Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Drich]

[Minimalist]

Unless I've missed something, all he's saying is that you can't prove the resurrection using the Gospel texts. I think any Christian would be very wise to agree. Ehrman says that the gospel narratives, as they are found in the text, about the resurrection are not reliable historically. You might find it interesting that Ehrman DOES NOT believe EVERYTHING in the gospel texts are historically unreliable, e.g. He thinks it is almost certain beyond doubt that Jesus existed and was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate. <= does that prove anything beyond that fact? No.

In his books Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman exposes theologically-inclined edits to the bible bullshit.  No wonder the jesus freaks hate him!

My complaint with Ehrman is that after spending 20 years pissing on this self-serving bullshit which xtians call holy he still cannot make the break completely away from his early training and belief.  For that you need a real historian.  Richard Carrier.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about theology.  "Just the facts, ma'am."

[Jehanne]

[Jehanne]

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

Now understand Passover is not a day long event with a single meal. No it is a weeks worth of 'passover meals of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, leading up to the sader feast.

I am not an expert in Jewish history, but it seems to me that the author of John wanted Jesus, "the perfect Lamb", slaughtered on Passover, when the other lambs were being slaughtered in Jerusalem.

That is correct.  And it is completely different from the synoptic bullshit.

[madog]

I find that there are differences between the different books of Woo ..... "In the beginning" .... "Once upon a time" ....

[robvalue]

I really like this video, it's a snappy takedown.

I never thought of the miracle argument he uses at the end. Of course, no sceptic would take such a thing seriously anyway when all you have are textual accounts, but the probability argument is strong. Even if you said that miracles are exceedingly unlikely, that's enough in itself.

The problem is defining what a miracle even is, of course. But anything that's an undemonstrated phenomena is never a good candidate for a likely explanation.

[Lek]

It sounds like he's participating in a debate as he was talking fast to get it all spoken in an allotted time period.  Plenty of evidence is available to show that the gospels were written earlier than he is assuming.  He also failed to mentioned that the writers of 1 Peter and 1 John clearly claim to have been with Jesus.  Saying that the two individuals that the women saw at the tomb were either men or angels doesn't cut it because angels almost always appeared in the form of men.  If one gospel account refers just to Mary Magdalene and other gospels refer also to other women, it isn't a contradiction.  If this was a debate I'd like to hear the rebuttal, but there is already plenty of rebuttal available to all his arguments from other sources.

[Edwardo Piet]

Call me superficial, but I make a point not to watch videos that are advertised as DESTROYING or PWNING viewpoint or person xy.

Wow, fair point. I don't even need to watch the vid in the OP now. I mean... let's face it you totally PWNT it.