EarlDoherty

Well, now I see why we can’t have a rational discussion. Not only do we live in different universes, we have a completely different understanding of the English language.

There is no tautology, let alone nonsense, in your first line, since the second phrase in it serves to clarify what the first one refers to.

In the second, there is no clarification, both are stating the same thing at the same level and thus it is a tautology.

How about:
In 1942, the Allies went on an air raid over Hamburg. At that time, they bombed an armaments factory.

There is no nonsense, no tautology. They are both talking about the same event. The second part clarifies the particulars. And if all a number of witnesses or accounts of that bombing raid speak only of bombing that particular armaments factory, then we cannot assume that they bombed anything else.

Oh, you told me. So whatever you tell me that scholars “think is going on” I’m expected to immediately accept that? Scholars think a lot of things, a lot of them nonsense. I’ll check matters out for myself, if you don’t mind. If I happen to come to the same conclusion, fine.

I know that taute is Eusebius’ word, even though you ran the quote and the following line by him together. I guess your assumption of my incompetence was what led you to miss how I showed that it does not sink my case.

Your problem, Ben, is that you try to think things through too technically. And you get yourself all tied up in those technicalities. You don’t ask yourself how a given Christian writer was liable to think, how he might be capable of making statements which could have some misleading grammatical elements to it, whether he is capable of introducing things on his own initiative. Christian writers are full of such stuff. How did the author of the Acts of Paul end up having other Christians martyred along with Paul? I don’t need to present the complicated argument that you seem to require. The answer is: He made it up! Just like he made up all the stuff in the exchange between Nero and Paul. Do you think he got that from any ‘source’? Do you think in that exchange he was adapting something he found in some historian? Where did Christians get the legends of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome—especially in view of the fact that most thinking scholars today reject that Peter was ever there. The answer is: They made it up! Where did they got all that nonsensical junk in all the apocryphal Acts of this and that apostle? The answer is: They made it up! Where did they get the details of the reports in the Acts of Pilate? They made them up! Where did they get the material for the letters between Paul and Seneca? They made it up! Where did Eusebius get his letters between Jesus and Abgar? He made them up, or else got from someone else who made them up!

And if you don’t think so, then you are far more naïve than I gave you credit for. It would be fool’s errand to try to “mount an argument” as to what source they derived these things from, and I don’t go on fool’s errands.

And save us all the sneering innuendo about my linguistic abilities. “Postea” I didn’t have to look up. And if there were a new Heaven’s Gate sect that believed there were pink elephants on the far side of the moon (after all, didn’t Amaleq point to them as believing in gods or whatever on the other side of the comet as an example of gullibility?), they might come up to you and say “How do we know there are no pink elephants living on the far side of the moon.” Not only is the analogy competent enough, I don’t see any difference between it and the Christian claim that there are Gods, heavenly beings and saints living on some spiritual heavenly body somewhere. You recently said that you believe in God even in the admitted absence of evidence. So the question is apt in your mouth: “How do we know God doesn't exist, even though there is no evidence?” I see no difference between that and “How do we know there aren’t pink elephants on the far side of the moon?” Both are as nonsensical in the absence of evidence.

My analogy has proven more than apt.

Earl Doherty

Amaleq13

That's a rather ironic comment since you appear to have completely misunderstood the plain English of Ben's post.

It is clear (or should be) that the first line isn't supposed to be a tautology, Earl. This line represents Ben's position. Ben is arguing that it becomes a tautology when your position is applied to it.

Yes, this is the only line that is a tautology and the only line that was supposed to be one. This line represents your position as Ben sees it.

Is he wrong in saying that you are claiming that the "Christians" in the first line refers only to Peter and Paul? That is certainly the impression I've obtained from reading your posts.

EarlDoherty

What? Are you serving as Ben’s intermediary? Why doesn’t he speak for himself, or does he now consider himself above that? Well, if you’re speaking for him, neither one of you has thought it through. You particularly are always a bit too quick off the mark, shooting from the hip (complete with your usual smart-ass smilie), without giving things enough in-depth consideration. Perhaps that is because you always seem to work at a superficial level of argument (“People are gullible”).

First of all, the first line cannot represent Ben’s position, because it is neutral. If it can be taken either way then Ben cannot consider it a statement of his position. If he does, he has poorly presented it. In fact, the more natural way to take it is: “Nero was the first to wield the sword against Christians. That consisted of the killing of Peter and Paul.” It cannot be automatically taken the way Ben wants it: “Nero was the first to wield the sword against Christians. After that first wielding of the sword, he killed Peter and Paul in a separate action.” All that would have to be read into it.

Instead, he seems to be using that neutral/ambiguous statement to imply that, as I am reading it, it actually means what the second line states. Instead, I am reading it as I described using my ‘bombing raid’ analogy, that the second phrase in it serves to clarify what the first phrase refers to. He is the one claiming that, as I read it, it is a tautology. Well, it is not a tautology, and cannot be one, because it moves from a general statement to the clarification of what the general statement means in particular. He has made a clear mistake in linguistic analysis by saying that the second line, containing two identical particulars can be in any way equivalent to the first line, which contains a general element and a particular element. That is his failure to understand the English language properly, which is the point I made and which you have jumped on without thinking through.

Of course he’s not wrong. That’s not the point, and it shows that you don’t understand what is going on here. Just because I understand the two parts of the first sentence to be referring to the same thing does not mean that I have created a tautology. The tautology exists only in the wording of the second line. It does not exist in the wording of the first line, nor in the idea that I read in it. Surely you can grasp the principle involved. Was my analogy a tautology?

Even though I intend the first phrase and the second phrase to refer to the same event, the statement as it stands is not a tautology. It only becomes one if I change the wording to say the same thing in both phrases: “In 1942, the Allies went to Hamburg and bombed an armaments factory. At that time they bombed an armaments factory.”

Ben is claiming that the wording of the first line is a tautology, given the meaning that I want to give it. But that meaning is not legitimately represented by the second line, because it is phrased in a way which no one would ever do. It is the wording, and only the wording, that creates the tautology. He is using an illegitimate wording of an idea to try to discredit a legitimate reading of that idea in the very different first line. That is not a rational or acceptable way to employ the English language. And that was my point. But perhaps it was a little too complex and subtle for you.

I also find it disconcerting that someone accorded the post of moderator on the IIDB would demonstrate such animosity and knee-jerk opposition to a longstanding and legitimately argued atheist-leaning scholarly position. Perhaps you would be better employed on a Christian discussion board.

Earl Doherty

Amaleq13

A plain reading of the two sentences is his position. First, a reference to "Christians". Second, a reference to Peter and Paul as specific examples of the aforementioned Christians.

You do realize, I hope, that this red herring and does nothing to rescue your misinterpretation from irony.

We've seen that it makes no sense to take it your way since it results in redundancy. Or are you arguing the author was a stylistically flawed writer?

Shouldn't there be a "solely" before "consisted" to better represent your position? Regardless, this rewording doesn't appear to eliminate the tautology your reading creates.

Yes and he appears to be correct since, IIUC, you contend that "Christians" refers only to Peter and Paul.

Your attempted analogy doesn't seem very analogous to me.

It should read more like this:
In 1942, the Allies went on an air raid over Hamburg and destroyed buildings. At that time, they bombed an armaments factory and an airport.

The phrase "destroyed buildings" is more analogous to the similarly plural "Christians".

Unfortunately for your position, it also reads very plainly as a transition from general "buildings" to specific examples just as Ben suggests we read the original sentences. It is certainly not obvious nor actually terribly reasonable to think that the author of the analogy intended the reader to understand that only the two specifically named were destroyed.

It is your claim that the "Christians" refers only to Peter and Paul, isn't it? That would make the mistake yours, wouldn't it?

My position as moderator is wholly irrelevant to my posts as a member and my only animosity is against poor arguments. Stop making them and we'll both be happy.

Isn't strange that I get accused of being a Christian almost every time I argue against a mythicist?

EarlDoherty

It is not a plain reading, and I have demonstrated that.

You have seen it that way, and I’ve demonstrated that you are wrong.

You know, Doug, discussion and debate proceeds not by simply restating your position after a counter-argument has been made. It proceeds by you tackling those counter-arguments and demonstrating how they are invalid and that your previous position is confirmed. You haven’t done that. It may come as news to you, but that’s how it's done.

No, Doug, you are trying to turn my analogy into something that automatically supports Ben, and does not conform to Ben’s line: “Nero was the first to wield the sword against Christians.” By you sticking in “and destroyed buildings” you are adding something specific, as though Ben said, “Nero was the first to wield the sword against a bunch of Christian arsonists,” which automatically must mean more than Peter and Paul, and would link them to the fire. That is not what Ben’s line says, and it cannot be made to say that. You are trying to get me to beg your question.

Yes, it is my claim, or at least that we cannot demonstrate that it is more than Peter and Paul, plus perhaps a few others which the legends of Peter and Paul have roped in with them, such as in the Acts of Paul (although even that is not in evidence in either Tertullian or Eusebius). All of this, to discredit any claim that references in Christian commentators before Sulpicius Severus support the picture in Tacitus’ Annals 15:44. (That is not any ‘changing of the goalposts.’ It has always been that.)

And you calling it a “mistake” is more begging the question. That is what we are trying to establish here.

I’m the one making poor arguments? I can see that this is all over your head, Doug. I think I’ll just leave you to bustle around by yourself. I`m not wasting any more time.

And I did not accuse you of being a Christian. I said that it was ironic that (even given your secular status) you showed such animosity to the Jesus myth position. And I simply wondered if that was appropriate to a moderator on the IIDB.

Earl Doherty

Simonmagus

Please explain how it would be any less appropriate than moderators showing such animosity to the historical Jesus position? I have noticed that on this forum also, so what is wrong with a moderator vigorously opposing the Jesus myth position here also?

What's good for the goose ...

Amaleq13

You tried but your effort requires one to assume the author presented a tautology. That doesn't appear to be plausible.

No, "buildings" is far from being that specific. It is wholly analogous to the similarly plural and generic "Christians". Your reference to "Hamburg" was neither a generic plural nor specific enough to be analogous.

Yes, and this argument ad hominem is only the most recent example.

Suggesting that I might be more appropriately placed as a moderator on a Christian site doesn't imply it?

I have no animosity to the Jesus myth position, Earl. I consider it a viable possibility. Poor arguments, as I already said, are another question.

There is no vow to uphold and protect the Jesus myth position involved in holding the position of moderator but, as I already mentioned, that position is entirely irrelevant to my posts here as a member. Throw this nonsense in as another example of poor argumentation.

Ben C Smith

If the only thing the air raid targeted and accomplished was the armaments factory itself, then I think this statement is misleading, since it appears on its surface that the bombing of the armaments factory was part of the air raid, not the whole of it. Y happened at the same time as X is just not a very good way of saying that X is fully constituted by Y.

No! Absolutely not. But I do expect you to interact with my statement, rather than keep writing your posts as if I never made it.

I am all in favor of you checking things out. So, when I first wrote to you that scholars think Eusebius was using a faulty Greek translation of the Latin, did you check things out? Or did you just ignore that part of my post for the next several pages of thread?

I doubt it. And do you know why I doubt he was using a source for the exchange between Paul and Nero? Because I cannot find that exchange anywhere else before or independently of the Acts of Paul. If a document were to be discovered that actually contained that exchange and was independent of this text, I would cheerfully change my mind.

Apply that to the persecution of other Christians in this text. Can you find a source or two that has other Christians dying under Nero? If so, then this datum is not in the same category as the exchange between Nero and Paul, is it? Or does multiple independent attestation mean nothing to you?

Do most thinking scholars reject this? (And what do you classify as a thinking scholar?) I know some do; I also know some do not.

No sneer was intended. Perhaps we all need a break.

My answer is that I do not know for certain, but I have no reason (yet) to think there are.

The question in the analogy was do they exist? The question in the Acts of Paul is where did they come from?

How can this be a tight analogy? Could you think of no better? I even gave you a better one. What was wrong with it?

We do not; the difference is that I do not claim to have objective evidence for the existence of God. Surely you appreciate that difference.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That is not how I want it; that is one way of taking tunc, but it is the other way of taking tunc that I have been talking about most.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

BTW, Earl, still no comments on Revelation and the Ascension of Isaiah?

After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, he who has ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descend from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother; he himself will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the beloved have planted. Of the twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

Ben.