Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Minimalist]

The web is full of bullshit artists ( look in a mirror ) trying to explain away the obvious contradiction.  They have so many excuses for this it would confuse even you...which obviously takes very little.  The problem with apologetics is that there are so many dickheads practicing it that they overwhelm each other... and leave the obvious contradiction standing proudly for all to see.

You are a believer, Dripshit.  That means you believe anything that anyone tells you as long as it pulls your precious bullshit out of the fire.  You need to be more discerning but you can't.  You are what you are.  A bible-thumping moron.

You know, in large part this is all the fault of xtians.  For centuries the catholic church discouraged people from reading the fucking bible and as poorly written and badly edited as it is they knew what they were doing.  Then along comes this fucker Luther who wanted everyone to read it and right away the discrepancies popped up.  You assholes should have left well enough alone but it is Luther who started jesusism towards its richly deserved place in the dustbin of history.  The church knew that you never encourage people to think.  Nothing good can come from it.

You'd make a great fucking catholic.

[John V]

It's a great video; anyone who watches/listens to this video cannot possibly have any confidence in "Biblical" Christianity:

So, "believers", what say you?

I say...if it's so great, type it out so I can study it and respond.

It sucks the way youtube is dumbing people down. They watch a freaking video and think they know something.

[John V]

Mark was the original account (which amusingly did not contain the resurrection; this was later forged onto the end of it).

See, people here this shit and believe it. Yes, Mark 16:9 and later aren't in the earliest manuscripts. Now, go read Mark 16:1-8. Guess what - it includes the resurrection.

Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

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.”

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

[John V]

Drich is right minnie. Passover can refer to the entire week, the first day, or the passover meal specifically. Similarly preparation for the passover took multiple days. When you look at all the evidence, the synoptics have Jesus dying on the day before the passover meal. The last supper wasn't the passover meal. You should know this. One of the cardinal rules of the passover was staying in the house all night. There's no way the Pharisees etc., who complained that Jesus was a lawbreaker, were violating this. There were people running all over the place that night.

[Jehanne]

It's a great video; anyone who watches/listens to this video cannot possibly have any confidence in "Biblical" Christianity:

So, "believers", what say you?

I say...if it's so great, type it out so I can study it and respond.

It sucks the way youtube is dumbing people down. They watch a freaking video and think they know something.

Read Ehrman's books; they are all available on Amazon and be read online there.

[Jehanne]

So, even near the end of the 2nd Century, the Lord's Prayer was not yet completely established!  Who knows the variants that were taking place prior to P75?!  That's Professor Ehrman's point -- no one really knows the true words of Jesus.

Well we do know because scholarship tells us. They are certain we have ~98% the original wording of the gospels (with meaning at greater than 99.5%).

Outside of evangelical scholarship, I would appreciate one scholarly source to support the above statement (the ~98%).  Assuming that Mark was written around 70 AD, it is over 100 years before the earliest manuscript of Mark appears, including, the text of Mark that appears in P75.  But, even if you grant 100% correctness in transmission from Mark until P75 and beyond, the scholarly consensus is that over 80% of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels were not spoken by him:

https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects...-of-jesus/

[Jehanne]

Drich is right minnie. Passover can refer to the entire week, the first day, or the passover meal specifically.

No serious scholar holds to this POV; if you have one, please name that person.

[abaris]

You'd make a great fucking catholic.

No, he wouldn't. In fact he would be an insult to every catholic I know. I know you tend to apply the broad brush when it comes to any religious person, but I have yet to meet any so called christian fitting this bill of depravity, Drippy displays on here. That's why I made a distinction between christians and Drippy earlier on.

[Jehanne]

Mark was the original account (which amusingly did not contain the resurrection; this was later forged onto the end of it).

See, people here this shit and believe it. Yes, Mark 16:9 and later aren't in the earliest manuscripts. Now, go read Mark 16:1-8. Guess what - it includes the resurrection.

Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

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.”

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

I find evidence of alien abductions (see my other thread) to be much more credible than the "testimony" provided by the anonymous author of Mark on the supposed resurrection of Jesus, and as I do not believe in alien abductions, I see no reason to believe that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead.  Do you believe that alien abductions are real?  If not, why not?

[Jehanne]

You'd make a great fucking catholic.

No, he wouldn't. In fact he would be an insult to every catholic I know. I know you tend to apply the broad brush when it comes to any religious person, but I have yet to meet any so called christian fitting this bill of depravity, Drippy displays on here. That's why I made a distinction between christians and Drippy earlier on.

So-called Catholics (speaking as a former one), must have split-brain personalities, because there is simply no way to reconcile what the Catholic Church "infallibly" taught in one century past with what it "infallibly" teaches today.  Or, more likely, modern-day Catholics simply see Catholicism as some sort of "pro forma" religion -- community, marriage, funerals.