You make the statement that if Dr. Charles had been a con man, he would not have survived one day in the Middle East. You don’t know scripture very well or you wouldn’t say that. Psalm 92:6-7 says, “A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.” Obviously the wicked do flourish, sir.

You might also be interested in knowing that Ron Charles still goes around the country claiming that he has these degrees to this very day.

You also state that we should stop slandering this man. Slander, is the spreading of FALSE statements about a person. We are telling the TRUTH about Dr. Ron Charles. You should be rejoicing that the truth is getting out about Dr. Charles.

Finally, Paul doesn’t agree with you either. He says in 2 Timothy 4:14-15, Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm…you too should be on your guard against him.” If Paul can warn Timothy about Alexander, why shouldn’t I warn Christians everywhere that Dr. Ron Charles is a liar and don’t believe anything he says? After all, we are told to examine a Christian’s fruit, and Dr. Charles’ fruit is some of the most rotten I’ve ever examined.

Let me be clear with one thing at the very onset. “IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE”.

The people who are slandering Mr Ron Charles,should be aware of this. What are their own credentials to discredit Ron?

The guyz who live in the comfort of American Homes, should come go to middle east and testify as a christian there.

Right from my childhood, I have been with Muslims, Hindus and others. and I know the challenges of living as a christian in the middle east. You simply dont know which day could be your last.

If Dr Ron Charles, had been a con, as you say, he would not have survived 1 day there, forget 3 decades.

It’s that kind of scholarship that he possess and applies for biblical studies, his formal degrees are secondary to that.

I urge everyone here to stop slandering one another and respect each other as christian brothers.

I still have questions that I hope will be answered by you and/or Ron Charles (Secretary/Treasurer of Final Frontiers):

1. If Ron actually has his doctorate from Cambridge (as reported in Progress Report), then why does Cambridge have no knowledge of him?

2. If he actually lectured at Trinity Dublin last summer (as reported in Progress Report), then why is he unknown to either the executive officer or the department head of the department where he lectured?

(You have seen the correspondence from the responsible officers at Cambridge and Trinity, Jon.)

1. Why have you and Ron threatened legal action against me for raising these (and other) questions?

John Hayden, Pastor Columbia Road Baptist Church Mason, MI 48854

Here’s what I received from Cambridge’s Alumini Relations Officer, Rachel Kirkley, in an email 8/21:

“I have now heard back from Student Administration and Records and there is no record of a Ronal D Charles studying for a PhD at the University of Cambridge. I have also followed up with Peter Carr, Graduate Examinations Manager at the Board of Graduate Studies and he has confirmed that this person did not attend the University (please see attached email for correspondence).

“This person says they have an ‘Honorary Ph.D’ from the University, from my enquiries such an Honorary PhD does not exist. An honorary degree is the highest accolade the University can give and these are awarded to members of the Royal Family, British subjects who are of conspicuous merit or have done good service to the State or to the University, and foreigners of distinction. Proposals for honorary degrees must be considered by the University’s Council. Any person may suggest a name and several dozen proposals are made each year. These are reviewed by a committee of the Council, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, which makes final recommendations. Honorary Degrees conferred from 1977 till present can be found online http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/degrees/honorary/list.xls and there is no record of a Ronal D Charles. Please see http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/degrees/honorary/ for further information on honorary degrees.”

Contrary to your observations, my attorney has shown me through past court cases that I do indeed have a slander case against John Hayden. He has gone well beyond harrassment. It is easy to take sides when you only hear one side of the story. I would like to tell you my side.

What in his e-mail has now given you certainty that I am “a con?” I have given John time and again the documentation that he has requested. I have told him where the documentation in Damascus is located, the room it is located in, and the location of the manuscripts. I have even offered to have someone meet him at the museum to show him the document. But he has refused my request and rejected my answer. The Middle East Museum will not take pictures of the manuscript. But he can go there to view the document and have someone translate it for him. John was not satisfied with that answer. He then began a smear campaign against me that was belittling, confrontational and degrading because the museum had not placed the manuscript on the Internet. Hence, he immediately accused me of being a liar and a fraud, rather than flying over to Damascus and seeing for himself. To such people I will give no further help. Had he asked professionally I would have been much more cooperative. Even the last issue in which he asked for documentation. I was out of the country when he requested it. Jon Nelms wrote him telling him when I would return and asked him to write me back when I returned. John refused to do that. Instead he began another smear campaign against me saying that I have refused to give him the documentation. When I arrived back in the USA some several days later, it was in full swing. He did not even give me a chance to answer before he began his slander. I would have gladly given him the information had he waited until I returned from overseas. He did not. So, I felt no obligation to supply him with the documentation that he requested. As I told him at the time that I discovered this, “Had you waited until I got back, I would have given you the professors name, the date, the university and even copies of my notes that I took. But because you took it upon yoursle fto slander me while I was sill overseas, I will not give you that information.”

What type of a con am I? I am a missionary. I spend 9-10 months each year in the Muslim Middle East. I have been there for over 3 decades. So, who am I coning? The Muslims? I don’t spend enough time in America to con anyone.

I wrote a book about Jesus. Within the body and text of the book I have identified each and every manuscript that I used. I name the museum, the university, or institution where the document can be found (in case someone wants to also research the documentation), the author, the date that it was written and exactly where it is located in the institution. I researched for over 30 years; traveling to over 50 countries in that research and it took me 3 years to write it. Have you read the book? If not, how can you make an evaluation? If you have, and you did not like it, that is fine too. But how does your opinion about the book translate into a personal evaluation of my character? What kind of con am I running? When I am in the USA I make people aware of the conditions of the persecuted Christians in the Muslim Middle East. Check with Final Frontiers, they are missing no money, I have not beat them out of anything. In fact, all funds that I make from my book and speaking goes to feed the persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Is that a con? I invite you to come with me at anytime and as many times as you want to see first hand the work we are doing in the Muslim Middle East. I return in October 2007 and will be there until August 2008. You are invited. Or if you prefer, you can just show up and see for yourself.

I do not know John. He has never heard me speak. I have never talked to him. Yet, he seems to know me so well and my character so well that he sends dozens of e-mails to my friends insulting me to them. If someone did that to you, would you be willing to just give him anything that he wanted? Concerning my education, you made the comment that I side stepped the issue. I did not, I spoke fact. How much time have you spent in the Muslim Middle East? If you have been there then you know that education claims from an American is a great negative in their culture. They do not like to be “shown up” by Americans. I merely told John that I do not make a big deal out of my education for that reason. He took that to mean that I lied and was side stepping. Again, he did it confrontationally. It was not a side step. It was a matter of fact to save face with the Muslims in the Middle East. Yet John took my answer as refusing to give him my education credentials. Again he did not request. He demanded confrontationally. So, I respopnded saying that if he knows me so well, then there should not be any problem for him to research and to find out my education. Maybe it was not right for me to say that to him, but I was very tired of being belittled and harrassed and slandered.

I have never spoken to you either that I know of, so how can such “absolute” statements about me and about my character be presented in a public blog?

The bottom line is that contrary to your statement, I have not rebuffed John numerous times. But he has rejected the answers that I have given to him numerous times and has in fact been absolutely guilty of slander.

Are you a supporter of Final Frontiers? If so, then you should know what we do and what I do. If you are not, then how is it that you know me so well that you can write in an open blog things about me that are certainly negative, bordering on defamation.

John, you may want to lay off Dr. Charles himself at this point; you can’t be sued for slander, but harassment is actionable.

Having asked Dr. Charles numerous times to present his sources and having been rebuffed on each of them, you can be pretty sure he’s not going to confess a career built on smoke to an impudent e-mailer; calling, sending e-mails, and sending letters like the ones we sent to Final Frontiers is probably the way to go now, and well within your rights.

Just my two cents. I am more certain than ever that the man is a con now, tho’.

I had sent him the following email 7/19/07:

Let’s briefly review from the beginning, Ron.

1. You have not named your source for the Edict of Separation. (”It’s a big secret” or “Fly to Damascus yourself” are not sources.)

2. The published summaries of your education contradict one another. (Which one are you willing to stand by?)

3. You have not named your source for information about Al-Ahmed Urin. (Unavailable notes from an anonymous lecturer do not count.)

Ron, I will feel terribly foolish–and will need to apologize to hundreds of people–if you will only provide a definitive and verifiable accounting of these three items.

You are Secretary/Treasurer of a respected missionary organization. If you are not able to convince readers of the truth of your reporting, then you do not deserve the confidence of your constituents.

It’s just that simple, Ron.

John Hayden