Bart Ehrman destroys Christianity in under 12 minutes.

[Aractus]

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.

No it doesn't. The resurrection is where he appears to people. Saying he ascended into the celestial realm isn't what is meant by the resurrection, that is the ascension. The ascension is mentioned by Mark and Paul, but the resurrection - the cornerstone of Christianity - is not. The four gospels, Acts, and even Paul's epistles are fairly consistent on the teachings of Jesus and in the crucifixion. One major point of difference is the 'last supper' which Paul frames as 'the lord's supper' not knowing to be the 'last'. But on the matters of the ascension and resurrection they are very inconsistent. Matthew says, for example, that graves were opened and zombies walked the street. A very important and memorable event, if it happened, Luke and John don't mention it.

[robvalue]

16:8 is the resurrection? Not even the characters in the story have been given any evidence, let alone us. Just some guy saying it's happened. Is that all it takes to convince some people? The story characters don't see him.

The bible is already the unevidenced claim; 16:8 is an unevidenced claim within that claim. It doesn't get any better than that.

It's like no one even watched my video.

[robvalue]

Oh wait, now I get it. There's a highly dubious "extra ending" to 16:8 which suddenly announces Jesus actually did stuff. I guess if you accept this extra ending, it is evidence (within the story, not actual evidence of anything). I'd have to look into that more, but it looks very suspicious.

Considering 16:9-12 is widely considered to be a forgery, I'm leaning towards calling bullshit.

[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.

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.

Nope.  I don't think you ever gave it a moment's fucking thought.  That's why you are so delighted when other scribes added a better ending for you.  The only thing you clowns need to save is your holy horseshit.

[Minimalist]

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?

[robvalue]

I mean, these dubious extra endings are the equivalent of proof that Gandalf really did come back to life within the story of Lord of the Rings.

It's sad how even Christians at such an early time after Jesus' supposed death felt the story was unconvincing enough to need a fake ending.

If you instead look at Mark 1-8 without the dubious bits, it fits perfectly as a story. The extra bits just look like rushed stupid frantic efforts to shoe horn in something he never intended.

[Minimalist]

The video above is over an hour.  But Ehrman speaks much slower.  Maybe the fundies can understand him that way?

[robvalue]

Considering most still seem think they were written by independent eye witnesses, I don't think there's any getting through to them.

[John V]

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?

It says "there you will see Him." That suggests that they later saw it. Look up suggest - it doesn't mean claim directly.

[John V]

No it doesn't.

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.”

The resurrection is where he appears to people.

Resurrection is coming back to life after death.

Saying he ascended into the celestial realm isn't what is meant by the resurrection, that is the ascension.

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.

Matthew says, for example, that graves were opened and zombies walked the street. A very important and memorable event, if it happened, Luke and John don't mention it.

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