In Mormonism, the church is perfect and it’s leaders “will never lead you astray”. So if you begin to ask questions that you should not it must mean that you are not living the commandments. Maybe you are having sex or masturbating….maybe you are not paying a full tithing…maybe you are drinking beer or tea or coffee?

If you want to leave the Mormon Church…it’s because you can’y live the commandments…..heard that 1000 of times.

I found out that Mormonism uses cult control. I see nothing on this site to make me think that Frank Turek isn’t a cult leader himself.

No need to be rude Jimmy. What’s your source for Herod the Great’s date of death? Most places I look tell me somewhere between 4BC and 1BC, but I’m happy to be corrected by a History major!

“And the accounts within the bible don’t always agree, and have certain historical problems when matched up to dates outside the bible - eg Herod dying a few years before the birth of Jesus.”

I’m a History major with a specific focus on this time period, and actually, Herod would have died a good few years after the birth of Christ. Not only that, it’s hard to pinpoint when either of them were around but the historical consensus is that Jesus did in fact exist at the time of Herod. Yes, history has a consensus and standards like science does. Please actually go and study this time period instead of just spewing things you find on the internet.

By the way, if virtually the only contemporaneous accounts of Alexander the Great only came from a single book, then I might well say that we couldn’t say for certain whether or not he existed. And the number of accounts we have of a king or emporer are always going to outnumber the accounts we have of someone of Jesus status, such as it was while he was alive. I’m not saying we would EXPECT any more accounts of Jesus, just stating the fact that we don’t have much about him outside of the bible. And the accounts within the bible don’t always agree, and have certain historical problems when matched up to dates outside the bible - eg Herod dying a few years before the birth of Jesus.

I did not undermine anything about the evidence for the Holocaust. You were the one who said the witnesses are still alive- at least some of them, therefore, we can talk to them. At the start of this dicussion, I talked about The Gospels of Eyewitness Testimony- in which Bauckham uses Holocaust testimony in relation to the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. He does nothing but enhances the evidence for the Holocaust. But since you have not read it, we can’t go much further on that. Since I have several Jewish friends and am part of a congregation that educates the community around us about the Holocaust, please don’t assert I undermined anything about it. I wonder if you even read what I said. Once again, your comments about the Gosples being legendary shows you don’t know much about genre issues with the Gospels. But since you admitted that you don’t care whether Jesus existed..etc.. this conversation is fairly fruitless.

Later,

Eric

Often with these things there’ll be stories around a person that are legend, but the person might have actually existed. The story of George Washington chopping down his father’s tree was false, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t actually exist.

And it’s a bit rich that you accuse me of not knowing how historians work when you’ve undermined the vast evidence for the holocaust.

One correction- I meant I asked if you Alexander the Great or anyone else existed.. after the Holocaust… etc.. I obviously meant before the Holocaust since you kept saying the Holocaust witnesses were still alive..etc..

Eric

I was not sure if I was debating whether Jesus existed or not. I don’t debate that issue with atheists. It is stupid. I asked if you thought Alexander the Great existed or anyone else after the Holocaust-we only have only fragments of his life much later… you did not respond- So you think Caesar existed. So what! From your comments I gathered you don’t have a grasp of the genre of the Gospels at all- or really know much how historians work with antiquity. So if you think you won the argument and that makes you feel better- so be it. I could care less!

My theory? It’s like a political group; it’s all a matter of Public Relations. If an employee does something that skews the public image, the company has to fire that employee in order to distance themselves from him/her. Yeah, that one guy, he’s great, and we all like him….but then he did that one thing, and now he’s a dirty lowlife who was “never a real Christian to begin with.”

Ted Haggard is telling his millions of followers how important fidelity is, and how evil homosexuality is. And at the same time he’s paying for male prostitutes. A most convenient set-up. The Catholics tell us how important it is to protect vulnerable children, while the Catholic Church spends decades protecting the priests who are abusing the kids. Christians say that marriage is about love. But their argument against gays marrying is that they can’t have kids - so suddenly marriage isn’t about love at all, it’s reduced to breeding, as if humans are cows on a production line.

Translation: It would be more productive if you could answer the questions that have been raised, thus at least attempting to remove all trace of genuine doubt, as opposed to ignoring them altogether and simply raising accusations about the sincerity of another’s worldview. At the end of the day, there is nothing I can do to absolutely prove the genuinity of my worldview to you, and we both know this; so the accusation you raise here is quite pointless, unless you mean to suggest it as a circular, self-defining platform on which to systematically ignore all genuine atheistic concerns. Which I highly suspect you do, hence this response.

Wow….do you guys just sit at home and think of stuff like this all day? Do you spend your free time just trying to think of some tiny little obscure reason that overshadows the entire atheistic paradigm, that magically explains away all the doubts that atheists have?

Seriously, we’re trying to explain this to you, and people like you keep diverting the argument in nonsensical directions like this….how do you expect there to be any coherent exchange whatsoever in that sort of environment?

Reed, did you explain to this guy that atheists statistically commit far fewer crimes than Christians? They’re less likely to divorce too. Their homicide rates are smaller. Perhaps it’s because the Christians think they can commit whatever crimes they want and then just get absolved by their God. How convenient for them!

Eric

I’m not sure I understand your question. We have film of the death camps, film of mounds of executed, emaciated bodies. The perpetrators were put on trial for the crimes of the holocaust. I could go on and on and on and on… the evidence is huge and overwhelming. Go to the holocaust museum in Washington, go visit the camps in Europe.

I’m at a loss for how you can draw a comparison to the bible’s accounts of Jesus. We have 4 appostles giving conflicting accounts of his life, written up years after the events. One of them mentions at one point that after Jesus died, the dead in the area got up and walked the streets. You’d think a ‘fact’ as momentous as this would be mentioned in many other reports outside of the bible - but it doesn’t even merit a mention by the other 3 apostles!

How far would I go? It depends what’s at stake. Do I accept that Julius Ceasar existed? It seems likely that he did - but my everyday life isn’t affected by the question. If you’re asking everyone to form a religion around the fact of his existence, then the standard of proof required might be a little higher.

As for the ‘miracle of the succes of Christianity’ - for hundreds of years it was spread at the point of the sword. Either believe or be burned at the stake, or be tortured, or have your throat slit. Great!

Professor Stark’s conclusions are 1) that people convert for personal reasons rather than the weight of evidence and 2) that the early growth of Christianity was not the miracle apologists would like us to believe.

So rather than it being as Paul suggested that people searched out those with ‘eyewitness’ evidence, people switched to Christianity because they found the current members nice people. (In interest of the fully story, Stark also believes better treatment of woman accounted for some of the Church’s success too).

Maybe a little more caution where you pick your cherries in the future?

Barry

Sorry, but you are way off about the divinity of Jesus issue- etc.. and how we ned to accept the other ones… I will be posting more about that. As far as the Holocaust issue- how far back do you go to not start accepting eyewitness testimony? 80-100 yrs? Do you accept anything from the 1800’s? Do you stop with the Holocaust on this issue? And it is important to understand the context and hermenutical usage of testimony in the NT- read what I said to Tim in an earlier post. And once again, I ask, do you reject everything else in antiquity? Or just the NT? And if so, why? Do you accept the evidence for the life of Alexander the Great as factual?

I don’t know what I would do without the Lord Jesus, He’s the very reason we all exist. We exist to know God and to make Him known.

Eric, if you take that as proof of Jesus’ divinity, you’d also have to give similar credence to the other charasmatic men who managed to start world religions. Mohammed started Islam, but you don’t accept his religion, no?

And drawing a line between the VAST evidence we have for the holocaust and for the divinity of Jesus is a nonsense. Thanks to the Shoah project we have filmed interviews with thousands of survivors. We prosecuted those responsible, we filmed the camps.

In comparison, we have nothing in Jesus’ handwriting, no direct quotes. We can’t see to an accuracy of 5 years when he was born.

Also, though….retrospectively claiming that “that’s not what True Christianity(TM) is about” is getting to be less and less convincing, and more and more of a cliche, as time goes by. It’s actually got a name, that type of argument; it’s called the “No True Scotsman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

From the above link:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

I figure, if it were important enough to be defined so clearly, then people would be making more of an effort to make it so. A significant majority of people who view your religion are only going to see the popular face; most people aren’t going to have the patience to look in some obscure book or sermon or reference text (especially after hundreds of prior disappointing dead-end efforts to that effect). I find it surprising that none of the popular Christian figures seem to have “gotten it right” with regard to “True Christianity” according to most of the less popular figures….and yet, according to the popular figures, folks like you don’t have it right. And you both quote from passages of the Bible that justify what you say from a Biblical standpoint, and you both claim that the others quote out of context.

[/tirade]

Wow, now I really see how you feel. Thanks for your honesty. Guess what? I am not a big fan of Rod P and John H as well. I don’t read or follow any of their stuff… and I know alot of other people who don’t as well. That may make no difference to you. I understand. I think a good class in hermeneutics will deal with all the misunderstanding about what Christians think about the slavery, etc.. in the Bible. Sounds like you are pretty mad at the poor communication of some Christians. I have tried to work on that with Christians for a long time. I have done extensive campus ministry- so I hear the same things you mentioned with alot of students. Christians sometimes come across as self-righteous.. we have our own sin to deal with. I hope and pray that you will see the love of Christ at some point and internalize it. Take care,

Eric

All of the reasons that are used to lure people into Christianity are actually completely false. Any argument you use to lure someone into Christianity can be revoked on a whim, because when we get down to the bare bones of the whole concept, you’re supposed to be a Christian just for the sake of being a Christian — not to be moral, because that’s impossible in the true sense (because we’re all sinful humans who will continue to sin against our will, redeemable only through belief in a man who claimed to be the son of God). Not to be rewarded, because acting on condition of reward denies true sincerity and defeats the purpose of claiming moral superiority.

The bottom line being simply that the only reason to be a Christian….is for the sake of being Christian. Nothing follows from this, and nothing leads to this. It’s just something that Christians accept as self-evidently “good” that means nothing else in itself.

If Holocaust survivors demanded the same ritualistic behavior of me that Christian Gospel believers do, then no, I probably would not. Fortunately, that’s not the case.

You see, there is such a thing as “vested interest.”

Also….it’s not *just* a matter of what’s written in the Bible. It’s also a matter of what people such as you, Turek, John Hagee, Rod Parsely, and Pat Robertson, among many, many others, have to say about what the things in the Bible mean, interjected scientific projections based on singular/personal understandings of those writings, self-defined moral proclamations, outright inconsistencies (such as slavery vs. homosexuality, whereas one is “just what they did back then, so it was okay” while the other is “completely unforgiveable no matter when it happens or why”), among many other things.

And another one, the whole thing about humans having a “soul”….I hate to get off on a tangent, but for example….anytime something that doesn’t fit the Biblical canon of what “good” people are like happens, we say Satan influenced people, and humans are put to blame because “they allowed Satan to influence them.” Whereas anytime something that does fit the Biblical canon of what people are supposed to be like happens, it’s attributed to God and humans aren’t allowed to take credit. So if we do something wrong, that’s all our fault and we’re supposed to self-loathe and beg for forgivenes….but if we do something right, then we didn’t really do it, and it was God acting through us. It’s just one of many cornerstones of an ideology bent on oppressing humans for their very nature, to teach us to hate ourselves and ignore everything that doesn’t fit the Biblical view of “good” — even that which is dangerous if ommitted, such as evolutionary biology, a founding tenet of modern medicine. Creationists and Christians all like to go on about the evils of Evolution, but they tend to be among the first in line in the Emergency Room when their asthma acts up, or they need a cure for a strain of the flu virus.

Long story short….there are a heaping slew of problems that stem from believing the Christian Gospels. If we accept one thing as true (that we can’t prove one way or the other), then that leads to accepting as true certain things that we know, to the best of our ability to know things in any sense of the word, aren’t true. I’d like to go into further detail, but I fear it would take too long, so I’ll leave you with this final example, taken from a blog I posted recently:

“Belief in God is often defended as “good” on the basis that belief in God will bring humanity closer to a state of “perfection” (even though Christians admit that humans can never actually *attain* perfection, there is seen a sort of nobility in simply trying; it’s seen as a faith statement towards God, which is deemed “virtuous” in this system of thought). When asked what exactly is meant by “perfection,” Christians tend to divert towards other issues, so usually it’s impossible to form a coherent response….but there is a way to understand what they mean. When Christians complain about contemporary society, they generally refer to things that they see as a “plague” of some kind — usually moral — that faces humanity. They cite issues facing the world today, issues that have supposedly come about as a result of our “lack of Godliness,” things that are supposed to symbolize the absence of God in our daily lives. Things such as:

Now tell me….if someone asked you to sign a contract to that end in real life, can you truly, honestly say that you would sign it?

I apologize that I am having some problems with the blog. Here is the last paragraph.

Eric

If Acts were written later, why would Luke, who shows himself so careful of incidental detail, not attempt to inform his narrative by relevant sections of the Epistles. The Epistles evidently circulated and must have become available sources. This question is beset with uncertainties, but an early date is suggested by the silence. 5. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62 recorded by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.1.200). Even if Acts was written by 75 A.D- it still would not disqualify it. What has the best explanatory power for the birth of the Messianic movement in the book of Acts? A lie, a hallucination, a legend? Also, we may want to note that Richard Bauckham says, “In exclusive monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other kind of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice.”- see Hurtado, L.W. One Lord, One God: Early Christian Devotion And Ancient Jewish Montheism. Philadeplphia, PA. Fortress Press. 1988, 38. Could a dying Messiah cause a major shift in the devotional practice of first-century Jews? Therefore, what has the best explanatory power for a more explicit Christology in a very short time interval after the death of Jesus? In light of this issue, how is it that a community of monotheistic Jewish people ended up giving Jesus the same honors and spiritual devotion that we reserved for the God of Israel alone? As Hurtado notes, Jews were forbidden to commit what was called “Apotheosis,”- which can be defined as accepting a human figure as divine.

Sorry- I had a problem with that last post. Here is the 1st paragraph.

For starters, if you have not read the Bauckham book, I hope you do. He deals with the relationship between Holocaust testimony and the Gospels quite extensively. How long do you think there is between the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection and what we have in the NT? Why can’t I trust a letter such as 1 Cor 15 which is dated at 53-55 A.D? Everything we have in the NT was written before the end of the 1st century. So lets say the witnesses are still alive- 60 yrs after the events. As Bauckham says, the Greek word for “eyewitness” (autoptai), does not have forensic meaning, and in that sense the English word “eyewitnesses” with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading. The autoptai are simply firsthand observers of those events. Bauckham goes on to say that Loveday Alexander, in his book The Preface to Luke’s Gospel offers the translations: “those with personal/firsthand experience; those who know the facts at hand.” Bauckham notes that ancient biographers limited themselves to subjects that could be addressed while the eyewitness were still alive. Do you think any of the witnesses were still alive during the period when the Gospels or even Paul’s letters were written? And if not, is all a legend or myth? Do you hold as much skepticism towards everything else in antiquity?

Eric

For starters, if you have not read the Bauckham book, I hope you do. He deals with the relationship between Holocaust testimony and the Gospels quite extensively. How long do you think there is between the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection and what we have in the NT? Why can’t I trust a letter such as 1 Cor 15 which is dated at 53-55 A.D? Everything we have in the NT was written before the end of the 1st century. So lets say the witnesses are still alive- 60 yrs after the events. As Bauckham says, the Greek word for “eyewitness” (autoptai), does not have forensic meaning, and in that sense the English word “eyewitnesses” with its suggestion of a metaphor from the law courts, is a little misleading. The autoptai are simply firsthand observers of those events. Bauckham goes on to say that Loveday Alexander, in his book The Preface to Luke’s Gospel offers the translations: “those with personal/firsthand experience; those who know the facts at hand.” Bauckham notes that ancient biographers limited themselves to subjects that could be addressed while the eyewitness were still alive. Do you think any of the witnesses were still alive during the period when the Gospels or even Paul’s letters were written? And if not, is all a legend or myth? Do you hold as much skepticism towards everything else in antiquity?

I hope you don’t mind if I tie this in with another topic for a moment. In his book, historian and sociologist Rodney Stark says in his book The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World-pgs 49-72, Sociologist Rodney Stark notes that by the end of the 1st century there were at least 100,000 Jewish believers in Jesus. The same thing is discussed in Oskar Skarsaune and Raider Hvlavik- Jewish Believers In Jesus: The Early Centuries. Is Acts reliable? Colin J. Hemer lists seventeen reasons to accept the traditional early date that would place the research and writing of Acts during the lifetime of many participants. A few are in order- There is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an unlikely omission, given the content, if it had already occurred. 2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66, or of any drastic or specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies it was written before that time. 3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. 4. The author betrays no knowledge of Paul’s letters.

If Acts were written later, why would Luke, who shows himself so careful of incidental detail, not attempt to inform his narrative by relevant sections of the Epistles. The Epistles evidently circulated and must have become available sources. This question is beset with uncertainties, but an early date is suggested by the silence. 5. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62 recorded by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.1.200). Even if Acts was written by 75 A.D- it still would not disqualify it. What has the best explanatory power for the birth of the Messianic movement in the book of Acts? A lie, a hallucination, a legend? Also, we may want to note that Richard Bauckham says, “In exclusive monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other kind of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice.”- see Hurtado, L.W. One Lord, One God: Early Christian Devotion And Ancient Jewish Montheism. Philadeplphia, PA. Fortress Press. 1988, 38. Could a dying Messiah cause a major shift in the devotional practice of first-century Jews? Therefore, what has the best explanatory power for a more explicit Christology in a very short time interval after the death of Jesus? In light of this issue, how is it that a community of monotheistic Jewish people ended up giving Jesus the same honors and spiritual devotion that we reserved for the God of Israel alone? As Hurtado notes, Jews were forbidden to commit what was called “apotheosis,”- which can be defined as accepting a human figure as divine.

I think it’s horribly tasteless to try and imply that if one does not believe the Christian Gospels because of issues of credibility, then one cannot believe in the Holocaust.

For one, there are thousands of people — some still alive today—that either experienced it themselves or had parents or close relatives who did. One generation removed isn’t even in the same scope as a word-of-mouth account that wasn’t even written down for the first time until quite some time after the fact (and even that was some 2000 years ago).

Do you not understand the difference?

My fault. I forgot to break that up. This part was Bauckhman’s part.

The sense (not a properly one generic one) in which the witnesses of the Holocaust created a new literature of testimony is much the same sense that in which the witnesses of the history created the Gospels. Those witnesses understood the imperative to witness to a command of the risen Christ, but the parallel is sufficient to be suggestive. In both cases, the uniqueness required precisely witness as the only means by which the events could be adequately known. In both cases, the exceptionality of the event means that only the testimony of participant witness can give us anything approaching access to the truth of the event. Very few modern historians would discredit all such Holocaust testimonies even though we are now some 60 years beyond the end of the Second World War”

I don’t think emotional element of a witness negates all objectivity. Maybe you don’t as well. Have you read the Bauckham book?

Take Care!

With all due respect that sounds like an incredibly irresponsible quote. You make it seem as if Elie Weisel is endorsing the testimony of the resurrection witnesses, so unless he had a conversion I am unaware of . . . I suspect that there is some part of that which is a valid of Weisel quote but then picks up Bauckham’s attempt to hijack it as an analogy to witnesses of the NT.

To be clear I do not discredit the holocaust witnesses - but also recognize that there is a place for non-emotional historical scholarship that stands apart for the direct participants of the event.

You quote (I suspect quoting Bauckham) that ‘uniqueness required precisely witness as the only means by which the events could be adequately known’. Yet in the NT that is exactly what we are asked to do believe in the resurrection without that precise witness of personal experience.

I am not going back my original issue about axioms etc… I just want to ask something in regards to eyewitness memory. Should we trust the eyewitnesses of the Holocaust 60 yrs after the event? Can I trust their memory? And for that matter, what can we know in history without trusting in the testimony of others? Should a historian just scrap it and not waste his time? After all, testimony is one of the primary ways an historian gathers his information. Any thoughts?

Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel. Weisel says:
” If the Greeks invented tragedy, the Romans the epistle, and the Renaissance the sonnet, our generation [i.e., Jews who Witnessed the Holocaust] invented a new literature, that of testimony. We have all been witnesses and we feel we have to bear testimony for our future. And that became a single obsession, the single most powerful obsession that permeated all the lives, dreams, all the work of those people. One minute before they died they thought that was what they had to do The sense (not a properly one generic one) in which the witnesses of the Holocaust created a new literature of testimony. Is much the same sense that in which the witnesses of the history created the Gospels. Those witnesses understood the imperative to witness to a command of the risen Christ, but the parallel is sufficient to be suggestive. In both cases, the uniqueness required precisely witness as the only means by which the events could be adequately known. In both cases, the exceptionality of the event means that only the testimony of participant witness can give us anything approaching access to the truth of the event. Very few modern historians would discredit all such Holocaust testimonies even though we are now some 60 years beyond the end of the Second World War” - See Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham. This book does osme great work on the usage of eyewitness memory and whether we can trust it or not.

Take Care!

Eric

It’s good that you acknowledge this much. However, your phrasing “choose to believe” is inaccurate here; there is no way that I could choose to believe such fallacious “evidence.” It’s clear you have an agenda and that the evidence conflicts with your agenda. I cannot unsee this.

So it’s a guy I’ve never met, testifying for the integrity of someone I’ve never heard of, and the imperfect memory of the first guy’s recollection of what the other guy thinks he remembers seeing on a TV show - you’re not sure which one - 35-45 years or so ago, rendered out of context to the conversation it originally appeared in!

Tom, forgive me for not finding this compelling evidence!

I’m sure of the quote, I’m sure Dr. Kennedy witnessed it personally, and I knew Dr. Kennedy well enough to trust his recollection.

It’s a free country, you can believe what you choose to believe. I choose to trust an eyewitness whom I knew and trusted.

Tom

That this is your only available “evidence” is evidence in itself, to me — evidence that the claim is false. Transcripts of television exchanges have been around since shortly after the dawn of television; if the quote was given at any point between the mid-50’s and now, then there would be a transcript reference somewhere.

What are your starting axioms?

I would (and have, in another topic) argue(d) that one’s true First Principle is not entirely of his/her own selection. It’s not usually something conscious, like, “God is good,” or “murder is bad.” It’s usually much more primal and more instinctual, and quite simple to boot. It’s more of an instinctual, perhaps even “automatic” distinction between perceptions of what is “real” and therefore credible and what is not.

I can attest to the fact that it’s not easy to just “choose to believe” something; if there is the question in my mind that something is not true (even if there isn’t any evidence to really prove it, so long as the question itself is there), then I cannot truly say I believe it to be true. And so on that note, my criteria for what I believe and what I don’t believe is not entirely of my own choosing.

Eric: “What are your starting axioms?”
Tell you what, Eric, you go first. I’ve explained a lot already, and you’ve just barged in with a bunch of questions. You tell me your starting axioms, in your own precious time.

Eric

The Julian Huxley quote you asked about was indeed from a Merv Griffin interview many years ago.

I myself asked Dr. Kennedy for the source one evening a few years ago. It was a TV interview, therefore there was no written source to refer to. He gave me an approximate date, sometime during the sixties, which I’ve forgotten. Dr. Kennedy referred to Huxley’s comments as something he had personally witnessed on TV, and I knew Jim Kennedy well enough to know he didn’t make things up. For one thing, he was well read enough that he would have a multitude of other sources he could use, and besides that, he was a man of impeccable integrity, so I trusted him at his word. If he said he saw it, then he saw it.