Did Jesus exist?

I remember a story I was told for years as a child, it was told to me by the people who I trusted and looked up to all my life.

I was told on one night of the year If I was on my best behavior I would wake up and there would be all kinds of wonderful presents under the tree
just for me. Now this happened every year like clock work. Boy did I ever believe in Santa clause. One year my parents came to me I was about 10 or so and told me the truth that there was no Santa It broke my heart. And from that moment on I wondered what else was just a story in this life.

Just imagine if No one ever told us Santa coming to our house was just a story!
Now run with that for 2000 years in the year 4000 Santa will return with gifts if you believe in him and take you home with him for eternal piece!

Regards
AlBeMeT

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by d60944Or if that is too far back, the letters of Clement? Or when do you insert you scalpel into history and claim that all beforehand is myth?

Clement does NOT mention anything about a historical Jesus of Nazareth, nor does he know the Gospel stories.

Ummmm: From 1 Clement (www.newadvent.org...) - normally dated somwhere in the final decade of the first century c.95-96AD.

Ch.5:
...Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Ch.13:
... being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you judge, so shall you be judged; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you." By this precept and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His holy words...

Ch.16:
...Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to stripes and suffering, and acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction. But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in the midst of His sufferings opens not His mouth. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away; who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth. For the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. And I will give the wicked for His sepulchre, and the rich for His death, because He did no iniquity, neither was guile found in His mouth. And the Lord is pleased to purify him by stripes. ... because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered." ... You see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?

Ch.24
...Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead...

Ch.24:
...The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground, and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. [This is using the same language as Luke 8:5, which Clement must have known]

etc. etc. etc. Read the whole epistle rather than these few tidbits from it

He sure sounds like he knows at least some of the Gospel stories, the apostles Peter and Paul, and thinks that there is a historical Jesus to me.

But twist common sense if you like to keep doing so.

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by d60944]

Greetings Rob,

Let's look at your quotes from Clement -

Ch.5
Mentions Paul and Peter - so what?
The epistles of Paul WERE written by Clement's time.
But in this passage we see -
NOTHING about Jesus,
NOTHING about the Gospels,
NOTHING about any evangelist.
Not one mention of the word "Jesus" or "Gospel",
nor one single mention of any evangelist.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?


Ch.13
A SAYING attributed to Jesus which does NOT exactly match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?



Ch.14
Preaching about Jesus which does NOT match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?

etc. etc. etc. Read the whole epistle rather than these few tidbits from it

I have read the whole epistle.
Clement tells us nothing about the life of Jesus.
All he does is preach about Christ, and repeat a couple of SAYINGS attributed to Jesus which do NOT match the Gospels.

Have a look at my page on Clement :
qdj.50megs.com...

Clement does NOT ONCE use the word "Gospel"
Clement does NOT ONCE mention any evangelist.

Yet,
Clement DOES quote the OT as scripture - about 100 times.
Clement DOES quote Paul as "wise writings" - about 100 times.

But,
Clement does NOT ONCE quote, or even mention, the Gospels or the evangelists.

How do you explain that, Rob?

He sure sounds like he knows at least some of the Gospel stories, the apostles Peter and Paul, and thinks that there is a historical Jesus to me.

Really?

What Gospel stories does Clement give?
Your posts didn't give any at all.
Because there are NO GOSPEL stories in Clement.
Just a couple of SAYINGS, allegedly from Jesus.

Knowing Paul and Peter is a completely different issue than knowing the Gospels - Paul's writings were written mid 1st Century. But there is no clear mention of the Gospels until mid 2nd Century - about a CENTURY later.

Clement does not give ONE SINGLE detail about a historical Jesus :
No dates, places, or names from any Gospel story -
no Mary, no Joseph, no Pilate, no Judas, etc.
no miracles, no healings, no sermons etc.
no trial, no empty tomb, no last supper etc.

But twist common sense if you like to keep doing so.

It is your post that twists common sense.
You did not cite a SINGLE Gospel story from Clement.

Why is that?
Because there ARE NONE.

Clement merely gives a couple of SAYINGS, attributed to Jesus, which do NOT exactly match the Goepsl.

Did you think no-one would notice how badly you twisted the truth, Rob?


Iasion


[edit on 10-3-2007 by Iasion]

Iasion, very nice clear and concise post. i'm going to have to send you a way above next month for that.

Here alink to a thread i started with some intresting links posted there

also i got several links from the messiah truth forums:

Jesus in the Talmud and here another one.

Now what if that were true what is said in the links?

Please forgive me if I am being dense, but I don't understand your position. You have made a few sweeping generalised assertions in it. Bear with me to the end, as I don't know what you're basic assumptions are, and hopefully we can progress in understanding.

Originally posted by Iasion
Ch.5
Mentions Paul and Peter - so what?

Becuase I originally asked where you insert your scalpel into history and say that "this is myth, and that is true". If you accept that Clement existed, and that Clement seems to assert that Peter and Paul existed, do you then say, ok, Peter and Paul existed? And if you say that they existed, at what point do you say that what they themselves seem to have believed was invented?

The epistles of Paul WERE written by Clement's time.
But in this passage we see -
NOTHING about Jesus,
NOTHING about the Gospels,
NOTHING about any evangelist.
Not one mention of the word "Jesus" or "Gospel",

Clement's letter states the name "Jesus" 27 times. Indeed, just in the few quotes I gave above (and there are plenty more), he is mentioned by name three times.

The word "Gospel" is used in Chapters 42 and 47.

Clement does not apear to be referring to the written Gospel as a document in its own right, but rather as the preaching of the Gospel as message and testamony. But that is not all that bizarre. The early church was not "Bible-based" it was based on the preaching of the apostles. The earliest date for the Gospels themselves are not until at least a generation after Jesus, possibly around the same time as Clement in fact. To point at the absence of a Bible-based tradition when we know that there was not one anyway is the erection of a straw-man.

Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?

No, to clarify, I think that Clement's choice of language that resembles the same language as used in the Gospels points to them sharing a common ancestry. That ancestry being the preaching of the Gospel prior to it being copied down. I don't think for a moment that the first thing the apostles did was sit down and write everything down, and only once that was done start to preach it to people. The writing down came later as a crystallisation of the preaching. Probably in different places. I don't think any of the Gospels are thought to have originated in Rome though, which is where Clement was?

Ch.13
A SAYING attributed to Jesus which does NOT exactly match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?

No, I was not claiming Clement knew the written Gospel texts as fixed syntactically. In any event we should not assume that the Gospels text contained every single word ever spoken by Jesus. He'd have been a very quiet person if so. I was claiming that Clement writes as though he believes a person called Jesus existed (or else how could he have said anything at all?).

Ch.14
Preaching about Jesus which does NOT match any Gospel.
Did you really think this was proof of Clement knowing the Gospels?
If so, why?

I expect you mean chapter 16, as I didn't quote any of ch14. The bulk of ch16 is a re-phrasing of the prophecy of Isaiah, not a quote from a written Gospel. But, again, I do not claim that Clement knew a fixed, written copy of a Gospel, but rather that he writes as though he believes that a man called Jesus actually existed. And that he draws on a common tradition to the Gospels, using similar language, ideas and metaphors (some of which the link you gave explores in more detail anyway).

Knowing Paul and Peter is a completely different issue than knowing the Gospels - Paul's writings were written mid 1st Century. But there is no clear mention of the Gospels until mid 2nd Century - about a CENTURY later.

Which is what we would expect from the gradual transformation of an oral Gospel preaching into a scriptural one.

Clement does not give ONE SINGLE detail about a historical Jesus :
No dates, places, or names from any Gospel story -
no Mary, no Joseph, no Pilate, no Judas, etc.
no miracles, no healings, no sermons etc.
no trial, no empty tomb, no last supper etc.

Well, while he does not refer to dates, places and names of secondary Gospel characters (save for Peter, who he does talk about) he does really talk about the historical events themselves though doesn't he? In fact, the one single fundamental historical event that defines Christianity. A couple of examples:

He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead

On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God

I don't think it's a fair burdon to place on the purpose of Clement's letter (which is preaching to the converted), to demand that it retell the bulk of the actual Gospel *narrative* itself. Why would he write a letter preaching to a Christian community retelling them the entire story that had got them coverted in the first place? In ay event, his letter is primarily directed at a dispute over a spcific issue of episcopy in Corinth, not as a general statement of Christian faith. To me, his writing reads like the writing of someone who accepts the preaching of Paul (who incidentally does refer to the Last Supper), who accepts the factual existence of Jesus and Peter, and who has heard the narrative told to him - probably via Paul. If it sounds to you like he has never heard any of the Gospel narrative I don't know how you explain any of his letter at all. Where else would he have got these odd ideas about Jesus coming as man, dieing, being resurrected, taking on our sins, etc. etc. Are you saying Paul made it all up and that Paul is Clement's only post-Pentecost source? If you are claiming that, it makes Clement look particularly gullible certainly...

And the original question still stands with this, as to how do decide where you seperate off the things that are fact and the things that are myth?

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by d60944]

[edit on 11-3-2007 by d60944]

My study leads me to believe that he was a normal person that learned to tap into the power of creation that we all have inside but we are conditioned from childhood to inhibit this ability. that he was like we all are a son of god but that over time things got altered added and abused by the world leaders to suit themselves

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Recently, I have read that Jesus did not even exist.

WHAT IF:
the story of Jesus was the syncretistic creation of a small group of individual souls who, long ago in their own future, created Jesus (the ideal) and crafted a miracle through the power of the written word…a book written with absolute precision and incredible imagination…reinforced with their own resolve to save the world…a resolve which was so convincing that eventually even they believed their own ‘lie.’

And the power of believing in an idea, an ideal, spread all over the world…ever increasing in its own inherent potency…simply because there was NO other hope that seemed as promising as that IDEAL HOPE?

AND WHAT IF:

After 2,000 years, that seed of hope…that tiny mustard seed of faith in things unseen…grew into the tree of life…a tree named Christ Jesus (which literally means: I am the anointed who saves)?

In other words…

Could you forgive the lie if it manifested as the truth…literally and in the flesh right here and now in our present society…for the same purpose (except for the crucifixion!)…and by the same power of God…which is agape love for all men?

Could you forgive a lie told long ago if it manifested as the actual truth this very day?

It was brought to my attention that the trinity aspect of Christianity, and indeed many other religions, is taken from the Babylonian religion.

You mean Enlil, Enki, and Inanna? In DEED. Extremely good analytical thinking on your part, my friend!

This in no way makes me think there is no God.

Would you consider that maybe the concept of God has just been cleverly concealed for the sake of salvation? Not of this or that religion or country or group….but of the entire world (population) as well as our ONLY home (Earth)?

Would you then believe that if we believe we CAN make the impossible, possible?

That is the definition of a miracle, according to Quentin Tarantino, in his movie Pulp Fiction: When God makes the impossible, possible.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

Jesus said unto him, If you can believe, all things are possible to him that believes. Mark 9:23

If God believes...then God can work miracles! We are none of us God... alone...but we are all of us God...who IS love!!!

FEAR NOT
BELIEVE ONLY

But it makes me think that religions were created to give "the masses" something to do, to keep them in line.

That’s one way to put it....I think of it more as ‘to keep us all alive.’

And the little details that make each religion unique were altered to fit the region and people who lived there.
Wasn't it Karl Marx who said "Religion is the opiate of the people"?

I’m not sure who said that. It is in DEED true…but opium remains man’s strongest available medicine for pain. ALL kinds of pain…physical AND emotional. If not for opium and religion…the people who suffer and die each year from cancer would have NO comfort or respite whatsoever….no hope to endure…no consolation at the end…and no way to deal with our natural human mortal fear!

The cancers in our bodies are caused by the black spots in our souls that are caused by negative emotions and energy. That will not always be so. Once our souls are happy and full of light (truth, love, hope) our bodies will not fail us as they do. It is the principle of resonance and quantum energy. Energy is life. God is:

G ood
O rderly
D irection

For our vital energy…that energy is not separate but is what joins us ALL – many souls in many cultures but all human beings…many members in the one human race…in the Body of Christ. The symbol of the cross is, underneath it all…the symbol of life because where the two pieces meet is where God (heaven) and man (earth) meet!

Originally posted by HuntaXX
My study leads me to believe that he was a normal person that learned to tap into the power of creation that we all have inside but we are conditioned from childhood to inhibit this ability. that he was like we all are a son of god but that over time things got altered added and abused by the world leaders to suit themselves

I'm sorry, I just can not let this one go. What did you study?

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm sorry, I just can not let this one go. What did you study?

Looks like he was studying a new form of doctrine called internet bull****.

And as always, amazing post QueenAnnie.

*Edited censor circumvention*

[edit on 16-3-2007 by dbates]

alright, i'm going to post some possibilities here

possibility 1: jesus never existed as a historical figure

2: jesus was a man attempting to reform judaism and all divinity was attributed to him by some of his followers

3: jesus was attempting to meld teachings of buddhism with judaism and divinity was attributed to him by some of his followers

4: jesus was psychotic and delusional, believing himself to be the incarnation of a deity on earth

5: jesus was a scam artist

6: see life of brian

7: everything in the bible about jesus is 100% true
now..
if you break it down, the most plausible explaination is #2. in many ways he preached some of the teachings of modern reform judaism

6: see life of brian

"Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life!"

Nice to see a little a humor thrown in the mix now and then.

"He's NOT the Messiah! GO AWAY!!!"....lol

You have voted madnessinmysoul for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Yep, until some better explaination comes along, I'm going with "Life of Brian" though I must confess that I'm not sure I believed everything in that gospel. ;-)

Thanks, Madness!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
TheB1ueSoldier, the problem that some people have with the existence of "jesus" as a historical figure is that there aren't any CONTEMPORARY sources that show his existence

I do!
I AM!
I will!

He is alive - He transcends.
I am here in the flesh and have modeled myself after Him...every step...every word.

I will be the proof and so will many others - the whole world WILL see this.
I will STAND up and SHOUT such to anyone who asks. And then they can decide for themselves. And if they deny me, they deny Him. If they accept me as proof then they accept Him as REAL.

The Holy One Is Real.

I am the express image of Jesus Christ. Not him...but a direct reflection of his CHARACTER.

Many will scorn me...but hey - like father, like son! I expect it! I care only for truth and love and that is what I was sent to share - to share with ALL.

I obey his commandments and not men's.

Namaste!

“The 5500 Year Suppression of Ages”
To know is immortal

The Greatest curiosities upon our selves, is simply to know our selves and the mysteries of our Self being and Universe so vast. What grand purpose do we have here and why so much cruelty and suffering upon ourselves.

Because we don’t know ourselves and we don’t truly have the freedom to attain that goal for the formations of environments around us and through medias.
visitsource for full article

*trimmed copy-paste*

[edit on 16-3-2007 by dbates]

Greetings,

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Iasion, very nice clear and concise post

. i'm going to have to send you a way above next month for that.

Thank you kindly
:-)

Iasion

Greetings,

Originally posted by d60944
Please forgive me if I am being dense, but I don't understand your position. You have made a few sweeping generalised assertions in it. Bear with me to the end, as I don't know what you're basic assumptions are, and hopefully we can progress in understanding.

Not so,
my post was very clear and detailed.
I even received compliments for it.

My claim is that Clement did NOT know the Gospels, or the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by d60944Becuase I originally asked where you insert your scalpel into history and say that "this is myth, and that is true". If you accept that Clement existed, and that Clement seems to assert that Peter and Paul existed, do you then say, ok, Peter and Paul existed? And if you say that they existed, at what point do you say that what they themselves seem to have believed was invented?

You quoted that as evidence that Clement knew the Gospel.
I showed you were wrong.
Now you change your tune.
Peter and Paul WERE discussed in 1st century.
The Gospel stories were NOT.

Originally posted by d60944Clement's letter states the name "Jesus" 27 times. Indeed, just in the few quotes I gave above (and there are plenty more), he is mentioned by name three times.

Yes.
So what?
Clement does NOT mention :
the Gospels
the Gospel stories
the Gospel authors
the life of Jesus
the miracles of Jesus
etc.

All he gives is a couple of SAYINGS attributed to Jesus, which do NOT match our Gospels.

Originally posted by d60944The word "Gospel" is used in Chapters 42 and 47.

Indeed.
Funny how you didn't quote the passages.
Because it is clear that he is referring to preaching the Christian message - NOT a written Gospel.
We know the word "Gospel" originally meant simply the Christian teachings - even Paul uses the word. Do you argue Paul knew the written Gospels?
No.

Clement did NOT mention the written Gospels in any way.
Nor the life of Jesus.

Originally posted by d60944Clement does not apear to be referring to the written Gospel as a document in its own right, but rather as the preaching of the Gospel as message and testamony.

Like I said all along.
Clement shows NO knowledge of the written Gospels at all.
I'm glad we agree.

Originally posted by d60944But that is not all that bizarre. The early church was not "Bible-based" it was based on the preaching of the apostles. The earliest date for the Gospels themselves are not until at least a generation after Jesus, possibly around the same time as Clement in fact. To point at the absence of a Bible-based tradition when we know that there was not one anyway is the erection of a straw-man.

You seemed to argue that Clement knew the Gospels.
My argument is that he did not know them,
nor the stories about Jesus.


Iasion


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Iasion]

Greetings,

Originally posted by d60944
I was claiming that Clement writes as though he believes a person called Jesus existed (or else how could he have said anything at all?).

How could Zeus have said anything unless he existed?
How could Krishna have said anything unless he existed?
How could Odysseus have said anything unless he existed?
How could Harry Potter have said anything unless he existed?

You seem to think that every figure who was ever written about must have existed.

Clearly,
that is not true.

Clement probably did believe Jesus existed.
That is not my point.

Many people believe mythical figures exist.
That does not prove they did.

But,
the earliest Christians show no knowledge of the life of Jesus.

Not until AFTER the Gospels appear in early-mid 2nd century do Christians starte talking about the life of Jesus.


And,
we also see :
* Christians who do NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh
* Christians who believe Jesus was a phantom, or illusion.
* Christians who describe Christianity with NO mention at all of Jesus.
* that no early Christians show any knowledge of a historical life of Jesus
* that the Gospels arise only in early-mid 2nd century, long after his time, after two wars have destroyed Jerusalem
* only AFTER the Gospels appear do Christians show any knowledge of the life of Jesus
* that the Gospels stories grow in the telling
* that the Gospels are often changed by Christians
* many supernatural elements in the Gospels
* Sceptics who claim the Gospels are fiction, based on myth.
* that the Gospels were based largely on the Tanakh
(as well as pagan themes of the day.)


But,
we do NOT see :
* contemporary evidence for Jesus


That is where I draw the line - where the EVIDENCE is.

There is no evidence that Jesus existed.
There is considerable evidence he was originally considered a spiritual figure.


Iasion


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Iasion]

Hiya I'm new on these forums and signed up just to help some of you guys realise the truth, so lets start here, yes Jesus did exist, as someone has already stated in this discussion there is official documentation stating the details of his death, also the word 'did' is incorrect, Jesus does exist, He is our risen Saviour. Now I know that comment is going to raise all sorts of arguments but lets knock some of them on the head right now, I know Jesus is risen because not only is it written in the bible but, if He hadn't come back to life then when the Disciples first started preaching about his resurrection the Jews would have just ignored them because the body would still be in the tomb, no one stole the body it was under Guard and in the personal tomb of a well known merchant. The Romans did not remove it, they had no interest in the body of Jesus, neither did the disciples take it, that's why the tomb was Guarded.
I hope this answers some of you Questions feel free to ask me more though, btw on the issue of the Koran and Bible being written by the same people, that is impossible the koran was written hundreds of years after the bible had been canonised. Oh and I wasn't going to bother with these but they are worth mentioning I guess, someone who believes that Jesus didn't come in the flesh is not by definition a Christian. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, who came to this earth to die for our sins, so we would be forgiven, and rose again so we may have eternal life. I would also add that core Christian beliefs are that the bible is the word of God and therefore in not subject to man's, in short cannot be altered by man in any significant way unless God says it can. Gods message will always prevail over the word of man. So I believe that the bible is as accurate today as it was when first written. I know I haven't answered every argument put forward but if people wish to restate them then I will gladly respond. I don't see the importance of Clements letter, it is written by a man, and what a man writes can be true or false, my argument is that the Bible was dictated by God and is therefore true.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Elron]

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Elron]

Wow. I so don't want to get mixed up into this one, but I'm going to say this.

I'm not a Christian, but I don't how anyone could actually doubt that there was a real historical Jesus. True, we have almost nothing, other than the Gospels, that even mentions Jesus.

What we do have, though, is concrete evidence that the Christian movement sprang up out of nowhere in the holy land and people promptly started getting themselves martyred for it. I find it hard to believe that a movement like that, with people as dedicated as that, could form like that and fool so many people without there at least having been an actual Jesus founding it.

Now, whether a whole bunch of outside religious stuff (resurrection, virgin birth, etc.) got attributed to Jesus, I don't know. That's up for debate.

But I really don't see how anyone can think the guy never existed at all. That just doesn't seem very logical to me.