lol no, you don't get to add a self-serving "aka" that changes the argument completely.
The topic is about whether the number of historical sources for Jesus outnumber the sources for other historical characters, in this case the emperor.
The topic is about whether the number of historical sources for Jesus outnumber the sources for other historical characters, in this case the emperor.
Comments
this is his excerpt
You seem to have misunderstood my comment. It is 10/42 proponents who argue that Jesus is over represented in sources (false) and is therefore divine (that argument is fleshed out
If your intention with the article was simply to provide evidence of Jesus’ historical existence, then
A) it’s really weird to do so by providing a refutation to the 10/42 slogan and not a direct mythicist refutation, such as Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of The New
B) Choosing such a tangential source such as this blog that addresses a different argument entirely could be construed as an attempt to muddy the water by introducing the irrelevancy to the conversation about mythicism of the 10/42 debate.
Also, my man, why does he place entire pages of context before that building?
Again, the title emphasizes the apologist nature of the 10/42 argument, making it literally the purpose of the article: refuting this specific apologist argument via several lines of attack.