|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Mar 21, 1995 11:27 PM
by John Mead
could someone explain that if Paul Johnson's work is incorrect, then what is the correct interpretation of the Masters?? I'm confused. What is the logical/psychical correct viewpoint? can it be defended?? peace -- john mead p.s. curious