: “Would God order the execution of people who have chosen evil, and that are acting in accordance to this choice?”

Did God order the abortion of those children? If not, they are perfectly innocent, their lives sacred, and thus murdering them is an abomination before the Lord.

Your problem is that you view death as always a punishment or a judgement. You may be correct in viewing those that God ordered killed as innocent. But if so, they entered into paradise. Indeed, is it not possible that God ordered these deaths so that they might die in a state of grace, rather than live to embrace the evil that their nations would teach them, and thus end up rejecting him and ending up in eternal torment?

Human reason is imperfect, and incomplete. Only God’s reason is complete and perfect. And sometimes, death is a mercy. But only a fool judges God.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Vahva98,

St Jerome (331-420) catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=10 actually lived before the medieval period - especially the corrupt medieval period you are addressing. The idea of the Catholic Church ‘blackmailing’ St. Jerome is truly laughable. So, either you allowed your imagination to simply run away with you, or you have indulged in yet another anti-Catholic polemic. Kindly produce a reference for how the Church forced Jerome to do what he did not want to do.

And, since you only believe in the Bible - tell me what Matt 16 means to you. Pay close attention to the “Whatever” part - you know, Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, if the Church wants to identify Jerome as an official canonized saint - it certianly can. If you have difficulty understanding that Whatever is not limited, this sounds like a personal problem to me.

God bless
Vahva98 said:
I cannot edit my post further for some reason, but I want to add the part about what the pro Catholic article, “5 Myths about 7 books” says about Jerome. (Btw, you call Jerome a “saint”, but Catholics abuse this term and do not accept another one of Paul’s writings, that all Christians are saints. Read the New Testament, and there are SEVERAL passages talking about how all Christians are saints (you can look those up on your own). And here’s an article proving why praying to the dead is ACTUALLY A SIN gotquestions.org/praying-to-the-dead.html. I know these things are random, but I just wanted to disprove those extra Catholic teachings before moving to the disproving of the “5 Myths about 7 books” article.) Even the article says, when Jerome translated the RC Bible, he did indeed think the apocrypha should not be included. But later, he changed his way of thinking. Why? The RCC was known to be VERY corrupt in medieval times, and it is very likely that the RCC did not want the very translator of their Bible to be known to disagree with them. So they likely blackmailed, tortured, or threatened him to make a public statement about agreeing with the Apocrypha. (The RCC killed anyone who disagreed with them, which delayed the Reformation, because many people (including Luther!!) did not want to break off of the Catholic church, simply correct the errors. Luther was just the first one who lived long enough to make his ideas widespread. Luther actually would’ve been murdered by the RCC if Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, hadn’t defended him.)

That is the only non-proven anti-Catholic statement I have made, but I think it was worth showing.
Click to expand...
 
Vahva 98, like so many from Anabaptist and other sectarian background, just seems to make up history to fit the needs of his sectarian confession. I have read in numerous places that St. Jerome, a figure of late antiquity, not of the so-called “Middle Ages” (and also long, long before the Great Schism of East and West), was persuaded by the reason of others to include the deuterocanonical writings in the Vulgate Bible.

In his enthusiasm for Hebrew learning, St. Jerome needed that interaction with others who were less biassed. St. Jerome was very zealous, even on occasion downright impetuous, even at times overly so in the wrong sort of way, but he recognised, unlike later Reformation and post-Reformation sectaries, the value of listening to others and even of changing his mind due to their judicious counsels. (Catholics, incidentally, are not forced to ignore some minor blemishes of character, apart from immorality, of canonised saints, so these words about St. Jerome should not cause scandal.)

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Let s hope that our new friend will continue to read, so as to counter some of the razor thin theology expressed, and also to erase some of the horrible things that he/she has heard and passed on without checking.
 
Po` Guy,

You wrote: *Let s hope that our new friend will continue to read, so as to counter some of the razor thin theology expressed, and also to erase some of the horrible things that he/she has heard and passed on without checking. *​

That is good advice for us. 👍 It takes time, in many cases, for sectaries to get over their illusions about the Christian faith, even about the Bible itself (regarding any inadequate and incomplete Protestant one, unless it is an edition, like the best, complete ones of the A.V., a.k.a. the K.J.V., that at least includes the “Apocrypha” on some footing). These sectaries stake their all on the Bible, and then begin to realise, with a sinking feeling, that the Sectarian Bible is not God`s full Christian Bible.

That can take them, especially if they tend to be Judaizers at heart, some time to get used to! It has taken some years for me, not so much to accept the deuteocanonicals (which I always did) but to realise just how authoritative they really are, rather than some sort of required add-on to the Anglican and Lutheran Old Testament.

Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Po` Guy,

You wrote: *Let s hope that our new friend will continue to read, so as to counter some of the razor thin theology expressed, and also to erase some of the horrible things that he/she has heard and passed on without checking. *​

That is good advice for us. 👍 It takes time, in many cases, for sectaries to get over their illusions about the Christian faith, even about the Bible itself (regarding any inadequate and incomplete Protestant one, unless it is an edition, like the best, complete ones of the A.V., a.k.a. the K.J.V., that at least includes the “Apocrypha” on some footing). These sectaries stake their all on the Bible, and then begin to realise, with a sinking feeling, that the Sectarian Bible is not God`s full Christian Bible.

That can take them, especially if they tend to be Judaizers at heart, some time to get used to! It has taken some years for me, not so much to accept the deuteocanonicals (which I always did) but to realise just how authoritative they really are, rather than some sort of required add-on to the Anglican and Lutheran Old Testament.

Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
We cannot sniff our noses at tribal warfare around the world if we engage in it ourselves. Our eternal destiny is not a team competition; not a democratic process, and certainly not a game. It must be a relentless search for God’s revealed truth, no matter how unpalatable it may seem to us when we first encounter it.
 
Hi, Jerry Parker,

“Aanbaptist”, eh? That one got by me… 🙂 Actually, it had been so long since I heard the term, I had to look it up. In case anyone else feels a bit rusty - here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/01445b.htm

Here is another link on St. Jerome that you may find of interest: philvaz.com/apologetics/num53.htm The good saint put his talents and work at the disposal of the Church and submitted to the authority of the Popel

God bless
Jerry_Parker said:
Vahva 98, like so many from Anabaptist and other sectarian background, just seems to make up history to fit the needs of his sectarian confession. I have read in numerous places that St. Jerome, a figure of late antiquity, not of the so-called “Middle Ages” (and also long, long before the Great Schism of East and West), was persuaded by the reason of others to include the deuterocanonical writings in the Vulgate Bible.

In his enthusiasm for Hebrew learning, St. Jerome needed that interaction with others who were less biassed. St. Jerome was very zealous, even on occasion downright impetuous, even at times overly so in the wrong sort of way, but he recognised, unlike later Reformation and post-Reformation sectaries, the value of listening to others and even of changing his mind due to their judicious counsels. (Catholics, incidentally, are not forced to ignore some minor blemishes of character, apart from immorality, of canonised saints, so these words about St. Jerome should not cause scandal.)

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
 
T Qualey,

You wrote:* “Aanbaptist”, eh? That one got by me. Actually, it had been so long since I heard the term, I had to look it up. In case anyone else feels a bit rusty*.​

Having come out of Lutheranism, I am very aware of the various streams of the magisterial (Reformed-Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Anglican) and sectarian radical (Anabaptist, Mennonite) Reformations and their clashes with each other. As much as the modern-day Baptists rant about The 66 (i.e., Protestant canon without Apocrypha), their Anabaptist ancestors, especially in the Low Countries, used and believed (in their own aberrent way) the full Catholic canon of Scripture, a point on which they would change in later times (as they change with ever unrelenting novelty).

I am very fond of the original edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia; thanks for the references to its online form. I used both it and its first post-Vatican II remake (The New Catholic Encyclopedia) quite a lot over the years, as a librarian and for personal use, too, but the earlier one is more reliable doctrinally.

Jerry Parker
 
I’ll go into the details later, but for now:

St. Jerome revised the Vetus Latina gospels and Psalms under orders from Pope Damasus; he translated most books of the OT (Baruch being curiously one of the exceptions) from the original Hebrew or Aramaic translations or the Greek at private request. Only later were these translations/revisions gathered together into a single collection, to which were added books Jerome did not work on (like the rest of the NT and a few OT books). Still later, well into the medieval period, was this collection called the ‘common(ly-used) version’ (in the Latin Church), versio vulgata.
 

Patrìck wrote: St. Jerome revised the Vetus Latina gospels and Psalms under orders from Pope Damasus; he translated most books of the OT (Baruch being curiously one of the exceptions) from the original Hebrew or Aramaic translations or the Greek at private request. Only later were these translations/revisions gathered together into a single collection, to which were added books Jerome did not work on (like the rest of the NT and a few OT books). Still later, well into the medieval period, was this collection called the ‘common(ly-used) version’ (in the Latin Church), versio vulgata.​

Maybe, Patrick, maybe not. There are a lot more theories of St. Jeromes involvement in the Latin Vulgate Bible than just that (1) he did it all himself, coming down to us in a more-or-less fixed form, or (2) the paradigm of its origin that you cite. In the end, the Old Latin and St. Jeromes texts got mingled together in the transmission of the Latin Vulgate in a way that never can be unravelled and accounted for definitively.

What is important is that, ultimately, the Latin Vulgate is a treasure of the Church, however one untangles St. Jeromes own part in it. Certainly, the question of canonicity of the contents of its Old Testament goes way beyond whatever were St. Jeromes earlier and later preferences in this regard; ultimately the Church determines the canon, not an individual Bible scholar (or even a group of them), not even someone of the stature and learning of St. Jerome.

This is not really a problem for Catholics, since the Bible is the Churchs, not St. Jeromes, but it might seem intolerably uncertain and difficult to understand from a Protestants and sectarians inappropriate viewpoint.
 
This is a response to the post by Vahva98 on July 13, 2012. I hope it helps.

“The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, butin 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture.”
Actually, the Catholic Church had used these book for almost a millennium before this. The Catholics of the time only reaffirmed their canon in response to Martin Luther’s removal of the books from an established scripture. There is no Protestant Church, but rather a collection of churches called “protestant” because they protest against the Catholic Church. The Jews actually had no set canon when Jesus was around. It was sometime after Jesus that the Jews reorganized and decided to set an official canon. They rejected the Deuterocanon, which is what Catholics call it, for two reasons. One was that some pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. The other is that some were written in Greek, and they only accepted those written in Hebrew.

“- Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha.”
This is a poor argument. It is true that they never quoted them verbatim, but they did make many statements clearly based off the Deuterocanon. Also, this implies that quotation is a method of defining canon. This is false for two reasons. One is that the apostles quoted several works not accepted by any Christian faith, such as the book of Enoch, or some of the works of some pagan poets. The other reason is explained below.

“- Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference.”
He referenced many books, though no canon was clearly defined at the time, but he did not reference all books. For example, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum.

“- Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament.”
No Bible was clearly defined by the Church at that time. He is one person. There were many other Church authorities who believed that they should be included. It is also irrelevant, as this person does not represent all of God’s word. He is not the ultimate authority on what books should or shouldn’t be in the Bible.

“That is why the protestants didn’t include it.”
Actually, they’re just a few of the worse reasons.

“Also, a Catholic mentioned on Yahoo Answers (I’ve been browsing around to find out the reason for the removal of the Apocrypha) that Luther dropped the books because of his selfish thinking that ‘You may only get to heaven through the Means of Grace.’”
I checked Yahoo Answers and found no Catholic saying this. I found a reference to Purgatory, but this does not deny that it is grace that saves us. If this Catholic said this directly, than he/she is wrong.

“I do not know why Catholics don’t believe this, as it is VERY CLEARLY stated in Ephesians 2: 8-9 ‘For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.’”
I prefer the translation in my copy of the Bible. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Catholics do believe that it is by the grace of God that we are saved, but this does not mean that our salvation is assured. Paul denies here that it is our work that brought about salvation, giving the credit to God. This is to prevent any human from claiming that they caused themselves to be saved. This does not deny Catholic teaching. Jesus brought about salvation. It was by the grace of God that Jesus came at all. In dying on the cross, Jesus gave us the option of eternal life. However, we can refuse to accept this gift through sin. We can also accept it through good works in God’s name.

“Additional reference, Romans 3:28 ‘For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.’”
This section emphasizes that the Church is no longer bound by the laws of any specific nation. It speaks of how God is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, thereby making it easy to become a Christian no matter what your nationality may be. Also note that shortly after this verse, Romans 3:31 says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Finally, “works of the law,” does not mean good works, but rather the obedience of the laws of the nation to which any reader may belong. It says that obeying the laws of your own nation, or even the laws of the Jews, is not what you need to gain salvation.

“(and the Catholic church also has been known to start certain traditions (lies) for its own benefits, such as the selling of indulgences purely for money, even though they have no Biblical origin, and are a lie.”
Actually, indulgences are not a lie. This can be explained in greater depth elsewhere. It is true that the Church was selling indulgences for money almost a millennium ago. It’s why Martin Luther left the Church. These, however, were that actions of the Pope, who Catholic Church never claims does not sin. On the contrary, we teach that only the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, and abortion victims never sin. Everyone else does. I believe that the Pope was wrong to sell indulgences, but this should not reflect on the teachings of the Church. Also, note that the Church has certainly solidified a great deal since then, even though there is still a fair amount of confusion among its members. If you notice, the Pope no longer has secular authority. He now only has spiritual power. This limits such things as selling indulgences.

“Also, if purgatory is real, why does no Biblical figure talk about it?”
I wish I had time to go into this. It’s a fascinating subject.

“Well, that may be, but the Apocrypha is not accepted by all, while the New Testament is”
Actually, the New Testament is rejected by Jews, Hindus, atheists, Muslims, ect.

“the New Testament says that the Apocrypha (atleast the part about good works) is wrong.”
Not necessarily. The arguments above show at the very least that there is another plausible way to interpret the New Testament, and this way includes the whole context, rather than just one verse. Even if you disagreed with my interpretation, it is plausible enough that you can’t claim that your interpretation is absolute truth. If your interpretation cannot be proven to be correct, nor can your claim that the New Testament rejects ideas in the Deuterocanon.

Hopefully, you’ll be able to find answers to points that I did not address in a different thread.

God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top