Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Nickman]

This is the same tactic that Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other conspiracy theorists take when defending their "theories," and is why others here have labeled your arguments as such.

What theory have I put forth? I sense here that some of the posters have no idea what a conspiracy is, and labeling my argument that is honest and undecided is far from conspiracy. In this argument or debate the people I am debating are in the camp of Jesus' historicity as if it is confirmed. I can argue from both sides for and against so, since the opposition is arguing in the affirmative position for Jesus, I am providing evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary? In your initial response to Historia, you suggested three factors to consider:
> "blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record. . . . Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources?"
> "the earliest writings we have, by Paul, do not speak of his earthly life"
> "and the extraordinary claims made pertaining to his life"

It has been pointed out that your first claim is inaccurate at best, since what you're referring to (the Testimonium Flavianum) is a single forgery which was not by an early church father. You have chosen not to acknowledge this correction.

What evidence? The fact that the extra-biblical accounts are far removed from the time of Jesus. They don't agree with the gospel accounts. They were written after the Jesus story was in circulation which because of that fact, we cannot know if the authors are writing from Christian sources. Most that I have seen are vague, at best, and their exact meaning is unclear. It would be best to go through each extra-biblical account one by one and examine them all on the forum.

Secondly, Eusebius was not a church father? Im most assured he was a Bishop. He was part of the early church. I think you may have a different meaning for early. To me 2nd and 3rd century is still early.

It's been pointed out that your second claim is likewise inaccurate, since Paul very clearly refers to Jesus as an earthly, historical person on numerous occasion - in fact his reference to James the brother of Jesus has been a major point in discussing Josephus' reference to the same.

The problem with this text, is that we have an already known text of Josephus' that was forged. The reliability of Jesus references is given with doubt. The scholarly community is not one sided on the issue either.

Another fact to mention is that Josephus goes into detail on John the Baptist yet he gives one word to Jesus. Didn't Jesus make much more of a fuss than John the Baptist? Paul speaks naught about
John. Only after the time that Josephus wrote, do we see a gospel which speaks of John the Baptist.why is Jesus not referenced with John in Josephus' work? Not to mention the reference to John seems a little Christian. See below.


for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.


What Jew speaks like this about baptism?

On reference to James, was James stoned according to the NT? We don't have enough information.

In response you've said you meant merely that "he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels" such as the virgin birth. But saying that Paul comments on Jesus' culture, mother, ancestry and brothers but not a virgin birth is not an argument against Jesus' historicity. You're actually pointing out a very good reason to suppose that the later stories and legends were built around a real man, seriously undermining your third point.

If Jesus was a man, the stories surrounding him are embellished, inaccurate, and unreliable. No one can honestly say that what they read is actually what happened.

Out of Paul's 13 epistles, scholars have decided that maybe 8 are actually from Paul. Again, they cannot say with certainty.

If your reasoning peaks with "Paul didn't mention a virgin birth, so he must've met the brother of a man who didn't exist," I can see why you haven't been able to see any evidence for Jesus' existence There are indeed some good points which haven't yet been brought up, but just for a laugh - since you think that Paul counts for nothing - why don't you tell us what you think a good argument should look like?

No, I am just asking questions. It was between me and Historia and somehow you decided to jump in and answer for him. I find it odd that you feel the need to answer for him, but whatever.

I never said any of the such. I told Historia that I hadn't heard a good argument yet, even though know of some. Paul is maybe the best argument, but its not without problems. Paul never met Jesus during his life. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus, which means anything he says about Jesus' earthly life is hearsay and most defintely second hand information. Second hand information is unreliable. We wouldn't use it in a court of law so why use it here? Where did he get his information from? Was the info reliable from an eyewitness? Did he get it from the circulating stories?

On his meeting James, I can't say anything against that.

Might want to re-read that passage; Trypho is talking about 'Christ.' That's the Greek word for 'Messiah.' Trypho isn't suggesting that Jesus didn't exist; he's arguing that there could be no Christ until Elias (Elijah) anoints and declares him to the world. Jesus' credentials as the Christ, or lack thereof, has always been one of the biggest points of disagreement between Jews and Christians. If you read on a bit you'll see that Justin's response to Trypho has nothing to do with proving Jesus' existence, but rather appeals to Scripture regarding the nature of the new covenant and the one who was to institute it.


You're seeing what you want to see there, I suspect.

Your right. He is making a point that the Messiah has not even come yet. I had a couple beers last night and must have misread it. In any event, I think the only thing we have is the mention of Paul meeting James in Galations 1:19.

I still find none of the NT writings reliable because of all the known blatant forgeries and Iinterpolations that surround them. The lack of first hand accounts other than a couple of Paul's epistles doesn't help. What were left with is unreliable, second and possibly third hand accounts, that cannot be used as evidence for Jesus' existence. Paul may be the only piece we have.

[Nickman]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

That you don't is a testimony of your adherence to 'evidence'. As it always is with Jesus Mythers.

Not all atheists are Jesus Mythers BTW, but pretty much all Jesus Mythers are atheists - or, as you see above with goat, deliberately misunderstood critics.

I read your links. One is a list of extant writings that are not evidence. I am asking for a piece of evidence from you sourced and articulate, which I can then review and come to a conclusion and present a rebuttal. Give me your number one evidence.

Then you clearly do not understand how history works. Its made up from exactly those sources which you dismiss ... which is exactly the criticism I leveled against Jesus Mythers.

Additionally, that sense is only highlighted when you ask someone to produce a piece of 2,000 year old history by themselves? All this states is that you have not done any research, other apparently then checking out the odd atheist web site. And when confronted with the historical documents that historians weigh and use to make decisions ... you quibble - as Jesus Mythers tend to do.

Historians weigh actual evidence, and conspiracy theorists ignore it.

The Jesus Myth is nothing more than an example of confirmation bias from atheists.

Those documents you posted, post date Jesus by many years. They are also second and even third hand account and also copies. You have no originals, therefore no reliability that what they contain is actual truth of said events. What you have is hearsay. He said she said doesn't make evidence.

[Nickman]

@Stubborn

You see how Mithrae debated? Thats proper debate. What you do is just provide a link and say., "see, I told you so". Provide evidence and then show why that evidence is what you claim it to be. I have no problem accepting something that can be shown true.

[stubbornone]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.

And that has what to do with the reality of evidence?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

In short, just as charged, you do what Wells does. You ignore the wide body of evidence, attempting to find anything that supports your position, and ignoring everything else.

So, how can Christ denial be evidenced driven when you are only using the evidence that supports your preconception?

Right, might be why most scholars ignore Christ Mythers entirely.

Can you show me evidence that Jesus existed and the reason why? Just one piece is all I am asking. You have yet to do so.

If you bothered to click on the links provided, you would already have it.

That you don't is a testimony of your adherence to 'evidence'. As it always is with Jesus Mythers.

Not all atheists are Jesus Mythers BTW, but pretty much all Jesus Mythers are atheists - or, as you see above with goat, deliberately misunderstood critics.

I read your links. One is a list of extant writings that are not evidence. I am asking for a piece of evidence from you sourced and articulate, which I can then review and come to a conclusion and present a rebuttal. Give me your number one evidence.

Then you clearly do not understand how history works. Its made up from exactly those sources which you dismiss ... which is exactly the criticism I leveled against Jesus Mythers.

Additionally, that sense is only highlighted when you ask someone to produce a piece of 2,000 year old history by themselves? All this states is that you have not done any research, other apparently then checking out the odd atheist web site. And when confronted with the historical documents that historians weigh and use to make decisions ... you quibble - as Jesus Mythers tend to do.

Historians weigh actual evidence, and conspiracy theorists ignore it.

The Jesus Myth is nothing more than an example of confirmation bias from atheists.

Those documents you posted, post date Jesus by many years. They are also second and even third hand account and also copies. You have no originals, therefore no reliability that what they contain is actual truth of said events. What you have is hearsay. He said she said doesn't make evidence.

No, they do not. Jesus is believed to have died somewhere in between 30-40AD. The first documents appear in 50AD. And many of them are also first hand accounts.

As I stated, the rest of academic world has done its research and concluded that the evidence for a historical Jesus is absolutely overwhelming.

Indeed, I have posted this a half dozen times and it has yet to register in your 'evidenced based' assessment in the slightest.

" In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Indeed, when presented with basis of that historical analysis, which you asked for, we have teh standard reasons to reject and the clear display of a lack of familiarity with any of them.

In short:

#1 - You clearly have not studied the historical records, making your claim of being driven by evidence to be simply ludicrous.


#2 - You are not dealing with the evidence upon which historians relay as the basis for their claims AT ALL - instead coming up with excuses to avoid addressing them - even going so far as to report me for pointing out their existence because I have not personally explained why each and every source (ones you claim you are familiar with and drive you to an evidenced based conclusion) and this somehow magically makes Jesus Mythery into ... logic?

It seems instead that it is a position taken on faith alone by atheists, and when that faith is challenged, that atheists, despite their claims to logic, tend to lash out.

The evidential basis of a historical Jesus is rock solid, there are ample sources of evidence both Biblical and non-biblical, the rebuttals are weak and rejected by the historical profession in the harshest terms possible ... and yet on every forum where religion is discussed there are atheists screaming about how Jesus with a myth, all blandly quoting Wells (which they deny) or some ripped off version of Wells that was dumped on an atheist propaganda website.

In short, if you are a Jesus Myther, enjoy wearing your tin foil hat. But you'll have to do something more than claim you are evidenced driven when presentations of the actual evidence are met with anger and bland, non-professional denial. All that proves is that it really is a giant conspiracy theory - one worthy of tin foil hats it bestows.

[Nickman]

No, they do not. Jesus is believed to have died somewhere in between 30-40AD. The first documents appear in 50AD. And many of them are also first hand accounts.

You have no first hand documents. Tell me one document that is first hand? Also no documents we have, date to 50 AD. Your earliest documents are from the second century and it is assumed that the originals date to earlier. Some ways we do this is by looking at Marcions canon which has Mark, but Mark is a far removed copy that dates much much later. There is no way to tell that our documents read the same as the ones spoken of in earlier writings. You have second, third and even fourth hand accounts.

As I stated, the rest of academic world has done its research and concluded that the evidence for a historical Jesus is absolutely overwhelming.

It is not overwhelming. It is miniscule and the main texts used are those of Paul.

" In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

Ok

Indeed, when presented with basis of that historical analysis, which you asked for, we have teh standard reasons to reject and the clear display of a lack of familiarity with any of them.

Im not understanding

In short:

#1 - You clearly have not studied the historical records, making your claim of being driven by evidence to be simply ludicrous.

I have and the list you gave does not serve as proof for Jesus, because they are far removed from the time frame, and they are mostly second to third hand accounts. Also if a person writes after the gospels about Jesus, then we cannot say with certainty that the story is not from Christian source.

#2 - You are not dealing with the evidence upon which historians relay as the basis for their claims AT ALL - instead coming up with excuses to avoid addressing them - even going so far as to report me for pointing out their existence because I have not personally explained why each and every source (ones you claim you are familiar with and drive you to an evidenced based conclusion) and this somehow magically makes Jesus Mythery into ... logic?

I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken. Hell I have broken some myself. Moderators skim thru threads and you just happened to be doing something they didn't like. My point was that you cannot just post a link and say here it is. You need to provide why your source defends your argument.

It seems instead that it is a position taken on faith alone by atheists, and when that faith is challenged, that atheists, despite their claims to logic, tend to lash out.

I've never lashed out once.

The evidential basis of a historical Jesus is rock solid, there are ample sources of evidence both Biblical and non-biblical, the rebuttals are weak and rejected by the historical profession in the harshest terms possible ... and yet on every forum where religion is discussed there are atheists screaming about how Jesus with a myth, all blandly quoting Wells (which they deny) or some ripped off version of Wells that was dumped on an atheist propaganda website.

I contend that it is not rock solid. The best evidence you have is Galatians 1:19. I hardly find 1 mention as rock solid.

In short, if you are a Jesus Myther, enjoy wearing your tin foil hat. But you'll have to do something more than claim you are evidenced driven when presentations of the actual evidence are met with anger and bland, non-professional denial. All that proves is that it really is a giant conspiracy theory - one worthy of tin foil hats it bestows.

I have never used anger or denial. Please show me where I used anger? Your words have been continually deragatory, not mine. Show me to be in error in forum etiquette.

[stubbornone]

@Stubborn

You see how Mithrae debated? Thats proper debate. What you do is just provide a link and say., "see, I told you so". Provide evidence and then show why that evidence is what you claim it to be. I have no problem accepting something that can be shown true.

Oh? Now you are giving lectures in proper debate? And the simple fact of the matter is that you are not using logic, evidence, and are indeed not accepting something that is provably true.

So lets see how debate actually works shall we?

Thesis: That the Jesus Myth is nothing more than a conspiracy fousted by over zealous atheists.

Proof: Academic consensus (with citation), the avoidance of the central pieces of evidence (which you are doing even after you demand they be presented), several volumes of evidence presented as both Biblical and extra Biblical sources. Archaeological evidence that further backs up the Biblical and other documented sources.

Common rebuttals: Weak excuses and double standards to exclude valid evidence, notably in Wells (presented rebuttals to Wells works that highlight this trend). A focus on minutia that is not germane to the actual existence of Christ in the historical record, the fact there is no credible alternative to historical Jesus - and indeed zero evidence that points to anything other than a historical Jesus.

Indeed, all the argumentative efforts of Jesus Mythers are about why we should re-evaluate non-standard pieces of evidence, have no professional or historical basis and rest entirely upon atheistic preconception of 'God'.

Despite the claims of being evidenced based, the Jesus Mythers are time and again shown to lack even basic familiarity with the historical record - and indeed the wider academic debate about the historicity of Jesus. Indeed, as per the professional opinion of period experts:

Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in Jesus and the Word.

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.

Restated Conclusion: The Jesus myth in a pernicious piece of propaganda that is not worthy of respect.

You may not like where the evidence leads, but the evidence is clear - and you are on the wrong side of it.

Indeed, while you complain to the mods about proper argumentative and evidence presentation, you offer none, address none of the points, and simply demand that your position be treated as either equal to Christian doctrine and evidence, or at least like its reasonable to doubt that record based on ... nothing.

Well, sorry Nickman, but the Jesus Myth is dismissed by period experts as insane, and examination of the historical and evidential record is overwhelmingly against Jesus Mythers. I tend to agree with them, and find that the only pretense that even allows respectability is pretending that discussion about a few pieces of minutia are actually central to the evidential picture on Jesus. In short, its nothing but confirmation bias and, although the rejection of such a position should be civil, it must nevertheless be unequivicable and undeniable.

The Jesus Myth is a conspiracy theory. Nothing more. It belongs in the same intellectual category as the 9-11 conspiracy and the fake moon landing. There is a reason that this myth has almost no traction outside atheist community ... just as other conspiracy theories lack standing outside their particular niche community.

Indeed, no one has presented a compelling case as to why we should consider Jesus a Myth, or offered any credible alternative to a historical Jesus. Yet the Mythers demand to be taken seriously?

Why should they be?

[Nickman]

@Stubbornone

I answered your post in my last post.

[historia]

I would expand and clarify this point.

There have always been thinking Jews and pagans who have stood "outside of tradition," been critical of Christianity, and yet never denied that Jesus was a "real person."

In the 1800's, some skeptics began to question the historicity of Jesus, and that position gained some ground in academic circles. However, early in the 20th Century, with the emergence of critical historical Jesus research, scholars discarded this 'Jesus Myth' hypothesis as inadequate. Today it is near universally rejected by scholars.

In recent years, some amateur historians and atheists have attempted to resurrect this long-ago-discarded theory and popularize it on the Internet. And so here we are.

Which tells me that the debate is far from over and there are reasons to believe Jesus existed and reasons to believe he didn't and was made up.

What it tells me is that people are easily mislead by information they read on the Internet.

There are any number of reasons why interpolations can end-up in a manuscript. Scribes can accidentally copy marginal notes into the main of the text, for example. In this case, we might suppose that an over-zealous scribe wanted to replace the original (rather neutral, if not somewhat negative) reference to Jesus in Antiquities with one that was more positive.

Which means you have no idea if what your actually reading is or is not accurate. If you cannot verify accuracy, then claims in the affirmative are dishonest. Interpolations can also be consciously dishonest to gain ground for whatever purpose.

I agree. But this is true of all historical documents. We can never know (in some absolute sense) whether our sources are accurate or not. This is why historians always speak about what is probable or what most likely happened in the past.

Listen, no one here is making a claim to absolute knowledge on this (or any other) topic. We're simply saying that the hypothesis that Jesus existed is the most likely explanation for the available data. Until you're ready to bring your arguments down to that level, I'm afraid we're debating epistemology rather than history.

We know Eusebius most likely placed the interpolation into Josephus and there is no other good reason for doing so other than the agenda of gaining creedence for the Jesus story in a well-known and respected historian.

If JESUS had enough evidence for his existence then why did a church icon have to put false information about Jesus into a historical document?

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

Second, I already provided (above) two likely explanations for how this interpolation could have entered the text, neither of which require us to make further assumptions about a conspiracy, and thus are preferable to your hypothesis.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually exapanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

Finally, and as I've already noted, there is no evidence that any critic of Christianity at this time doubted the existence of Jesus, and there is no evidence that the early Church Fathers felt the need to defend the historicity of Jesus in their writings. In other words, there is no evidence for this motive you assert "must" have been the reason for this interpolation.

The theological controversy that lead to the Council of Nicea concerned the nature of Jesus' divinity, and was in no way, shape, or form an argument over the "fleshly Jesus." Both sides in the Arian debate believed that Jesus was a real, historical, flesh-and-blood human being.

Some Christians in the early church (often called Docetists) did deny that Jesus had a physical body. They nevertheless believed that Jesus was a real, historical person. This position emerged rather early in the history of Christianity, and had been settled (at least in the minds of the orthodox) centuries before Nicea. So it has no meaningful bearing on the "context" of the time period in question here.

This was the time when the interpolation was made. So there is some sort of correlation here.

Why? If the scribe who made this change was motivated by factors independent of the events in his day, then there is no need to "correlate" this change to any events -- political, theological, or otherwise -- at this time.

You seem like a smart and thoughtful person, Nickman. Unfortunately, it appears that your opinions on this topic are shaped by websites that are providing grossly misleading and inaccurate information, leaving you misinformed on a number of important points.

I would encourage you to put aside these unreliable sources and read scholarly works on this topic. I can recommend a few books, if you are so inclined.

My opinions are based on a wide variety of evidence.

Or, more accurately, your opinions are based on a wide variety of evidence and secondary writings that analyze that evidence. So are mine, so is everyone else's here.

This is why I think it is vital that you turn to scholarly works here. If the sources you are relying upon to help you analyze the evidence are anything like the website you quoted earlier, then you are relying upon a very poor and misinformed analysis.

[Goat]

We know Eusebius most likely placed the interpolation into Josephus and there is no other good reason for doing so other than the agenda of gaining creedence for the Jesus story in a well-known and respected historian.

If JESUS had enough evidence for his existence then why did a church icon have to put false information about Jesus into a historical document?

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It, actually, is more than 'mere speculation'. It is taking into account 1) the fact the Eusebius is the first one that quoted that verse, 2) other analyzed it and came to the conclusion the grammar and style is Eusebius (see Eusebian fabrications: the Testimonium Flavianum by Ken Olsen

[Nickman]

What it tells me is that people are easily mislead by information they read on the Internet.

That's a possibility, but I dont rely on just one text or one scholar. I am looking at all of the extant writings we have available. The sources I use are from ones that make a point based on evidence available. We cannot discredit an argument because of where it comes from. That is the fallacy of authority, and in some respects, delving into popularity. If Stubbornone makes a point, I cannot discount it because he is not a scholar. Same goes with you or me. Every argument must be dealt with individually. If the opposition says that a point is invalid because the majority of scholarship disagrees, it is a fallacy.

I agree. But this is true of all historical documents. We can never know (in some absolute sense) whether our sources are accurate or not. This is why historians always speak about what is probable or what most likely happened in the past.

Not with certainty, but with evidence on that side we can say that this is believable and trustworthy.

Listen, no one here is making a claim to absolute knowledge on this (or any other) topic. We're simply saying that the hypothesis that Jesus existed is the most likely explanation for the available data. Until you're ready to bring your arguments down to that level, I'm afraid we're debating epistemology rather than history.

I have already said it is possible. I am arguing that there are many more
exts we have not looked at. I am not going to accept an appeal to authority as the final word. The appeal to scholarship is not a valid argument. Stating, the scholars say so, is not evidence.

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just on my part. That's where the evidence leads. Even if it wasn't Eusebius, it was a Christian from the same time frame.

Second, I already provided (above) two likely explanations for how this interpolation could have entered the text, neither of which require us to make further assumptions about a conspiracy, and thus are preferable to your hypothesis.

Right and I gave mine as well, which is likely. I fail to see how an innocent slip and accident, placed such a verse in a historical document. There is a motivation behind it.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually exapanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

What text? The mention of James? We don't have enough information to make a specific connection to the Gospel and NT characters. Do we know that James was stoned? Also, I gave an explanation earlier about John the Baptist and asked why Jesus is only mentioned in one word. Jesus made more of a menace than John yet John is spoken of in great detail. The words about John are very Christian.

Ill have to answer the rest later, my pain in my leg is back and I cannot concentrate properly. My apologies.