Basic Methodology For Dating Ancient Documents

[Guest SteveBennett]

Greetings,

 

This is a tutorial on how to date when ancient documents were first written. Historical dating methodology is actually very simple, and straightforward.  The same method is still used in a court of law, for example, to establish an alibi (or lackthereof) as a simple matter of record.

 

Dating documents, crime scenes, time capsules, archaeological sites, piecing together timelines (etc.) works like this:

 

Artifacts:

 

A, B, C, D, E, F

 

Correspond to dates:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

If we find artifacts:

 

A, B, and C

 

But we do not find artifacts

 

D, E, and F

 

Then the document, or crime scene, or time capsule, or archaeological site (etc.) MUST be dated somewhere between dates 3 and 4.

 

Go ahead.  Try it out now!  Date the last time someone lived in your house using the artifacts currently around you.  Now. . . what artifacts would someone find if your house had been abandoned 10 years ago?  What about 20 years ago? What modern artifacts do you see now, that someone would not find, if your house had been abandoned 10 years ago? What about 20 years ago?

 

Now grab someone's journal from WWII.  If they fought in WWII, and died in 1943, then their journal will have recorded significant parts of the war-- but not its conclusion-- or any events after 1943.  And, obviously, recording such events would have been obligatory given their journal's subject matter.

 

 

---------------------

 

What happens when we apply this basic methodology to, lets say. . . the New Testament?

 

The book of Acts records:

 

Artifact A:  Herod Agrippa (Ruled Galilee 37–44 A.D.).
Artifact B:  Marcus Antonius Felix (Roman procurator of Judaea Province 52-58 A.D.)
Artifact C:  Porcius Festus (successor to Marcus Antonius Felix, 59 - 62 A.D.)

The book of Acts does not record:

Artifact D: The great Roman fire of 64 A.D. or the subsequent Christian persecution
Artifact E:  Paul's execution following the great Roman fire of 64 A.D.
Artifact F: The Jewish revolt (66 A.D.)
Artifact G: Destruction of the Jewish temple (70 A.D.)

The book of Acts does not record any watershed events that occurred on or after 64 A.D-- even though recording such events would have been obligatory given the book of Acts subject matter.

 

This would be like reading a book titled "a record of events in East and West Germany," but the record never even gets up to part where the Berlin wall falls.  One would have to conclude (based on basic methodology) that the record was written before the Berlin wall fell.

 

Which means, according to basic methodology, the book of Acts must be dated somewhere between 62 and 64 A.D.

Now we know the book of Luke was written before the book of Acts

 

And we know Mathew and Mark were written before Luke (though some debate exists as to whether Mathew precedes Mark-- it doesn't really matter).

 

Which means these three biographies were  written during the lifetimes of those who actually walked with Jesus.

Which means if these biographers weren't telling the truth about Jesus, then we would expect someone to step forward and make sure the truth was known (Jesus taught us to always speak the truth).  Their testimony would, then, have been recorded by the Sanhedrin, transcribed into the Talmud, and then passed down for us to read today.

But no such testimonies exist anywhere in antiquity.

--------------

But if one is not even familiar with proper methodology, then one can not even know if a scholar-- or any source for that matter-- is being biased in objectively applying proper methodology or not.

 

If you find a scholar-- or any secondary source for that matter-- that doesn't even apply basic, proper methodology. . . run.

 

V/r,

 

Steve

[Guest SteveBennett]

Oh also, for what its worth,  I'm of the persuasion that the book of Acts and the book of Luke were written to Paul's lawyer: Theophilus.

 

This hypothesis would explain, perfectly, why:

 

1) Luke and Acts are written in incredibly formal greek (a trademark of legal documents during this era).

 

2) Why the book of Acts focuses almost entirely on Paul (since Paul was on trial).

 

3) Why the book of Luke focuses on Jesus teaching with regard to social issues (since not only Paul, but also Christianity as a whole, was on trial).

 

4) Why the book of Acts stops recording events after Paul dies. Luke's purpose, as the author, was to assist in doing legal research for Paul's lawyer.  Now that Paul is dead, there is no further purpose of conducting more legal research.

 

5) Luke and Acts seem to have a sub-text under girding both of them. . . which is, "Dear Rome, Jesus and his followers (i.e. Paul) are just speaking the truth.  The bad behavior is on the part of those responding so negatively to it.  So please let us live in peace together."  Theophilus likely guided Luke to focus his research on these topics.

 

6)  The book of Acts also records Paul's mistakes, blunders, and legal missteps-- which, if Theophilus is Paul's lawyer, Theophilus would have wanted and needed to know (we all know you never hide the mistakes you've made from your lawyer).

 

There are other key considerations, but the book of Luke has the trademarks of legal research written all over it.

[JadedAtheist]

Luke and Acts were written together to the same person, and Luke refers to the destruction of the temple so by the criteria you listed, both must have occurred after 70AD. 

[Guest SteveBennett]

Luke and Acts were written together to the same person, and Luke refers to the destruction of the temple so by the criteria you listed, both must have occurred after 70AD. 

 

Jesus prophesied the temples destruction.

 

Even if one presupposes on some unsupported basis that prophesies are not possible for God, one wouldn't simply abandon basic methodology.  They would, instead, just say that Jesus made a lucky guess.  Or that Jesus could see the way things were going and had educated foresight.  Or that a Christian interpolation took place later.

 

All such explanations would be more believable even to a naturalist, than the idea that the book of Acts would simply leave out Paul's execution, the great Roman fire of 64 A.D., or the subsequent Christian persecution thereafter.

 

But one would not abandon basic methodolgy for sake of some philosophical bias regarding prophecies-- that would, obviously, clearly undermine any notion of a person's actual objectivity or openness to even the possibility that Jesus said and did what the gospel's claim.

 

It's basically setting up a rigged game-- where one will not be convinced. . .even if God raises someone from the dead. . . the point is, be careful-- your presuppositions with regard to certain possibilities can drastically affect your ability to employ normal investigative methodology.

 

Even scholars, and incredibly intelligent people, are not immune to this.  And one should train themselves to spot such biases right away!

[Deva]

No Steve, we are not open to this notion of miraculous reports in an ancient book proving the existence of God. We closed it years ago when we realized that no book can prove such a thing.  Neither do miraculous events and so-called prophecies (written after the fact) convince us that your preposterous God is real.  Even though we are well aware that the gospels were written at least 50 years after the events took place.

 

Why only reveal himself in a book? Why only at a time when it was impossible to document happenings in any other way except writing? These miraculous events have no camera or video backup. If God cannot reveal himself in an age when communication is almost instantaneous, I have to ask why that is?  Or perhaps he isn't omniscient?

 

I don't expect answers to these questions.

[JadedAtheist]

You're not being honest by saying it's a bias, Steve. You and I reading any other document would see that a so called prophecy was written after the fact, or as you put it - a lucky guess. But, since it's a book of the Bible, you start giving it undue benefits of the doubt that you would not afford other religious texts. Let's put it this way, what is actually stopping someone in 80AD writing something to make it appear it was written in 60-65AD? Wouldn't it still pass your little test?

 

Nearly two millennia later, it would be very hard to tell the difference right? You use the argument that had it been written later, they would by necessity need to include the information you mentioned, but you're wrong. It would depend on the narrative that I wanted to tell; if I wanted to make it look like Jesus made a prophecy I wouldn't outright include things that would give it away that it wasn't. 

[Guest SteveBennett]

No Steve, we are not open to this notion of miraculous reports in an ancient book proving the existence of God. We closed it years ago when we realized that no book can prove such a thing.  Neither do miraculous events and so-called prophecies (written after the fact) convince us that your preposterous God is real.  Even though we are well aware that the gospels were written at least 50 years after the events took place.

 

Why only reveal himself in a book? Why only at a time when it was impossible to document happenings in any other way except writing? These miraculous events have no camera or video backup. If God cannot reveal himself in an age when communication is almost instantaneous, I have to ask why that is?  Or perhaps he isn't omniscient?

 

I don't expect answers to these questions.

 

I think there is a perfectly good answer:

 

[Guest SteveBennett]

what is actually stopping someone in 80AD writing something to make it appear it was written in 60-65AD? Wouldn't it still pass your little test?

 

 

 

Well again, its not "my little test" its the basic historical dating methodology. Anyone may, personally, apply with regards to anything.

 

 And your hypothesis is what is known as an "ad hoc hypothesis."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

[JadedAtheist]

You are again being dishonest, you wish to use some scholarly methodology and reject the ones you find inconvenient such as not taking at face value supernatural claims. You can't have it both ways. Not to mention you didn't address what else I had to say, which was you would apply the same principles as I would to any other text, but yours happens to get an exception to the rule because you have a personal investment in it. Don't you find it shameful that Christians resort to such tactics?

 

Once again, Luke refers to the destruction of the temple which along with the many other tools used by historians and the like use results in a dating after 70AD and probably before 100AD. If you're going to use their methodologies, you can't just pick and choose the ones that fit the argument you're trying to make - that's dishonest and it prevents you from actually adapting your beliefs in light of new knowledge. I find it incredibly humorous that you're trying to sound credible by using methodology that results in the majority opinion being after what you state.

 

Of course, the common Christian argument is they're biased or possessed or whatever; which sounds a lot like your ad hoc hypothesis, don't it? Hmm.

[Deva]

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason. 

[Guest SteveBennett]

You are again being dishonest, you wish to use some scholarly methodology and reject the ones you find inconvenient such as not taking at face value supernatural claims. 

 

There is no such methodology.  There IS a methodology for dealing with extremely unlikely claims (which I admit the claim of Jesus' resurrection-- all by itself-- is).  It works like this:

 

---------

 

John:  "I just won the lottery!"

Bob:  "No way. I'm not gonna believe something so incredible."

John:  "Fine.  Don't believe me if you don't want to.  But its true!"

 

The next day John pulls up in a Ferrari with a platinum, diamond laden watch on his wrist and an expensive designer brand wardrobe. 

 

John:  "Do you believe me now?"

Bob:  "No way.  You probably stole the car.  Or your rich Uncle died."  (ad hoc hypotheses)

John:  "Fine.  Don't believe me if you don't want to!"

 

The next day Bob's friends are talking with him about how everybody saw John on the TV being given a massive check for six million dollars.  John pulls up again."

 

John: "Do you believe me now?"

Bob:  "No way.  Your probably staging this whole thing!" (another ad hoc hypothesis).

John: "Fine.  Don't believe me if you don't want to!"

 

----

 

You get the point.  On and on we could go. Yes, incredibly unlikely events do happen.  And yes, we are right to be skeptical of them if they stand alone.  But then the fact that one doesn't just have the capability of simply inventing an entire body of evidence that is consistent with the unlikely event off-sets the event's unlikeliness-- and then we believe it.

[Guest SteveBennett]

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason. 

 

If you think I'm trying to scare you with hell then you completely missed the video's message.  The point is that forcing people to believe in God (which is what you are asking for by asking for empirical proof) would ultimately result in controlling many (who don't want to believe in God) with fear.

 

Being controlled by fear is an unacceptable basis for any relationship.

 

And you know that, that is true.

 

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

That is not the kind of relationship that Christ claims to want with any of us.

[JadedAtheist]

The entire body of evidence results in a dating after 70AD, Steve. That is why the majority of scholars believe it has a later date than you. If you can tell me why they're wrong, without using your favorite hypothesis, the ad hoc hypothesis; you'd definitely have my attention.

[Deva]

 

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason. 

 

If you think I'm trying to scare you with hell then you completely missed the video's message.  The point is that forcing people to believe in God (which is what you are asking for by asking for empirical proof) would ultimately result in controlling many with fear.

 

And you know that, that is true.

 

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

That is not the kind of relationship that Christ claims to want with any of us.

 

 

The very idea of hell (and it is only an idea) is a scare tactic. Don't tell me it isn't mentioned in this video.  In fact, it is about the first thing mentioned.  And if you don't think it is an idea that controls people with fear, then you haven't read many posts on this site.  When I said you can't scare us with hell, I was mainly speaking for myself and other long term members here who are now immune to this twisted and evil doctrine. 

 

So, whether or not we insist on empirical proof, absurd BibleGod has set up a situation where in fact he does control many with fear.  That the word "love" is used in the video, as well as the threat of hell, simply does not compute.  I have no idea what kind of relationship this God wants with such a strategy, but I want no part of it.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason. 

 

If you think I'm trying to scare you with hell then you completely missed the video's message.  The point is that forcing people to believe in God (which is what you are asking for by asking for empirical proof) would ultimately result in controlling many with fear.

 

And you know that, that is true.

 

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

That is not the kind of relationship that Christ claims to want with any of us.

 

 

The very idea of hell (and it is only an idea) is a scare tactic. Don't tell me it isn't mentioned in this video.  In fact, it is about the first thing mentioned.  And if you don't think it is an idea that controls people with fear, then you haven't read many posts on this site.  When I said you can't scare us with hell, I was mainly speaking for myself and other long term members here who are now immune to this twisted and evil doctrine. 

 

So, whether or not we insist on empirical proof, absurd BibleGod has set up a situation where in fact he does control many with fear.  That the word "love" is used in the video, as well as the threat of hell, simply does not compute.  I have no idea what kind of relationship this God wants with such a strategy, but I want no part of it.

 

 

Well, respectfully, one could take your accusation and flip it around.

 

One could say that you are trying to scare people with the idea that I am trying to scare people with hell.  Since we all are afraid of being manipulated by scare tactics.

 

When, in fact, that's not what I, or the video, intend.

 

The main point, again, is that one can not, must not, and ought not be forced into a relationship with God if they don't want to.  Your demand for 100% empirical proof would create precisely that consequence.

[Deva]

I'm not sure I said I needed 100% empirical proof. Some description of God/Gods that sounded halfway reasonable might do it for me, since I am an agnostic. But Biblegod is not a reasonable description of a supreme being. You are the one that seems to want to provide empirical proof, but cannot do so.

 

Twisting my words is not going to prove your point. I am not the one who posted a video which refers to an eternal hell, you did. People can watch it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I'm not sure I said I needed 100% empirical proof. Some description of God/Gods that sounded halfway reasonable might do it for me, since I am an agnostic. But Biblegod is not a reasonable description of a supreme being. You are the one that seems to want to provide empirical proof, but cannot do so.

 

Twisting my words is not going to prove your point. I am not the one who posted a video which refers to an eternal hell, you did. People can watch it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

 

That is a perfectly understandable request:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNjqLwH1MJI

 

As for the evidence provided thus far, I would simply (sincerely) ask you to share with me (specifically, not generally) how it is lacking.

 

I'll be logging off now.  Busy day tomorrow.  I'll be back in about 20 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

[MerryG]

Greetings,

 

This is a tutorial on how to date when ancient documents were first written. Historical dating methodology is actually very simple, and straightforward.  The same method is still used in a court of law, for example, to establish an alibi (or lackthereof) as a simple matter of record.

 

Dating documents, crime scenes, time capsules, archaeological sites, piecing together timelines (etc.) works like this:

 

Artifacts:

 

A, B, C, D, E, F

 

Correspond to dates:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

If we find artifacts:

 

A, B, and C

 

But we do not find artifacts

 

D, E, and F

 

Then the document, or crime scene, or time capsule, or archaeological site (etc.) MUST be dated somewhere between dates 3 and 4.

 

Go ahead.  Try it out now!

 

This method absolutely does not apply to the written word.

 

A person who set out to write fiction (or history) set at a certain period would naturally leave out things that didn't belong in that period. Thus, a story about ancient Rome might mention Caligula but isn't going to mention Abraham Lincoln. But in no way does that "prove" or even provide evidence for a belief that the fiction was written after Caligula but before Lincoln.

 

Nor can your method apply to artifacts that have been moved from their original location. You ask us to investigate the history of our house by the "artifacts" in it. Well, let's see then. My house, which was built in the U.S. in 1936, must have been inhabited during Queen Victoria's era because it contains several items made in the 19th century. It also had to have been inhabited by people from India because there are wall hangings from that region. Wow.

 

There is evidence that Acts was written deliberately as a heroic saga of early christianity (ala The Odyssey or  The Aeneid). Of course its writer would try to include only events of the early first century A.D. (But as has been pointed out elsewhere by the Redneck Prof, writers of the NT were frequently sloppy about the actual dates of people and events, resulting in such anomalies as a 10-year labor for Mary giving birth to Jesus. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60718-nazareth-existed-in-the-first-century-sidebar-discussion/#entry922764)

 

You're not only peddling pseudoscience and pseudo logic, but of a sort that's easy for any thinking person to see right through.

[Geezer]

I try not to be guilty of the things that I find objectionable in others. I make a conscious attempt to keep an open mind and try to objectively look at another person's point of view. That is often difficult because we are human and we all possess certain characteristics that encourage us, even subconsciously, to build barriers that allows us to hold on to our own world views.

 

One of our human defenses is:

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.^{[Note 1][1]} People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

 

Both secular historians and apologist have confirmation bias to some degree. In spite of our denial we all have our prejudices and this affects the way we interpret information. When it comes to evaluating the legitimacy of the Bible & Christianity, a large volume of information must be evaluated in order to arrive at anything that would resemble an accurate picture.

 

And then there is the added element of the supernatural that must be taken into consideration too. That element is problematic on a number of levels because such a realm cannot be validated as even existing anywhere other than in some people’s minds. Religious beliefs and traditions ultimately become matters of faith rather than science, history, logic, and reason. In other words, religions people have a tendency to believe whatever the group they are affiliated with tells them to believe. Attempting to prove the Bible is true and reflects actual historical events is virtually impossible due to the inclusion of that supernatural element.

 

Therefore, discussions like the one going on here are ultimately pointless. Small bits and pieces of "evidence" do not prove anything. They are simply small pieces of a very large puzzle. And those small pieces may not even be part of the puzzle people are attempting ot assemble.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Why do you think it matters to me when these myths were written?  Whether they were written in 70CE like you say or between 150-200CE like the entire rest of biblical scholarship says, they are still nothing more than fairy tales.

[mymistake]

 

Jesus prophesied the temples destruction.

 

 

 

We know Jesus had magic powers because it says so in all the books that tell us Jesus had magic powers.  And we know those books are reliable because Jesus had magic powers.  And we know Jesus had magic powers because it says so in all the books that tell us Jesus had magic powers.

[centauri]

 

The book of Acts records:

 

Artifact A:  Herod Agrippa (Ruled Galilee 37–44 A.D.).

Artifact B:  Marcus Antonius Felix (Roman procurator of Judaea Province 52-58 A.D.)

Artifact C:  Porcius Festus (successor to Marcus Antonius Felix, 59 - 62 A.D.)

 

The book of Acts does not record:

 

Artifact D: The great Roman fire of 64 A.D. or the subsequent Christian persecution

Artifact E:  Paul's execution following the great Roman fire of 64 A.D.

Artifact F: The Jewish revolt (66 A.D.)

Artifact G: Destruction of the Jewish temple (70 A.D.)

 

The book of Acts does not record any watershed events that occurred on or after 64 A.D-- even though recording such events would have been obligatory given the book of Acts subject matter.

 

This would be like reading a book titled "a record of events in East and West Germany," but the record never even gets up to part where the Berlin wall falls.  One would have to conclude (based on basic methodology) that the record was written before the Berlin wall fell.

The Book of Acts also does not record the biggest watershed event in history, the resurrection of the dead who then walked into Jerusalem.

 

Which means, according to basic methodology, the book of Acts must be dated somewhere between 62 and 64 A.D.

 

Now we know the book of Luke was written before the book of Acts.

The book of Luke doesn't record the biggest event in history either.

 

And we know Mathew and Mark were written before Luke (though some debate exists as to whether Mathew precedes Mark-- it doesn't really matter).

If Matthew was written before Luke and Acts, that's more evidence that the author(s) of Luke and Acts wasn't providing complete information.

 

Which means these three biographies were  written during the lifetimes of those who actually walked with Jesus.

And their tales conflict with each other.

 

Which means if these biographers weren't telling the truth about Jesus, then we would expect someone to step forward and make sure the truth was known (Jesus taught us to always speak the truth).  Their testimony would, then, have been recorded by the Sanhedrin, transcribed into the Talmud, and then passed down for us to read today.

 

But no such testimonies exist anywhere in antiquity.

There are also no contemporary testimonies about Jesus from anything other than cult writings, and those writings do not agree on key elements.

[centauri]

 

It's basically setting up a rigged game-- where one will not be convinced. . .even if God raises someone from the dead. . . the point is, be careful-- your presuppositions with regard to certain possibilities can drastically affect your ability to employ normal investigative methodology.

The Book of Acts claims that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members.

Be careful you don't project cult lure as history without objective support to back it up.

[centauri]

 

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

That is not the kind of relationship that Christ claims to want with any of us.

The threat from Jesus is that failure to believe results in damnation.

Jesus wants recognition in a specific way and will use threats to obtain it.

Simple unbelief is sin enough to offend the god-man.

"Fear him that has the power to cast you into hell."

[mymistake]

 

No Steve, we are not open to this notion of miraculous reports in an ancient book proving the existence of God. We closed it years ago when we realized that no book can prove such a thing.  Neither do miraculous events and so-called prophecies (written after the fact) convince us that your preposterous God is real.  Even though we are well aware that the gospels were written at least 50 years after the events took place.

 

Why only reveal himself in a book? Why only at a time when it was impossible to document happenings in any other way except writing? These miraculous events have no camera or video backup. If God cannot reveal himself in an age when communication is almost instantaneous, I have to ask why that is?  Or perhaps he isn't omniscient?

 

I don't expect answers to these questions.

 

I think there is a perfectly good answer:

 

 

 

What utter rubbish!

 

40 seconds into that vid we get nonsense about how God is going to deny us the evidence we need to know he exists so we go to hell to burn forever and ever BECAUSE GOD LOVES US!!!!!!

 

 

Here is a tiny little clue:  You can never light somebody on fire if you really love them.  You could not light them on fire for even one second.  There is no way you could love somebody and also light them on fire so that the fire burns forever and ever.  Lighing somebody in fire is the opposite of love.  Burning somebody forever is the infinite opposite of live.  It proves infinite hate.  The mythical Christian God hates the world and all humanity.

 

 

Anything that sounds too good to be true is probably false.  There will be no eternal reward for simply giving allegiance.  And there will be no eternal punishment for not giving allegiance.  The entire gospel message is nonsense.

 

This vid epitomizes the Christian use of the double bind.  If you want to see people doing good for goodness sake then don't look to those who are motivated by eternal reward or eternal punishment.  Instead look at atheists.  They don't believe in gods, heaven or hell.  So when they do something good it is only to do something good.  No Christian who believes in heaven or hell can honestly claim that.

 

When Christians try to square the observable world with their twisted theology get get these word salads and double binds like that vid.  The author actually believes that only Christians have the right motives.  He just said God loves us and in his next breath he asserts that if we all could see God then we would all burn in hell forever because that is how God rolls.