re: #211 Capricious Casserole of Calamity

Can you elaborate a bit? He distorts the historical facts about it, or he offers his own new interpretations of the dogma? Because I don’t see much wrong with the latter.

The latter is fine- and to be cloear, I’m no expert on Ehrman. I have heard him a couple time and he makes for fascinating lecture.

It isn’t so much he offers his own interpretation. LIke I said, he is pushed back against because he lectures others on what they purportedly believe.

The argue the point and the ‘he said, she said, starts’.