Jersey Girl wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:JAK,
Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?
Jersey Girl
JAK wrote:Jersey Girl,
As I indicated “history” is a point of view, a perspective. The farther we go back toward pre-historic man, the less we have in any reliable material save the artifacts which were left and which survived time and erosion.
That doesn't mean that what we do have overall, is inaccurate. We have pieces of the story of Jesus. I think that if the location in question (largely Jerusalem) were not ruined shortly following the death of Paul, Temple destruction 70 AD, we might have had more to work with and think about. As it stands, we do not.
Are you skeptical, for example, of the existence of Herod? I'd like to know if you are or not and on what you base your position regarding Herod. I may make a separate post for just those kinds of questions.
JAK wrote:Were it not for Constantine the Great and his ancestors, Christianity might never have made it past his descendents. However, because he and his descendents had wealth and power and because they used Christianity to advance their own power and influence, Christianity did survive through many schisms. My “assertion” as you phrase a term is no more and no less than I stated.
I have to agree with the above as it stands.
JAK wrote:It is the word “historical” which is a term for deliberation. We lack reliable evidence regarding the copying of words which were eventually scrutinized to the extent it was possible and canonized by the early pundits of the evolving religions of any time including that of Christianity.
I want to save a response to the above for another and separate post.
JAK wrote:The Bible (with different script/translations/languages) is a product over time with revision and configuration. There is a wide variety of beliefs today regarding the accuracy or the historical statement found in the 66 books (including the apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, etc.) Such beliefs are not reliable based on the fact of belief. They are also not made reliable based on various interpretations though the various schisms.
Even with the advent of the printing press and contemporary technological advances, we still do not enjoy 100% accuracy. The Gospels and Epistles are not the only ancient historical mentions of Jesus. Why limit the "evidence" in this discussion for the historical Jesus, to the Gospels and Epistles? There are more and other writings that make mention of Jesus. We can discuss those as the thread continues.
JAK wrote:We can find various
claims for messiah for example. (I post a link to save space.)
The question on the table is not evidence for
the messiah. It is evidence for
the historical Jesus. JAK wrote: Your question at the top may not be singular as you pose it. There were many claims to “messiah.” Such claims were not uncommon in the very period when Christianity was mentored by the powerful who found it useful to themselves. The “Gospels” as you refer were also tuned, if you will, to fit the preference of power at the time copying of words (scripts) were taking place.
Again, the question is not evidence for the messiah. What do you mean when you use the word "tuned" for the Gospels?
JAK wrote:Very, very few could write or read at the time of biblical constructions and editing. That fact made it easy for the few, under the auspices of the rulers who favored the construction to make the scripts.
As I stated in a previous post. Luke wrote. Paul wrote.
JAK wrote: There were so few who could read or write, let alone, construct books, that the production of what became biblical scripts were most unlikely to be challenged. Had some individual spoken out in opposition or written in opposition to the control of the power structure, both they and their writing would likely have been destroyed by an emperor.
I don't see the "construction of books" as relevant to these exchanges. Do you disagree that scribes painstakingly made copies of the Jewish Bible, the Talmud? Were they not careful in their occupation given the subject matter?
JAK wrote: There was no “free press.” In fact, there was no “press” at all. Only many, many centuries later did
Johannes Gutenberg invent the earliest form of printing. Prior to that, all that was written (and as language evolved), was written by hand, copied by hand, passed on by hand (or not passed on).
There was no free press in the production of material attributed to Aristotle or Plato. Do you question their existence? As I recall, we have discussed this before.
JAK wrote: Those who were in positions of strength were the ones to determine what was passed on and what was copied. And printing then was a very slow, laborious process, one character (impression) at a time.
And carefully so, though you'll get no argument from me that scribes wrote in error.
JAK wrote: This is addressing your questions above. There was then little interest or time or motivation to “challenge” what was a slow, tedious process of copying by hand (no ball-point pens, no fountain ink pens). And the copy material was all from hand and financed (they didn’t use that word) by the powers in control of “history.”
Who financed the transcription of the Talmud? Do you know? I plan to discuss the Talmud later in the thread so long as we remain engaged in this discussion.
JAK wrote: So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.
I would say that Nero was interested in challenge, yet I see no challenge from Nero regarding the historicity of Jesus.
JAK wrote:It’s easy for us today sitting in our climate-controlled homes with our Internet and computers to imagine that thousands of years ago, people were really interested in detailed writing of something, anything. But the very strong likelihood is they were not. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of people (the masses) could actually read anything let alone write anything. It would be most difficult to make a credible case that writers were investigative reporters about what they heard or that they had capacity to investigate.
I have to disagree that thousands of years ago there were not people "really interested in the detailed writing of something, anything", JAK. I make no claim to scholarship here but, there did exist Jewish scribes who maintained the transmission of the Talmud. There did exist other writers who wrote of Jesus in fairly close proximity of the events described in the New Testament.
JAK wrote: Today, if a “Jesus” suddenly emerged, there would be hundreds of news agencies covering the emergence and not only reporting on it but interpreting the “meaning” of the words and the “context” of the words, and the “appearance” of the speaker, etc. There could be no Jesus today. Reporters would track the DNA, the linage, the history, etc.
I so strongly disagree with the above. As I have stated on boards in the past, if Jesus of the Bible suddenly emerged, he would likely take his place alongside other indigent persons on the street and go without notice. Unless, of course, the stories are true in which case his majesty would be undeniable. Even so, reporters "get it wrong" or in some cases, "report it wrong" for the purpose of intentional distortion. That, of course, depends on what is being sold and to whom it is marketed. (That final remark was intentional on my part).
JAK wrote: There was very little of that at 2,000 years ago. But, there was a little for some people. Certainly it was not done for many.
It’s very easy for people today, Jersey Girl, to imagine that “life” 2,000 years ago was just like it is today without electricity. Well it was not. If we look at only what has transpired in the past 100 years, we have some idea of how quickly communication becomes primitive. We can contemplate only with great difficulty and probably inaccurately what any life was like, 2,000 years ago.
That is most important to keep in mind and difficult to keep in mind as we speculate on checks and balances of communication many centuries into the past.
I quite agree.
JAK wrote: What tends to happen for believers, is simply the wave of the magic wand (figuratively speaking) to magically make truth.
JAK
I am not waving a magic wand. I am considering evidence with you and wishing for
a threaded view.Note: By my count, I have one more post of yours to reply to. I'll try to get that done this evening.
Editing: I see three posts of yours to reply to. I doubt I will get to them all this evening.
+++++++++++
Hi Jersey Girl,
I think this is a different post, but we are revisiting some ideas and thoughts as well. I’ll add “previously” to comments of mine in your post which were already made. Because of my copy, previous web links which I provided in a post earlier will not likely link now. The new ones should. I apologize for that.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Jersey Girl:
Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?
JAK:
What is meant by “historical Jesus”? There can be no rational support for direct quotations as accurate understanding how they were developed. Those who wrote the stories did not hear the words directly spoken and write them with the fidelity of a recording. Second, there can be no rational support for claims implied or stated for the defiance of physics. Such claims are made biblically and attributed to Jesus.
With limited capacity to read or write, it’s likely that no challenges would have survived the powers of the control for what was written or copied by hand 2,000 years ago. It is easy for believers in any form of Christianity to persuade themselves or be persuaded that the Bible is without error. It’s their religion. They want it to be right.
“Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." –
Bruce Calvert
Whatever was written was done without benefit of devices which would have made such direct quotations error free. Some in Christianity simply claim
miracles with regard to all this. But of course that’s not evidence. It’s
truth by assertion.
We also know there are numerous biblical contradictions even in what made it into the 66 books. I have posted those but not in our discussion here. Let me link you to some problems to save space here.
A Brief Survey of Biblical Errancy
Bible Errors and Contradictions
Gospel Contradictions
As your focus is on gospels, the third one above may be of greatest benefit to demonstrate internal contradictions in the Bible. This is relevant to questions of “historical Jesus” both directly and indirectly.
“The four canonical gospels are supposed to record the events in the life of Jesus Christ. If that's the case, why do they contain so many errors and contradictions? Believers tend not to notice the problems because they blend the stories together as a single text. If you focus on the details, though, it's clear that they aren't compatible. This is to be expected, given how long they were written after the events and because they were based on oral traditions.”
(source above)
These deal not only with the authenticity of
Jesus, but with the accuracy of biblical scripts in a wider context.
I’m still addressing your first questions above.
I may have addressed your question of “historical Jesus” in
this post before you asked further about it here. Perhaps I should wait rather than repeating what I mentioned there.
JAK wrote previously:
As I indicated “history” is a point of view, a perspective. The farther we go back toward pre-historic man, the less we have in any reliable material save the artifacts which were left and which survived time and erosion.
Jersey Girl:
That doesn't mean that what we do have overall, is inaccurate. We have pieces of the story of Jesus. I think that if the location in question (largely Jerusalem) were not ruined shortly following the death of Paul, Temple destruction 70 AD, we might have had more to work with and think about. As it stands, we do not.
Are you skeptical, for example, of the existence of Herod? I'd like to know if you are or not and on what you base your position regarding Herod. I may make a separate post for just those kinds of questions.
JAK:
The details are critical. Errors in detail which are incorrect lead on to further incorrect conclusion. I agree that we can have a given detail which may be authentic. However, contamination of information is destructive. (An ounce of sewage in a gallon of orange juice makes the whole gallon sewage.)
In your second paragraph above, the more confirmation of information we can have which is objective, free of bias, free of contamination, the more likely that we have more nearly credible data. “Herod,” because he was a Roman king. He began as a military general and rose to recognition by the Roman Senate which made him king.
What’s my point? The point is that there is much
objective confirmation of Herod as an historical figure. By that I mean there was less or little religious mythology surrounding Herod.
source
We have little reason/no reason to consider that Herod was confirmed historically by multiple sources. Now, If you asked:
Is every aspect of the historical record on Herod accurate in every detail?, we could likely raise question about that. But
during his life he was documented even to the extent of birth and death date.
JAK wrote previously:
Were it not for Constantine the Great and his ancestors,
Christianity might never have made it past his descendents. However, because he and his descendents had wealth and power and because they
used Christianity to advance their own power and influence,
Christianity did survive through many schisms. My “assertion” as you phrase a term is no more and no less than I stated.
Jersey Girl:
I have to agree with the above as it stands.
JAK wrote previously:
It is the word “historical” which is a term for deliberation. We lack reliable evidence regarding
the copying of words which were eventually scrutinized to the extent it was possible and canonized by the early pundits of the evolving religions of any time including that of Christianity.
Jersey Girl:
I want to save a response to the above for another and separate post.
JAK wrote previously:
The Bible (with different script/translations/languages) is a product over time with revision and configuration. There is a wide variety of
beliefs today regarding the accuracy or the historical statement found in the 66 books (including the apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, etc.) Such beliefs are not reliable based on the fact of belief. They are also not made reliable based on various interpretations though the various schisms.
Jersey Girl:
Even with the advent of the printing press and contemporary technological advances, we still do not enjoy 100% accuracy. The Gospels and Epistles are not the only ancient historical mentions of Jesus. Why limit the "evidence" in this discussion for the historical Jesus, to the Gospels and Epistles? There are more and other writings that make mention of Jesus. We can discuss those as the thread continues.
JAK:
Yes, “we…do not enjoy 100% accuracy.” But, and here is a critical point, we have
greater accuracy with multiple objective observations. If we have only one person telling a story which is replicated by another who heard the story from the first, etc. we tend to lose
objectivity. Gospel writers, for example were all attempting to sing in the same choir. That fact so reduces objectivity that reliability tends to be seriously flawed.
Your point on “100%” and that we still don’t have that is
excellent. I sense that you recognize that today we have most intensive
testing of data in medical science or space science to be sure that we have accuracy of fact. Mistakes are made. But, they are observed and often corrected because literally hundreds if not thousands of observers are at work to be sure of
fact. Fictions or myths are rejected, and speculation is tested.
So you make a most important point above. That
Jesus was
mentioned as you observe is not a confirmation of details. I would not suggest
limitation of evidence. But, I would insist upon skeptical scrutiny for contradictory evidence or absence of evidence.
There are many points of contradictory evidence. Those contradictions result in
interpretations which are speculation. That takes us very far from “100% accuracy.” It takes us into
opinion and, in religion especially, it leads to
truth by assertion. I reject that. A “mention of Jesus” is not adequate to establish detail of fact or factual account.
I am thinking
with you. While I could provide further lengthy examples of contradictory
claims, I want to think you already know that. And this is very long.
JAK wrote previously:
We can find various claims for messiah for example. (I post a link to save space.)
Jersey Girl:
The question on the table is not evidence for the messiah. It is evidence for the historical Jesus.
JAK:
Based on the New Testament, “the historical Jesus” was
the messiah. That’s an inextricable part of the religious
claims for “the historical Jesus.” So, I disagree that the
messiah doctrines can be excluded. They are
inseparably linked to “historical Jesus” in Christian mythology. The alleged miracles, the alleged Immaculate Conception, the alleged Resurrection are integral parts of “historical Jesus” as featured in Christianity.
What would be an “historical Jesus” absent the religion
Christianity? Virtually every story in the New Testament about
Jesus is directly or indirectly tied to religious claims. Had those claims not been made, we would likely have nothing about a poor uneducated carpenter of 2,000 years ago.
There is no separating
claims about
Jesus from history (accurate or otherwise).
JAK wrote previously:
Your question at the top may not be singular as you pose it. There were many claims to “messiah.” Such claims were not uncommon in the very period when
Christianity was mentored by the powerful who found it useful to themselves. The “Gospels” as you refer were also
tuned, if you will, to fit the preference of power at the time copying of words (scripts) were taking place.
Jersey Girl:
Again, the question is not evidence for the messiah. What do you mean when you use the word "tuned" for the Gospels?
JAK:
“Tuned” as in controlled and manipulated by persons of power who funded the writers, copiers, translators to configure the writings which eventually became canonized by those same power structures into a collection of writings. Canon was deemed necessary to exclude certain writings and include other writings. It was a period of time following the alleged
resurrection that the first New Testament Canon could be considered.
Personal testimony was used and exclusions and inclusions were made. Hence, “tuned.”
The inclusions were all at first
oral as were the exclusions. As individuals who
told stories orally began to die, perpetuation of their
oral stories needed to become
written record. A way to do this was a “canon.” It was previously used for the Old Testament and was a
method for preservation. That did not make it accurate, but it did preserve something. Writings which were
excluded (both Old and New Testaments at different times) are presumably lost. It was difficult enough to do the copying required
to include.
Therefore, “tuned,” as I used the term, had to do with what was excluded and what was included. Beyond the inclusion was further
tuning in that effort was made to produce a
unified account. Of course we know from documented contradictions that the “unity” was not entirely achieved. The effort was made in the canonizing processes. (When I attempt to save space, I leave out things which should be included. It’s too much for a forum such as this.)
JAK wrote previously:
Very, very few could write or read at the time of biblical constructions and editing. That fact made it easy for the few, under the auspices of the rulers who favored the construction to make the scripts.
Jersey Girl:
As I stated in a previous post. Luke wrote. Paul wrote.
JAK:
Yes, but they wrote form
oral personal perspective. So even if these writers were “100% accurate” in writing, we don’t have objective, unbiased, skeptical review of what first writers wrote. We don’t know to what extent they were able to interrogate those who gave the
oral personal testimony.
Keep in mind the primitive conditions of
writing at all. The “tuning” of what became canon followed the decisions to
include or exclude scripts. As a result, there is flawed reliability and the large potential for flawed reliability.
While we can limit this discussion to “historical Jesus,” the fact is that both the Old and the New Testament underwent a
process which was done both by proponents of Christian mythology as well as those who were enamored by and intended
to use Christianity for their own advancement. (More documentation required if you doubt the validity. I can provide it. Our joint recognition that even today we often lack (“100% accuracy) with all the tools of confirmation should be sufficient to recognize reliability 2,000 years into history subject to error.
Those who
claim error free biblical books do so based on
truth by assertion. They use evidence if and whenever they can. But, they leap over contradiction and absence of evidence to conclusion which is unreliable.
JAK wrote previously:
There were so few who could read or write, let alone, construct books, that the
production of what became biblical scripts were most unlikely to be challenged. Had some individual spoken out in opposition or written in opposition to the
control of the power structure, both they and their writing would likely have been destroyed by an emperor.
Jersey Girl:
I don't see the "construction of books" as relevant to these exchanges. Do you disagree that scribes painstakingly made copies of the Jewish Bible, the Talmud? Were they not careful in their occupation given the subject matter?
JAK:
We don’t know. Time tends to erode truth of the kind you address in the questions here. Even if we credit them with being “careful,” it does not produce skeptically reviewed examination. What they did may have been “painstakingly” done. That does not make it accurate or reliable. Particularly as
their work was surrounded by religious mythology, there are issues of credibility.
The “construction of books” in the context of questions of
historical accuracy is
most relevant. Any errors, manufacturing of myth, control of
inclusion and exclusion is
most relevant to the “historical Jesus” under discussion. Being “careful” in any venue does not guarantee “100% accuracy.” Stories of
physics defied, laws of nature suspended lack credibility regardless of how “careful” a copier by hand might have been.
That is not to suggest that every writing was flawed. I’m sure you understand I don’t intend that. However, flaws or errors mixed in with accurate detail
contaminate the total. (Remember the ounce of sewage in the gallon of orange juice)
JAK wrote previously:
There was no “free press.” In fact, there was no “press” at all. Only many, many centuries later did Johannes Gutenberg invent the earliest form of printing. Prior to that, all that was written (and as language evolved), was written by hand, copied by hand, passed on by hand (or not passed on).
Jersey Girl:
There was no free press in the production of material attributed to Aristotle or Plato. Do you question their existence? As I recall, we have discussed this before.
JAK:
As I have previously stated “historical Jesus” is open to considerable interpretation in the process of separating fact from fiction. Aristotle
himself wrote as a supremely educated man of 300 B.C.
Jesus wrote nothing. The comparison is a false one. (Please know I mean this only as related to our discussion.)
Had
Jesus left writings which he, himself had made and if we could confirm that they were indeed the writings of
Jesus we would have a comparison to Aristotle. Plato was a teacher of Aristotle and a teacher of Alexander the Great. These individuals had (for their time) very high profile. They were among the elite of
their time. And while much has been written about them, that is based on their own writings.
Aristotle Plato
Both these men whom you name were at the top of the educated in their time. They read from others who preceded them who were also at the top of their time. If you have time, please look over the links just above. The information available on these examples is significant considering their place in time (historically).
They didn’t do
miracles nor did they claim them nor did others claim for them.
It’s good you mentioned them because their
dissimilarities in historical perspective are huge compared with the essential connection of
Jesus to Christianity.
Plato and Aristotle were themselves skeptics and challenged ideas and conclusions. While they wrote themselves, they wrote to others and others wrote to them and about them. No similar
paper trail (I know, no paper) is established regarding
claims made by those who had an
oral transfer of stories about
Jesus.
JAK wrote:
Those who were in positions of strength were the ones to determine what was passed on and what was copied. And printing then was a very slow, laborious process, one character (impression) at a time.
Jersey Girl:
And carefully so, though you'll get no argument from me that scribes wrote in error.
JAK wrote:
This is addressing your questions above. There was then little interest or time or motivation to “challenge” what was a slow, tedious process of copying by hand (no ball-point pens, no fountain ink pens). And the copy material was all from hand and financed (they didn’t use that word) by the powers in control of “history.”
Jersey Girl:
Who financed the transcription of the Talmud? Do you know? I plan to discuss the Talmud later in the thread so long as we remain engaged in this discussion.
JAK:
I don’t know. As you mentioned previously, the issue (problematic) is “historical Jesus.”
JAK wrote:
So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.
Jersey Girl:
I would say that Nero was interested in challenge, yet I see no challenge from Nero regarding the historicity of Jesus.
JAK:
Nero was an emperor of Rome. What do you mean, “Nero was interested in challenge”? I posted the link to Nero only to save space and since I'm unsure how to respond to your sentence.
JAK wrote previously:
It’s easy for us today sitting in our climate-controlled homes with our Internet and computers to
imagine that thousands of years ago, people were really interested in detailed writing of something, anything. But the very strong likelihood is they were not.
Only a
tiny fraction of a percent of people (the masses) could actually read anything let alone write anything. It would be most difficult to make a credible case that
writers were
investigative reporters about what they heard or that they had capacity to investigate.
Jersey Girl:
I have to disagree that thousands of years ago there were not people "really interested in the detailed writing of something, anything", JAK. I make no claim to scholarship here but, there did exist Jewish scribes who maintained the transmission of the Talmud. There did exist other writers who wrote of Jesus in fairly close proximity of the events described in the New Testament.
JAK:
People in mass were interested in survival and day-to-day practical difficulities. Certainly the intellectuals of the day were interested in language and meaning. But it was
a tiny fraction of a percent who were sufficiently wealthy (or had access to wealth), and who also possessed the intellectual capability to address issues of philosophy. Emperors were more interested in expanding their power. Notice above I did not suggest that
no one was interested.
I’m skeptical about disagreement with you on what I actually stated above. We can document that a very limited percentage of people could read or write. There was nothing to read, no books. Writing took
materials planning and the knowledge of writing (character making).
JAK wrote previously:
Today, if a “Jesus” suddenly emerged, there would be hundreds of news agencies covering the
emergence and not only reporting on it but interpreting the “meaning” of the words and the “context” of the words, and the “appearance” of the speaker, etc. There could be no
Jesus today. Reporters would track the DNA, the linage, the history, etc.
Jersey Girl:
I so strongly disagree with the above. As I have stated on boards in the past, if Jesus of the Bible suddenly emerged, he would likely take his place alongside other indigent persons on the street and go without notice. Unless, of course, the stories are true in which case his majesty would be undeniable. Even so, reporters "get it wrong" or in some cases, "report it wrong" for the purpose of intentional distortion. That, of course, depends on what is being sold and to whom it is marketed. (That final remark was intentional on my part).
JAK:
Well, we disagree. If someone came
claimed to be Jesus (second coming), the news people would be all over the person with questions. If a nobody emerged from nowhere, was a commoner on the street, and made no “noise” which would call attention to him, he would go without notice. Perhaps I needed more clarification in the statement. We might then have less disagreement. In any case, it’s generally not relevant to the issues of “historical Jesus” in our discussion. It’s speculation on our parts as to all the details which would be involved in “if a ‘Jesus’ suddenly emerged…”
today.
There is not agreement on “Jesus of the Bible.” It’s an ambiguous reference. We are discussing what the meaning is for “historical Jesus.” The assemblage of written work today is ambiguous, present and past. If it were clear and had consensus, we would not have more than 1,000 claimant groups claiming different things and organizing different groups to proclaim
truth as they perceive it. Jews and Muslims have different views on “Jesus of the Bible.” But, there is much consensus on Plato and Aristotle.
JAK wrote previously:
There was
very little of that at 2,000 years ago. But, there was
a little for some people. Certainly it was not done for many.
It’s very easy for people today, Jersey Girl, to imagine that “life” 2,000 years ago was just like it is today without electricity. Well it was not. If we look at only what has transpired in the past 100 years, we have some idea of how quickly communication becomes primitive. We can contemplate only with great difficulty and probably inaccurately what any life was like, 2,000 years ago.
That is most important to keep in mind and difficult to keep in mind as we speculate on checks and balances of communication many centuries into the past.
Jersey Girl:
I quite agree.
JAK wrote:
What tends to happen for
believers, is simply the wave of the magic wand (figuratively speaking) to magically make
truth.
Jersey Girl:
I am not waving a magic wand. I am considering evidence with you and wishing for a
threaded view.
Note: By my count, I have one more post of yours to reply to. I'll try to get that done this evening.
Editing: I see three posts of yours to reply to. I doubt I will get to them all this evening.
JAK:
I understand. It's good to discuss with you, Jersey Girl. I appreciate your level of discussion. I know these posts linked make a very long entry. I hope it is not split, but I thought it would be good to keep our thought flow. I also apologize in advance for writing errors or if I misunderstood a thought of yours. (Some have criticized use of color to distinguish speakers, so I did not use that. But it seems useful as one reads different comments posted at different times or by 3rd or 4th individuals.
JAK