Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Minimalist]

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.

If you want to be as stupid as Dripshit, I can easily oblige.

"John" (or whoever the fuck wrote that shit) was specific about the Day of Preparation.

But hey, why worry about this?  Why not talk about Matty's fucking zombies climbing out of the ground and walking around?  I should really go looking for apologists explanations of that piece of shit.  I bet there are some knee-slappers there!

There is nothing worse for the bible inerrancy crowd than the stupid shit that is in their bible.

[Spirian]

Christianity is a self-destructive force. It needs no help in this regard.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Which, interestingly, suggests that the story started with no witnesses whatsoever to the resurrection. They just took someone's word for it.

[Minimalist]

The most logical rational for the original mark ending is to answer the question:  "If this shit happened 40-100 years ago, why am I just hearing about it now."

It's because the fucking women "didn't tell anyone."  ( Who can believe that women wouldn't have yakked about that?"

Yup.  It's always the woman's fault for not following orders with these xristard fucks.

Left unsaid, of course, is the obvious question:  "Then how did "Mark" (or whoever the fuck wrote that shit) find out about it if the women said nothing?  Xristards never ask questions like that.  They're terrified of the answer.

[John V]

If you want to be as stupid as Dripshit, I can easily oblige.

"John" (or whoever the fuck wrote that shit) was specific about the Day of Preparation.

OK, what's your argument that the synoptics say otherwise? There's one prooftext you should at least bring in. Are you really this ignorant on the subject? I thought you were somewhat well-read. Did you even know that the law prohibits going out that night?

But hey, why worry about this?

Because it's the topic at hand, you freaking moron.

Why not talk about Matty's fucking zombies climbing out of the ground and walking around?  I should really go looking for apologists explanations of that piece of shit.  I bet there are some knee-slappers there!

OK, I'll take it from the blatant red herring that you haven't studied the Passover issue.

[John V]

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.

Which, interestingly, suggests that the story started with no witnesses whatsoever to the resurrection. They just took someone's word for it.

It suggests that they took someone's word for it at first, then saw it for themselves.

[John V]

The most logical rational for the original mark ending is to answer the question:  "If this shit happened 40-100 years ago, why am I just hearing about it now."

It's because the fucking women "didn't tell anyone."  ( Who can believe that women wouldn't have yakked about that?"

Yup.  It's always the woman's fault for not following orders with these xristard fucks.

Left unsaid, of course, is the obvious question:  "Then how did "Mark" (or whoever the fuck wrote that shit) find out about it if the women said nothing?  Xristards never ask questions like that.  They're terrified of the answer.

We don't ask it because it's a stupid fucking question. Did you ever think that maybe he meant for that time, but later, after Jesus appeared to more people, they talked about it? I mean really, if you don't want to believe, that's your business, but you just make yourself look like an idiot with arguments like this.

[Jehanne]

If you want to be as stupid as Dripshit, I can easily oblige.

"John" (or whoever the fuck wrote that shit) was specific about the Day of Preparation.

OK, what's your argument that the synoptics say otherwise? There's one prooftext you should at least bring in. Are you really this ignorant on the subject? I thought you were somewhat well-read. Did you even know that the law prohibits going out that night?

But hey, why worry about this?

Because it's the topic at hand, you freaking moron.

Why not talk about Matty's fucking zombies climbing out of the ground and walking around?  I should really go looking for apologists explanations of that piece of shit.  I bet there are some knee-slappers there!

OK, I'll take it from the blatant red herring that you haven't studied the Passover issue.

Can you point to a single scholar who supports your POV?  Just name one.

[GrandizerII]

Which, interestingly, suggests that the story started with no witnesses whatsoever to the resurrection. They just took someone's word for it.

It suggests that they took someone's word for it at first, then saw it for themselves.

No, it doesn't suggest the latter. You quoted the passage yourself. Did you see anyone say they saw it for themselves?

[dom.donald]

I think most people accept these inaccuracies and differences because they know that they're inevitable.

Talk to some bible inerrantists to see how wrong you are.

I said "most people". Are "bible inerrantists" a majority in the general population? No. See how wrong you are?