There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Trailblazer]

Did Bahaullah believe in transmigration of a soul, lie from cows to humans or something like that?

No, absolutely not.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159​

​

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.“​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156​

 

[dybmh]

You have a lot of religious ideas that you seem to want to be true, but critical thinkers aren't helping you out. That's the nature of open forums.

I just answer questions when they're asked. Critics pose the questions assuming they can't be answered, as if the questions have no possible answer. Then when I bring an answer the goal post gets shifted.

I never said any such thing. You seem to be putting words in many peoples' mouths, perhaps over-interpreting instead of asking for clarification.

Let's see...

In logic any claim is by default untrue UNTIL evidence is offered that demonstrated the claim is true, or at least likely true.

There it is. The default is, it's untrue. My objection was "I don't know" is not considered a valid option. And that is coming from your own words saying the default is "it's untrue" without evidence. In this case there is minimal evidence so "I don't know" is proper. "It's false" is not.

The evidence that is available is not terribly good, lots of hearsay. I accept that many Jesus-like teachers existed and there wa slikely one who was quite popular. That doesn't help believe the myth.

I already said non-belief makes sense.

Critical thinkers will revisit old conclusions if new evidence becomes available, much like science and the courts. And as I have noted critical thinkers are more likely to look at all the evidence more than a theist who has a motive to form biased thinking and biased conclusions.

And yet they believe rumors about stories being copied, and exaggerated mythical qualities without checking the facts.

I said the Bible story was most likely a copy of Gilgamesh, and you are overblowing a response here, and adding a little insult to boot. Neither story is true at face value.

Lol. See. I gave you data, you ignored it. I gave you the misconception, the reason it's easily confused, a plausible explanation how the story was introduced into the Epic. And there is no acknowledgement.

I never said it was true, I said there's no evidence of copying.

Here's a link to Wikipedia showing the dating, confirming the version with the flood is approx. 1300bce-1000bce.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Notice the date of the old version LACKING any flood story? 2100BCE. That's the date people trot out when ever the Epic is spoken of as the source of the flood story. But a non-critical thinker hears this, bobbles their head, "yup, yup, was copied, yup".

And if you research the Iron Age Collapse you'll see that this period in that area was ripe for myth sharing, which explains why a Jewish flood story got added to the Epic at that time.

And what was the insult? I said the so-called critical thinkers, like yourself, who make claims about the Epic being copied, like you did, don't know the facts about when that story was added, and you didn't know that, and they haven't even read the Epic, which I'm pretty sure you haven't, don't actually care about the facts.

What's wrong with that? It's all true. You impugned my values regarding truth, now it's a problem when I demonstrate the hypocrisy of that?

The similarities are fairly well known. I exvect you to be aware of them.

Your claim, your burden. I know a few shreds of similarity. But again, those similarities are found in geographically distant myths, so I have disregarded them, as should you. In Chinese folklore there's a Father God in Heaven, there's a son of God, they have a trinity of sorts, the quest for eternal life is a primary goal ( like it is in some form in virtually every mythology on the entire earth ). So, these similarites exist allllllll over the place. Just because there's similarites, a few similarities, doesn't mean it was copied, or that it didn't happen. And again, this is because there are so so many Chinese myths and legends, the odds of people coming up with the same story are rather high. It's the same with looking for pagan myths, and egyptian myths. Those myths are vast. Of course there will be minor similarities. it means nothing.

You don't have to believe the story is true, but claiming it's copied, or it MUST be false cause the other stories that have scraps of similarity are also false, is not tenable.

So you are working to bring people back to religious belief?

No! A moderate position of "I don't believe it as written, but I don't actually know anything more than that."

And what is a "moderate conclusion"? Is it a compromised conclusion?

For this thread, for this OP, simply acknowledging there is a plausible reason why the historians of the period didn't write of about Jesus' miracles: The scale of the story was exaggerated, what actually happened involved much fewer people, the spread of the movement was much slower, much more limited, and fantasical events after Jesus' death might be completely fabricated because the standards for lying about Jesus are much more strict than lying about some zombies, supernatural darkness, and a massive earthquake.

 

[Windwalker]

Of course. I applaud your acknowledging Jesus was not a supernatural entity, just an ordinary man who died and that was the end of him physically.

I don't think I'd say he was "just an ordinary man", if by that you mean nothing special. He was a human being, but I think it would be safe to say he was extraordinary enough to inspire a movement around him. Would you say that Gandhi was 'just an ordinary man", for instance?

Now let me clear up a misunderstanding here. Please recall I said in the OP:

"There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one."

Fair enough.

This is the little deceptive game Christians play. Scholars say, "Of course there was a historic Jesus" No way in hell are they referring to a supernatural Jesus, they're just referring to an ordinary man. But Christians immediately seize on this and proclaim: "Aha! You see? Historians admit a historic Jesus lived. There it is. Scholars are admitting the divine Jesus son of God who died for our sins did live."

There are a lot of liars out there. If they leap from scholars acknowledging there was a historical Jesus, to then claiming those same scholars are claiming Jesus walked on water, that's just plain dishonesty, and Christians aren't supposed to lie, you know.

You did it yourself somewhat, Windwalker. in your post #565 when you said,

"Excellent! You have now proven my point. The very fact that Ehman acknowledges these things, yet he rejects this notion that Jesus never existed, proves my point! Thank you."

What is wrong with you? You are accusing me of dishonesty? Did you not read my very words you quoting in this very post???

You had said, "Does Ehrman acknowledge the existence of a mircle-working Jesus... born of a virgin.... etc.?

To which I responded above, which you even quoted, "No, and neither do I".

Do you not read people's replies before you launch off into your false accusations of them? What's up with that?

You know for a fact Ehrman rejects the divine Jesus. Yet you didn't clarify that he is in actuality only acknowledging an ordinary non-divine Jesus existed.

Yet, you didn't read my post you actually quoted where I said that I don't take all those stories at face value as historically true. Go back and read post 612 and see for yourself.

But you deliberately ( I believe) failed to make the distinction.

Conspiracy theory fan, huh? Attributing sinister motives to people, when the problem is you don't read what they actually said?

I have no doubts at all that a divine son of God Jesus who died and rose and ascended never lived. No scholar outside the Christian community believes for a second a divine Jesus walked the earth, not even Ehrman. But even Ehrman, a trained historian is so doubtful of even an ordinary man Jesus that he makes an extremely weak pitiful case for one as I stated in #631. No scholar that I have read gives his book on Jesus any serious credence. His "evidence" is so anemic one is left no more convinced Jesus was real than they were before they picked it up. One critic said:

"After Ehrman's debacle, what serious scholar will be willing to risk reputation to come to the defense of Jesus of Nazareth?"

Ah, you found a "critic" who said this? As I said, try saying that of those like John Dominic Crossan, for starters.

Regardless of acknowledging that there is mythology in the gospels, that does not mean that there was not some extraordinary human being who made significant enough of an impact to spur a multifaceted movement. There's a lot that can be said about that, even if you don't want to elevate Jesus to the point of being a superhuman entity who walked on water and ascended into the clouds on the wings of angels.

Dismissive attitudes are just as religious and unrealistic as the 'true believer' who imagines it's all literally true. You tend to sound more like a "true unbeliever", which is the flipside of the same 'true believer' coin. Not an uncommon thing for one who thinks they have found the real truth now.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, absolutely not.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159​

​

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.“​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156​

So he did not believe Hindu mystics, is that it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Baha'u'llah did not need to read the Bible since He received a new Revelation from God.
In that Revelation, God taught Him the knowledge of all that has ever been.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”​

Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57​

Do you know if he ever did read the Bible?

 

[Trailblazer]

So he did not believe Hindu mystics, is that it?

Not if they believed in transmigration of a soul, like from cows to humans.

Baha'u'llah taught that the soul comes into existence at the time of conception and associates itself with the body at that time. Then, when the body dies, the soul continues on its journey in the spiritual world where it takes on a new form.

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157​

​

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”​

Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194​

​

That we will have a spiritual body in heaven is what the Bible teaches:

1 Corinthians 15 New Living Translation​

​

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.​

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.​

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.​

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!​

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you know if he ever did read the Bible?

He probably read the Bible. I know He read the Qur'an since He was raised as a Muslim.

 

[Truthseeker]

He probably read the Bible. I know He read the Qur'an since He was raised as a Muslim.

I don't recall that He did as described in the histories. However, even if He didn't He still knew what was in the Bible. He explicitly said he hadn't read the Bab's Writings or at least the Bayan, yet He quoted the Bab correctly from that. He said this in general terms about books:

Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)

 

[Truthseeker]

Did Bahaullah believe in transmigration of a soul, lie from cows to humans or something like that?

Shoghi Effendi was an authorized interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings, and He said this:

"'The Bahá'í view of 'reincarnation' is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.'
(To an individual believer, March 27, 1938)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 536)

metempsychosis: the supposed transmigration at death of the soul of a human being or animal into a new body of the same or a different species.

 

[YoursTrue]

He probably read the Bible. I know He read the Qur'an since He was raised as a Muslim.

OK, thank you. And we do know that Mohammed also learned about Christianity from some around him even though he couldn't read or write but also claimed to get messages from beyond without being able to read and write. But I do know that Bahalluah came from an aristocratic family, therefore was probably taught to read and write. I mean, he could write, couldn't he? So if he could write, he obviously could read, and yes, it seems likely he read the Koran. Mohammed learned some things about the Bible from others but we know he couldn't read or write.

 

[YoursTrue]

Shoghi Effendi was an authorized interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings, and He said this:

"'The Bahá'í view of 'reincarnation' is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.'
(To an individual believer, March 27, 1938)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 536)

metempsychosis: the supposed transmigration at death of the soul of a human being or animal into a new body of the same or a different species.

Thank you. So also to @Trailblazer -- he would not get the same message that Hindu mystics would get about this, I guess. In fact, if what you are saying is right about Bahaulluah's concept of reincarnation, it seems he's getting a different message. It's hard to believe that coming from such an aristocratic family, being a Muslim, he did not read the Koran?? Just wondering...

 

[YoursTrue]

I just answer questions when they're asked. Critics pose the questions assuming they can't be answered, as if the questions have no possible answer. Then when I bring an answer the goal post gets shifted.



Let's see...



There it is. The default is, it's untrue. My objection was "I don't know" is not considered a valid option. And that is coming from your own words saying the default is "it's untrue" without evidence. In this case there is minimal evidence so "I don't know" is proper. "It's false" is not.



I already said non-belief makes sense.



And yet they believe rumors about stories being copied, and exaggerated mythical qualities without checking the facts.



Lol. See. I gave you data, you ignored it. I gave you the misconception, the reason it's easily confused, a plausible explanation how the story was introduced into the Epic. And there is no acknowledgement.

I never said it was true, I said there's no evidence of copying.

Here's a link to Wikipedia showing the dating, confirming the version with the flood is approx. 1300bce-1000bce.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Notice the date of the old version LACKING any flood story? 2100BCE. That's the date people trot out when ever the Epic is spoken of as the source of the flood story. But a non-critical thinker hears this, bobbles their head, "yup, yup, was copied, yup".

And if you research the Iron Age Collapse you'll see that this period in that area was ripe for myth sharing, which explains why a Jewish flood story got added to the Epic at that time.

And what was the insult? I said the so-called critical thinkers, like yourself, who make claims about the Epic being copied, like you did, don't know the facts about when that story was added, and you didn't know that, and they haven't even read the Epic, which I'm pretty sure you haven't, don't actually care about the facts.

What's wrong with that? It's all true. You impugned my values regarding truth, now it's a problem when I demonstrate the hypocrisy of that?



Your claim, your burden. I know a few shreds of similarity. But again, those similarities are found in geographically distant myths, so I have disregarded them, as should you. In Chinese folklore there's a Father God in Heaven, there's a son of God, they have a trinity of sorts, the quest for eternal life is a primary goal ( like it is in some form in virtually every mythology on the entire earth ). So, these similarites exist allllllll over the place. Just because there's similarites, a few similarities, doesn't mean it was copied, or that it didn't happen. And again, this is because there are so so many Chinese myths and legends, the odds of people coming up with the same story are rather high. It's the same with looking for pagan myths, and egyptian myths. Those myths are vast. Of course there will be minor similarities. it means nothing.

You don't have to believe the story is true, but claiming it's copied, or it MUST be false cause the other stories that have scraps of similarity are also false, is not tenable.

, written

No! A moderate position of "I don't believe it as written, but I don't actually know anything more than that."
."


For this thread, for this OP, simply acknowledging there is a plausible reason why the historians of the period didn't write of about Jesus' miracles: The scale of the story was exaggerated, what actually happened involved much fewer people, the spread of the movement was much slower, much more limited, and fantasical events after Jesus' death might be completely fabricated because the standards for lying about Jesus are much more strict than lying about some zombies, supernatural darkness, and a massive earthquake.

It is certainly possible that there were writings referring to the death of Jesus at that time, but we don't have them. However, "the scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source." Tacitus is one of the foremost Roman scholars in that time period. This was in his final work, Annals, written c. 116 CE. Tacitus would not have made up all the names and account.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't recall that He did as described in the histories. However, even if He didn't He still knew what was in the Bible. He explicitly said he hadn't read the Bab's Writings or at least the Bayan, yet He quoted the Bab correctly from that. He said this in general terms about books:

I notice that it is said about Bahalluah that Bahai's see him as fulfilling prophecies for "Jews as the incarnation of the "Everlasting Father", the "Lord of Hosts", and the "Prince of Peace"; for Christendom he is the "Spirit of Truth", the "Comforter" spoken of by Jesus, as well as Christ returned "in the glory of the Father"; for Shí'ah Islam he is the return of the Imam Husayn; for Sunni Islam the descent of the "Spirit of God" (Jesus); for Zoroastrians the promised Shah-Bahram; for Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; and for Buddhists he is Maitreya, the fifth Buddha." Which leads me to ask a question, but unless this is misrepresented it clearly says that for Hindus he is the reincarnation of Krishna.

Baháʼu'lláh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Audie]

No, absolutely not.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159​

​

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.“​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156​

Why is it written in quasi-kjv english?

 

[Brian2]

Here's a link to Wikipedia showing the dating, confirming the version with the flood is approx. 1300bce-1000bce.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In your link I followed a link in a section entitled Standard Babylonian version, to this site, Atra-Hasis - Wikipedia from which I copied the following quote.
Atra-Hasis (Akkadian: , romanized: Atra-ḫasīs) is an 18th-century BCE Akkadian epic, recorded in various versions on clay tablets,[1] named for its protagonist, Atrahasis ('exceedingly wise'). The Atra-Hasis tablets include both a creation myth and one of three surviving Babylonian flood myths. The name "Atra-Hasis" also appears, as king of Shuruppak in the times before a flood, on one of the Sumerian King Lists.

The oldest known copy of the epic tradition concerning Atrahasishttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis#cite_note-2 can be dated by colophon (scribal identification) to the reign of Hammurabi’s great-grandson, Ammi-Saduqa (1646–1626 BC). However, various Old Babylonian dialect fragments exist, and the epic continued to be copied into the first millennium BC.[2]: 8–15 

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't recall that He did as described in the histories. However, even if He didn't He still knew what was in the Bible. He explicitly said he hadn't read the Bab's Writings or at least the Bayan, yet He quoted the Bab correctly from that. He said this in general terms about books:

Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)

Wow Duane! "Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens." - the knowledge of Baha'u'llah that is.

Thanks a lot. I never saw that quote before.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, thank you. And we do know that Mohammed also learned about Christianity from some around him even though he couldn't read or write but also claimed to get messages from beyond without being able to read and write. But I do know that Bahalluah came from an aristocratic family, therefore was probably taught to read and write. I mean, he could write, couldn't he? So if he could write, he obviously could read, and yes, it seems likely he read the Koran. Mohammed learned some things about the Bible from others but we know he couldn't read or write.

Yes, He could read and write. As I recall, He dis not attend any schools but he had tutors, as was common with the aristocracy in Persia.

@Truthseeker answered that question regarding how Baha'u'llah knew what was in the Bible in post # #668

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you. So also to @Trailblazer -- he would not get the same message that Hindu mystics would get about this, I guess. In fact, if what you are saying is right about Bahaulluah's concept of reincarnation, it seems he's getting a different message. It's hard to believe that coming from such an aristocratic family, being a Muslim, he did not read the Koran?? Just wondering...

Baha'u'llah did not have to 'read' the Koran in order to know what was in the Koran.

"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens."​

​

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)​

​

Schooling​

​

As He grew up, Bahá'u'lláh desired no schooling. He received a little customary education at home, in riding, using a sword or gun, good manners, calligraphy, poetries, and the ability to read out the words of the Qur'an.​

​

Despite a lack education, Bahá'u'lláh shone forth in wisdom and ability, and all who knew Bahá'u'lláh were astonished. It was usual for them to say, that such a child will not live beyond maturity.​

​

Birth and Childhood of Baha'u'llah​

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Why is it written in quasi-kjv english?

The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi, went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.

From his studies Shoghi Effendi determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.

Shoghi Effendi said that the future may see different translations.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Absence of historical data is no proof that something (whatever it was) never occurred. In fact in this case it might exemplify Philo's disinterest as well as desire not to record it. Many writings were lost anyway. Doesn't prove anything. You can say it does, but it really does not. Thus your contention is drowning.

What contention?