Mythicist Christ, what is the objection? II

[Dānu]

I always found this amusing.  From Pg 235 of Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus."  Carrier footnotes the story to the original writer...something that gospel bullshitters never did (in case Free shows up whining!)

In 1945 Betty Crocker was rated in a national survey as the second most
admired woman in America, and to this day a street is named after her
in Golden Valley, Minnesota, where she still lives. Her father was William
Crocker, a successful corporate executive in the food industry, and she
started her career answering letters on cooking questions for her father's
company, then acquired her own national radio show where she delivered
cooking advice for twenty-four years. Later she had her own television
show, while making appearances on other TV shows and in TV commercials
to promote her products. I've seen actual video tapes of her cooking
and speaking, and her picture still adorns various General Mills baking
products. She has also pub I ished several cookbooks, and now has her own
Website. All that is 100 percent true. And yet she doesn't exist. She was
never born, never lived, never spoke, never appeared on TV, and never
wrote a word. Others simply wrote or appeared in her name. Welcome to
the world of the mythical corporate mascot

BTW, "Betty Crocker" came in second to Eleanor Roosevelt.  Betty Crocker was a 1921 marketing creation by General Mills.

And she was never any more real that "jesus."

This about sums it up for me  .....

I am sure if people tried hard enough to find a 'Betty Crocker', that cooked and lived in minesota, with a father called William, centuries after the story had slipped into legend, I'm sure they would.

Even more so if those with an interest could use attributes of several 'Betty Crockers' or 'betty Crocker' like females floating around the USA in that period.

So does the fact that a person with the name and tenuous similarities to 'Betty Crocker' prove the historicity of the 'Betty Crocker' intended as a 'corporate mascot'?

I consider that to prove the historicity of Jesus it needs to be shown that a particular 'Jesus' was what the story tellers actually based their stories upon.

From what I have read the historicists have failed to do so.

^^^^ This.

[EvieTheAvocado]

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

You understand that no one here is arguing the criteria you gave, right?  That the non-mythicists here don't think or claim Jesus was "the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians," the Jesus who is one of "pure magic"?  The equivocation may be occurring in your mind only.

It's an equivocation because you guys are still insisting it's the same Jesus Christ just minus the supernatural B.S. When obviously it isn't the same Jesus Christ because there's no supernatural B.S.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it both is and isn't him.

If you guys were just claiming that some dude under the same name, who was a totally different person, existed ... then you'd be mythicists too.

But you aren't claiming that. You're saying it's more than a myth and that Jesus Christ existed.

Being the son of God and performing miracles is literally part of his definition. Some dude named Jesus and Jesus Christ is not the same thing.

[Dānu]

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

You understand that no one here is arguing the criteria you gave, right?  That the non-mythicists here don't think or claim Jesus was "the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians," the Jesus who is one of "pure magic"?  The equivocation may be occurring in your mind only.

It's an equivocation because you guys are still insisting it's the same Jesus Christ just minus the supernatural B.S. When obviously it isn't the same Jesus Christ because there's no supernatural B.S.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it both is and isn't him.

If you guys were just claiming that some dude under the same name, who was a totally different person, existed ... then you'd be mythicists too.

But you aren't claiming that. You're saying it's more than a myth and that Jesus Christ existed. Being the son of God and performing miracles is literally part of his definition. Some dude named Jesus and Jesus Christ is not the same thing.

Hammy, you're adorable, but I think you're missing what actually happens. Historicists, religious or not, attempt to show that the existence of a person resembling Jesus without the miracles existed. Having gained that concession, religionists then pivot to make an inductive argument that the Jesus of the miracles is more likely because a Jesus core that does not include the miracles is probable. Granted, it's not always clear that there are two steps here, and explaining the obsession of non-religionists with the question is another matter, but there is ultimately nothing wrong with the arguments so constructed.

[EvieTheAvocado]

It has been hundreds of posts over at least two threads...please find a single post by anyone claiming that the Jesus that they think existed was actually the Jesus Christ claimed to exist by Christians, the one of pure magic.  It should be easy.

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

My example was Vlad the Impaler.  We know for certain Vlad the Impaler existed (not so much for Jesus) but we sure as hell know he didn't go around sleeping in coffins and drinking women's blood to keep alive. THAT part is myth and storytelling. Vlad existed, Dracula did not.

So the key point is that Dracula didn't exist because nobody with the abilities or traits of Dracula existed. It's the same with Jesus Christ. Doesn't matter what something or someone is called ... changing the name doesn't change the reality. We could change Jesus Christ's name to Julius Caesar and just because Julius Caesar existed it still wouldn't mean that Jesus Christ did.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Hammy, you're adorable, but I think you're missing what actually happens. Historicists, religious or not, attempt to show that the existence of a person resembling Jesus without the miracles existed.

Which is fine. But proving the existence of Y which resembles X minus certain traits is not the same as proving that X exists.

I'm not saying that somebody who was similar to Jesus Christ who never performed miracles, never resurrected from the dead and isn't the son of God didn't exist. I'm saying such a person isn't Jesus Christ (plus, that isn't similar because there are too many striking differences). Those are his most defining features! There were plenty of people who claimed to be a messiah who weren't. They can't all be Jesus Christ. And the name doesn't matter one iota. What something is called and what something is is completely different.

What's more, such a person wouldn't look anything like Jesus Christ either! Jesus Christ is so mythologized that if you take the mythology away you're left with somebody completely different altogether.

[Dānu]

Hammy, you're adorable, but I think you're missing what actually happens.  Historicists, religious or not, attempt to show that the existence of a person resembling Jesus without the miracles existed.  

Which is fine. But proving the existence of Y which resembles X minus certain traits is not the same as proving that X exists.

I'm not saying that somebody who was similar to Jesus Christ who never performed miracles, never resurrected from the dead and isn't the son of God didn't exist. I'm saying such a person isn't Jesus Christ (plus, that isn't similar because there are too many striking differences). Those are his most defining features! There were plenty of people who claimed to be a messiah who weren't. They can't all be Jesus Christ. And the name doesn't matter one iota. What something is called and what something is is completely different.

What's more, such a person wouldn't look anything like Jesus Christ either! Jesus Christ is so mythologized that if you take the mythology away you're left with somebody completely different altogether.

No, it's not the same, and that's not what the religionists are saying. If it were, the tantalizing possibility of a deductive argument would appear, instead of requiring they go the route of induction. It has nothing to do with commonality of the name. If I can demonstrate that black holes exist, then I'm farther along toward demonstrating the reasonableness of supposing that black holes might give rise to new universes than if I were unable to show that black holes even existed. The presentation of the historicist argument is just a step in a larger argument, and you're complaining that the step alone isn't the whole argument.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Hammy, you're adorable, but I think you're missing what actually happens.  Historicists, religious or not, attempt to show that the existence of a person resembling Jesus without the miracles existed.  

Which is fine. But proving the existence of Y which resembles X minus certain traits is not the same as proving that X exists.

I'm not saying that somebody who was similar to Jesus Christ who never performed miracles, never resurrected from the dead and isn't the son of God didn't exist. I'm saying such a person isn't Jesus Christ (plus, that isn't similar because there are too many striking differences). Those are his most defining features! There were plenty of people who claimed to be a messiah who weren't. They can't all be Jesus Christ. And the name doesn't matter one iota. What something is called and what something is is completely different.

What's more, such a person wouldn't look anything like Jesus Christ either! Jesus Christ is so mythologized that if you take the mythology away you're left with somebody completely different altogether.

No, it's not the same, and that's not what the religionists are saying. If it were, the tantalizing possibility of a deductive argument would appear, instead of requiring they go the route of induction. It has nothing to do with commonality of the name. If I can demonstrate that black holes exist, then I'm farther along toward demonstrating the reasonableness of supposing that black holes might give rise to new universes than if I were unable to show that black holes even existed. The presentation of the historicist argument is just a step in a larger argument, and you're complaining that the step alone isn't the whole argument.

But these people aren't saying that Jesus Christ didn't exist but somebody under the same name who lacked many of the features of Jesus Christ did exist ... they're saying that Jesus Christ didn't exist but somebody else under the same name who lacked many of the defining features did exist therefore Jesus Christ existed. It's totally fallacious.

X didn't exist.
Y is similar to X in some ways despite many crucial differences.
Therefore X existed ... is not a valid argument.

The whole thing is as silly as gluing a plastic horn to a white horse and claiming it's a unicorn.

[EvieTheAvocado]

If somebody exactly like Jesus Christ except their name was Larry Pineapple existed then that would be much greater evidence for Jesus Christ than somebody who has many differences to Jesus Christ but goes by the same name.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I don't object to a guy named Jesus existing.  I object to Jesus; the fella who was cast in the Christ role through embellished storytelling.

Exactly.

[Dānu]

Which is fine. But proving the existence of Y which resembles X minus certain traits is not the same as proving that X exists.

I'm not saying that somebody who was similar to Jesus Christ who never performed miracles, never resurrected from the dead and isn't the son of God didn't exist. I'm saying such a person isn't Jesus Christ (plus, that isn't similar because there are too many striking differences). Those are his most defining features! There were plenty of people who claimed to be a messiah who weren't. They can't all be Jesus Christ. And the name doesn't matter one iota. What something is called and what something is is completely different.

What's more, such a person wouldn't look anything like Jesus Christ either! Jesus Christ is so mythologized that if you take the mythology away you're left with somebody completely different altogether.

No, it's not the same, and that's not what the religionists are saying.  If it were, the tantalizing possibility of a deductive argument would appear, instead of requiring they go the route of induction.  It has nothing to do with commonality of the name.  If I can demonstrate that black holes exist, then I'm farther along toward demonstrating the reasonableness of supposing that black holes might give rise to new universes than if I were unable to show that black holes even existed.  The presentation of the historicist argument is just a step in a larger argument, and you're complaining that the step alone isn't the whole argument.

But these people aren't saying that Jesus Christ didn't exist but somebody under the same name who lacked many of the features of Jesus Christ did exist ... they're saying that Jesus Christ didn't exist but somebody else under the same name who lacked many of the defining features did exist therefore Jesus Christ existed. It's totally fallacious.

X didn't exist.
Y is similar to X in some ways despite many crucial differences.
Therefore X existed ... is not a valid argument.

The whole thing is as silly as gluing a plastic horn to a white horse and claiming it's a unicorn.

Ignoring the soundness of your representation, you've substituted a deductive argument for an inductive one and so you're not actually criticizing them and instead have constructed a straw man.

[Dānu]

If somebody exactly like Jesus Christ except their name was Larry Pineapple existed then that would be much greater evidence for Jesus Christ than somebody who has many differences to Jesus Christ but goes by the same name.

It's a moot point, Hammy. First, Yeshua is a common enough name for the time and place that it is no stumbling block for historicity. Second, it isn't the name which is essential to transferring the goods from the historicist argument to the argument for the miracle man, but rather that non-miraculous core. If I can show that something having properties X and Y exists, or probably exists, that strengthens my argument that something having properties X, Y, and Z probably existed. The name, even if it were posited as one of those properties, as noted, wouldn't be problematic, and their argument and its conclusions still follow with the omission of that specific property.

[Minimalist]

Once again, the point is the insistence of the HJ crowd that some schmuck named jesus "must have" existed.  He "may have" existed but it is certainly not a requirement.  There are far too many myths extant in human literature for that.

[mordant]

Once again, the point is the insistence of the HJ crowd that some schmuck named jesus "must have" existed.  He "may have" existed but it is certainly not a requirement.  There are far too many myths extant in human literature for that.

Unlike "the HJ crowd", I don't feel any need the success of Christianity as being in any way explained by a historical Jesus of any sort.

I tend to think of it like Terry Pratchett's DiscWorld, a flat world borne on the back of turtles, and "it's turtles all the way down".

If the gospel / supernatural / divine Jesus is bullshit, then it's likely that it's bullshit all the way down. In any case, an historic Jesus isn't a necessary entity to explain historic Christianity.

Besides, historic Christianity is a far more elusive beast in and of itself. There's a tendency, partly because of the RCC's claims of an unbroken lineage of popes back to Peter and to Jesus himself, that Christianity didn't EVOLVE, when it manifestly did. Christian orthodoxy of the first century CE was not a monolith and was still hashing out its dogma. Much of it wouldn't be recognizable to modern Christians. So to imagine that modern Christianity is substantially unscathed from all the history and cultures through which it has passed for two millennia, and to try to explain its success and imagined immutability in terms of a single founder, even when that founder is clearly heavily embellished in the gospels ... is to me one of the biggest fool's errands ever.

While there MIGHT be a single person who originated Christianity who was sufficiently revered despite leaving no body of written words to document his teachings, that Christianity's broad outlines are indebted to him, is certainly POSSIBLE but I see no reason to label it LIKELY and certainly not NECESSARY. Since the only Jesus we know anything about is a fabulist construct that clearly isn't a remotely accurate representation of this founder, why do historians feel any need to settle on a consensus that ANY version of the Jesus of the gospels was an actual discrete person -- based on basically nothing in terms of hard corroborating evidence?

[Minimalist]

You've got quite a lot there, Mordant.  This line:

There's a tendency, partly because of the RCC's claims of an unbroken lineage of popes back to Peter and to Jesus himself, that Christianity didn't EVOLVE, when it manifestly did.

probably deserves a thread of its own.  Maybe when I get time.

why do historians feel any need to settle on a consensus that ANY version of the Jesus of the gospels was an actual discrete person

This one seems to satisfy a need for jesus freaks.  Most of the non-fundamentalists having admitted that your observation about the miracle-working godboy of the gospels is correct seem to feel compelled to create a fall back position so they don't feel like they are walking around with their bare asses hanging out.  That's why we end up with what J. D. Crossan called "the academic embarrassment" of having so many different "historical jesuses" being trotted out by various scholars.  I hesitate to call them "historians."  Most are theologians masquerading as historians which is a whole other animal.  They have an agenda.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Uxiu9N2wkR

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

And, Crossan adds his own variant of the HJ into the mix just to add to the "embarrassment."

[jerry mcmasters]

There are plenty of posts where people say Jesus Christ existed even though he wasn't the magical Jesus of the Bible ... which makes no sense because that isn't Jesus Christ.

I tried to explain it repeatedly to Free on the last thread.

It's an equivocation if people think that the Jesus Christ didn't exist but the fact some other dude called the same thing who was similar existed means that Jesus Christ did. No, not X under the same name is still not X.

You understand that no one here is arguing the criteria you gave, right?  That the non-mythicists here don't think or claim Jesus was "the Jesus Christ that is claimed to exist by Christians," the Jesus who is one of "pure magic"?  The equivocation may be occurring in your mind only.

It's an equivocation because you guys are still insisting it's the same Jesus Christ just minus the supernatural B.S. When obviously it isn't the same Jesus Christ because there's no supernatural B.S.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it both is and isn't him.

If you guys were just claiming that some dude under the same name, who was a totally different person, existed ... then you'd be mythicists too.

But you aren't claiming that. You're saying it's more than a myth and that Jesus Christ existed.

Being the son of God and performing miracles is literally part of his definition. Some dude named Jesus and Jesus Christ is not the same thing.

I guess some people have been saying "Jesus Christ" instead of just "Jesus"...?  I'll take your word for it, I guess, I myself just say "Jesus."  But it seems like in the context of what we've been talking about, if someone said "Jesus Christ" wouldn't it be reasonable to take that as a simple placeholder for "Jesus" or "A regular human named Jesus"?  It doesn't even make any sense for atheists to be arguing, in effect, "Jesus Christ, who we all understand to be an actual magic powered supernatural being, really existed."

[Minimalist]

I'm sure the fundies envision a mailbox in "Nazareth" with J & M Christ scrawled on the side of it.

[Chas]

This raises the point which I was addressing with my post which jerry attempted to satirize with his own post, and which he asserts possessed glaring errors which he has so far steadfastly refused to elaborate upon, aside from asserting that I implied something that was not in fact implied.

The historicist argument really is lacking if there is no way to determinately figure out which specifics of the accounts of Jesus need to be validated in order for us to conclude that a historical Jesus existed.  I wouldn't suggest that the miracles necessarily need to be validated, but the more pieces you subtract from your criterion for validation, the more empty your claim of a historical figure becomes.  I believe Free has implied that the only thing which need be validated is that Pontius Pilate crucified a Jew, perhaps one with the name Yeshua.  To my mind this is entirely insufficient, as a Jew who preached a syncretism between classic Judaism and Zoroastrianism could not be meaningfully be said to be the same person described in the bible.  Does the sermon on the mount need to be validated?  Do other teachings of Christ need to be validated?  Ignoring the miracle of the resurrection, do the sequelae of Jesus Parouisia need to be consistent and believable?  These are all questions which need to be answered before the hypothesis of historicism can be meaningfully addressed, and while I don't profess much familiarity with the field, my impression has been that historicists are more than happy to leave such things undefined so that they can adjust their hypothesis on an ad hoc basis to accomodate any specific criteria that for whatever reason moves from reasonably believable to not reasonably believable.  But ad hoc explanation is essentially fallacious, and so the conclusion of the historicists tends toward being a non sequitur, i.e. asserting that, some of the details of the biblical account of Jesus applied to some real person in that era, despite that this can be said about any account of a person whether the person understood to be referenced actually existed or not.  As I suggested, if the details of Sherlock Holmes only need to be true to the extent that there was a detective in London who solved crimes, and blithely ignoring the additional elements of Holmes' story when they are inconvenient, then the charge that a historical Sherlock Holmes existed becomes vapid, and likely a very real instance of wholesale equivocation.

N.B. Sherlock Holmes, a fictitious character was based on a real man, Dr Joseph Bell, a renowned forensic scientist at Edinburgh University whom Conan-Doyle studied under.

[Minimalist]

The difference Chas is that Conan-Doyle knew a man who served as a basis and wrote more or less contemporaneously.  There was no debate on jesus at all for some 1200+ years.  The only jesus was the one that the churches insisted was real.  The miracle working, godboy, who came back from the dead and flew up to heaven to be with "god.  IF you disputed that, the loving xtian motherfuckers tied your ass to a stake and burned you alive in jesus' name!  In the late 17th century, Enlightenment thinkers began to doubt such holy horseshit and the concept of the Mythical Jesus was born with DuPuis and Volney in the late 18th century picking up the ball which had begun with Reimarus.  No one began looking for a Historical Jesus until the 19th century - a search which culminated in Albert Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906.  The reason for that is quite simple.  No one needed an HJ until the mythicists who got  much earlier start tearing the bullshit story down had made some headway.  Who needed a scaled down jesus when they had the biblical jesus as the only accepted version?

In this it was much like the creationist movement.  Until Darwin became generally accepted the jesus freaks were content to denounce him even though Darwin was a creatard, of sorts, just like them.  They latched on to the growing fundamentalist movement in the US beginning in the early 20th century and insisted on a literal reading of whichever bible they were pushing. 

As I said, the biblical jesus is clearly mythical.  The mythicists point that out and the HJ types lose their fucking minds over it.  Most important, it did not take 1500 years for someone to start looking for a fall back position for Sherlock Holmes..... or Betty Crocker.

[Free]

As I said, the biblical jesus is clearly mythical.

Okay.

You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

[Minimalist]

Born of a virgin.

Rose from the dead.

Flew up to fucking heaven.


Just how stupid are you?

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

this should be as cut and dry as super mario brothers on the NES

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

oh yeah... " Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org "

[Free]

Born of a virgin.

Rose from the dead.

Flew up to fucking heaven.


Just how stupid are you?

Is that what happened to him? Or, are those things merely old wives' tales written about him?

Are you so indoctrinated with your Mythicist belief system that it has rendered you incapable of considering that possibility? That possibility simply cannot exist with you, right? "It must not exist!" lol

You will simply ignore that possibility in exactly the same way Christians ignore the fossil record. "Say it ain't so!"

Do you ever think about that? Do you understand that is precisely how you appear to those of us not trapped into your Mythicist belief system?

Considering other records of his existence don't have those fantastic stories, why should we not think that a few zealous followers embellished his life in the same way the lives of other notables of history have been embellished? 

What makes this Jesus guy so special that people would not embellish his life with tales?

Just how stupid are you? How deep does that Mythicist shit go?

Carry on!

[OakTree500]

Born of a virgin.

Rose from the dead.

Flew up to fucking heaven.


Just how stupid are you?

In fairness, "some" of that can be explained......sort of.

[Before I say anything: I personally stand in the 'There doesnt seem to be any actual evidence for a singular person that fits the description of Mr J. H Christ from the bible, but there "may" have been. The supernatural stuff is 100% no though. However, it is possible that such a person(s) existed (and if it's more than one person, their deeds collated) and of course the overall thing embellished to, for lack of a better term, high heaven.]

Apparently to be "born of a virgin" was something considered to be huge in story telling a that time. From my understanding it is used in other stories from in/around that time. It's just seen as a bit of a "wow" type of thing.

Rose up from the dead: Generally, again the information I have seen suggested this part was added LATER in the story, as in - 'When first placed into the bible, he just died straight up dead'. Thus is of course embellished a bit, but it also factors into that last one...

"floating up to heaven" : Now, to play the dreaded devil advocate here, I personally think it's reasonable to say something along the lines of - Lets assume he was a real person, who was just a good guys, having loads of supernatural bullshit added onto his name, was crucified then put in a tomb. It's also plausible, that others had no idea who the fuck he was [or did and assumed it was worth it, somehow] and robbed the tomb, including taking the body away......for some reason. Thus, one of his hardcore believers turns up and says "FUCK ME, THE BODY IS GONE.......Which can only MEAN...HE HAS ARISEN AND ASCENDED TO HEAVEN" , thus spreading the word all the while some other dingus' [or Dingi] are dumping his body in a ravine and running off with whatever he was buried with.

This is all wild speculation, and that also assumes he was a person in the first place, but seems more plausable [That a man existed, was just a nice dude, had followers for some reason, all of whom told stories about him again for some reason, and that some people actually believed those stories, giving us the outcome we see], rather than a bloke who could do like legit real magic, because.....you can't. That bit IS impossible. Hands down, grade A bullshit.

Anyway, either way, I personally don't really care. Was he (potentially 'they') a real entity? Maybe. There doesnt seem a way to 100% say yes or no at this point. If he was, doesnt really change my mind on their being a god, because there then would be no actual evidence to support said claims of any magical feat he accomplished......because people can't do that. [that we can say for sure]. If he wasn't real, again it changes nothing in my realm currently.

[SYZ]

As I said, the biblical Jesus is clearly mythical.

Okay.  You've now made a positive claim.

Now prove it.

I'm sure you've been told this a dozen times matey, but as the claimant that a bloke called Jesus actually
existed, with the character and traits claimed, it's YOUR job to prove it.  It's NOT the task of the naysayers
to prove he didn't.     Your capacity for logic is severely lacking.