.

aataat.bsky.social

24 August 2025 02:37

No it wasn't. There's literally no part of reason that is violated by finding that question idiotic. It's a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion to have.

.

aataat.bsky.social

17 June 2025 23:17

Literally no mention of divinity. Just the EXISTENCE of Jesus. Just like I said. You can also look at other sources that discuss the 10/42 argument which makes it clear it used to discuss the historicity of Jesus (even if some apologists continue on to argue about Jesus' divinity)

.

aataat.bsky.social

17 June 2025 23:17

AI agrees as well if you put weight into that (see attached image) ---- So it's clear that you - either through ignorance or blatant dishonesty - misrepresented what the 10/42 argument is commonly used for and the purpose of the original blog: to discuss historicity. Not divinity.

.

aataat.bsky.social

17 June 2025 23:16

"Have you heard the argument that Jesus must have existed because “42 ancient sources record Jesus 150 years within his lifetime, whereas only 10 mention the contemporary Roman emperor Tiberius,” and ...[therefore] we should conclude Jesus existed?" www.richardcarrier.info/archives/268...

.

aataat.bsky.social

17 June 2025 23:07

Again there isn't just one "author" this claim has been made by a myriad of different people. You're just wrong.