the-pied-piper.bsky.social
We have the potential to love like the sun does—a golden cup over flowing without expectation of return.
Trying to do that.
NC Courage | Steelers | Dolphins| he/him
State Democrat staffer in a red state
The inequities of others do not excuse our own.
7,042 posts
1,975 followers
1,496 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It’s such a bad plan but bro I feel you on this some days
comment in response to
post
I haven’t said anything to a single loving soul on his position on Palestine either
Again, mayors don’t do foreign policy. We will keep funding Ukraine or not (hopefully at a much higher level) entirely independent of who is mayor in any city
The example you gave is great stuff, but isn’t defense
comment in response to
post
The idea that Trump cares at all what this guy thinks about anything is laughable.
Like, seriously?
Hey I hope he does support Ukraine, but the idea of asking non-fed elected foreign policy positions is absurd. We fought an entire war about only the fed Govt getting to set foreign policy
comment in response to
post
Remind me, which mayors in the US have a say in foreign policy?
Or governors for that matter.
comment in response to
post
Or stealing abortion rights in literally the middle of the night.
Or stealing the powers of the Governor, AG, and Superintendent because they were upset they lost an election (all under the guise of a hurricane Helene relief bill where 12/126 pages even remotely dealt with Helene)
comment in response to
post
Libsoftiktok grabbed a screenshot of a crowd video and let her followers construe it as a picture of the rep.
Totally absurd non-scandal.
comment in response to
post
A screen shot of a video of the crowd*
Like. That’s it. It was a crowd video, they’ve taken a screen shot of a frame and claimed she’s the person with the sign.
comment in response to
post
“Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me”
All time number one anti fascist slogan, and it works on issues big to small!
comment in response to
post
I’d rather know you’re under big bidet’s thumb than wonder how you’re making rent tbh.
comment in response to
post
Every single minute we waste blaming people to our left—instead of our own leadership who knowingly chose to risk everything for their own comfort—is a minute we spend advancing the Nazi project instead of combatting it.
Until we are the Overton Window’s right, it’s utterly pointless punching left.
comment in response to
post
Dude just told me that the context of his sources doesn’t matter at all so long as the source can be construed as derailing his interlocutor
I’ve never seen someone be smug while straight up admitting to deceptive tactics before
Imagine if one side had just sailed into Red Cliffs’ rocks unprompted
comment in response to
post
This is such an amazing self own that it belongs in @thelouvreof.bsky.social but idk how they’d possibly edit the screenshot to fit the needed 10-20 posts to show it.
comment in response to
post
The blog addresses a particular apologist argument, the 10/42 argument, which claims Jesus is so turbo extra quadruple documented that he is historical & must be divine.
The blog refutes that he isn’t actually 4x documented, and that even if he was, it wouldn’t mean his nature is special.
comment in response to
post
too*
comment in response to
post
Haha lol I did mention him!
I got my ass up and walked to my book shelf to make sure I got the title right to.
comment in response to
post
I provided a screen shot of the context of the argument.
It baffles me that you have read a blog, one which goes to great lengths to tell you it’s context, and not actually read the argument it is responding to.
The author charitably assumes you either know or will look up the 10/42 argument.
comment in response to
post
is not evidence of non-existence.
The blog never once claims Jesus didn’t exist, or that there’s literally no evidence closer to his life (if it did make that claim it would need to contend with the Q gospel, as I’ve noted).
comment in response to
post
individual would prove there was some truly unique aspect of the individual’s nature.
C) Because A and B are true of Jesus, Jesus must be divine.
The blog refutes both A and B, thereby negating C.
The Agrippina argument does not make either A or B claims.
It simply noted that late documentation
comment in response to
post
Again, I am not claiming it *because* it’s used by apologists.
I’m saying the 10/42 argument makes that claim because it is literally what the authors, who happen to be apologists, claim
They claim
A) There is a super abundance of evidence of Jesus (wrong)
B) A super abundance of evidence about an
comment in response to
post
“The few paragraphs you read of it seem to” would be a more accurate statement.
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.
comment in response to
post
Except, vitally, one of those premises is “the super abundance of sources about an individual is evidence of some extremely special aspect of that individual’s nature”
The article refutes the super abundance relative to Tiberius & separately refutes the “lots of evidence would mean special” premise
comment in response to
post
I have very specifically argued that the blog you linked does not address the same kind of argument the post made about Agrippina.
I demonstrated that 10/42 is not the same type of argument, but now you claim me doing so is “moving the goal posts” because *you* don’t know 10/42’s argument?
comment in response to
post
If we are using bolding as a proxy for authorial intent, I must point out that the title is in a bigger font size and in bold. It is therefore bolder than the bold you cited and I win this very silly method of analysis.
Also, my man, why does he place entire pages of context before that building?
comment in response to
post
I’m sorry, but your argument simply doesn’t work because you clearly do not understand what the blog is doing
It is refuting 10/42’s premises & methodology, thereby undercutting 10/42’s conclusion
It never argues that Jesus didn’t exist or that less documentation vs another figure would suggest so
comment in response to
post
survive the Middle Ages.
If anything, the blog actually argues against why you cited it in that section.
So, once again, did you read two paragraphs, or the entire thing?
comment in response to
post
is what you’d need to refute the example.
In fact, the blog argues that we’d expect less sourcing for Jesus, no matter what his cult came to be later. And, more over, the blog argues that we do have more evidence than expected for Jesus because of his cult’s influence on the records that
comment in response to
post
to refute the kind of argument actually made in the Agrippina comparison, it is deeply suspect that you didn’t choose a source more directly relevant (such as the Ehrman text I mentioned).
Even still, the blog never argues that “just because it’s mentioned less and later it didn’t exist” which
comment in response to
post
No, the point of that blog is to refute 10/42’s premises AND it’s methodology, thereby cutting off its apologetic conclusion.
You are significantly misrepresenting it (and doing the blog author a disservice) by pretending 10/42 isn’t a claim about Jesus’ divinity.
Again, if your goal was merely
comment in response to
post
10/42 is a much more ambitious (and wrong) claim than the type of argument the post offered for the comparison to Agrippina.
You would know this if you and read the blog carefully, and if upon reading it you realized you needed to know the entirety of the 10/42 argument, as the author indicates.
comment in response to
post
No. And this is how I know you have not done the reading.
The 10/42 argument is more than just a simple “x has more documents than y evidence”
It’s specifically “Jesus has so much more than Tiberius that Jesus must be historical AND divine.”
A refutation of 10/42 does not address the post’s point
comment in response to
post
to offer any evidence at all for the Mythicist viewpoint, as that wasn’t the goal of the blog to start with (cus, again, it’s on an entirely different subject).
comment in response to
post
Though lost to us, it is known to have existed and accepted by all serious scholarship. This document is actually a major problem for Mythicist “scholars” which is one of the things discrediting them, and which your source doesn’t even begin to address.
So, again. The blog was irrelevant and fails
comment in response to
post
The blog goes on, however, to show that there IS historical evidence for Jesus, just substantially less than for Tiberius.
That said, the blog fails to deal with another significant document that would meet the blog’s criteria for be documents, the lost Q document / Q gospel / common source.
comment in response to
post
conclusions without seeming to know them. I can understand how you reached this error, and I could perhaps have made it clearer.
But you are not practicing the basic charity required of good faith debate. I took the time to lay out your position and even highlight the nuance in your argument.
comment in response to
post
Respectfully, you seem to not know the complete 10/42 argument. The blog makes clear it is dealing with the premises of the argument, not it’s conclusions (since by destroying the premises the conclusion would no longer follow from them).
You are attempting to refute my statements about the 10/42
comment in response to
post
Millennium”
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.
comment in response to
post
in the book).
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
comment in response to
post
The blog author calls it the “apologetic 10/42 slogan” that he has debated regularly with “Christian apologists.”
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
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I have to ask, did YOU read the article?
It’s entire context, which has been repeatedly revised and expanded, is that the 10/42 argument is an apologist argument by apologists for apologists.
Like, bro. It’s even in the title.
comment in response to
post
as the Chancellor said.
You have not provided evidence that any serious scholars support the Mythicist position, and you DID reference a blog that was off topic & ultimately dealing with the question of Jesus’ divinity (cus, again, 10/42 is ultimately an apologist argument for his divinity).
7/7
comment in response to
post
likely drew from, as that would be a document much closer to Jesus’ life, one we know existed despite not having copies of it]
In short, neither the Mythicist nor the 10/42 arguments are held in esteem by secular scholars, and your article didn’t even purport to argue otherwise—it was irrelevant
6/
comment in response to
post
prevalence of many other types of evidence one expects to find. Namely, that no one person can be consigned to myth simply because they don’t show up in documents.
[A critique of the blog would be its general failure to deal with lost documents, specifically the lost Q gospel Mark & Mathew
5/
comment in response to
post
10/42 as factually in error, and as ignoring a wide range of information.
However, literally nothing in the article has to do with the mythicist claim (that there was no historical Jesus at all).
Even your point about Agrippina fails to be served by that blog, as it also mentions the
4/