Michael Licona vs. Bart Ehrman Debate 2009 MP3 Audio
Michael Licona debates Bart Ehrman on the topic: Can historians really prove Jesus rose from the dead? This is their second debate (first debate here) on the resurrection. Videos here.
Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.
You may also enjoy William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman here or James White vs. Bart Ehrman here.
Brian Auten
Brian Auten is the founder emeritus of Apologetics315. He is also director of Reasonable Faith Belfast. Brian holds a Masters degree in Christian Apologetics and has interviewed over 150 Christian apologists. His background is in missions, media direction, graphic design, and administration. Brian started Apologetics315 in 2007 to be an apologetics hub to equip Christians to defend the faith.
Comments:
-
Haecceitas
The debate was interesting, yet pretty frustrating to listen to. Almost all of Ehrman's points in his opening statment were bad (either irrelevant to the topic at hand or fallacious) but Licona on the other hand failed to make many of the points that would have streghtened his case.
I also agree that the debate topic should have been worded a bit differently. Actually, I think that given Ehrman's actual arguments (red herrings about the NT and a generic argument against historical conclusions about miracles), it would have been more fruitful to simply debate "Is it possible for a historian to verify the occurrence of a miracle?"
-
winteryknight
Great job getting the audio, Brian! If people want the DVD, they are selling it for $10.
-
Jason Engwer
There are a lot of problems with Ehrman's side of the debate. He keeps repeating arguments that not only were bad to begin with, but also have been refuted in past debates in which he participated. I've posted a review of this particular debate here.
I think the most significant aspect of the debate was what Licona reported about his research on hallucinations. Ehrman didn't offer anything comparable to advance the debate.
Comments are closed.
emmzee
I don't really like the title of this debate … why would Licona agree to it? Historians can't "prove" anything with 100% certainty. Wouldn't a better title be "Is it historically viable that Jesus rose from the dead?" or something along those lines?