Donny's Ramblings

Who Decided What Books To Place in Our Bible?

18 Comments

In past blog posts, and on a local message board in which I discuss such things with others, there have been a few people who have asked questions in regards to my statements as to the relationship of the Council of Nicaea to the Canonization of scripture, and my assertion that the men who met at that Council ultimately determined what books appear in the Bible you and I hold in our hands. I haven’t responded to those questions, as I knew that I’d eventually post this article.

FYI: this article is one part (of five) of a paper that I had to write for a Seminary class assignment. You’ll notice it refers to other writings not posted here. Should anyone wish to read the other writings I’d be happy to post them in a future blog post. There are also references in parenthesis to books in the Bibliography from which this paper comes. I’ll post that Bibliography as a comment to this blog post for those who might want that information.


Event #2: Canonization of Scripture

What can possibly be of more importance to the history of the church than the scriptures upon which it is based? Yet few of us have any clue why our Bibles contain the books they contain. Fewer still realize that at the time of canonization, the opinion of the Christian community was split almost 50/50 as to what should and should not be considered as scripture (Pagels, 2004, pages 170-175). While some simply accept the idea that to be considered part of the canon of scripture, writings must be traced to an apostle as the writer or main source, others point out that even those writings traced back to apostles are often in conflict.

Having received both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Stanford, and her PhD from Harvard, author Elaine Pagels is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Ms. Pagels area of expertise is early Christian history. When new religious artifacts are discovered, Pagels is often called upon to help interpret them.

In her book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Pagels points out that there are literally hundreds of pages of “gospels” and “apocrypha” written during the first centuries, many of them documents the average lay person isn’t even aware exist, that contain sayings, rituals and dialogues attributed to Jesus and his disciples. In the early years of Christianity many of these documents were just as well known as the 27 books we have in the New Testament of our Bibles today. The Gospel of John, written at close to the same time as the Gospel of Thomas, reveals a minor rivalry even amongst two of Jesus’ own disciples, and many of today’s best scholars believe John’s gospel was written as a rebuttal to teachings attributed to Thomas. One example of rivalry is hinted at by reading the books that are included in our Bibles: while the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke refer to Jesus appearing to the 11 after his Resurrection (Judas was no longer with them), the Gospel of John says Jesus appeared to 10 of them, as Thomas was not present. And it is only in John’s gospel that Thomas is referred to as a doubter. John’s gospel emphasizes that some of the key beliefs put forth by Thomas’ gospel are incorrect. The Gospel of Thomas teaches, for example, that God’s light shines not only in Jesus but potentially in everyone. Thomas’ gospel encourages the hearer not so much to believe IN Jesus, as John’s gospel requires, as to seek to know God through one’s own, divinely given capacity since all are created in the image of God (Pagels, 2004, pages 30-73).

Many amongst the first generations of Christians disagreed with John’s gospel that Jesus was God in the flesh, doubted his writings were scripture, and did not want his book to be part of what we now call the New Testament. Those believers also took issue with the fact that in a handful of places John’s gospel differs with, and even directly contradicts, the combined testimony of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. John tells a different version of Jesus’ final days, for example. John also places the story of Jesus in the Temple disrupting the money changers at the beginning of his ministry, while the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke place that as happening at the end of his ministry. Only in John’s gospel do we find the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead, which was an act that upset the leaders of the time so much that they wanted to kill not only Jesus but Lazarus as well, because they were concerned that if he were to go on doing such things everyone would believe in him. It is noted that even early defenders of John’s gospel, such as a teacher named Origen, are quoted as saying that the author of John’s gospel might not always tell the truth “literally” but always told the truth “spiritually” (Origen, Commentary on John, 10.4-6).

If John was to be believed, Jesus proclaimed himself begotten of God, equal to God, and God in the flesh. If Thomas was to be believed, Jesus only claimed to have been created by God just as the rest of us, although with a deeper level of connection and understanding. According to Thomas, although he may have been of similar substance as God, Jesus was not fully man and fully God and he wanted the world to know that God’s Light could be found within all of us.

The argument between those who believed the teachings attributed to John and those who believed the teachings attributed to Thomas led to many writings and discussions. It is clear that if the four gospels of our Bibles were Matthew, Mark, Luke and Thomas we’d have a much different view of Jesus than we do now, with John’s gospel as the fourth.

One man in particular, a man named Irenaeus, wrote extensively on such matters. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of John. Irenaeus was very much in favor of showing those who followed Thomas’ teachings the errors of their ways. He was of the opinion that those who disagreed with John had “cast truth aside” and “resorted to evil interpretation” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, c. 180). He was alarmed to learn that even amongst those in congregations to whom he personally traveled as a missionary, many were divided on whether to believe the teachings attributed to Thomas or whether to lean more towards what was taught by John’s gospel.

Irenaeus’ writings became quite influential in guiding the paths of those that would eventually decide which books belong in our Bibles. His opinion could be summed up with his assertion that if those heretics had been right, we would have no need for revelation and “the coming of the Lord” would “appear unnecessary and useless” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies). Through Irenaeus’ writings, it was made very clear that John’s gospel definitely means that God = Word = Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. Irenaeus declared that teachings like Thomas’ gospel were nothing more than gnosticism pushing its influence into Christianity. Even so, the discussion continued after he died in 202 AD, and wasn’t totally settled until late the next century, many years after Constantine became the first Christian Roman Emperor and ended the persecution of Christians.

When I mentioned in “Event #1” that Constantine, after becoming emperor, gave back to the church all the lands that were taken from it, what I didn’t mention was that Constantine also befriended many of the bishops, even writing them personal letters (Barnes, 2006, pages 208-227). The purpose of the Council of Nicaea in 325 was to resolve disagreements over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father, in particular, whether He was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. As many of us know, this council resulted in the Nicene Creed, which Constantine himself endorsed. Afterward, the official doctrine became such that “all Christians henceforth must accept and participate in the only church recognized by the emperor – the catholic (universal) church.” Even a year before the Council of Nicaea, Constantine made an attempt to legislate an end to “sects” he considered heretical, which included half the Christians in the empire (MacMullen, 1986, pages 59-119). His beliefs on what was or was not heretical (meaning, “wrong teaching”) were greatly influenced by the bishops he had befriended, who were in turn followers of the line of beliefs written by the likes of Irenaeus. Although it is often said that the canon of scripture was issued at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397, because of the nature of the politics surrounding the Nicene council and Constantine’s endorsement of it, the books that conflicted with the Nicene Creed were already “on the way out.” The desire (or often times: commands) to destroy those books led those who wished to preserve them to hide and bury them in jars or even graves (we have recovered some of these texts even as recently as the mid 1900s).

In 367, Church Father (and bishop) Athanasius, wrote an easter letter that listed the 27 books we now have in our New Testament (it should be noted that Athanasius was present at the Council of Nicaea, and was very much involved with those on “the winning side”). The Western church approved the same 27 books at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at Carthage in 397 (Garlow, 2000, pg 48). In the alternate textbook assigned for this class, How God Saved Civilization, there is a quote by David F. Wright on page 49 that states the following:

Although churchmen in a literal sense created the canon (the Bible), they were only recognizing the books that had stamped their own authority on the churches. The criteria for accepting a book as canonical (authentic) were sometimes complex. Above all, it had to be written or sponsored by an apostle, and also be recognizably orthodox in context, and publicly used by a prominent church or majority of churches… But the eventual shape of the New Testament shows that the Early Church wanted to submit fully to the teachings of the apostles. It had been created by their preaching and now grounded itself upon their writings.

Whether or not one might wish to disagree with the exclusion of certain books from our Bible that for centuries had been accepted as scripture by half the Christian community, and whether or not one might wish to argue that the ultimate list of 27 books of the New Testament was greatly influenced by political pressures and favors from the first Christian Emperor, there is no doubt that the canonization of scripture is one of the most important events in all of church history. It is literally what millions have built their faith, and lives, upon.

18 thoughts on “Who Decided What Books To Place in Our Bible?

  1. Re: Only in John’s gospel do we find the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead…

    If you had spent your time looking at the facts in the Biblical record you might have noticed the evidence that proves WHOEVER the author of the fourth gospel was he could not possibly have been John.

  2. Re: Only in John’s gospel do we find the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead…

    If you had spent your time looking at the facts in the Biblical record you might have noticed the evidence that proves WHOEVER the author of the fourth gospel was he could not possibly have been John.

  3. Jim,

    In my post you’ll notice words such as “the gospel attributed to…” or “teachings attributed to…” . Such wording allows for the possibility that another author penned the oral tradition of the gospel attributed to said disciple. After allowing for that in one part of the paper, it would be redundant to repeat it throughout. I make the assumption that the reader is intelligent. Perhaps it was an error to do so?

  4. Jim,

    In my post you’ll notice words such as “the gospel attributed to…” or “teachings attributed to…” . Such wording allows for the possibility that another author penned the oral tradition of the gospel attributed to said disciple. After allowing for that in one part of the paper, it would be redundant to repeat it throughout. I make the assumption that the reader is intelligent. Perhaps it was an error to do so?

  5. Wow, those are strong words. Not only can John not POSSIBLY have written the epistle in question but it’s also intellectually lazy not to agree with this fringe opinion (fringe as in contradicting significant, extensive and long-lived scholarship by CREDIBLE experts).

    But fair is fair. Searching for the source reveals a little download-for-free, self-published tract by an author who undoubtedly is making the adamant statements on this blog. Before dismissing anything as adamantly as he dismisses all the above mentioned scholarship, I look for his credentials inside the book, and what do I find? Nothing! Why wouldn’t such an eminent scholar disclose his extensive credentials? I go on searching the net, and what do I find. Nothing other than another tract declaring that Mary Magdalene must be the author of the Gospel. Once again, no credentials, peer recommendations, credible reviews to give the author even a shred of credibility…

    The internet and modern self-publishing are truly wonderful media, open to the highly learned and brilliant as well as the totally unqualified creack pot alike. We as readers have to figure out where on this continuum specific contributors to public discussion fall. Do they have a track record of responsible scholarship? Do they utilize evidence that is recognized by other scholars or long-discredited theories, or perhaps at least disputed sources?

    If we fail to make these distinctions, we are bound to fall for just about anything…

    Btw, check out Lee Strobel’s latest book: The Case for the Real Jesus. He interviews some real scholars (those with credentials, awards, publishing track records, and qualifications pertaining to what they are writing about). It’s a joy to listen to these learned individuals. Beyond the questions they discuss, reading about researchers of this caliber will also equip the reader to appreciate the difference of whom to listen to: the fake or the genuine article.

  6. Wow, those are strong words. Not only can John not POSSIBLY have written the epistle in question but it’s also intellectually lazy not to agree with this fringe opinion (fringe as in contradicting significant, extensive and long-lived scholarship by CREDIBLE experts).

    But fair is fair. Searching for the source reveals a little download-for-free, self-published tract by an author who undoubtedly is making the adamant statements on this blog. Before dismissing anything as adamantly as he dismisses all the above mentioned scholarship, I look for his credentials inside the book, and what do I find? Nothing! Why wouldn’t such an eminent scholar disclose his extensive credentials? I go on searching the net, and what do I find. Nothing other than another tract declaring that Mary Magdalene must be the author of the Gospel. Once again, no credentials, peer recommendations, credible reviews to give the author even a shred of credibility…

    The internet and modern self-publishing are truly wonderful media, open to the highly learned and brilliant as well as the totally unqualified creack pot alike. We as readers have to figure out where on this continuum specific contributors to public discussion fall. Do they have a track record of responsible scholarship? Do they utilize evidence that is recognized by other scholars or long-discredited theories, or perhaps at least disputed sources?

    If we fail to make these distinctions, we are bound to fall for just about anything…

    Btw, check out Lee Strobel’s latest book: The Case for the Real Jesus. He interviews some real scholars (those with credentials, awards, publishing track records, and qualifications pertaining to what they are writing about). It’s a joy to listen to these learned individuals. Beyond the questions they discuss, reading about researchers of this caliber will also equip the reader to appreciate the difference of whom to listen to: the fake or the genuine article.

  7. Tes,

    To whom are you responding? JP, I presume. I’d like to hear back from him, addressing your comment.

    🙂

  8. Tes,

    To whom are you responding? JP, I presume. I’d like to hear back from him, addressing your comment.

    🙂

  9. To Jim who I figure is also JP who I suspect is also the author of the tract mentioned. I was taken aback by the snide comment that made it out like only an idiot would believe that John authored the fourth gospel. Based on what? Certainly not on responsible and credible scholarship by recognized scriptural authorities…

  10. To Jim who I figure is also JP who I suspect is also the author of the tract mentioned. I was taken aback by the snide comment that made it out like only an idiot would believe that John authored the fourth gospel. Based on what? Certainly not on responsible and credible scholarship by recognized scriptural authorities…

  11. What I said in post 1is accurate. Two thing are true: (a) that not a single verse of scripture would justify teaching the idea that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John and (b) the facts in scripture prove this anonymous disciple who wrote the fourth gospel was not John.

    Here is the challenge an issue where the only real principle at stake may be a love of the truth. It starts with the following premise: One should not present an idea AS IF it were Biblical if neither they nor those who sell them on the idea can cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. And those who prefer to parrot the opinions of men that they have chosen to follow should give to what the Bible says.

    We’re told, “[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man”. Given this explicit statement (along with the other statements in scripture concurring on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions. To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” – and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny. It is difficult to see how it could be honoring to God for one to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. But, as an example, those who promote the unbiblical tradition that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John do just that — even though a search of the scriptures will reveal that this is a false man-made idea. Those who promote this error today are routinely guilty of using circular reasoning in order to try and sell the idea that John is referred to in passages that never mention him but that rather talk about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel. Defenders of this tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but one thing that neither they nor their non-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify this idea. No one ever has — not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who repeat their error unto this day.

    The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.

    Since one will discover that they cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple” some may be led to take another look at what the Bible has to say on this matter. If so instead of looking to the writings of men try a Bible-only based strategy; examine the facts stated in scripture and compare what the Bible says about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with what it says about John. The Bible evidence proves that whoever the one who “Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because the Bible cannot contradict itself as the John idea requires.

    The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men, scholars or chief priests that one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). That idea comes from NON-Bible sources and the hand-me-down ideas of men but scripture says otherwise.

    Still it’s often the case that in an effort to get the focus off of the fact that scripture DISPROVES the John idea those who promote the man-made John tradition will rush to change the subject to something else. They’ll talk about the tone or attitude rather than admitting that they have been promoting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when there is not a single verse that would justify doing so. Or they’ll change the subject to the question of who did write this gospel and pretend that if they can argue against this-or-that author candidate then their John tradition somehow ‘wins by default’. But this is one of the many logical fallacies that are committed by promoters of this tradition. For they assume that if they can argue against the idea of this being someone else (James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene Judas being among the most frequent candidates mentioned) that then even though they still cannot cite a single verse that would justify doing so, they can go on presenting the John idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL [even to the point of adding John’s name to the text where God’s inspired writer never put it (i.e. John leaned on Jesus at the last supper, Jesus gave his mother to John at the cross, John wrote, etc.) ]. Bad logic.

    Because we’ve been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and accept the spoon-fed teachings of men most will never bother to test these ideas or else they would notice that the work of the anonymous author of the fourth gospel is said to be ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ despite the fact that (A) there is no verse that would justify doing so and (B) this anonymous author’s omission of EVERY event where John is actually named as being an eyewitness in the other three gospels IS a strong argument against ascribing this anonymous author’s testimony to John. This is especially true given the fourth gospel’s omission of the those three times that Jesus included John with James and Peter to be EYEwitnesses of three of the most notable events of his ministry — the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane and his transfiguration. This then exposes the logical fallacy behind this claim, for it makes no sense that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would fail to include ALL of these events.

    Proverbs 15:32 “he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.” In scripture we see the scholars called “hypocrites” by Jesus. (Attitude?) We see time and again there were those willing to give lip-service to honoring the word of God but when it came to humbly responding to scriptural truth that would reprove them they rejected it. As Jesus rightly said they had made void the word of God by their tradition.

    Many people feel they get to pick and choose which parts of scripture need to be paid attention to so they can willfully ignore other parts of it whenever it suits their presuppositions to do so. Any accusatory tone is of course addressed to and/or directed against only those hypocrites that will give lip service the authority of God’s word but ignore the facts stated in the plain text of God’s word whenever the choice comes down to the Bible vs. their preference for a tradition. Just as it is right for us to call others on their hypocrisy on this, so it is right for anyone to call us on our own hypocrisy if we should fail to respond to the correction of God’s word while calling on others to do so.

    PS The false assumptions abound so I’ll correct another loose-lip-shoot-from-the-hip comment posted above. I have no idea who the JP in comment 3 was nor have I visited the link posted nor do I care to.

  12. What I said in post 1is accurate. Two thing are true: (a) that not a single verse of scripture would justify teaching the idea that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John and (b) the facts in scripture prove this anonymous disciple who wrote the fourth gospel was not John.

    Here is the challenge an issue where the only real principle at stake may be a love of the truth. It starts with the following premise: One should not present an idea AS IF it were Biblical if neither they nor those who sell them on the idea can cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. And those who prefer to parrot the opinions of men that they have chosen to follow should give to what the Bible says.

    We’re told, “[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man”. Given this explicit statement (along with the other statements in scripture concurring on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions. To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” – and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny. It is difficult to see how it could be honoring to God for one to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. But, as an example, those who promote the unbiblical tradition that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John do just that — even though a search of the scriptures will reveal that this is a false man-made idea. Those who promote this error today are routinely guilty of using circular reasoning in order to try and sell the idea that John is referred to in passages that never mention him but that rather talk about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel. Defenders of this tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but one thing that neither they nor their non-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify this idea. No one ever has — not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who repeat their error unto this day.

    The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.

    Since one will discover that they cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple” some may be led to take another look at what the Bible has to say on this matter. If so instead of looking to the writings of men try a Bible-only based strategy; examine the facts stated in scripture and compare what the Bible says about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with what it says about John. The Bible evidence proves that whoever the one who “Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because the Bible cannot contradict itself as the John idea requires.

    The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men, scholars or chief priests that one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). That idea comes from NON-Bible sources and the hand-me-down ideas of men but scripture says otherwise.

    Still it’s often the case that in an effort to get the focus off of the fact that scripture DISPROVES the John idea those who promote the man-made John tradition will rush to change the subject to something else. They’ll talk about the tone or attitude rather than admitting that they have been promoting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when there is not a single verse that would justify doing so. Or they’ll change the subject to the question of who did write this gospel and pretend that if they can argue against this-or-that author candidate then their John tradition somehow ‘wins by default’. But this is one of the many logical fallacies that are committed by promoters of this tradition. For they assume that if they can argue against the idea of this being someone else (James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene Judas being among the most frequent candidates mentioned) that then even though they still cannot cite a single verse that would justify doing so, they can go on presenting the John idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL [even to the point of adding John’s name to the text where God’s inspired writer never put it (i.e. John leaned on Jesus at the last supper, Jesus gave his mother to John at the cross, John wrote, etc.) ]. Bad logic.

    Because we’ve been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and accept the spoon-fed teachings of men most will never bother to test these ideas or else they would notice that the work of the anonymous author of the fourth gospel is said to be ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ despite the fact that (A) there is no verse that would justify doing so and (B) this anonymous author’s omission of EVERY event where John is actually named as being an eyewitness in the other three gospels IS a strong argument against ascribing this anonymous author’s testimony to John. This is especially true given the fourth gospel’s omission of the those three times that Jesus included John with James and Peter to be EYEwitnesses of three of the most notable events of his ministry — the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane and his transfiguration. This then exposes the logical fallacy behind this claim, for it makes no sense that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would fail to include ALL of these events.

    Proverbs 15:32 “he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.” In scripture we see the scholars called “hypocrites” by Jesus. (Attitude?) We see time and again there were those willing to give lip-service to honoring the word of God but when it came to humbly responding to scriptural truth that would reprove them they rejected it. As Jesus rightly said they had made void the word of God by their tradition.

    Many people feel they get to pick and choose which parts of scripture need to be paid attention to so they can willfully ignore other parts of it whenever it suits their presuppositions to do so. Any accusatory tone is of course addressed to and/or directed against only those hypocrites that will give lip service the authority of God’s word but ignore the facts stated in the plain text of God’s word whenever the choice comes down to the Bible vs. their preference for a tradition. Just as it is right for us to call others on their hypocrisy on this, so it is right for anyone to call us on our own hypocrisy if we should fail to respond to the correction of God’s word while calling on others to do so.

    PS The false assumptions abound so I’ll correct another loose-lip-shoot-from-the-hip comment posted above. I have no idea who the JP in comment 3 was nor have I visited the link posted nor do I care to.

  13. TES said:

    “To Jim who I figure is also JP who I suspect is also the author of the tract mentioned”

    Actually, Jim and I are two completely different persons. Have you listened to the mp3 I posted?

  14. TES said:

    “To Jim who I figure is also JP who I suspect is also the author of the tract mentioned”

    Actually, Jim and I are two completely different persons. Have you listened to the mp3 I posted?

  15. Dear Jim and JP: sorry about getting the two of you confused and lumped together. Just a strange coincidence I guess. Thanks for the clarifications from you both

  16. Dear Jim and JP: sorry about getting the two of you confused and lumped together. Just a strange coincidence I guess. Thanks for the clarifications from you both

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.