THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #26 ~ January 24, 1999 

"When a man assumes a public trust, he 
should consider himself as public property." 

   President Thomas Jefferson 1743 - 1826 

History Happening As We Speak:  Clinton 
Impeachment Trial Continues.  Indonesian 
Riots Force Evacuations. 
RHS/ColHi Alumni Speakers of The Day: 
Bronyn Bennett (71), Eva Clark (49), 
William Porter (68), Lloyd Swain (66), 
Mari Eckert (65), Marc Franco (66), 
Debbie Nelson (77), Bob Rector (62) 
Mary Lou Watkins (63) 
Share Your Opinions, Your Ideas, and Your 
Responses with Richland Alumni All Around The 
Will You Soon Be Paying L.D. Charges 
    For Using The Internet? 
From:  Bronyn Bennett Mosman (71) 
Subject: I Hope It's Not True! 

I just received this message from a retired friend, and 
it has me concerned.  It will affect all of us! 

There seems to be another of those "quiet bills" that 
go through Congress and comes back to bite us later. 
You may wish to reply to this now or pay higher phone 
bills in the future.  Congress will be voting on this bill in 
less than two weeks.  CNN stated that the Government 
would, in two weeks time, decide to allow  or not allow 
a Charge to your phone bill equal to a Long Distance 
call EACH time you access the Internet. 

The address is 

If you choose, visit the address above and fill out the 
necessary form! 

If EACH one of us, forwards this message on to others 
in a hurry, we may be able to prevent this injustice 
from happening! Please Pass This ON! 

Bronyn Bennett Mosman (71) 

[Note: If you want to write to your Representative in the 
U.S. House for any reason the above official government 
website will identify your rep. and put you in touch. -ap] 
From: Eva (Clark) Perry "49" 
Subject:  To Go or To Stay? 

I found this article in a paper that I was reading. It left 
me with, [the question,] do I really, truly, know what I 
would do.!!!! 


One Sunday morning during service, a 2,000 member 
congregation was surprised to see two men enter, both 
covered from head to toe in black and carrying 
submachine guns. 

One of the men proclaimed, "Anyone willing to take a 
bullet for Christ remain where you are." 

Immediately, the choir fled, the deacons fled, and most 
of  the congregation fled.  Out of the 2,000 there only 
remained around 20  people. 

The man who had spoken took off his hood, looked  at 
the preacher and said, "Okay Pastor, I got rid of all the 
hypocrites.  Now  you may begin your service. 

Have a nice day!" And the two men turned and walked 

--Eva Clark Perry 

[Are there pastors out there who would denounce the 
authority of the interlopers to demand such choices of 
the congregation and command the men with the guns 
to leave the  building on the authority of Jesus Christ? 
Just wondering... In the meantime, 911 on the cell 
phone might not be a bad idea.  What would you do? 
From:  (68) 
Subject:  Ray Wells' Bottom Line 

Ray said:  "I'll try to put a bottom line to this 
impeachment thing so we can move on: 
1. It's not about sex 
2. it's not about removing Clinton from office 
3. It's not about partisanship 
It's about having one set of laws for the rulers and 
another set of laws for the ruled.  It's about 
sentencing 116 Americans to prison for lying under 
oath (many of these lies were about sex) and 
exempting William Jefferson Clinton." 
You almost got to the bottom line.  You forgot to 
mention the number of perjury cases that prosecutors 
refused to do anything about because it wasn't worth it, 
or trivial to the case.  Over 400 prosecutors have said 
they wouldn't even bring charges against a 'normal' 
person for what Clinton did.  So, minus the 110, that's 
290 more prosecutors than convicts that think the 
case should be dropped.  So much for statistics. 

William L. Porter 
From: Anthony Tellier (57) 

Quoting from earlier Sandbox: 
> To all: When one wants to do character damage to 
another, labeling him a "pot smoker" and /or "draft 
dodger" [it] merely lumps that individual in with 
millions of others demographically.  < 

No s**t ... the "and"  fits me to a "T" (for Tony Tellier)! 
So THAT argument holds zippo H2O for me .. 

Now Clinton being such a bonehead DOES!!!!  I don't 
want my President to be nicer than me ("Nice guys 
finish last")  ... but I want him (or her) to be at least as 
smart and hopefully smarter and wiser and cleverer 
than me. 

Tony Tellier ('57) 
Boeing 717 Flight Test Center 
Yuma, AZ USA 
From: Lloyd Swain (66) 
Subj:  Baseball with Cuba- Si'. Telemarketers- No! 

Should America and Cuba play baseball?..... 
Absolutely.... also.. I would love to smoke a Cohiba or 
Romeo and Julieta without paying an arm and a leg.. :-) 

How to discourage Telemarketers.... Pretend you don't 
speak English.. ( that's why I always answer 
anonymous caller id's with an accent... hehe) 

-- Lloyd Swain 

               ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~ 

[O.K. Let's visualize the following scenario--- 
Householder: "Lo sciento, no puedo hablar Ingles!" 
Telemarketer: "No problemo. Aqui' nosotros hablamos 
todas de las linguas del mundo!" 
Householder: "I'm sorry.  I can't speak English. 
Telemarketer: "No problem.  Here, we speak all the 
languages of the world!" 
Your idea still seems to have merit, though, Lloyd. 
Does anybody else have some ideas on how to handle 
unwanted telemarketers? 
-ap ] 
From:  Mari Eckert Leahy (65) 
Subj:   Like a Soap Opera 

Promised myself I wouldn't write anything on the 
subject of Clinton but find I need to say a little. 
Re Ray Wells.......moving beyond Clinton......I can 
just as easily picture Thomas Jefferson with tears 
running down his face, but for a different reason.  I see 
it due to the many Americans that have accepted all 
the accusations made against the President of this 
United States without any basis in fact.  Oh, there has 
been much said that is said to be factual, but I have 
yet to see or hear of these so called "facts."  I, myself, 
am to the point of having tears run down my face 
because so many intelligent?  Analytical?  Common 
sense? type of folks have jumped on these "facts" with 
no regard to there validity.  Anyone with even a slightly 
open mind that has bothered to listen to the defense 
side of this situation, cannot help but have very real 
doubts about the validity of ANY of the accusations! 

What ever became of the concept of innocent until 
PROVEN guilty?  Whatever became of fairness and 
listening to BOTH sides before blaming or accusing? 
Whatever became of good sportsmanship? 
know.......if your candidate loses, you shake the 
winners' hand and support him and help him and 
accept the fact that the majority was more comfortable 
with this candidate than the one you were for and you 
continue to back this winner until the next election and 
try again to get a candidate that YOU want, to be 
elected instead.  This president has withstood five 
years of intense scrutiny by his harshest opposition, 
and all they could come up with was a sordid affair 
with a woman of legal age that was totally consensual. 
If Clinton was guilty of even one or two of the crimes 
that so many are laying at his feet......well, use your 
brains folks, if that was the case, we might actually 
have a legitimate reason to try and kick him from 
office!!!!!  There isn't any FAIRNESS in the process 
Clinton and his family is being made to endure.  It is 
nothing more than POLITICS at it's worst, and we as 
a nation are letting them degrade, and humiliate our 
wonderful country.  If other countries think less of us, it 
is only because we deserve it for letting these 
pompous, hypocrites air all this madness for the world 
to enjoy like a soap opera. 

-- Mari Eckert Leahyme 
From: Marc Franco  (66) 

Subject: A proposal 

As one of many people who are not consumed with 
hatred, bitterness, and venom, but yet who are still 
dismayed at the sight of our President lying under 
oath- albeit lying about something that actually is not 
even a crime (amazing thought, isn't it?), how about 
this for an idea?  I continue to think that what Clinton 
did- lying under oath - does not deserve impeachment, 
but yet should be punished.  How about putting him in 
jail AFTER he leaves office? Then he really would be 
like any of the rest of us, caught lying under oath and 
punished for it, and yet would spare the country what 
it is undergoing right now. 

--  Marc 
From:  Debbie Nelson Burnet (77) 
Subject: Re: Ray Wells '54  - "Moving Beyond Clinton" 

Well said.  What I have believed all along and even 
more.  If Clinton was an honorable man he would have 
resigned from office long ago.  But we all have realized 
that he is not an honorable man. 
From:    Mary Lou (Watkins) Rhebeck (63) 
Subject: Re: Prayer for our Country 

Something has really been bothering me during these 
last few years with Clinton as our elected leader.  I 
couldn't believe that voters believed him.  Granted, he 
is an excellent speaker and full of charisma; but there 
is something in the man's demeanor and eye's that 
have always set me on edge.... Liken it to a child lying 
to my face hoping I will think she is so darling I will 
believe her.  But Clinton is capable of much damage, 
and I love my country too much to support him.  But 
truly, the problem is not Clinton.  It is the lack of 
outrage and the apathy from so many of Americans 
that point to a bigger problem, one that could spell the 
downfall of what our country was based on and what 
keeps us great.  The morality today is mudsliding 
downward.  We accept terrible acts and terrible beliefs 
because we are "informed" now.  I haven't been sure 
how to word this "thing" that has been bothering me 
until I recently ran across the following.  It is "A Prayer 
For Our Leaders" given by Pastor Joe Wright, when he 
opened the new session of the Kansas Senate on 
January 23, 1996. Please stay with is important. 
It reads: 

"Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask 
Your forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. 
We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil 
'good'; but that's exactly what we have done.  We have 
lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. 
We confess that: We have ridiculed the absolute truth 
of Your Word and called it pluralism; We have 
worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturism; 
We have endorsed perversion and called it an 
alternative lifestyle; We have exploited the poor and 
called it the lottery; We have neglected the needy and 
called it self-preservation; We have rewarded laziness 
and called it welfare; We have killed our unborn and 
called it choice; We have shot abortionists and called 
it justifiable; We have neglected to discipline our 
children and called it building self-esteem; We have 
abused power and called it political savvy; We have 
coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it 
ambition; We have polluted the air with profanity and 
pornography and called it freedom of expression; We 
have ridiculed the time-honored values of our 
forefathers and called it enlightenment. "Search us, 
O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if 
there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from 
every sin and set us free' " 

I will end the prayer here,,,, There is a bit more 
directed at the people of Kansas.  I have given 
myself a goal to pray this every day for our country 
and I hope others will join me.  Thank you for the 
opportunity to share with those of you who were 
raised as I was.  I don't expect total agreement 
(heh-heh-heh), however I feel we do need to figure 
out what is wrong and do what we can to correct and 
heal our country. 

Mary Lou (Watkins) Rhebeck (63) 
From: Bob Rector (62) 
Subj : Y2K: How We Got to This Date Anyway. 
Or:     Remind Doomsdayers that we do not 
          know what year it is. 
Or:     Will God Read the Polls Before Deciding 
          When To  "Pull The Plug?" 
Or:     Do You Have The Correct Time? 

My Time Magazine, (Jan 18, 1999) page 64 has a poll. 
It claims that 9% of the population believe the world as 
we know it will end on Jan. 1, 2000!  Wow, that's just 
crazy!  Wrapping up Y2K computer problems together 
with the Apocalypse is simply bizarre. 

Just for fun, I've edited through the chapter on "The 
Birth of Jesus" in Charles Guignebert's Book on the 
subject of Jesus.  (Guignebert was professor of History 
of Christianity at the Sorbonne)  Here's the confused 
facts.  We have little idea when Jesus was born.  Bear 
with me, and you decide 

When Was Jesus Born? 
"The Gospels afford only a few vague indications, which 
are either contradictory or obviously erroneous. 
Matthew 2:1 places the Nativity 'In the Days of King 
Herod.'  It is not questioned that they are talking about 
Herod the Great, who's successor in Judea was 
Aarchelaus.  But we know that Herod died in the year 
750 of the Roman Calendar, early in the spring, either 
in March or April, of the fourth year before the Birth of 
Christ, which constitutes a serious difficulty to begin 
with."  (I'll repeat, Herod died 4 B.C.....humm)  The 
Gospel of Mark is totally silent on the subject, further 
reason for misgiving.  Luke is more explicit: 'Elizabeth, 
the mother of John the Baptist became pregnant 'in 
the time of Herod, King of Judea,' and Mary conceived 
six months after her cousin (Luke 1:26,36&42).  At the 
time of the latter's delivery, an imperial edict for a 
census made it necessary for her to go to Bethlehem, 
at which time, Quirinius is stated to have been 
Governor of further mention being made of 

Continuing in the good book, it says, "John the Baptist 
began his preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was Governor of 
Judea, Herod Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee, and Annas 
and Caiaphas were high priests.  It was shortly after 
this that Jesus came to be baptised by John and then 
began his ministry.  He was then, "about 30 years old." 
(Luke 3:21,28) 

Finally, John 8:56-57, makes Jesus say, in the course 
of a dispute with the Jews: "Your Father Abraham 
rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and was glad, to 
which his opponents replied: Thou art not yet fifty 
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"  Could it be 
that Jesus was almost 50 years old?  Important note: 
John presents a different number than Matthew and 
Luke, but scholars agree that because Mat,MK,&Lk. 
have similar stuff (are synoptic, or synonymous), then 
what we have is simply two traditions.  One tradition 
has Jesus, "about 30 years old" and the other at 
perhaps 50 at the crucifixion. 

Tradition and history in the synoptics have Jesus' 
ministry at three years.  However, the probability is 
that it lasted hardly more than one year....i.e. if we 
date Jesus from John the Baptist, we would have 
even more difficulty in a guess on the date of 

Several of the foregoing are contradictory.  So where 
to start?  Guignebert, begins with the two undisputed 
fixed points: Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea 
from A.D. 26 to A.D. 36.  Additionally, the fifteenth 
year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar...made Emperor 
on the tenth of August in the year 14, falls between 
the nineteenth of August, year 28, and the Eighteenth 
of August, year 29. 

Therefore, if Jesus was thirty years old between the 
years 28 and 29, he could not be near 50, a year or 
two later. (have you got all that?)  He could barely, 
but possibly have been born under Herod the Great, 
which would make him at least 33, and born no later 
than 4 B.C.  But, if the census of Quirinius, is the 
same as the one spoken of by the Historian Josephus, 
it took place in A.D. 6 to 7....which excludes the 
possibility of the birth of Jesus under Herod, and 
brings him to the age of only 22 or 23 by the year 
A.D. 28-29.  Furthermore, Annas and Caiaphas were 
not high priests at the same time: Annas was governor 
of the Temple, from A.D. 6 to 15....Caiaphas from 18 
to 36. 

Got it....grave difficulties in reconciling Biblical 
information on the date of Jesus' birth.  Some other 
Bible scientists have accepted the "Star of the Magi" 
(i.e. the year of Nativity) as the passing of Haley's 
comet in A.D. 12. 

The chronology of Luke is very confused anyway & 
most scholars agree that Luke simply used the 
census to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.  Luke 
refers to "the census" therefore, not really caring or 
knowing the date...only the tradition. *The edit itself 
is counted not in the city of your birth, 
but the city of the birth of your ancestor! (which 
ancestors, etc?)  It would have been nuts, and a 
logistical nightmare for a census to have been done this 
way.  This means that scholars dismiss Luke's census 
account for the birth of Jesus, and revert to other 
accounts...pointing to the reign of Herod the Great. 

Date of the Death of Jesus. 
Taking John 8:57 to be accurate, some claim that 
Jesus was crucified during the time of Claudius 
(A.D. 41-45).  Many of these accept the date of birth 
at year 9.  Others place the crucifixion at A.D. 21, 
forgetting that Pilate had not received his appointment 
until 26, and the opponents forgetting that he lost it 
in 36. 

So, How Did We Get to the Date We Have? 
It the 6th century.  A Roman monk 
named Dionysius the Less, having no more information 
than ourselves...calculated like this: "If John the Baptist 
began his preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
Tiberius, and if we allow an interval of about a year 
between the start of John the Baptist's ministry and that 
of Jesus...then Jesus would have been 30 years old in 
the sixteenth year of Tiberius (year 784 in the Roman 
Calendar).  Deducting thirty years, we reach the 754th 
year.  The date of Nativity is set at Dec.25th (celebration 
of the solar god Mithra) in the Roman year of 754 and 
this becomes year one of the new era. 

Why?  Because Dionysius was not hindered by what 
we have discussed.  He did not admit that the gospels 
could be contradictory.  He had no way to fix the exact 
dates of the death of Herod or of the census.  He did 
not know that those dates were subsequent to 754. 

It is wisest to conclude, says Guignebert, that we do 
not know, within about fifteen years or more, the time 
when Jesus came into the world. 

Is this fun or what?  Don't panic on Dec. 31, 1999. 
Sorry for all the verbiage. 

Semper Bomberus, Bob Rector 
That's all for today's Sandbox, folks.  Say what you 
are itching to say today and send it right away to: 

Not sure what you want to talk about?  Well, then, 
here are some ideas for you: 

1.  How about Dan Quayle for President? 
2.  What's the best way to cook okra? 
3.  Have you finished your Thanksgiving leftovers yet? 
4.  Other ideas suggested in previous issues. 

See you next time! 

-Al Parker, Your Sandbox savant, Learning from you!