Mike Paul's Blog - March 2006

”It tries to reduce Jesus to a great religious figure, one among many, rather than being a unique figure who is uniquely divine.”

Biblical scholar Darrell Bock, author of Breaking The Da Vinci Code, commenting on the best-selling book, The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code movie, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, is set for box office release by Columbia Pictures on May 19. The upcoming movie is seen by many Christians as an opportunity to both educate the masses regarding the truths within the bible and to best defend the reputation of Jesus Christ. In fact, Christians believe Jesus’ reputation is on the line if many of the assumptions within the best-selling book and upcoming movie are not debunked in the near future. However, the only way to truly debunk the myths within the book and the movie is to educate the masses regarding the historical reliability of the biblical gospels.

According to best-selling author Dan Brown's Web site, The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery. A cryptographer and symbologist join forces to gather clues that were left behind by the murder victim, but to some, it is not that simple. The book has sparked debates about the legitimacy of Western and Christian history. The central claim Brown's novel makes about Christianity is that “almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.”

Darrell Bock's book, Breaking The Da Vinci Code, is one of the few formal responses to Brown's novel. Bock, a professor of spiritual development and culture at Dallas Theological Seminary, appeared on ABC’s Nightline and Good Morning America when his book was published and has served as a spokesman within the evangelical Christian community regarding the theological issues raised in Brown's book.

Brown writes on his Web site that his hope in writing the novel “was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.”

In an article in Christianity Today, Bock wrote that he thinks it's important to investigate the claims of the book. “Many Christians have become so worked up in the cultural war metaphor that they risk losing the ability to engage the culture at all,” Bock's article states. “The popularity of both the book and the special points to our culture's continuing fascination with Jesus. And even when that curiosity borders on the perverse, we need to be engaged in the conversation—if not on TV specials, certainly in our neighborhoods, schools, and offices, wherever the topic of conversation comes up—talking about the real Jesus in a constructive way.”

A few tips in seeking the truth vs. lies within the Da Vinci Code book and movie from author and biblical scholar Darrell Bock:

Basic to the storyline is the claim that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and that many in the Church knew (as did people like Leonardo Da Vinci later on in history). The evidence for this claim comes from two extra-biblical Gospels, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and The Gospel of Philip. Both contain remarks that Jesus had a special relationship to Mary or that he loved her more than any of the twelve disciples. In addition, there is an appeal to a text where Jesus is said to kiss Mary on the lips. So the inference is that if he kissed her in public he must have been her husband.

Now the facts are these. First, almost all scholars question whether these extra-biblical Gospels contain anything of value in terms of the historical Jesus. However, even if they did, the texts noted do not actually affirm that Jesus was married. In fact, the famous kiss on the lips text actually has a blank in the original manuscript right at the point where it describes where Mary was kissed. So it could be the lips or the cheek, which would simply refer to a kiss of fellowship. More than this, we have volumes of texts about Jesus from the first five centuries. I have a series in my library of 38 volumes from this period. They are small print, single space, double columned texts of several hundred pages each. They include traditional orthodox texts and those that were rejected as heretical. In all of these materials not a single text describes Jesus as married and most assume he was not, as that was a basis for some arguing that priests should be single. In 1 Corinthians 9, the argument appears that spouses of those married should be supported. Had Jesus been married, Paul could have clinched his argument by noting this fact. All of this leads to the conclusion that Jesus was single.

John Crossan and I were both asked to write articles for beliefnet.com about whether Jesus was married when the novel came out. He is a liberal; I am a conservative. We both agreed that Jesus was single. I tell my classes that when a liberal and a conservative believe something is true about the historical Jesus, then it probably is true. In sum, there is no evidence Jesus was ever married. If this is so, then the entire backdrop to the novel collapses.

But one final point needs to be made. The novel claims that a married Jesus would need to be covered up by the Church because it would expose the fact that Jesus was not divine. However, it is not at all a given that, had Jesus been married, this would have resulted in a question about his divinity, because the Church has always confessed the full humanity of Jesus and the status of marriage would fit in nicely with such a claim. Thus, even the premise of the theological problem the novel sees for a married Jesus is false.

The novel also claims that the four New Testament Gospels were chosen late to be a part of the Bible because they had a divine Jesus as opposed to other Gospels that had a human Jesus. Once again, we are at a place where liberal and conservative scholars agree. The study of what is called the canon (or the recognition of the books that comprise the New Testament) is a complex area when it comes to the compilation of the entire New Testament. Athanasius in AD 367 is the first figure we have who lists the 27 books of the New Testament as we have them today. It may be that Dan Brown rested his view on this fact, although he never mentions it. However, this does not take into account the fact that the books which were under discussion in the third and fourth centuries were some epistles (e.g. 2 Pet, Jude, 2 and 3 Jn) and Revelation, and not any of the Gospels.

Scholars of the canon agree that by the end of the second century the fourfold Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) was recognized as authoritative. This is a full 125 years before Constantine and the Nicean Council came on the scene to do the defining work for orthodoxy according to the novel.

(1) Irenaeus’ majestic description of the gospel needing to have four Gospels like the world has four zones and there are four winds. This text appears in his Against Heresies 3.11.8, a famous and oft-cited text from the end of the second century;

(2) The attempt of Tatian to combine the Gospels into one running account in AD 170 in his Diatessaron failed. This effort on the surface appeared to make sense, but it failed because the four Gospels were already too well established in the Church to be replaced, even by a seemingly more efficient way to present the Gospels;

(3) We also have a citation from Origen in the early third century that Gospels such as Thomas are not read in the churches because they are not seen as having authority;

(4) Justin Martyr’s description of the Gospels in the middle of the second century explains why they were so highly valued. He calls them the “memoirs” of the apostles, a description that notes they are rooted in testimony that goes back to the apostles. Thus, the idea that the Gospels emerged as a reflection of orthodoxy about the time of the fourth century around the time of Constantine and the Nicean council is just bad history.

Problem 3 – Did a belief in Jesus’ divinity receive its decisive sanction through a “close vote” at Nicea in AD 325?

This claim is probably the worst of the three problems. What we know about Nicea is this. It gathered not to determine the divinity of Jesus but to discuss the Arian view of Jesus, who saw Jesus as Son and even divine, but appointed to that role rather than having it from before his birth. So the debate was the type of divine Jesus in view, not whether Jesus was divine. Constantine did call this council together because he wanted peace and unity in the Church. The council had about 200 bishops from around most of Christendom in attendance, but the vast majority were from the East. There was no close vote. What the bishops did was sign a statement and only two out of the entire group refused, so the “vote” was hardly close. There was pressure to accept this confession at the council, as originally 17 opposed it, but when Constantine threatened exile, that number reduced to two. However, even if we take 17 as the number opposed, this is still a significant minority of less than 105 of the total in attendance. Brown’s claim, then, is false here as well.

It also ignores the fact that the acceptance of the divinity of Jesus is something fundamental to the earliest documents we have from Christianity. One can look at the writing of Paul (1 Cor 8.5–6; Phil 2.9–11), the unknown author of Hebrews (Heb 1.3), the author of Revelation (Rev 1.1–7 and chapters 4–5), the Gospel of John (Jn 1.1–18), or even Jesus’ own testimony at his Jewish examination (Mk 14.62–65 and parallels) to see that the claim was that Jesus was at the side of God in a position of status equal to his, receiving worship as he does. When one adds to this the testimony of Pliny the Younger, writing as a Roman governor to the Roman Emperor Trajan in around AD 115 speaking of Christians singing hymns to Jesus as a god, we can see that even non Christian texts corroborate the views we see in the earliest Christian texts. The belief in Jesus as divine was a core belief of the earliest Church. It was not the result of a close decision in the fourth century.

There are a host of other problems with the “historical backdrop” of the novel.

(1) The idea that Mary was an apostle to the apostles misquotes Hippolytus, a church father of the later second century. When he made this remark, Hippolytus was not describing an office that Mary held. Rather, he used the phrase to describe all the women who saw the resurrected Jesus and reported his resurrection. In this sense, all of these women were apostles in a generic sense, namely, commissioned messengers sent on behalf of another, rather than being members of a church office. In fact, the exact phrase in the singular “apostle of the apostles” comes from the ninth century at the earliest.

(2) The other Gospels that the novel claims have a human Jesus in most cases have a more divine Jesus than the biblical Gospels. What do I mean? Well, Jesus is so transcendent that he cannot be completely human. So some of these Gospels portray Jesus as laughing from heaven because they think they are crucifying him or else they describe him walking on the beach but leaving no footprints. So Brown’s description of these other Gospels is quite misleading.

(3) Leonardo Da Vinci would never have painted a Last Supper scene and replace one of the twelve disciples with a woman. An art historian whose work we included in the latest editions of Breaking The Da Vinci Code made this point to me, originally in an email. He notes that when Mary is present at the scene she is placed at Jesus’ feet. This scene is so stereotyped in the period of this painting that there had to be twelve apostles present as that is the content of the biblical account the paintings reflect. In a lecture given by three art historians at the Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia, in January 2004, the experts on the period present said simply that Dan Brown had got his art history wrong.

It is my view that the interest in this novel shows a few things about contemporary culture. There is a keen interest in things related to the origins of Christianity and there is a spiritual hunger of sorts out there. However, it is not a very discerning kind of quest. This makes it all the more important that ministers of the gospel today know the roots of the early history of Christianity and communicate some of that to their parishioners, who in turn can have informed discussions with their inquisitive neighbors. The fact that this book has put this history into the public square is a good thing, if Christians know their history well enough to explain what really happened. For those who wish to know about the history of the canon, Bruce Metzger’s The New Testament Canon is quite helpful. For those wanting the details of the acceptance of the Gospels as Scripture, Martin Hengel’s The Four Gospels and The One Gospel of Jesus Christ is a good starting point. For more details assessing The Da Vinci Code, see my Breaking The Da Vinci Code or one of the many other critiques of the novel. Perhaps if Christians are well equipped, there may be opportunity for the more than 40 million people who have bought this novel to find the real code that opens up the way to life. The reputation of Jesus Christ and all Christians is involved, but more importantly, the gain of eternal life for those who have faith in Jesus.

Remember, do the right thing when your reputation is in crisis and seek the counsel of an experienced reputation management expert. It will be a major challenge, but ultimately the rewards of repairing your reputation will be great. Why? Because Your Reputation Is Everything! ™

Mike Paul is editor of The Reputation Doctor blog. The Reputation Doctor is a nickname given to him by various clients. Mike's blog is located at www.ReputationDoctor.com. He appears regularly on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, Court TV, ABC News, ESPN, CBS News, BBC, and others as a weekly contributor and expert in the global news regarding leaders, celebrities, corporations and other organizations with reputations in crisis. Mr. Paul is also president and senior counselor of MGP & Associates PR (www.mgppr.com), a leading strategic public relations and reputation management firm based in New York. For interview requests, speeches, senior counseling or other business opportunities with Mr. Paul, call 212-595-8500 or email info@mgppr.com.

Trackback address for this post:

Comments:

Comment from: Mitch Glaser [Visitor]

Good work on the blog!

Mar 29, 2006, 6:14 am

Comment from: Sam Ingram (L.A.) [Visitor]

Thanks for the excellent explanation. Great blog. The truth will set us all free!

Mar 29, 2006, 3:09 pm

Comment from: Emma [Visitor] · http://www.london-elite-escorts.com

Thank you for your blog. Very good explanation this time. Great topic.

Jun 20, 2010, 2:25 pm

Comment from: Kasino Empfehlung [Visitor] · http://www.amerikanischeskasino.eu/

I were both asked to write articles for beliefnet.com about whether Jesus was married when the novel came out. He is a liberal; I am a conservative. We both agreed that Jesus was single. I tell my classes that when a liberal and a conservative believe something is true about the historical Jesus, then it probably is true. In sum, there is no evidence Jesus was ever married. If this is so, then the entire backdrop to the novel collapses.

Jul 23, 2010, 8:04 am

Leave a comment:

“Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking. What players take doesn't matter. It's nobody else's business. The doctors should spend their time looking for cures for cancer. It takes more than muscles to hit homers. If all those guys were using stuff, how come they're not all hitting homers?”
Comments from Barry Bonds in 2002 regarding his alleged use of steroids.

According to USA Today’s Jon Saraceno, Hank Aaron doesn't want to talk about it, at least not for public consumption. Neither does Frank Robinson, another Hall of Famer whose opinion matters.

Baseball fans, however, aren't nearly as reluctant to discuss how they feel about Barry Bonds' assault on the record books, given the latest allegations that he was a pill-gulping, syringe-sticking, steroidal cream-smearing doper who was jealous of the accolades given in 1998 after Mark McGwire smashed 70 home runs and Sammy Sosa 66.

Spring training normally is filled with fans talking about the new second baseman or whether the bullpen will hold up. This is not a normal spring for baseball, nor was it last year after Jose Canseco's book. A whiff of something else remains in the air — the scent of scandal. It is the lingering issue of what steroids has done to the game's cherished record book and what baseball intends to do about Bonds and his pending historical achievements, if anything.

"It absolutely makes me angry. In my heart of hearts, I feel Barry cheated," said Jeff Smith, a Braves fan from St. Cloud, Fla., who grew up in Atlanta watching Aaron use those incredible wrists to drill line-drive home runs. "I'm not anti-Barry Bonds — I'm pro-Hank Aaron. It must be a tough thing for someone who is as soft-spoken as Hank. He learned to hit baseballs by hitting bottle caps with broomsticks. He never was given anything. He worked for every ounce of that record.

Fans, like team owners, genuinely might not care if players ingest anything and everything — booze, uppers, downers, "juice" — but they do care about statistics. His late-career power surge has left Bonds pounding on the door of baseball immortality as he chases Aaron's career record of 755 home runs. Third all-time, Bonds' 708 total puts him seven behind Babe Ruth and 48 shy of shattering Aaron's standard.

"It cheapens the whole thing," said Jerry Hubbell of Crystal River, Fla. "It means records are no longer going to be worth anything. They are useless."

"There should be an asterisk if his name is in the record books," said Mark Kolb of Port Orange, Fla. "He definitely had an advantage, I guess you could say, with chemical engineering that Hank didn't have."

The fans' consternation is understandable. Still, Bonds has his defenders (including Stanley Burrell, aka MC Hammer. He advised the player on his website that he is too legit to quit because of critics. "Don't let the bloodhounds shake you," Hammer said.)
Bonds has his apologists, but I couldn't find any during a Braves exhibition game.

Unscientific as my "polling" was, everyone I spoke with is disgusted with what he or she thinks is a charade. Not only by Bonds, but by the commissioner's office. They want Bud Selig to do something about the long shadow cast upon the integrity of statistics that serve as the game's lifeblood.

"I don't know what the MLB can do, but I know what I would do," said J.R. Kelly of Panama City, Fla. "First, you investigate. If (proven) he used steroids, I'd strip him (of any records). I don't think they should have a record under false pretenses. Babe Ruth didn't use steroids. ... Beer, maybe, but not steroids."

If Bonds is guilty of undermining the spirit of the game, would a simple mea culpa have sufficed? James White of Atlanta believes so.

"You can only pull the wool over the eyes of the American public so often," he said. "A guy like (Jason) Giambi got up and said, 'I did it' (before a grand jury). Now they're cheering him. It was a wake-up call. I can accept a guy who says, 'I tried something; I was wrong.' If Barry is a man of his word, he's going to have to step up to the plate one day" and admit if he used steroids.

Whether you believe what you read or your own eyes when looking at Bonds' physique, one thing cannot be debated: his numbers.

Since he was 35, Bonds has whacked nearly 300 home runs, an unprecedented total. When he was 31, he hit 33 in 506 at-bats. When he was 39, he connected for 45 round-trippers in 390 at-bats.

Freak season? Or steroid-freak season? Best player ever ... or unrepentant cheater?

"He's a pansy," said Phil Stimmel, 12, a Little Leaguer from Orlando. "He's just showing off because he wants more money and fame. I like to watch what players can really do — not what drugs can do for them."

A few reputation management tips from the Reputation Doctor regarding Barry Bonds:

• To lie this long, you must convince yourself your truth is the truth.
I believe Barry Bonds made a pact with the devil. I believe he convinced himself that his truth (or lie) is the truth. When he decided to take steroids, he convinced himself that he would never tell the truth to anyone, not even himself. His greatest fear has been getting caught and Barry is now caught in his on web of lies.

• Bonds can still do the right thing, but it will take real courage to do so.
To tell the truth after lying this long takes real courage. It takes a real man. It also takes faith in something greater than himself. Does Barry have it in him to do the right thing? If he really loves his family, he will.

• Barry can turn a huge negative into a positive by leaning on the truth for the first time in a long time.
Making such a decision is not head work, but heart work. Barry Bonds has a heart of stone that needs to be softened. He has convinced himself he is invincible. He is not. He is at a huge fork in the road. I truly believe to change his behavior he must lean on God to get his life back on track. Faith in God is one of the greatest tools in building a reputation. After all, who do you think created truth, honesty, accountability, transparency and excellent reputations in the first place? I talk to my clients often about their faith because faith soften hearts and faith should come first is all of our lives. Once hearts are softened, behaviors can change and changing behavior is what reputation management is all about.

Trackback address for this post:

Comments:

Comment from: John Sampson [Visitor]

Your comments are so true. Thank you for sharing your counsel with us all. We can all learn from this example. I love you blog!

Mar 14, 2006, 6:59 pm

Comment from: Angela Wright (SF) [Visitor]

I agree. Barry is in sinking sand. I hope the MLB listens to your reputation advice. I have learned so much from you. Keep the advice coming.

Mar 15, 2006, 5:04 pm

Comment from: Jim Reynolds (ABC) [Visitor]

If Bonds were smart, he'd hire you now. Excellent points and suggestions.

Mar 16, 2006, 9:45 am

Comment from: Cameron Sandra [Visitor]

Barry Bonds' reputation took a hard blow with this scandal breaking out. I was aware of his history of legal steroids use in his teens, before turning pro, but I always thought he'd know better than to do steroids now.

Feb 23, 2010, 4:01 am

Comment from: jewellery earrings [Visitor] · http://www.chanelearrings.org

hello

Jun 10, 2010, 6:11 am

Leave a comment:

“Michael couldn't survive one day in prison - he would commit suicide.”
Comments from Jermaine Jackson regarding his younger brother, Michael Jackson.

Jermaine Jackson feared his kid brother Michael might be guilty of child molestation, but backed him at trial because he thought the pop star would commit suicide in prison, according to a bombshell book proposal obtained by the New York Daily News.

In a tell-all outline shopped to publishers just weeks after Michael's arrest in November 2003, Jermaine described the Pop King as a sometimes out-of-control drug and booze abuser with a calculating mean streak and "a thing for young children."

The eight-page proposal for "Legacy: Surviving the Best and the Worst," lists Michael Jackson's preferred substances as Vicodin, Demerol, codeine, Percocet, cocaine, Jack Daniels and wine.

"I don't want to tell you my brother's innocent. I am not certain that he is," Jermaine said in the tome-teaser drafted by author Stacy Brown, who co-authored "Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask" with the singer's former publicist, Bob Jones.

But Jermaine's still-unpublished tale is the ultimate insider look at the troubled star.
He admits that the family has protected Michael Jackson’s image and says that Jackson also cheats, lies and even changed the color of his skin.

Even the pop star's behavior with his own nephews has left his family "shaken," according to Jermaine. He recounts the family coming together after the death of brother Tito's ex-wife in the mid 1990s and finding Michael sitting on a bed with Tito's young sons and holding them in a disturbing manner.

Jermaine also dished about the singer's bizarre behavior shortly before he surrendered to authorities to face charges in November 2003.

Holed up in a Las Vegas hotel room, Michael calmly watched a "Pinocchio" DVD with his three children in his lap, but he later flew into a rage, trashing the room and breaking every glass, lamp and dish in it.

The protective big brother vowed to help Michael beat the rap because "Michael couldn't survive one day in prison ... He'd commit suicide."

• That during the Jackson 5 days, Michael's brothers feared he was gay. The brothers met lots of women while touring and all eventually fell in love. "But Michael, well, he wasn't interested. We used to quietly say that we couldn't have a gay brother."

• Michael hates Jews because he thinks Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen stole the idea for Dreamworks studio, including the boy-on-the moon logo, from him. "But the Jews are the powerful ones and they have done a lot to put my brother in his place ... just another n-----."

• That a devious and calculating Michael squashed his brothers' solo musical careers.
But the family stood behind Michael despite pain, doubts and misgivings, unwilling to give up on "our little brother."

Michael Jackson threw a raging fit and made drastic threats when he found out his brother Jermaine was drafting a tell-all book, so his shaken older sibling pulled the plug on the project, the Daily News learned.

Michael vowed to toss Jermaine out of the Jackson family home and sue him and anyone else who had a hand in writing or publishing the proposed tome, "Legacy: Surviving the Best and the Worst," said author Stacy Brown, who had been slated to ghostwrite the project.

In a shocking tome-teaser detailed in Sunday's Daily News, Jermaine, 51, said Michael, 47, has "a thing for young children" and that he feared his kid brother might be guilty of the child molestation charges he faced in late 2003. A jury found the oddball entertainer not guilty of the charges last June.

Jermaine also dished about Michael's alleged drug and alcohol abuse, claimed that Michael's two older kids were fathered by a sperm donor and suggested that their father, Joe, molested their sisters Rebbie and La Toya when they were kids.

In an exclusive interview yesterday, Brown said he was "surprised and caught off guard" when the Daily News obtained the book outline more than two years after it was shopped to publishers as Michael faced child molestation charges. "The experience of writing the proposal ... and then having Michael go nuts, Jermaine crying, and the family going into chaos mode was draining and weird, and one that I wouldn't want to deal with again," said Brown, who co-wrote "Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask" with the pop star's longtime front man Bob Jones.

A few reputation management tips from the Reputation Doctor regarding Michael Jackson:

• Running from your mistakes, lies or problems only makes things worse.
An excellent reputation is built on truth, transparency and accountability. These are three things Michael Jackson is lacking in his reputation. However, he needs to come clean with himself before he can ever come clean with others. He is in huge denial of his behavior.

• Jermaine’s reputation is better than Michael’s today and as a result, we view Jermaine's opinion with more honesty and credibility.
Michael’s reputation is a mess. He is trying to create another image, but you all know I think an image is a lie and will blow in the wind like straw. A reputation is built with a concrete foundation of truth or not at all.

• When your own family is turning on you in public, your reputation is definitely in crisis!
Another family member speaking out against you in public is anyone's nightmare. The truth always bubbles to the top and sometimes directly from the "inner circle" by a family member. Michael Jackson needs to seek seasoned crisis PR help today. His reputation has mud all over it and his reputation will only be repaired with complete truth from his own lips. At the second he finally speaks the truth is when he finally begins repairing his reputation. It will also lift a huge burden from his shoulders because lying is always a big burden. Lying also fills one with a lot of guilt. It is time for Michael to seek the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not just for himself, but for the sake of his entire family before it is too late.

Trackback address for this post:

Comments:

Comment from: Jim [Visitor]

Find god MJ.....its his only hope.

Apr 10, 2006, 2:08 am

Comment from: amadi muuta muhammad [Visitor]

Listen here u dummy's... that has nothing to do with this manner. you know Micheal did not do anything with those children.I get soo angry when you dummy's think he did that... But guess what the truth is going to come out you white crackers... yea i said it what you gonna do?? That's exactly what i thought nothing!!!!!!!!!! soo shut up sit down cause u aint getting nothing from Micheal... His true fans and people who believe Micheal didn't do it knows the truth. My mother told me about yall WHITE crackers. yall always trying to make nothing out of something and put it on the news and in the magazines....Guess what i kno the truth in I WILL DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY SPREED IT AROUND.

Apr 27, 2009, 8:00 pm

Comment from: kendall [Visitor]

you are sooooooooooooooo un fair

Jun 28, 2009, 2:47 pm

Comment from: Michel chari [Visitor]

Although seeing pop star Michael Jackson meet with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, D.C., to discuss HIV/AIDS was "odd," it is difficult to determine RH302 exam "which side is taking a bigger risk to its reputation," syndicated columnist Clarence Page writes in a Baltimore Sun opinion piece (Page, Baltimore Sun, 4/7). RH202 exam While in Washington last month to receive an award from the African Ambassadors' Spouses Association for his work on HIV/AIDS, Jackson met with several CBC members to discuss the HIV/AIDS pandemic and a proposed trip to Africa later this year. Jackson has proposed heading a trip to Africa to better leverage his celebrity status and bring attention to the pandemic. MB2-633 exam

Oct 20, 2009, 1:40 am