Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Let's Talk Religion"
channel.
-
17
-
@benjalucian1515 Even if someone had written about Jesus, it probably didn't survive. In fact it is really amazing how much stuff actually made it through the 2,000 years between then and now. Indeed, much was lost, like Claudius' history of Rome, the writings of the Etruscans, etc. It is why the discovery of the library at Herculaneum and the Dead Sea Scrolls were so important. Most everything else is a copy of a copy of a copy, or a brief propaganda inscription on a monument or temple.
Christianity did threaten the Romans religion, because they refused to worship the Roman gods. The Romans were afraid that if their gods were ignored, Mars and Jupiter would withdraw their support for the empire. Christians refused to worship these gods, or even recognize their existence. Therefore, they were liable for punishment by death for atheism. "Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime." (from the Wikipedia page on History of Atheism). Why were Pliny and Trajan talking about forcing Christians to sacrifice the Roman gods and the emperor? "If the accused denied that they had ever been a Christian, then once they had prayed to the Roman gods (in words dictated by Pliny himself), offered incense and wine to images of Trajan and the gods, and cursed Christ – which Pliny says true Christians are unable to do – they were then discharged." (from Wikipedia page on Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan). Oh, and if they didn't pray to the Roman gods they were executed. Doesn't sound like they were concerned about trade or business to me.
As far as writing things down, again, how many people were literate? Perhaps 5-10% of the population could write (and I am being generous here), and most of those people wanted nothing to do with the "unwashed masses". As far as literacy rates went, it would be about the same as Anglo-Saxon Britain during the "Dark Ages".
Christianity did spread slowly. Even in the time of Constantine Christians only comprised maybe 10% of the population of the Empire. However, it obviously spread fast and far enough that Trajan and Pliny are talking about it in AD 112, and Nero could find enough Christians in Rome in AD 59 to blame for the fire. Maybe just a few hundred at most, but enough to make into scapegoats.
And just to reiterate, based on the criteria you are using, most if not all of Anglo-Saxon, Scottish, Irish and Welsh history would be tossed in the dumpster as unreliable. You really should listen to the History of Britain podcast. It is well presented, completely areligious, lots of fun to listen to, and also makes my point about the reliability (or lack thereof) of historical documents, including Roman. I mean where else can you hear about bishops with armies? Or kings living in swamps? It was a real eye opener for me. 300+ episodes and he's not even to AD 1066.
Lastly, I would like to repeat I am not making this argument based on my religious beliefs, but rather on the historical basis for the existence of Jesus. I am quite deliberately distinguishing the two, because the teachings of Jesus, like it or not, have had and continue to have a major impact on the world. For me the question of religion is a separate issue entirely, because faith is believing in something you cannot measure with the tools at hand. I am basing my argument solely on what is available based on academics and history. If you wish to disagree with me, that's fine. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But being in research, I always try to get my facts straight, so in my responses to you I have attempted to make sure my comments are based on the evidence. I think there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of Jesus, while you do not. In that case, we are likely to just end up agreeing to disagree. And as I have said to others before, without a time machine, there is no way to be 100% sure.
9
-
4
-
3
-
@benjalucian1515 One thing that is being forgotten is basic chemistry and physics. Any water soluble substance will disperse through the container it is in. The higher the energy (heat), the more rapidly it disperses (which is why the whole "hot thermal vent" theory is a farce). So, how are you going to concentrate your amino acids, nucleotides and phospholipids together in one place? How are you going to prevent the somewhat unstable RNA from continually falling apart? How are you going to get the RNA to form amino acid chains that are meaningful? How are you going to start to make proteins, because to make proteins you need ribosomes, and ribosomes are made up of proteins and RNA, and use RNA to determine which amino acids are to be selected next to make up the protein chain. How are you going to break down those stable protein chains if you don't have enzymes which, by the way, are proteins?
You end up with a horrendous chicken and egg situation here. And I haven't even started talking about the complex reactions required to nourish this new life, where you get sugars from, nor how ADP:ATP comes about because you need a rather rare substance, phosphorus, to make it. Evolutionists tend to ignore all these facts and say, "Tadah! See how easy it is for life to form?". Life is far more complicated than people think. And you can't say viruses were first, because viruses are parasites on cells. This all screams of intelligent design, whether you wish to accept it or not.
3
-
@benjalucian1515 About your response about the hot springs - you are talking about organisms that already exist, not chemical reactions. You are comparing apples to oranges here (or more accurately, apple juice to fully formed oranges). Speaking on RNA, it is only replicating itself, it is not creating proteins or coding from meaningful proteins, organizing itself or producing the more stable DNA. It is not creating enzymes that self-correct the strand, or any of the other things that living organisms do. All that this is doing is pointing to a soup of miscellaneous chemicals and saying, "See, you have a structured existence that demonstrates complex behaviour". Sorry, all this is doing is what a scientific cartoon showed years ago, which is pointing to the starting ingredients that has an arrow to a box reading "Then a miracle happens" and pointing to an end product. Also, this will be just one researcher's opinion disguised as reality (which happens an awful lot in the scientific community), because no one was even there when this all happened, and so it is purely conjecture. No one even really knows what the starting conditions were, it is still a matter of debate.
3
-
2
-
@benjalucian1515 Yes, I have read a lot on this topic and they do accept the writings. And Josephus' writings are not forgeries, It is accepted that one of the quotes was probably altered, but not the other(s). This is accepted by mainstream scholars on texts of that time. Both Josephus and Tacitus are writing about 40 years after the crucifixion, and most scholars accept them as being reliable sources. You might as well say that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Welsh Chronicles, the Viking Sagas, etc., the main sources of knowledge of English history between AD500 and 1066 are completely unreliable for exactly the same reasons. Embellishment was part and parcel of almost all histories, and still occurs even now. But scholars of the 1st Century AD accept this, and look at the historical context. Plus, a movement that was so well established by the time of Nero around AD65, and has Pliny the Younger in Bithynia asking for advice on how to deal with Christians makes for powerful evidence that Jesus existed. It would be like saying, if all previous records were lost, that Joseph Smith didn't exist because our first records of the Mormons are from when they established Salt Lake City. The argument that was made trying to discredit the sources supporting the existence of Jesus does not hold water.
2
-
@benjalucian1515 This argument was just regurgitated and ignores the fact that much of history prior to around AD 1000 was written more as prose than analytical history. Scholars know this, but also take this into account. The issue is that I am separating the historical record from the theological. Whatever your belief system, or lack thereof, there is more than sufficient evidence in the historical record to prove the existence of Jesus. What one attributes to him is something else again. One might as well say Mohammed or Buddha didn't exist based on the amount of evidence we have. There was no Battle of Kadesh, by this standard. Most of Egyptian history is fake. So are several Roman emperors. There is one Roman Emperor who is even less well documented than Jesus, are you saying he didn't exist? And the fact there are Christians means there was a Jesus, someone who first uttered these teachings, regardless of what one may think.
I also noticed that you deliberately side-stepped what I said about the miracles of Vespasian, etc. It was something that was used a lot by people of that time, and afterwards. In fact the majority of ancient history, with the exception (to a certain extent) of the Greeks and Romans was written in this form. It does not invalidate the existence of someone. Or are you going to argue Vespasian didn't exist. Or Julius Caesar. Or perhaps all of ancient history, because by the criteria you are giving we should just ignore everything that happened until the Norman Conquest. That's how ridiculous this argument is. I personally don't care what you believe, but contradicting the majority of scholars with university degrees who have spent lifetimes working on this field of research seems rather counterproductive to me.
2
-
@benjalucian1515 reproduction is a biochemical reaction - Sorry, it is WAY more complicated than that. I took embryology in university. Saying reproduction is just a biochemical reaction is rather like saying that going to the moon is a mere matter of lighting a fuse.
Did you read the titles I sent you? - Yes, and it is apparent that you missed the very important word "SUGGEST" in the opening statement, "researchers from UCL, Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital suggest a single chemical mechanism by which both classes of nucleotides -- purines and pyrimidines -- could have formed together." That means this is only a theory, and in fact the article says they haven't proven anything. Apart from how they can force purines and pyridines to form from the same complex precursor (but not at the same time). The article in Nature Communications (I actually looked it up and read it since you suggested I do so) shows they did all their syntheses using 0.5 to 1M concentrations (very concentrated), and kept changing the pH from neutral to highly basic and then to acidic (going as high as pH 13, which is something I had never thought possible before). Parts of the synthesis are done at around room temperature it seems, then other parts at 100C. So, the early Earth was a chemistry lab with easily adjusted parameters? In other words, to "prove" their point they continually tinkered with conditions and added chemicals as needed to make the reactions go. Boy, I never knew Earth was so accommodating. One might think a God was tinkering with things.
2
-
@benjalucian1515 And your point is? Of course there is not contemporary evidence for Jesus. Jesus was not a Roman noble, a procurator, a member of the rich and powerful. He was a preacher from a backwater area with a small following of perhaps 200 illiterate poor people. Who would write about him? What villa would be owned and occupied by him? It wasn't until his teachings spread from his initial band of followers to the larger community that the upper classes started to take notice. The Gospels would have been narrated to the individuals who wrote them down after the religion had spread enough for some literate people to have joined, you know, like 20-30 years or more after the events in the Gospels. DUH. How much evidence is there for a specific "average Joe" whose life we can follow from cradle to grave in the ancient world? Very little to none. We can describe their lives in general terms, but as far as 95-99% of the world's population at that time we cannot say specifics about their lives, as they haven't left diaries or autobiographies (with the exception of some inscriptions on grave markers and the like). Again, this argument is invalid, because it is trying to suggest hard evidence would exist when it should be obvious that it is incredibly unlikely it would.
And, much like people have ignored many such movements until they grow to the point where the authorities take notice, the same happened with early Christianity. It was a "peculiar cult" that arose out of Judea and spread among the "little people", not the upper classes. The reason the normally tolerant Romans eventually took notice is because it threatened their religion, and hence the belief system they thought had propelled them to world dominance. Otherwise we would not even have the letters between Pliny and Trajan. If it weren't for the international news media, how many people would remember David Koresh or Jimmy Jones? Again, the argument being made is based on modern preconceptions and a lack of understanding on how sparse archeological evidence truly is.
From your dogmatic approach I would also think that even if archeologists did discover evidence supporting the existence of Jesus it would be ignored. I believe Jesus existed because of the way the religion spread, which is very similar in pattern to the spread of Islam and the Church of Mormon. There are several corroborating texts. Much of what is written in the Gospels corresponds to real people and events of the time. And a lot of non-religious scholars also agree with the religious scholar's conclusions. That is sufficient evidence for me. And as I said before, based on your criteria a TON of history would have to be ignored because it has exactly the same degree of support. You might want to listen to the History of Britain podcast - it might give you a slightly different opinion on what scholars have to deal with.
2
-
@benjalucian1515 However, as I said, the extremophiles already exist. The deep sea vents are conditions where all the molecules you need are going to be dispersed into the surrounding media rapidly, so they won't be able to interact on a large scale, then will lose the concentration needed to continue reactions. It is more likely that extremophiles adapted from pre-existing organisms to live in those conditions, so are a red herring. If I was to pick an environment for early life to form, something like travertine terraces (Mammoth Springs at Yellowstone, for example) fit the bill. There you have areas where substances can accumulate, there is a steady supply of materials, water is gradually renewed, there is a substrate for reactions to occur on, etc.
Also, they didn't produce the pyridines and purines simultaneously in the same solution, they just used the same precursor. For their experiment to truly do what they said they were doing, you would have to be producing both substances in the same solution. They weren't. Plus, volcanic rocks are, as I recall, usually acidic, so how were they going to support the idea of having ultra-basic (pH 11-13) media for the reactions? I'm afraid I find it is a cute experiment, but not altogether convincing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@euroesc5013 However, one can also say that the lack of evidence is not in and of itself evidence. Just because one cannot see, hear, or touch the divine does not mean that God does not exist. There are many cases where what are considered scientific principles are actually taken on faith that they occur or exist (dark energy, dark matter, the big bang, spontaneous formation of life, etc.) in spite of a lack of evidence supporting them.
For one thing, few individuals in the scientific community seem to grasp the complexity of even the simplest biological functions, or the chemistry that goes into life itself. The whole issues of DNA to RNA to protein synthesis is a major "chicken and the egg" problem. One paper I read talking about the synthesis of the four nucleotides discussed the issue as being something that could easily occur, until one read the guts of the paper. In the paper the researchers started with a complex ribonucleotide precursor, then added various materials while adjusting the pH from acidic (pH 4) to extremely basic (pH 13) or from near freezing temperatures to boiling, with great rapidity. If you look at protein synthesis, even discounting the need for DNA, you need RNA as your template, but then you also need RNA attached to your nucleotide, then two chunks of protein to "knit" your amino acids together to form a protein. So, where do the large and small ribosomal proteins come from? If you need RNA to produce meaningful protein, and protein to maintain a meaningful genetic sequence (as well as assist in duplicating the RNA), which comes first? With all its potential combinations, how do you "accidentally" produce a self-replicating system as complicated as that?
It is in part because there are a lot of inexplicable things in the universe that I do believe there is a God. And I have worked out a good theoretical scientific explanation as well. In modern physics there is school of thought that there are multiple dimensions. If that is the case, then God can exist outside our perceived reality and be a being that is eternal (because He exists outside of our 4-dimensional universe, so time has no meaning). If string theory is correct, then God can interact with our existence via the other folded up dimensions that exist within all matter, which means that He can affect things at the subatomic level. This also means that we are unable to perceive God because, like the protagonist in Abbot's "Flatland", we lack the senses and frames of reference to be able to touch or see God.
However, in the end, from my perspective it all comes down to a matter of faith. Do you want to believe in a loving God who cares about you, or in a cold, uncaring, empty universe.
2
-
@benjalucian1515 I would add two provisos to this statement. First, the sources for this hearsay evidence are very reputable sources (Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Emperor Trajan). Second, the bulk of history prior to around AD1000 is hearsay evidence, written decades or even centuries after the event. Try listening to the "History of Britain" or "History of Rome" podcasts. It might shock you as to how much "hearsay evidence" actually forms the basis for our understanding of history (Anglo-Saxon chronicles, most of Roman history, etc). The only reason why it is accepted as fact is because there exist some inscriptions that support some of the historical commentaries. However, to your skepticism about the crucifixion, I would also add that these inscriptions or other corroborating sources would be missing because Jesus, at the time of the crucifixion, was a "nobody", an "unwashed back country preacher". He wasn't rich or famous, so why write about him in official propaganda pieces of the time, I mean, history.
2
-
2
-
@benjalucian1515 Well, it is hardly surprising nobody wrote about him during his lifetime. The authorities he spoke against would want to ignore him, and he certainly didn't make a big "splash" with the Romans either. That left his followers, and they were all illiterate. No big surprise that nothing was written about him. If some Roman emperors have little or nothing written about them, how would you expect a wandering preacher in a backwater province to even get on the radar. And how many wandering preacher's teachings survive to present day? Very few. So Jesus must have made an impact on his followers and his preaching have an impact on people outside of the locale for his message to have survive 2,000 years. So I have no issue believing that Jesus lived at the time that the New Testament indicates He did. However, whether you believe the miracles or not, and whether He is the Messiah and Son of God or not, is entirely up to the individual.
By the way, I recommend (or repeat my recommendation) to listen to the British History podcast and History of Rome podcast to see how little history exists at times, and that there is often a lack of corroborating evidence and contemporary writings. It came as a shock to me when I listened to these programs just how little is known at times about Anglo-Saxon history in England. It was a real eye-opener on how little historians often have to work with, even with the lead-up to well-known events like 1066.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaysilverheals4445 You have a point, and I agree. Atheism is basically a faith based on non-belief of one or more deities. It is probably the reason why nations that try to discard religion end up with cults of personality instead (like Stalin in the USSR, Mao in Communist China, what Robespierre was heading towards setting up in Revolutionary France, etc.). By the way, I am a Roman Catholic and a firm believer that God exists, but have been arguing from the secular point of view that you cannot dismiss the biblical texts out-of-hand because many of these document have a sound historical basis, as determined by archeological and textual evidence. If one choses to reject the existence of God that is up to them, but to try base their distaste for religion on faulty logic or conclusions, and spread these false assumptions to others, that is what I argue against. It annoys me that people muddy the water or attempt to dismiss potential historical documents based on bias, faulty reasoning or lack of substantiating evidence for their argument, in part because I work in scientific research.
1
-
@benjalucian1515 Still in the process of going through the extensive list of authors that you gave me. I am looking each of them up on Wikipedia (I don't have access to a University library right now) and doing occasional deeper searches when I can to confirm the information. I have made it down the list alphabetically to Pliny the Elder, and have found that the bulk of those who wrote history focused solely on Greco-Roman history. Guess that is not too surprising, since those who had patrons would want to give their patrons what they wanted. Even with those authors who might have written on the presence of Jesus in Judea, only fragments of their works survive. I also realized a lot of these people were writing around the time of Hadrian, the emperor who did things like spark the 2nd Jewish War by trying to rebuild Jerusalem and rename it Aelia Capitolina, then had the olive grove at the Garden of Gethsemane chopped down and a temple to Venus or Jupiter built over the site where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands today because a) he was an avid Hellenist and wanted a revival of "superior" Greek culture and b) because he wanted to obliterate Judaism following the end of the 2nd Jewish War. It is also possible that his open anti-Jewish sentiments might have influenced writers and patrons during his reign (AD 117 – 138) to get rid of any Jewish histories they had, or just avoid the subject completely (this latter statement is pure speculation with no known edicts to back it up).
I did find a site that gives a rebuttal to the list you provided: https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/morphis_list.htm . However, as I said, I accidentally discovered this while researching one of the authors you listed. It is from a religious site, but so far everything mention in this list I have corroborated both in Wikipedia and online searches. I did find that Lucian of Samosata (ca. AD 125 to ca AD180) satirized Christians, so they were most definitely around and in enough numbers to draw attention to themselves. Probably somewhat higher than the 6,000 adherents that I have seen quoted elsewhere for this time. So I guess I can another author to the list of Pliny the Younger and Trajan for post AD100 mentions of Christians.
1
-
@benjalucian1515 I somehow doubt that the grotto was used for Venus/Aphrodite - given the religious fervor of the time I doubt the Jews of the time would not have permitted it. I would also add that as far as I know, every other religion or sect that refers back to an original founder, be it Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Mormonism, Lutheranism, Bahai, etc., there was a founder. Why should Christianity be so different? It does not make sense, and the argument is not logically based.
1
-
@benjalucian1515 I hate to break it to you, but the prophecy of the Messiah being born of a virgin dates back something like 150-300 years prior to His birth. And I quote, "From Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and you will call him Immanuel.” And guess what, this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and one of the Isaiah scrolls has been dated to between 300-160 BC. So this is a copy of a text that was originally written somewhere between around 750B and 500 BC, give or take some time. No Greeks around Judea at that time the original was written, and the scroll in question was written around the time the Jews booted the Greeks out of the Holy Land (because they detested Greek practices, and the Seleucids were violently trying to force their ways on the Jews).
Also, sorry, but you didn't read my response properly. I was specifically referring to religions that have a single founder, a single source, as you will. Hinduism, Shinto, and the other religions you listed DON'T have a single founder. Those other religions grew organically from either hero/ancestor worship or worship of natural phenomena. Quite a bit different from the religions I listed.
Besides, I really find it surprising you are so hot to discount the fact that Jesus existed. If you are anti-religious, you could just ignore all the religious aspects of His life and accept that a Jewish preacher named Jesus spent about 3 years teaching a new doctrine to people before He was crucified. Why are you ignoring something that a majority of scholars would freely admit (and logic dictates), that Jesus was a real person?
1
-
1