Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true.

[Blackleaf]

So...he's kind of an atheist CPJ Grey.

Well let's review. Marcus believes a ridiculous claim because of his parents, society, culture, holidays, buildings that have been erected, the uniforms of clergy, schools, artwork, etc.

And the promise of heaven as well as the threat of hell reinforce the ridiculous claim. Marcus is motivated to share the ridiculous claim with others.

Anyone who says anything in opposition to the ridiculous claim will be ostracized or worse.

The truth is out there. It does not depend on all the "tricks" and conventions employed by those who believe the ridiculous claim.

The author of the video then goes on to thank all those who have subscribed to his channel. He then lists all the people who are financially supporting his work. (Now, there's a motive!)

+++

So, Blackleaf, have I summarized the video sufficiently enough for you to agree that I actually watched it from beginning to end? (I actually paused it, took notes, and restarted it several times to make sure my notes were correct.)

It is an accurate summary, yes. I would add that this "ridiculous claim" from the video is purposely general. The video applies it to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.

However, what I asked for was not a summary. I asked you to answer these two questions about the video:

1. Do Christians indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video? Y/N

2. Do atheists use the same methods to indoctrinate their children? Y/N

Also, DarkMatter2525 does not produce videos daily, like the lets-players, count-downers, and reactionists, so he likely doesn't collect very much ad revenue from them. His videos actually take skill, planning, and effort. The willing donations of viewers are how channels like his survive on YouTube.

[Gerard]

That is fair, Gerard. Merely existing is not enough, is it? We can't even begin to examine WHAT the gospels say about Jesus until we have reason to believe that they are trustworthy. Consequently, I have presented material in multiple threads that cover the following foundational questions:

1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.

OK...
1. We have a great many manuscripts but they are all different. Which stands to reason because they had to be copied by hand. Most differences (they run in the 10,000) aren't all that significant. Some of them however are. At the end of John for instance, there are about ten verses added in some manuscripts that are not in others. Also the different gospels differ a lot when it comes to some episodes in the life of Jesus. Which is a bigger problem. The birth and death narratives of Jesus vary from gospel to gospel about where he was born. In what kind of building he was born. How Herod reacted. The sojourn to Egypt, if it took place and where they went after. On what day he was crucified. What day the last supper took place. What Jesus said during his trial. If he indeed said anything during his trial (by the way, who would have made notes). How he behaved and what he said during the crucifixion. Some of these stories can't be accurate when compared!
2. Paul is thought to have written about 50 CE. The earliest gospels are at least after 70 CE. None of the gospel writers claim to be eye witnesses, and as they differ about important matters, they couldn't have been.
3. The gospels are all anonymous. We know that because the names of the authors were only attributed to them in the fourth century. Earliest manuscripts do not name authors and neither does the text of any of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are fictitious names. We don't know that the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be if you read the actual text of the Gospels. Most probably they weren't. The gospels are written in good to substandard Greek. It is highly unlikely that any of the followers of Jesus knew Greek, or could actually write!
4. You're partly right here. In the sense that some information from them can be found in other sources. But these are hardly key points.

All of these things are acknowledged by Biblical criticism, even by theologians among those who practice that particular form of philology (critical analysis of text). The consensus among them is almost universal. Now, that's a true miracle! These people also almost universally acknowledge that there are problems with some texts in the epistles. Even with the authorship of many of them that are attributed to Paul and all that are attributed to Peter. this issue is more problematic that you seem willing to concede.

Gerard

[PickelledEggs]

Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.

Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?

[Gerard]

Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.

Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?

Good point. I'm not too worried about the accuracy of the original author's texts though (with some marked exceptions, where interpolations have taken place). The time frame (about forty to sixty years after the occurrence) has obviously caused problems. That should be plain for anyone to see. You just have to read and compare the gospels to see that this is an unavoidable conclusion. This does not necessarily have to impact religious views people may or may not hold. But it is about the reading of a document, about history and also about the sustainability of a concept named FUNDAMENTALISM.

Gerard

[PickelledEggs]

Good point. I'm not too worried about the accuracy of the original author's texts though (with some marked exceptions, where interpolations have taken place). The time frame (about forty to sixty years after the occurrence) has obviously caused problems. That should be plain for anyone to see. You just have to read and compare the gospels to see that this is an unavoidable conclusion. This does not necessarily have to impact religious views people may or may not hold. But it is about the reading of a document, about history and also about the sustainability of a concept named FUNDAMENTALISM.

Gerard

Yeah. It's like a story of pirates that buried treasure 40 years ago and then 40 years after the fact, someone decided to make a map of the island. There probably wasn't any treasure. and even if there was, the ORIGINAL map would hardly be accurate at all. Not to mention all the maps that were redrawn by hand of the original map.

[Randy Carson]

It is an accurate summary, yes. I would add that this "ridiculous claim" from the video is purposely general. The video applies it to Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike.

However, what I asked for was not a summary. I asked you to answer these two questions about the video:

1. Do Christians indoctrinate their children, as shown in the video? Y/N

2. Do atheists use the same methods to indoctrinate their children? Y/N

Also, DarkMatter2525 does not produce videos daily, like the lets-players, count-downers, and reactionists, so he likely doesn't collect very much ad revenue from them. His videos actually take skill, planning, and effort. The willing donations of viewers are how channels like his survive on YouTube.

We will get to your two questions in time. I watched the video, so I think you can give me a little leeway to discuss it with you first. And I gave the summary to give you confidence that I had kept my end of the bargain.

Now, it is interesting that you mention that the "general" or generic approach of the video was intentional and that it can be applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

1. Do you think this type of indoctrination might be present in Russia, China, North Korea and other countries in which atheism is the dominant culture? Do you suppose that atheist kids were ever told that their own parents were enemies of the state because they were Christians?

And don't try to weasel out of this by references to the Russian Orthodox Church...you know that the official state position that God does not exist was drilled into the kids by the kind of authority figures DarkMatter portrays negatively when they are obviously religious personages, etc. In fact, the body of Lenin is the "relic" of Soviet Communism just as that of Kim Jong Il is for North Koreans.





2. More importantly, let's say for the sake of argument that everything DarkMatter alleges in his video about religious indoctrination is true - EVEN FOR THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS (who worshiped a pantheon of gods). Why, then, did so many adult Jews and Romans abandon the faiths into which they had been so heavily indoctrinated in order to embrace the Christian faith?



It seems to me, Blackleaf, that the early Christians must have had a very compelling message in order to overcome the powerful forces at work not only in monotheistic Judaism but also in polytheistic Rome.

[Randy Carson]

OK...
1. We have a great many manuscripts but they are all different. Which stands to reason because they had to be copied by hand. Most differences (they run in the 10,000) aren't all that significant. Some of them however are. At the end of John for instance, there are about ten verses added in some manuscripts that are not in others. Also the different gospels differ a lot when it comes to some episodes in the life of Jesus. Which is a bigger problem. The birth and death narratives of Jesus vary from gospel to gospel about where he was born. In what kind of building he was born. How Herod reacted. The sojourn to Egypt, if it took place and where they went after. On what day he was crucified. What day the last supper took place. What Jesus said during his trial. If he indeed said anything during his trial (by the way, who would have made notes). How he behaved and what he said during the crucifixion. Some of these stories can't be accurate when compared!

I addressed the accuracy of the texts here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0

I am happy to address differences one at a time in order to explain why they exist and are NOT contradictions.

2. Paul is thought to have written about 50 CE. The earliest gospels are at least after 70 CE. None of the gospel writers claim to be eye witnesses, and as they differ about important matters, they couldn't have been.

I discussed the dating of the gospels here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

John claims to have been an eyewitness and Luke to have interviewed eyewitnesses. Papias tells us that Mark was the hearer of Peter. And Matthew was an apostle.

3. The gospels are all anonymous. We know that because the names of the authors were only attributed to them in the fourth century. Earliest manuscripts do not name authors and neither does the text of any of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are fictitious names. We don't know that the authors were eyewitnesses. None of them claim to be if you read the actual text of the Gospels. Most probably they weren't. The gospels are written in good to substandard Greek. It is highly unlikely that any of the followers of Jesus knew Greek, or could actually write!

I covered this here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10034.0

4. You're partly right here. In the sense that some information from them can be found in other sources. But these are hardly key points.

In an Internet forum swirling with mythicist misinformation, just getting to the idea that Jesus was a real person is an accomplishment!

[Randy Carson]

Even if the gospels today were accurate to the original authors' writings, which they probably aren't. The authors all wrote their gospels years and years after Jesus died.

Care to address that little.... well... huge issue in your argument?

I did. In depth.

Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

[Randy Carson]

Yeah. It's like a story of pirates that buried treasure 40 years ago and then 40 years after the fact, someone decided to make a map of the island. There probably wasn't any treasure. and even if there was, the ORIGINAL map would hardly be accurate at all. Not to mention all the maps that were redrawn by hand of the original map.

I addressed this extensively. Four-part OP.

Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.0

[PickelledEggs]

I did. In depth.

Here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long after Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?

[Gerard]

More importantly, let's say for the sake of argument that everything DarkMatter alleges in his video about religious indoctrination is true - EVEN FOR THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS (who worshiped a pantheon of gods). Why, then, did so many adult Jews and Romans abandon the faiths into which they had been so heavily indoctrinated in order to embrace the Christian faith?

You just have to know your history. Greco Roman paganism, although heavily pushed by the state in some parts of the country, had been almost dead in the hearts and minds of many for some time. Caused by a thing called neoplatonism, which had long since argued for a single divinity that could hardly be understood by us mortals and a derived "logos" or knowledge that was sometimes referred to as "the son". I know that a lot of bull is told about predecessors to Christianity, but the concept didn't just appear from nowhere. Why do you think the Greeks translated the Septuagint? Or had interest in the Jewish faith at all?

Gerard

[Randy Carson]

That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long before Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?

Several reasons:

First, the gospels were written by authors who were accountable to the very audience to whom they were writing. There were plenty of living eyewitnesses (500 or so) who had seen Jesus at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians as well as 2-3,000 who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the crowd after Peter preached the resurrection of Jesus. The authors of the gospels could not simply make stuff up when living witnesses (for and against) were still alive to refute them.

I also covered the "Telephone Game" theory here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9994.msg1129156#msg1129156

Second, I have covered the significance of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 here: http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

Paul repeats a memorized creed that he learned within 3-5 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. Consequently, the message being preached was solidified EARLY and not "30+ years" later.

Finally, it was an oral culture. Unlike today, the Jews had to memorize everything. We don't even know our own home phone numbers because it's programmed into our iPhones. So, they remembered, because they exercised their memorization skills.

[Randy Carson]

You just have to know your history. Greco Roman paganism, although heavily pushed by the state in some parts of the country, had been almost dead in the hearts and minds of many for some time. Caused by a thing called neoplatonism, which had long since argued for a single divinity that could hardly be understood by us mortals and a derived "logos" or knowledge that was sometimes referred to as "the son". I know that a lot of bull is told about predecessors to Christianity, but the concept didn't just appear from nowhere. Why do you think the Greeks translated the Septuagint? Or had interest in the Jewish faith at all?

Gerard

I don't agree completely, but I can let it go for now.

Tell me how Christianity fared so well among the Jews who were heavily "indoctrinated" at every level of society with festivals and uniforms and all the "tricks" that DarkMatter finds so evil in his YouTube video.

I'll even concede that the Jews were indoctrinated. But not for a dying and rising messiah.

Christianity must have had a powerful message to break the spell the Jews were under...

[Gerard]

That literally does not address my point that the gospels were written long after Jesus's death. You just said the same thing I did, but also imply that even though they were all written years and years after the fact, they somehow are accurate. How is a gospel that is written 30+ years after the death of a man be even remotely accurate?

Yes and this:

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

is what you said there. Remember that prophesy makes no sense to historians. The mere fact that Jesus even mentioned the destruction of the Temple there, means that the authors knew!!!!! That is one of the reasons why text criticism places the authorship of Mark and the other gospels after 70 CE.

Gerard

[Gerard]

I don't agree completely, but I can let it go for now.

Tell me how Christianity fared so well among the Jews who were heavily "indoctrinated" at every level of society with festivals and uniforms and all the "tricks" that DarkMatter finds so evil in his YouTube video.

I'll even concede that the Jews were indoctrinated. But not for a dying and rising messiah.

Christianity must have had a powerful message to break the spell the Jews were under...

I don't think that Christianity fared very well among the Jews. So it doesn't need an explanation.

Gerard