hallq

I don't think there's going to be an MP3, unless someone bootlegs it. The anouncement said in early May there'd be a transcript.

dost

I think the debate was recorded for sure, so the cd's/tapes should be available on the site in around a month or so. (perhaps we should keep an eye on certain Christian apologetic websites for the avalaibility of the debate). Well, if not, then at least the transcript should be an interesting read.

I really hope someone who attended the debate offers a few details about it here.

Soul Invictus

I don't usually resurrect old threads, but I happened to see a recent thread with William Lane Craig in the title, and I instantly remembered hearing about a big debate he had, and that the transcripts weren't going to be available anytime soon.

I decided to locate this particular thread to find the link and per the Holy Cross Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture site, they now have the debate transcript available in PDF format.

Read and discuss!

dost

Hello Soul,

I am glad you ressurrected this thread. Recently I have been making enquiries about obtaining the debate video as I find it very difficult reading huge documents. Even though I managed to read most of the transcript with much difficulty, watching the actual debate on video tends to be more enjoyable. Here is an email that I recently received from the Biola apologetics department:

+++++++++++

Hello friend,

Thank you so much for your patience in waiting to get the good
news...The debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman is now available for purchase! To buy this debate, just call the number below or toll free at 888.332.4652. It is available on DVD for $16.00.

I hope to hear from you soon!

Christian Apologetics - Biola University
(562) 906-4570

+++++++++++

I'm going to place an order in the coming days

Soul Invictus

Thank you for doing that legwork as well. I wonder if they produce the DVD in Region 1 code so that those of us in the US can view it. No PAL format here. I guess we could always convert it though.

Malachi151

His arguments are not the ones I would have used.

#1 I grow tired of seeing people put so much emphasis on when the Gospels were written. That they were written 30 or even 100 years after the fact isn't that important and its a very weak point IMO.

#2 You can't reasonably attack the resurrection without first attacking the crucifixion.

#3 He failed to make us of the scriptural basis for the resurrection and show how it tied in with overall plot themes. For examples:

GMark is about the signs for the "time of the end", the resurrection is a further literary development of that theme, its a sign of the "time of the end".

#4 He calls it based on oral tradition. I disagree, its based on the scriptures.

#5 He points out the differences between the accounts in the different Gospels, which is true, but I would also have laid more emphasis on the fact that they are all based on GMark, and thus its not even 4 accounts, its 3 re-tellings of 1 account, each altered for theological and regional reasons.

Overall, I found Ehrman's points disappointing, but he's not a mythicist so I guess that is to be expected.

John Kesler

So only Christ-myth advocates can make good "points"? :huh:

jesus

Personally, agree with Malachi. I've listen to plenty of Ehrman, and I've enjoyed his perspectives. But the false assumption that he and most other scholars make is there was a historical jesus to begin with.

Stay Cool!

Malachi151

Well, as I pointed out, his assumptions lead to weak arguments.

The biggest issue is that the Christian in this case is pointing out that there is no record of veneration of a tomb of Jesus, thus he uses this in HIS FAVOR to claim that this shows the body was gone.

Umm... hello!!! Any mythicist wouldn't let this stand for obvious reasons and would turn his very claim against him.