If you're like me you're itching to find out how this debate went. The best we got so far is James White's discussion of it on his Dividing Line program here. During the show he mentioned a review from a Catholic that apparently he didn't like too much. That was here. One Matthew Bellasario attended and gives a slight edge to Price.
I have to once again give James White some credit. It seems as though he thoroughly immersed himself in Price's thought. He always does this, but it's a lot more than can be said of many of his opponents. This makes the debate all the more interesting to me. It's great to hear people actually try and deal with Price's views. It will be interesting to see how White contrasts with someone like Phil Fernandez, who has one line. "Most people disagree with you." Yeah, yeah. You got anything else? Price was so disgusted by the experience with Fernandez that he hinted he might be done with debates. So now he got to have an experience with White, who apparently tried to do a little better than that, and it would seem Price really enjoyed himself. Hopefully this will encourage Price to do more of this.
Also I have to give White credit for taking on a tough topic. Christians think the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but people like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona don't even attempt to try and defend this view. They list their "minimal facts" and steer clear of beliefs that they are committed to, but which they just don't have the guts to defend. This is a tough subject for White and a tough opponent in Price, so again I think credit is due.
6 comments:
I have to think that White wasn't very happy about the debate since he hasn't been patting himself on the back on his blog the way he did after his debate with Ehrman (in which I thought White got smoked).
I don't know how much credit to give White though. He doesn't have the kind of academic credentials or standing that Craig or Habermas has so he has to take bigger risks to make a splash.
I agree with you that his lack of patting himself on the back is unusual in this case. Couple this with his statements like "I don't know how it could have gone any better" and "this was one of the most challenging debates I've had" would suggest that underneath it all he probably doesn't regard this as his best performance. Makes it all the more interesting to me. Can't wait to hear it.
Don't you think it's weenie of the Craig's and the Licona's to avoid this topic though?
Did you watch the Matt McCormick v. Russel DiSilvestro debate? DiSilvestro tried to follow Craig's minimal facts approach but it fell flat because he didn't talk as fast or bob and weave as nimbly as Craig. Craig is so slick that he convinces many Christians that his arguments are much stronger than they really are. I would describe him as a "weasel" I rather than a "weenie" though.
"For Price, this was a point of contention for him because he could not understand how such an event would not have been recorded by St. Paul himself. He implied that the story was later made up and added to the book of Acts. White countered by claiming that St. Paul would not have had to repeat his own conversion story in letter, because it would already have been known to the Christian communities that he was writing to. "
greetings
does paul repeat himself on thing which don't which don't need to be repeated?
if the vision is central to the christian religion, why wasn't it repeated? why wasn't it repeated to counter the claim that the deciples stole the body?
no answer
Post a Comment