There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Vigile]

Jim Jones didn't preach "look at this other guy who is in heaven. He was a real guy and I met some people who met him. Pray to him and listen to him, not to me, because I'm just a servant."

 

Ok, but Joseph Smith did say, look at this other guy, who is in heaven, who is god's son. He did so by drawing upon contemporary myths. Specifically, the Jesus myth with his own twist. That's what I'm suggesting could have easily happened here. Someone or some people could have drawn upon contemporary myths and put their own twist on them. And, give the similarities in the gospel stories between Jesus and other mythical figures it seems reasonable to me that that's exactly what did happen.

 

What christ story? It didn't exist to being with.

 

As I pointed out, Oedipus Rex, a story that predates christ 500 years provides the basic framework for the story. That a king would be raised as a common man and then sacrifice his life to appease the gods and save the people in the kingdom. Beyond that, Mythas, as I know you know paralleled much of the christ story, and had a sect by its own right during that era amongst the Romans. The message from the Sermon on the Mount can be found in numerous other sources that predate the christ era. There is virtually nothing in the gospels that is original.

 

Someone must've at least started a "christ story" for the story to being growing. When did they (the mysterious "they") decide this compiled set of stories should be attributed to a guy name "Jesus" and "Christ"? Who made that decision?

 

Again, we don't have a clear picture of that era because what survived was all hand picked precisely to leave us with a certain impression. I can't guess.

 

 

I can only see the option that someone (a person) authored a first story,

 

This is where we disagree. There are many possibilities here. Stories and myths form all the time and we can't trace their roots in many cases even today. Who started the Bigfoot myth for example?

 

 

Eh. I'm not sure how that argument fits in here. So basically, you're saying that it's more likely that he was lying about meeting Peter and that he was traveling around the Roman empire,

 

I'm saying that it's not valid evidence either way. Maybe he lied maybe he didn't. Have you never met a preacher motivated to lie? It's not that far fetched.

[Ouroboros]

I tried to explain my position in different ways, but I failed. Too bad. Maybe it'll work better another day.

[Vigile]

 

 

I was going to go through and answer point by point, but I think we are getting lost and talking over one another here. So, I'll just sum up my response with this:

 

You would agree that the council of Nicea picked and chose the story that survived would you not? This was a group that was politically motivated. Since we don't have objective sources that exist outside the material that survived, we have no idea what the original story was at all so there is no way we can make reasonable assumptions about it or its source.

 

In other words, we are both looking at a situation guessing as to what might have happened, what might be the most reasonable, but that's all it is is a guess because we had someone with an agenda purposely point us in one direction.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree whether or not it is more reasonable that there was a figurehead or whether the gospels represent a conglomeration of earlier myths.

[qadeshet]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

 

Paul's existence has been questioned. I am seriously considering the theory that "Paul" and Simon Magus are one and the same. Marcion created Paul by adapting 1st century Simonian material. This would explain the serious disagreements between "Paul" and Cephas.

[Ouroboros]

You would agree that the council of Nicea picked and chose the story that survived would you not?

Yes. Absolutely.

 

This was a group that was politically motivated. Since we don't have objective sources that exist outside the material that survived, we have no idea what the original story was at all so there is no way we can make reasonable assumptions about it or its source.

Absolutely.

 

In other words, we are both looking at a situation guessing as to what might have happened, what might be the most reasonable, but that's all it is is a guess because we had someone with an agenda purposely point us in one direction.

Of course. And my assumption was that this is what we were doing. We're trying to guess what's the more reasonable explanation. We're weighing different claims and arguments and try to see which side is more likely, even with a fraction, and this could change with more evidence, but as of now, how did it evolve and from what can be guessed to some degree, if we so want.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree whether or not it is more reasonable that there was a figurehead or whether the gospels represent a conglomeration of earlier myths.

The gospels represent a conglomeration of earlier myths. I agree on that. I still see you can't see what I'm saying though.

 

The conglomeration of myths were attached to one person, and not kept as a book of multiple stories about multiple heroes. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, someone made it into one conglomerated story about one person. And this story started earlier than the gospels. Before the gospels, the story already existed about a person. So someone must've have started the rumor about this person. The earlier stories about Jesus are simpler. They have less myth. Less Greek influence. More Jewish. More cultish. More centered about a person teaching. And it wasn't about Paul. He wasn't the messiah they talked about. He got suckered into it and made it more popular with the Romans. Someone must've invented this mythical Jesus before Paul, and without most of the Greek myth in it.

 

Well. Now I'm going to shut up. And let someone else participate.

[Vigile]

The conglomeration of myths were attached to one person,

 

I see what you are saying. But what I'm saying is, maybe it just looks that way and wouldn't if we knew more.

 

I confess that in the back of my mind throughout this discussion is a book I read by Burton Mack years ago, in which he suggested that the Jesus myth was created in response to the need to unify various peoples under Roman occupation in the area at that time.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian/dp/0060655186/ref=la_B000APXVBU_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347730306&sr=1-1

[Ouroboros]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

 

Paul's existence has been questioned. I am seriously considering the theory that "Paul" and Simon Magus are one and the same. Marcion created Paul by adapting 1st century Simonian material. This would explain the serious disagreements between "Paul" and Cephas.

I can't help it. Argh. I just want to participate in this discussion.

 

Here's my problem with above claim. Paul doesn't exist. Paul and Simon Magus are the same. Simon Magus exists. ...

 

Hmm...

 

My name isn't Ouroboros. But I exist. Ouroboros doesn't exist on this board, or Ouroboros does exist on this board?

 

Someone, who called himself "Paul", was a perhaps a fraud, but did exist, at least as a penname, or how else would Simon Magus exist and write under a pseudonym "Paul"?

[Ouroboros]

The conglomeration of myths were attached to one person,

 

I see what you are saying. But what I'm saying is, maybe it just looks that way and wouldn't if we knew more.

 

I confess that in the back of my mind throughout this discussion is a book I read by Burton Mack years ago, in which he suggested that the Jesus myth was created in response to the need to unify various peoples under Roman occupation in the area at that time.

 

http://www.amazon.co...47730306&sr=1-1

But there's no evidence for that either. It's a conjecture from circumstances and akin to conspiracy theory.

 

Which path would you select if you did Occam's razor? The one which requires more explanation, or the one that we know from history is very common?

 

We don't know if US gov't planned 9/11, therefore they did? It's unlikely, therefor it's more likely? The Roman empire created a religion that engulfed them completely and got out of hand is more likely than some crackpot preacher said some clever words and other people picked up on it and spun more stories? Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Vigile]

But there's no evidence for that either. It's a conjecture from circumstances and akin to conspiracy theory.

 

You'll have to read his book to make up your mind on that one. It's been 20 years since I read it, so I can't defend it now, but he's not your average crank. He's a respected academic in his field: http://www.princeton...on_L._Mack.html

 

Which path would you select if you did Occam's razor?

 

Again, you'd have to read the book and check his evidence for yourself. He's not a conspiracy theorist. I merely brought him up to let you know I why I was leaning one direction in this discussion.

 

Mack may in fact be in your camp, that there was a figurehead that kicked this all off. He merely tries to put some historical context around the gospels themselves and he does so in a scholarly manner.

[qadeshet]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

 

Paul's existence has been questioned. I am seriously considering the theory that "Paul" and Simon Magus are one and the same. Marcion created Paul by adapting 1st century Simonian material. This would explain the serious disagreements between "Paul" and Cephas.

I can't help it. Argh. I just want to participate in this discussion.

 

Here's my problem with above claim. Paul doesn't exist. Paul and Simon Magus are the same. Simon Magus exists. ...

 

Hmm...

 

My name isn't Ouroboros. But I exist. Ouroboros doesn't exist on this board, or Ouroboros does exist on this board?

 

Someone, who called himself "Paul", was a perhaps a fraud, but did exist, at least as a penname, or how else would Simon Magus exist and write under a pseudonym "Paul"?

 

Marcion collected the first "New Testament". He included ten of Pauls letters and one Gospel. Marcion claimed that Paul's letters had been interpolated and restored them to their original state. Later Ortodox Church fathers claimed to correct Marcion's version. Paul doesn't appear in the Church record until the middle of the Second Century. We don't know that the person who wrote Paul's letters actually called himself Paul. Paul simply means small and was probably just a nickname.

 

How Might Marcionite Questions Affect Mythicism? (Bob Price in “Is This Not the Carpenter?”)

[Ouroboros]

Marcion collected the first "New Testament". He included ten of Pauls letters and one Gospel. Marcion claimed that Paul's letters had been interpolated and restored them to their original state. Later Ortodox Church fathers claimed to correct Marcion's version. Paul doesn't appear in the Church record until the middle of the Second Century. We don't know that the person who wrote Paul's letters actually called himself Paul. Paul simply means small and was probably just a nickname.

Oh. I see what you're saying. Pretty elaborate scheme though. I'm not sure if it's easier to believe that it's a forgery or that bunch of crackpots actually did believe the stuff.

 

Maybe Marcion didn't exist either but was a forgery by some later? And maybe the Church records were forged too in the 3rd century? I don't know. Maybe our history was just made up and created by some massive conspiracy institute in the 19th century? Overall, I tend to downplay the likelihood of conspiracies compared to just crazy people doing crazy things.

[Ouroboros]

But there's no evidence for that either. It's a conjecture from circumstances and akin to conspiracy theory.

 

You'll have to read his book to make up your mind on that one. It's been 20 years since I read it, so I can't defend it now, but he's not your average crank. He's a respected academic in his field: http://www.princeton...on_L._Mack.html

From your link: "he suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to theGreco-Roman cynics."

 

In other words, some kind of "Jesus" figure did exist according to him. Not a completely forged or constructed story from thin air.

 

You know what they say, every good lie has some grains of truth in them.

 

The reason why it had a chance to get a foothold in Palestine, wasn't because someone wrote a Greek play, but because some "sage" or "teacher" spread some words and got a following. Sorry. I'm with your source there.

 

Again, you'd have to read the book and check his evidence for yourself. He's not a conspiracy theorist. I merely brought him up to let you know I why I was leaning one direction in this discussion.

 

Mack may in fact be in your camp, that there was a figurehead that kicked this all off. He merely tries to put some historical context around the gospels themselves and he does so in a scholarly manner.

Yeah. I'm not interested in the Gospel stories and all the extra stuff that came later. I think it's obvious that multiple sources added their own material to the "Jesus story". But the question, to me at least, wasn't about the elaborated additions and embellishments, but if there was some kind of a "historial character" that predated those stories.

 

I used to be "The Jesus story is only and completely fake and only invented" camp, and also "it was invented and created by a this big Roman conspiracy factory". But... it doesn't make sense. Sometimes the simpler explanation fits just fine. Some Chopra guy got some followers. It got popular. It got twisted and politicized, as any religion does at some point.

[TrueFreedom]

In response to comparing believers in a historical Jesus/Joshua/Y'shua to "truthers:"

 

http://labarum.net/2...spiracy-theory/

 

"Now there is no doubt that there are Jesus mythicists who are flat-out conspiracy theorists: Jordan Maxwell and D. M. Murdock (aka “Acharya S”) immediately come to mind. But there were others who generally do not have that image: Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, and Earl Doherty. What I want to consider is the possibility that the more one gets involved in Jesus mythicism, the more one’s work is met by snickers among academics, the more one is relagated to the sidelines and dismissive footnotes (as has occurred with Price and Carrier despite their Ph.Ds), the more one is open to seeing their oppenents as persecuting them for their courage rather than criticizing them for their incompetence. After all, it couldn’t be their fault just about every scholar in the field thinks the “scholarship” of Jesus mythicists is closer to the X-files than the academy. There must be some sinister force behind it – they are afraid of the few coragous voices willing to upset the status quo! They have closed their minds to the truth! There is a conspiracy!"

 

And for comic relief:

 

[mwc]

I can't help it. Argh. I just want to participate in this discussion.

 

Here's my problem with above claim. Paul doesn't exist. Paul and Simon Magus are the same. Simon Magus exists. ...

 

Hmm...

 

My name isn't Ouroboros. But I exist. Ouroboros doesn't exist on this board, or Ouroboros does exist on this board?

 

Someone, who called himself "Paul", was a perhaps a fraud, but did exist, at least as a penname, or how else would Simon Magus exist and write under a pseudonym "Paul"?

Define "Paul" for me.

 

We originally had what? 14 books that were certainly written by Paul. Now we have 7 letters that are certainly written by Paul. 6 others that might be written by Paul but were likely written by *A* "Paul" and three of those letters more likely than not written by who we consider *the* Paul (of the 7 letters) but might be the same as the other letters somehow or maybe it's another "Paul" altogether? Then there's the Book of Hebrews Paul, which may, or may not, be one of these other "Paul's." And this is only the official canon. There are more "Paul's" that exist.

 

So. Given all those plethora of "Paul's" you tell me which is *THE* one *TRUE* Paul? And this is assuming that there even is such an animal. Paul is simply a name of convenience at this point. Was there a "Paul?" Sure. He refers to himself as Paul but we know the "forgers" did as well. So they're all Paul aren't they? It would be something if there was a real Paul and we have none of his texts but only forgeries. How could we ever know?

 

We assume that you are a single person posting under your name no matter what your board name is (or has been). That you are the same person and we can trust that you will be that person over the course of time. But "Paul" has not been so reliable. Paul was the author of 14+ texts. Then half that. Then maybe less. But if half are forgeries what that means is half are likely from the same author. We'll call him Paul. The rest? They're "Paul" but just not *that* Paul. But maybe one of them *is* Paul or maybe they're all "Paul." If members on this board turned out to have a posting record like this they would likely get the boot. There's nothing to trust here in the way of determining identity but it is still useful for theological and other reasons.

 

I would make a similar argument for the "some guy named jesus" as well. If you can't be more specific than "some guy" you've got nothing. People don't confuse their messiah for "some guy." This isn't Monty Python. If "some guy" wasn't important enough to remember when he died then he's not going to get remembered later for his not-memorable deeds.

 

Guy 1: Hey remember Jeff?

Guy 2: Jeff? Jeff? Can't say I do.

Guy 1: Yeah, he died awhile back. Not really memorable.

Guy 2: Huh. What about him?

Guy 1: Well, I was thinking we should say he was some great guy or something.

Guy 2: For, like a laugh or something?

Guy 1: No. To be serious. We'll tell people he was amazing instead of utterly forgettable.

Guy 2: Did people really like Jeff?

Guy 1: No. I told you he wasn't memorable. Died a shameful way. People forgot him right quick.

Guy 2: I don't get it.

Guy 1: See. We'll tell people that they really liked him and he did amazing things.

Guy 2: To what end?

Guy 1: I don't follow.

Guy 2: Why are we doing this? Did Jeff want this?

Guy 1: Oh no. Seems he wanted to die off.

Guy 2: You're losing me.

Guy 1: I'm apparently upset over the loss of Jeff even though he wasn't much of anything.

Guy 2: Where's this coming from.

Guy 1: Can't say I rightly know. I feel compelled to put Jeff on a bit of pedestal all of a sudden.

Guy 2: And you want me to help?

Guy 1: Odd I know. You in?

Guy 2: Uh, yeah alright.

 

But I suppose it's possible (not necessarily plausible ). I really hate this topic...I think I might duck back out again.

 

mwc

[Akheia]

When we say someone or something is historical, we're making some assertions about them that should be supported by evidence. The 1st century was filled with writers who were all gathering, compiling, and creating accounts to send back and forth between various courts and countries. We're not talking about a silent era by any stretch. When Ouro is trying to argue himself into a historical Jesus, he's forgetting one simple thing: Nothing of Jesus is actually supported by evidence, and plenty of things the NT claims for Jesus are flat-out impossible.

 

So let's define terms. When we talk about "Jesus Christ," what exactly are we talking about?

 

* A baby from the same place the NT claims for him (whoops, sorry, Nazareth didn't exist then)

* A baby born amid Herod's massacre of the innocents (which didn't happen; the writers didn't even get Herod's rank correct, FFS)

* A baby visited by foreign wisemen (who didn't leave a word of their historic visit behind in any document EVER, not of their visit nor of their subsequent visit to the local court to discuss the miracle baby)

* A baby whose birth was presided over by a miraculous star (which didn't happen at the right time at all)

* A kid who was found to be a Torah genius at like 12 (hm.. no records there either)

* A guy baptized in the Jordan River by St. John the Baptist (whoops, no records there either)

* A guy who overturned moneychangers' tables (a crime, but oddly, no records of that)

* A guy who did rockstar miracles and legendary feats around Jerusalem (no records there either)

* A guy who caused a major commotion in that same city and entered it as its "king" (ditto, and one can be sure that SOMEONE in the king's court would have noticed and said something)

* A guy summoned before the Sanhedrin to account for himself (nope, no records there either)

* A guy who was framed for a crime he didn't commit and was executed for it (not a single breath of a word in court documents of any sort, not Jewish nor Roman)

* A guy who rose from the dead and hung out for a while with his main buds before zapping to heaven (not a single contemporary word, nor of the Jewish zombie uprising that happened in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, nor of the Holy Ghost infilling at Pentecost later when hundreds of men were said to be speaking in intelligible languages they hadn't previously known)

 

These are the main things that go into a Jesus Christ, and I am copyrighting that for when I learn mixology. But none of these things happened--many actually couldn't have as they would have been impossible. The mythic elements got into the account because it was fashionable for messiahs to be born amid great cosmological events like comets and super-bright stars, to rise from the dead and do miracles like that. We can dismiss these mythic elements out of hand.

 

Any single one of the possible elements (like the rockstar entrance into Jerusalem or the trial/execution) would have been newsworthy for writers at the time to have captured. Any single one of these possible elements mentioned in a letter, even a sentence, would have gone far in supporting a "historical Jesus." But there's not a single word about him anywhere--except in the Gospels, which are purely hearsay and written decades after their savior's putative death and which are clearly written with an agenda in mind. The Bible is not a reliable document in any way about anything else -- why should it suddenly be trustworthy about this one topic?

 

The NT's account of Jesus is so nebulous that once one strips out the clearly mythic elements from it, one is left with "a Jewish rabble-rouser who said some unoriginal but usually nice things, but also enough twatty things that he got his ass executed." Well, that's about as helpful as combing through a history of "orphaned English boys" to find the "historic Harry Potter." There were lots of Jewish rabble-rousers at the time. Which one of these many men was "our" Jesus? I don't think we'll ever know; probably many of them to some extent contributed to the myths. But is the NT's account of Jesus historical? No way in hell. The very few things the NT offers about him that aren't clearly mythic cry out for evidence and support, but there simply isn't any. Not a word. Not a peep. Not a whisper. Not a sound.

 

When I consider the historicity of what many consider to be the greatest man who ever lived, I hear a resounding silence where trumpets should be. I want to hear trumpets; I'd like to know that people are getting themselves worked up over someone who actually existed. But I've got to go with the evidence--or lack thereof.

[Ouroboros]

Sure. You make a good point. I'll come back later, maybe, to explain better what I mean. But maybe not.

[mymistake]

When we say someone or something is historical, we're making some assertions about them that should be supported by evidence.

 

I disagree. To ask what is the historical (insert myth) is to ask what part of that myth is realistic. A historical Jesus does no miracles. Certainly witch doctors and what not have been performing slight of hand illusions for a very long time so that sort of thing could have existed during the Roman empire. We can't say any of the Aramaic teachers named Jesus/Yesua performed such tricks because we have no way to know if that part of the story was fiction created later. But it would have been within the realm of the possible. Might one or two of them have been executed by Rome a generation or so before the Temple was destroyed? It's possible but we have no reason to think it happened. Talking about a historical Jesus is just deciding which parts of the myth are likely, which parts are unlikely and which parts are impossible. Perhaps we should call hims "realistic Jesus" instead.

 

Of course Jesus didn't make it into actual accounts written by contemporary historians.

 

The 1st century was filled with writers who were all gathering, compiling, and creating accounts to send back and forth between various courts and countries. We're not talking about a silent era by any stretch. When Ouro is trying to argue himself into a historical Jesus, he's forgetting one simple thing: Nothing of Jesus is actually supported by evidence, and plenty of things the NT claims for Jesus are flat-out impossible.

 

So let's define terms. When we talk about "Jesus Christ," what exactly are we talking about?

 

Not any historical Jesus. Christ was an invention by Paul, unless of course Paul was plagiarizing some other guy who never wrote it down.

 

There were dozens of "realistic Jesus"s and plenty of other real men with various other names who's lives probably influenced the myth.

[Ouroboros]

When we say someone or something is historical, we're making some assertions about them that should be supported by evidence. The 1st century was filled with writers who were all gathering, compiling, and creating accounts to send back and forth between various courts and countries. We're not talking about a silent era by any stretch. When Ouro is trying to argue himself into a historical Jesus, he's forgetting one simple thing: Nothing of Jesus is actually supported by evidence, and plenty of things the NT claims for Jesus are flat-out impossible.

I don't think you understand what I meant.

[Akheia]

I guess that's possible

 

A "realistic Jesus" at least brings us to something that isn't mythic, but it doesn't bring us to an actual flesh-and-blood man who inspired the religion of Christianity. If there were dozens of men whose very vague generalized biographies and MOs might fit that of our "realistic Jesus," then it is meaningless to wonder which of them might have been our Big Kahuna. If people want to say that Jesus was a real man who really existed, then they have to bring evidence for that claim. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to think that, based upon evidence being missing when it really should be there, there was no single person who inspired the myth. The truth is probably a lot closer to MM's final line; probably a lot of generalized stories about half-a-dozen freakshow-messiah-rabble-rousers contributed to the general myth, and Paul kind of crystallized the zeitgeist of all these myths into one big movement.

 

But Jesus as a real boy? No. No way in hell that's possible. The reason he doesn't show up in any letters or legal records of his day is glaringly obvious to me.

[Legion]

There is also no proof or ironclad argument that an objective world of phenomena exists which is governed by causality. I've looked. It's not there. Yet I still believe.

[Akheia]

... Legion, do you even listen to the stuff you say?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

* A baby from the same place the NT claims for him (whoops, sorry, Nazareth didn't exist then)

 

 

Hi Akheia, mix me one of your mythic cocktails sometime! I'm sure this has been discussed, maybe by you previously, but can you elaborate on the claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century CE? I've seen claims that there are buildings with 1st century Nabatean inscriptions from there.

[♦ ficino ♦]

There is also no proof or ironclad argument that an objective world of phenomena exists which is governed by causality. I've looked. It's not there. Yet I still believe.

 

Legion, say it ain't so! You're going against the conclusions drawn by Schopenhauer's "sehr kluger Pudel" (very clever poodle). When S. stood at the side of the window and drew the cord on the just-installed curtains, the dog jumped around and barked, trying to figure out who was behind the curtains. He knew that some creature had caused them to move! lol

[Ouroboros]

I have a couple of questions because I'm a little confused about some of the forgery conspiracy ideas.

 

Are all the letters and books in the NT forgeries? All of them written by someone (or multiple) with the agenda of creating a new religion? Was none of the written by believing crackpots?

 

What was the purpose of this conspiracy? What was the end goal? To ruin the Jewish religion? Why did they make it a Roman movement if that was the case? Or was to ruin the Roman pagan religion?

 

If the forgers could forge letters from religious leaders, why couldn't they forge some official documents to make it look like these people lived? They were smart enough to create an elaborate scheme for this new belief, but they were not smart enough to build their case?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I have a couple of questions because I'm a little confused about some of the forgery conspiracy ideas.

 

Are all the letters and books in the NT forgeries? All of them written by someone (or multiple) with the agenda of creating a new religion? Was none of the written by believing crackpots?

 

What was the purpose of this conspiracy? What was the end goal? To ruin the Jewish religion? Why did they make it a Roman movement if that was the case? Or was to ruin the Roman pagan religion?

 

If the forgers could forge letters from religious leaders, why couldn't they forge some official documents to make it look like these people lived? They were smart enough to create an elaborate scheme for this new belief, but they were not smart enough to build their case?

 

A lot of these suppositions seem to run into the problem of how they could ever be falsified. Anyone who can imitate a style of writing can produce a forgery. Reminds me of the joke that the works of Shakespeare were not written by the bard from Stratford-on-Avon but by another guy of the same name.