Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Spidey Fallacy Two Debunks · New blog on the kid: Alex Yordanov Objected · Perspective on the Children's Crusade
I'm right now in a library.
It doesn't allow viewing or making comments under youtubes, but does allow viewing notifications, including about comments.
Now, previously, the comments under this video, insofar as mine or adressed to me:
This Terrible Atheist Meme About the Gospels Must Stop
Testify | 16 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYULmDa_NSo
... have been posted on this post:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Spidey Fallacy Two Debunks
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/07/spidey-fallacy-two-debunks.html
Right when I left the cyber and went to the library, where I can't answer, Alex Yordanov made these points:
And why are you telling me this?!? A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, specifically atheist history like the baby crusades. Just saying, it's meant to be history, is ...
That's completely different text. You made the claim that,, Fictional writing doesn't explain institutions ", which I used this comment to say that you are wrong. I...
Ah, why didn't he say so earlier.
No, I didn't make the claim that fictional writing doesn't explain institutions. I made the claim that fictional stories don't explain real institutions. As an example, Spiderman features a newspaper called The Daily Bugle. If Spiderman had instead had Peter Parker as journalist on New York Times or New York Herald Tribune, Spiderman would have had to deal with real life owners and real life famous journalists on these papers. In 1941, or 1963, instead of J. Jonah Jameson, one would have had to deal with James Reston:
After working briefly for the Springfield, Ohio, Daily News, he joined the Associated Press in 1934. He moved to the London bureau of The New York Times in 1939, but returned to New York in 1940.
In 1942, he took a leave of absence to establish a U.S. Office of War Information in London. In 1945, following the end of World War II, he rejoined The New York Times as a national correspondent in Washington, D.C..
In 1948, he was appointed diplomatic correspondent.[5] In 1953, he became bureau chief and columnist.
Reston served as associate editor of The New York Times from 1964 to 1968, executive editor from 1968 to 1969, and vice president from 1969 to 1974. He wrote a nationally syndicated column from 1974 until 1987, when he became a senior columnist. During the Nixon administration, he was on U.S. president Richard Nixon's list of political opponents
Or with Ogden Mills Reid, Whitelaw Reid (one of his sons), Ogden Reid / Ogden Rogers Reid (who was also in the House of Representatives and an Ambassador to Israel), and John Hay Whitney (an Ambassador to the UK).
Of course the fictional writing in Spiderman could have included and explained either of these papers, but as their real story was already well established, Marvel Comics couldn't have replaced that real story with a fictional one. They would have had to give the real story or an approximation, or a conspiracy theory for which the real story could be presented as a front, credibly, they couldn't just make up a fictional story instead of the real one.
So, even in a fictional writing, there would be no fictional story to explain the real institutions of New York Times or New York Herald Tribune.
Now, Alex Yordanov (wonder if he's a Bulgarian politician*) made two claims that are visible in this preview. By the way, if he is that politician, I resent a man of 74 talking down to a man of 57 with comments like "your childish game" and things. I also find it less appropriate in a debate that cares for precise nuance, as mine does, to get intercepted by someone who is obviously using google translate.** Or not. I tried to translate and backtranslate, didn't give his resumé, so I'll assume he's simply resuming what he thought I meant. But here are the claims:
1) I'm wrong that fictional writing does not explain institutions (I presume he means real ones), no example given.
2) A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, example given the Children's Crusade.***
Now, it would seem the Children's Crusade is not actually a fiction. It may be fake news, or history that got distorted, according to the Dutch scholar Peter Raedts, but it isn't a fictional story that was then mistaken as a true history. If anything other than true history, it is a distortion of real history, and I never claimed real history never gets distorted.
The event is purported to take place in 1212, and the sources are, by Peter Raedts divided into:
- Contemporary sources written by 1220;
- Sources written between 1220 and 1250 (the authors could have been alive at the time of the crusade but wrote their memories down later);
- Sources written after 1250 by authors who received their information second or third hand.
This obviously means, even according to an extreme sceptic of the story, there were contemporary sources. In other words, it is not fiction. After Peter Raedts one scholar came forward with this claim:
At least one source, that of a man simply known as Otto the last puer, was written by an individual who claimed to have participated in the Children's Crusade.
Sourced: Dickson, Gary (2008). Children's Crusade: Medieval History, Modern Mythistory
I don't know if Otto ultimus puer came forward before or after 1250, but obviously even if he had come out after 1250, given he was child or young teen in 1212, he could have been one participant who was still alive.
So, no, the example doesn't work. The Children's Crusade isn't a fictional story that got taken for real history, and the origin is not actually atheists trying to bash Medieval Christendom. Now, back to Peter Raedts:
It is only in the later non-authoritative narratives that a "children's crusade" is implied by such authors as Vincent of Beauvais, Roger Bacon, Thomas of Cantimpré, Matthew Paris and many others.
Vincent of Beauvais died in 1264. Even if his account is after 1250, he was a contemporary. And Beauvais and Cloyes, where Stephen of Cloyes started out, are both just a little further off from Paris than suburbs, Cloyes not too far from Orléans. Thomas of Cantimpré was about the same age as Stephen of Cloyes, but he was in Belgium. Cambrai is to Cologne, where Nicholas started a thing, a bit over 300 km, while Beavais is to Cloyes a little less than 200 on the shortest route. Matthew Paris, again, contemporary. Died 1259. Peter Raedt writing in 1977 wanted us to believe they understood an event of 1212 less well than he writing centuries later.
No, the Children's Crusade is not fiction, even if it has been abused by Atheists and even if some very legitimately wanting to counter them have claimed it is fiction.
His other point, I can only guess what institutions he meant. As said, I couldn't read his entire comment.
If he's a Christian, he might not mean the Catholic Church and Gospels + Acts, as an Atheist would. But he could mean things like Book of Mormon, Golden Plates, Rome founded by Romulus. I'll briefly deal with each.
The Book of Mormon is no more an origin story for the Mormon Church than the Gospels are. Mormons may claim both American Christianity up to Moroni and Apostolic Christianity as remote past history, but they do not claim either as direct origin contemporary to the start of the Church. By origin story of Mormons, I mean Joseph Smith, his claim to receive visions, his claim to receive Golden Plates.
Now Golden Plates. The claim could be totally fraudulent, it could also be demonic, it is nevertheless part of the real story of the origin of Mormons that the claim was at least made.
And Rome founded by Romulus, as a Catholic Christian, I must insist, in respect for St. Augustine and the Martyrology for Christmas Day:
Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo
And City of God, book III, chapter 3:°
There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defense, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from Troy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not its avengers. "The city of Rome," says Sallust, "was first built and inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their country, under the conduct of Æneas, wandered about without making any settlement." If, then, the gods were of opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery was brought about by Æneas' mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus, who (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with Anchises, and so became the mother of Æneas? Is it because in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, let us say that Æneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing to admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.
Let me highlight the last sentence:
However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cæsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.
In other words, it's not Patristic tradition to doubt Rome was founded by Romulus.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Praxedis of Rome
21.VII.2026
Romae sanctae Praxedis Virginis, quae, in omni castitate et lege divina cum esset erudita, vigiliis et orationibus atque jejuniis assidue vacans, quievit in Christo, sepultaque est, juxta sororem suam Pudentianam, via Salaria.
PS, excuse an oversight, here is the article on Children's Crusade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
PPS, next day I'm able to access the full comments:
That's completely different text. You made the claim that,, Fictional writing doesn't explain institutions ", which I used this comment to say that you are wrong. I also said in my previous comment that CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT. You did something I like to call , target change. We know Joseph Smith existed since there are historical records of him outside the Book of Mormon, just like there are outside records confirming the Bible. If anything Joseph Smith not understanding events of which he is outside observer as much as anyone else, (a lot of people didn't know the official date of Independence) , proves he wasn't fictional character, we never made claim it PROVES HIS WORD. You are attacking a claim we never made. Testify himself saying multiple times in the video ,, That's not prove", the video never was trying to prove anything, it was answering why the Spiderman falacy was illigatimate.
1) I was not attacking the idea that historicity proves the divinity of Jesus, since I didn't find it, I was just distinguishing what a good grasp on my answer to the Spiderman fallacy can and can't establish, historicity in a general sense, yes, inerrancy or divinity, no.
2) The thing is, Joseph Smith is part of the Mormon account of how the Mormon Church as such, as distinct from the Apostolic Church and the supposed American covenant people, came about. The content of Book of Mormon is irrelevant, like the Gospels, because it's not about immediate origins, but about supposed predecessors in the far off past. Mormons are as restorationist about Nephite Church as they are about the Apostolic Church, affirming unbroken continuity with neither.
And why are you telling me this?!? A lot of fictional stories are taken as history, specifically atheist history like the baby crusades. Just saying, it's meant to be history, is unnecessary to say , It's obvious, but I guess pseudo-intellectuals with nothing important to say must always point obvious factor we all see . The Baby crusades is also meant to be taken as history, does this give it any credit.
Again missing a distinction of mine. Fiction is in fact not meant to be taken as history. Real history is, fake history is, fiction isn't.
Children's Crusade may or may not involve a gross misunderstanding, but is not even fake history, it's real history.
Then there is "taken as history by the first [known] audience." If the first known audience about the Children's Crusade had been pupils in Communist Bulgarian schools, the fact it was taken as history would not have mattered, it would not have made any argument for the history being real. But when the thing taken as history is either close to (purported) events or the origin story of the audience taking it for history, when that audience is a community, it matters. Vincent of Beauvais was close enough in time for fake history to be a tour de force needing explanation in the case of the Children's Crusade. Earliest known late OT readers and commenters on Genesis viewed this as the origin of the people which from Exodus became their own. Gospels fit both criteria where "meant as history" makes "fake history" hard to argue. Book of Mormon fits neither./HGL
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Yordanov
If it isn't he, the politician might do well to state he has no youtube or the youtuber to state he's not the politician.
** English to Bulgarian:
Fake origin stories don't explain real institutions. / Фалшивите истории за произход не обясняват истинските институции.
Back:
False origin stories do not explain real institutions.
To Macedonian:
...Лажните приказни за потеклото не ги објаснуваат вистинските институции.
Back:
False origin stories do not explain real institutions.
*** That he called it the "baby crusade" is an indication that he's not familiar with the English term. In fact, he could have been reading up in Italian:
fanciulli = children, boys, little ones, infants, babes, young, and Children's Crusade = Crociata dei fanciulli
° https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120103.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment