Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Minimalist]

Irony? I mean are you really whining about one of the preeminent scholars not being well researched or having enough evidence when you can only be bothered to listen to 4-5 minutes of a video? Lol.

I disagree with you. He's vocal and outspoken, not pre-eminent. In some ways he's a good scholar, but like apologetics, in other ways he's a terrible one.

Ehrman has appeared on the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Dateline NBC, CNN, and NPR's Fresh Air and his writings have been featured in TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.[6]

Again, Danny.  The world of scholarship does not revolve around your desires.

[Aractus]

History & National Geographic are regarded as "history porn" by scholarly standards. That doesn't give him any credibility.

[Minimalist]

History & National Geographic are regarded as "history porn" by scholarly standards. That doesn't give him any credibility.

What happened?  Did they refuse to publish your bullshit?  Somehow I doubt it.

[Aractus]

History is not very interesting to ordinary people. They find ways to make disinteresting topics interesting.

[Angrboda]

Meanwhile, while looking for something else I cam across of one Ehrman's lectures which deals with the Day of Preparation issue.

https://youtu.be/Qd7Lanms-gY

Pretty much starts around the 26:00 minute mark although I doubt that fundies have the attention span for it.  Maybe you can skip ahead?

again minnie, Passover is a week long event. Bart does not seem to know or understand this. He keeps mentioning a singlar event the Seder Feast. (which has lamb) He has confused this with any of the other passover meals. (which does not have lamb IE the feast of unleavened bread which what the lords supper in modeled on.)

This dummy is right in that the Seder meals contain lamb, but not all Passover meals were Seder meals!!! The day of perpetration he is mentioning is happening because The Seder meal falls on the Sabbath, but the day of preparation would still include what would be consider to the jews to be a 'Passover meal.' Why? because all meals during passover week augmented their diets which for this observance.

Barttie even in his expanded explanation does not acknowledge this in his argument Which means he is ignorant of this fact. a fact that allows Christ to have been killed after a passover meal (The meal of unleavened bread which contained that and wine/Lord's supper) on the day of preparation but before the Seder meal/Passover feast which included the bread, wine, bitter herbs and lamb that was slaughtered on the day before.

http://chosenpeople.com/main/holidays-an...t-passover

If you bothered to read beyond the narrow window barttie boy has you look through you will see in both mark and John evidence that they are indeed talking about the same day!!!

John 19:14
14 It was now almost noon on Preparation day of Passover week. Pilate said to the Jews, “Here is your king!”

So do you see Bartie's error?

Read John 19:14 closly there in lies a clue.
Now read Mark 14:
12 It was now the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread—the day the lambs were killed for the Passover. Jesus’ followers came to him and said, “We will go and prepare everything for you to eat the Passover meal. Where do you want us to have the meal?”


The day the lambs are killed IS THE DAY OF PREPARATION you old goat! they are talking about the same DAY!!!

According to Hebrew for Christians, the day of preparation is the Jewish day prior to the date of the Seder, the first meal of unleavened bread.

I have to wonder if the NIV isn't taking some liberties with the translation.  Others translate it as "when they were sacrificing the passover."  It's unclear whether this means the afternoon of Nisan 14 or the evening of the Seder, Nisan 15.

12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?"

Mark 14:12 NASB

[CapnAwesome]

Irony? I mean are you really whining about one of the preeminent scholars not being well researched or having enough evidence when you can only be bothered to listen to 4-5 minutes of a video? Lol.

I disagree with you. He's vocal and outspoken, not pre-eminent. In some ways he's a good scholar, but like apologetics, in other ways he's a terrible one.

How would you even know? You only have the attention span to watch a few minutes of a video before deciding you know enough about it to criticize. That doesn't put you in a good position to slam someone who learned multiple ancient languages so he could understand the bible.

[Minimalist]

And, most importantly Capn, when Ehrman had learned enough he realized it was a pile of dung and became an agnostic.  Theists can't accept that simple fact which is the reason for the relentless ( and ill-advised) character assassination.

[Angrboda]

I thought the reason he gave for his agnosticism was the problem of evil?

[CapnAwesome]

I thought the reason he gave for his agnosticism was the problem of evil?

I don't think so, in a few debates I've watched he specifically said it was from investigating the bible thoroughly. Although he certainly could have more then one reason. If more Christians investigated the bible deeply, we'd have more Atheists and Agnostics.

[CapnAwesome]

And, most importantly Capn, when Ehrman had learned enough he realized it was a pile of dung and became an agnostic.  Theists can't accept that simple fact which is the reason for the relentless ( and ill-advised) character assassination.

Also I think Ehrman is a particularly good example because he was a religious person when he started being a biblical scholar and the more he learned, the more he said 'something just isn't right here.' He kept reading and learning because he thought that there had to be some truth or at least consistency to the bible, considering that he was told that his whole life. When it didn't pan out in English, he thought maybe it would make more sense in Hebrew and Aramaic, nope, it's still inconsistent bullshit.