Monday, January 16, 2006

Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig to debate on the resurrection

Now I know that Ben Myers thinks that apologetics is about as useful as a Reggae band an Klu Klux Klan Konvention. I am also more than aware that Jim West would not be bothered if Jesus’ bones were discovered tomorrow (afterall, who needs an empty tomb when you have kergyma!!!), but I must report on a topic that centers on the historicity of the resurrection. There is to be a forthcoming debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the resurrection.

March 28, 2006
Holy Cross College, Worcester, Massachusetts
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Debate with Bart D. Ehrman

Contact Charles Anderton
Debate Website

Craig is probably the most competent and capable Christian apologist of our day. He did one doctorate in Philosophy of Religion at Birmingham under John Hick and a second doctorate in Theology in Germany under Wolfhart Pannenberg. I’m seen his debates on video, the net and read several of his works – and he is one sharp cookie. He has this ability to take in a lot of information, process it, critique it, and fire off counter-responses with greater speed and accuracy than an MP5/10 SMG (Joe Cathy will know what I’m talking about!). He has already debated Dom Crossan and Gerd Lüdemann on the resurrection and they were interesting exchanges. I'm sure that Ehrman will make for a worthy opponent for Craig and he'll push Craig to the wall if he can. I wish I could be there this the debate – it would be a hoot.

One of my many highlights at SBL was meeting Bill Craig at Tom Weeden’s seminar on K. Bailey’s oral tradition theory. As a young Christian I found his scholarship very helpful and illuminating and it was a pleasure to meet him in person. His website is available here.


Anonymous said...

You can actually listen to many of Craig's debates on the existence of God,case for theism and Christianity, the problem of evil, etc. Here's the link:

The Veritas forum website -

C. Stirling Bartholomew said...

I think Bart Ehrman will need our prayers.

Every time I see WLC name I think of the late W.Lane (Mark, NICNT & Hebrews WBC).

Steven Carr said...

The Empty Tomb edited by Price and Lowder contains many articles, some directly addressed to Craig's apologetics (and one or two which appear to be addressed to people on a different planet)

One day, William Lane Craig might debate Jeff Lowder. Various Christian groups have proposed such debates in the past, but Craig has always said no.

The chapter on the spiritual nature of the resurrection in the Empty Tomb is very interesting.

Paul says outright that Jesus became a life-giving spirit.

Which seems pretty clear to me.

Steven Carr said...

Just to follow up my previous point, as there is a link on the page to a review of Wright's resurrection book...

Paul writes 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.

In a work of over 700 pages, the Bishop of Durham never finds space to quote this in full(!), and when he does quote part of it, it takes him less than a page to start to talk about a life-giving body.

Carrier, in The Empty Tomb, pretty much demolishes Wright's arguments, and presents clear evidence that Paul thought we left our present bodies behind, and were clothed with a new body.

Even Wright has to concede that this is a very natural way of reading Paul, although he later reverses himself.

'Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367)'

'Exchange' and 'addition' are strange words to use for somebody who wants to show that the body Jesus had after resurrection was continuous with the body which went into the ground, which is the Gospels picture.

In the Gospels, does Jesus lose one body and get another, or have a body added to his flesh and blood body?

To return to the Ehrman debate, I wonder if Ehrman has done any debates?