Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Aractus]

Yes, it does: 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

Again, that doesn't support your argument. That says he was raised - not that he was given a bodily resurrection, the two concepts are clearly different. Jesus appearing to people in visions from the celestial realm is the same thing that people experienced in the Old Testament with Jehovah. Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus and his disciples during the Transfiguration - were they resurrected in bodily form as well? Or was that simply a vision from the celestial realm?

Mark 1-8 says nothing of the ascension. Where in the world do you get that? The body is gone from the tomb and the angel says Jesus will meet them in galilee. That's bodily resurrection.

The Angle does NOT say that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. He simply says Jesus will appear to them, just as Moses and Elijah appeared to them during the transfiguration. Furthermore that's just another inconsistency: in Mark the Angle tells the disciples that, in Matthew Jesus tells them himself. You can clearly see the evolution of the resurrection myth.

Seriously, another person trying to change the subject to that?    LMAO

Matt 27:52-53: "The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And they came out of the tombs after His resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many."

In Matthew's account of the resurrection, Jesus is just one of many dead saints that leaves his tomb to appear to people. Yes granted he does this AFTER the other zombies get to appear to people, but it's not special because countless other saints also did it.

Wow, GC, you're really ignorant!  Professor Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian who went to Moody Bible Institute!  After that, he went to Wheaton College, where Craig studied as a communications major.

And as I have pointed out as an atheist, much of what Ehrman has to say is well outside of both his own area of expertise and general scholarly thought. He is not a textual critic, yet he pretends to be, and worst of all he lies directly about textual criticism which offends the sensibilities of many actual professional textual critics. Textual criticism is the process by which scholars get the original wording of the NT, and identify parts of the OT and NT which are non-original to the autograph. Ehrman has contributed nothing to that particular field of study: ergo he isn't a textual critic, thus he is not an authority on the matter. His expertise are more to do with early Christianity and the lives of Jesus and Paul (as is the case with most NT scholars, really). You can quote him on that stuff from the academic literature, and that's fine. But quoting him on matters of textual criticism is the equivalent of quoting L. Ron Hubbard as an authority on modern psychiatry.