I recently finished this book and was utterly blown away by its conclusions. For those who don't know, Lee Strobel was an atheist who became a devout Christian after his pursuit of the historical evidence for Christ. He got a degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School. He used to work for the Chicago Tribune. Once his wife became a Christian (which he was absolutely devastated to hear), he started noticing dramatic changes in her character and decided to go to her church to see what was going on. At that point, he decided to use his journalism techniques and set out to find the answers to the toughest questions he could muster as a rigid atheist. He interviewed the top leading scholars (whose reputation were respected in a wide variety of circles) and set out to believe whatever the evidence led him to believe, regardless of how much he wouldn't like it. Sure enough, his book "The Case for Christ" came out revealing his adherence to the Faith.
In his new book, he felt troubled by all the news media headlines, "Jesus had a lover", "Jesus' tomb is found", "Scholars prove a radically new Jesus over against the gospels", "Jesus and Judas plotted together", "The Secret Gospel of Mark reveals that Jesus had secret initiations with young men at night", "The Gospels prove unreliable as a historical document" and the list went on. He knew these could not remain unanswered if he was to proclaim that the Christian faith was true and a thinking one on top of that. He needed the truth and, once again, he would ask all the toughest questions, going wherever the evidence led him.
Below are the six prominent questions that he sought to be answered (ones he has researched to be the dominant ones):
Challenge #1
"Scholars are uncovering a radically different Jesus in ancient documents just as credible as the four gospels"
Challenge #2
"The Bible's portrait of Jesus can't be trusted because the Church tampered with the text"
Challenge #3
"New explanations have refuted Jesus' resurrection"
Challenge #4
"Christianity's beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions"
Challenge #5
"Jesus was an imposter who failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies"
Challenge #6
"People should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus"
All I can say is it was a wonderfully fascinating read and has propelled me to dive into this subject more rigorously. Discovering the truth can be both fun and scary and this topic, I believe, delivers! I do recommend to all who are reading this blog to pick up this book sometime. Whether you are a Christian or not give it a try, especially if these challenges are ones you cling too. We all want to know truth, right? This book is a good primer for finding honest answers to these challenges.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
18 comments:
Since Strobel only interviewed conservative Christian scholars for his book, do you think there was ever any chance that he was going to find the evidence leading anywhere other than the conservative Christian conclusion?
Hello Vinny! Thanks for posting on my blog. You have a good question. I have a couple things to say.
First off, as Strobel admits in the book, the scholars he interviewed are respected scholars within BOTH circles. They have retained this title because of their dedication to remaining objective in the usage of historical methodology. When this type of proper scholarship is upheld, liberals and conservatives can have substantial agreements. When there is a 180 degree difference (such as Crossan in the Jesus Seminar and Craig Evans) the fundamental issue is either a matter of poor historical criticism, or whether one party has an axe to grind. And considering the honest questions that Strobel asks leads me to believe that the scholars he interviewed are doing their best to be objective and fair. This leads me to my second point.
Almost every single one admitted that they themselves would adhere to the historical evidence if it pointed the other way. They weren't ashamed or frightened to admit that. However, what historical evidence we currently have says something different. For example, the ACTUAL physical evidence we have for the Gospel of Thomas places it no earlier than 150. They admit there may be a possible earlier date, but AT THIS POINT it is only conjecture because no physical evidence points to an earlier date. To suggest differently shows someone may have an axe to grind.
Sometimes 180 degree differences are simply the result of good faith disagreements about the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. Given the difficultly in dating a document like the Gospel of Thomas, I don’t find it at all hard to believe that careful unbiased scholars might reach opposing conclusions. I am currently reading The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus by Dominic Crossan. He seems to be very careful to thoroughly layout his methods and his presuppositions and he seems to deal with opposing views fairly and without overstating the evidence for his own conclusions. I can certainly see how someone might disagree with those conclusions, but it is hard for me to see any axe-grinding going on.
I am somewhat puzzled by your uses of the word “admit” as I think that is more properly used with respect to propositions that undercut a speaker’s claim rather than support it. For example, I would “admit” that Daniel Wallace responded to challenges to his position fairly and respectfully, but I would “assert” that Craig Evans fell short. I was particularly put off by his sarcasm in comments like “Oh yeah, what a brilliant argument” and “Oh, that’s absurd.” I was also taken aback by the ignorance he attributes to liberal scholars in misconstruing Jesus’ use of the phrase “Son of Man.” Said Craig, “They didn't know how it was linked to the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7, where there are divine implications. Instead they pursued a bizarre Greco-Roman understanding, translating 'Son of Man' as 'Son of Adam,' which doesn't clarify anything." In fact, I personally have read discussions of this very issue by Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Bart Ehrman. Craig may disagree with them, but it seems silly to accuse other scholars of missing a connection that is footnoted in any decent Bible.
Strobel’s claim (not admission) that he would adhere to the historical evidence if it pointed the other way fails to impress me since he never risks exposing himself or his readers to any evidence that might do so. I am similarly unimpressed by his frequent use of legal analogies. In a court room, no matter how well credentialed the plaintiff’s expert might be, the jury still gets to here from an expert chosen by the defendant. In addition, the cross examination of the plaintiff’s expert is conducted by the defendant’s attorney, not by the plaintiff himself. In Strobel’s books, the defendant’s whole case is presented by the plaintiff. I have no problem with Strobel advocating his views, but I have encountered many of his fans who have the erroneous impression that they are getting an even-handed presentation of both sides.
You have a good point, Vinny (thanks again for your interest in my topic!).
It is true that Evans used more sarcasm than was appropriate. However, given the nature of his interview, it wasn't completely "unscholarly". Although he knew the results would be published, it was an interview after all in the privacy of his own home and not a single one of us can claim we speak with such "clean scholarly respect" in such contexts.
I noticed that most of your post was what you stated on your blog on the subject. I was thinking about your comments the other night. Here is where I think Evans was both wrong AND right. First, he was wrong in asserting that Crossan and the like were unaware of Greco-Roman elements. But I do believe he was right in that their conclusions still supported the more Greek equivalents. Ignorant they may have not been, but their conclusions aren't entirely semitic. Perhaps this is where Evans was going.
I believe Strobel's strength was in his honest questions. I believe he presented the "views" well, although the intricate volume of evidence behind that was not present.
Unfortunately, I don’t have The Case for the Real Jesus in front of me because I returned it to the library. I think I recall that one of the difficulties with the Evans interview was that it was not always clear which liberal scholar he was critiquing because Strobel did not always identify an individual in his questions. The Wallace interview was easier to follow because it focused exclusively on Bart Ehrman and his book Misquoting Jesus (which I had recently read), but the rest of the interviews discussed ideas that ranged from flights of fancy like The DaVinci Code to legitimate peer reviewed scholarship. That probably made some over-generalizations inevitable.
As far as books I would recommend, I would think that Misquoting Jesus is a must. Ehrman is a top scholar as well as a good writer. I enjoyed The Changing Faces of Jesus Geza Vermes. Vermes is another well respected scholar who could never be accused of failing to understand Jesus’ Jewishness. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by John Shelby Spong is probably a good one to see for yourself what kind of stuff goes on at the Jesus Seminar. Spong, like Strobel, does not do original research as much as make the work of others accessible to a general audience but I would be hard pressed to deny that he has an axe to grind. I cannot claim that these are the cream of the crop, but I don’t think there are any crackpots in there.
Awesome! Thanks for the recommendations.
Here is my last comment on this post. I know Vinny that you have probably stopped looking at this particular subject, but I felt there was one more thing to add. Mainly to your very first comment. I was reading a review by the Apologist Frank Turek on Lee Strobel's book and I believe he answers your first question much better than I did. The following is, once again, from Frank Turek on Amazon.com where he reviewed the book. Below is the url followed by his comments:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031024210X
"In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Christian apologist and writer (I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist)who is a friend of Lee Strobel. Yes, I have an agenda just like every author who claims to write non-fiction. Lee Strobel has an agenda, and so do the atheist critics who dismiss his work. But that doesn't mean that what Lee or a critic writes is false or biased. People can present evidence objectively even if they personally are not neutral (I've noticed that neutral people rarely have the interest or expertise to write books!).
Unfortunately, many of Lee's critics claim that Lee's work cannot be trusted simply because he has some kind of Christian agenda. This is a fallacy that, if true, would swing a sword cutting both ways-- if you can't trust Lee because he has a Christian agenda, then you can't trust his critics because they have an atheist agenda. All authors have agendas, and all authors believe what they write! The issue is not the agenda, but the evidence!
The survivors of the Holocaust certainly had an agenda when they wrote about its horrors. Does that necessarily mean that we cannot trust them? Of course not. In fact, their experiences may have caused them to be all the more accurate and meticulous so as not to risk the dismissal of the message they cared so passionately about.
If you know Lee Strobel, he takes the accurate and meticulous route when writing a book. As in his previous "Case" books, Lee covers complicated topics honestly, and in a very readable and comprehensive way. When interviewing Christian scholars, Lee plays the part of a skeptic: he asks the kinds of questions and offers the kind of objections that real skeptics write about in their books-- people such as Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, and several "Jesus Seminar" proponents.
Critics complain that Lee should really interview those people, but why? Their thoughts are already in their books. Lee's job is to see if their thoughts are credible by interviewing Christian scholars with an opposing view. As usual, Lee plays devil's advocate brilliantly. It's as if the skeptics are asking the questions themselves. So who cares who's asking the skeptic's questions? They are asked and answered, and you, dear reader, are left to judge whether or not those answers make sense. I think they make great sense.
One of the best things about "The Case for the Real Jesus" is that Lee addresses the hottest alternative Jesus theories of the day. You'll read about the so-called Jesus tomb, the charge that the manuscripts can't be trusted, and the claim that Christianity was copied from pagan resurrection myths (among other topics). This is the one book that will give you the bottom line on all of those alternative theories-- a bottom line that once again reveals that the most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead for your sins and mine.
So let me reveal my agenda-- I can't recommend this book more highly. I think you ought to buy "The Case for The Real Jesus" and be enlightened by its outstanding evidence."
After I finished Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, I looked for conservative Christian reviews of his book because I wanted to know whether he had fairly presented the evidence. I was sure that they would disagree with the conclusions he drew, but I wanted to know whether he had been reasonably unbiased in his descriptions of textual criticism. When I found a review by Dan Wallace that acknowledged Ehrman’s expertise in the field, I felt comfortable that I had a pretty honest picture of what was going on in the field. If I had found a review from a liberal scholar that said that conservative Christians would agree with Ehrman’s presentation of the evidence, it just would not carry the same weight.
Everyone has there own agenda, but some people try to deal forthrightly with opposing viewpoints and some people mischaracterize opposing viewpoints. The surest way for me to know is by reading both sides for myself. However, when Wallace says that Ehrman presents the evidence honestly, I think I can feel pretty good about both Wallace and Ehrman. When Frank Turek tells me that Lee Strobel is doing a good job asking the kind of questions that a skeptic would ask, it does not inspire any confidence in me.
Yes, I see your point. But I feel that is up for each individual to decide in what brings them confidence (as for you, it did not and there is nothing wrong with that). After all, we all bring our previous knowledge and other types of "baggage" (if you will) to the table. For some of us, because of our background, we need certain types of criteria to be met to boost our confidence to "overcome" what may be holding us back from making a specific conclusion. For others, the criteria may be entirely different.
As for Turek's comment, I'm not saying because "Turek said it" that the issue is settled. I just believe that how he described the nature of presenting evidence is logical: EVERYONE has an agenda, we lay out the evidence and ULTIMATELY IN THE END we, as the readers, must decide if it holds up.
I don't believe Strobel was being dishonest and I felt that the "liberal" scholar's voices were being heard when Strobel quotes them (hence the nature of publishing ones thoughts and the possible consequences thereof).
The big issue is did Strobel uphold the other side fairly and does the critique/evidence of the scholars interviewed prove solid? I believe so. Therefore, I feel I will not be cheating anyone by recommending this book. BUT, I must remind you Vinny that I believe the book is a "primer". After all, a 260 page book will not cover EVERYTHING in an exhaustive form on this subject.
Which is why, after reading this book, I have begun to do some extensive research on a variety of sources to be more "in-depth" on the subject.
Does what I'm saying make sense in relation to Turek's comment?
There is a saying among newspaper reporters: “If your mother says you she loves you, check it out.” I am not so naïve as to believe that newspapers don’t have biases, but there are accepted methods of doing journalism that are designed to give the facts a chance to come out despite the subjective biases of the journalists. These methods include reporters verifying facts with multiple sources and editors who review the reporters’ work to make sure they did so.
In our legal system, a “fair” trial is one in which both sides get to call witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments. Just as importantly, both sides get to cross-examine the witnesses that the other side calls. No one in his right mind believes that judges and juries always make unbiased decisions, but these procedures give the facts a chance to come out despite individual biases and prejudices. In academia, scholars and scientists present their research in peer reviewed journals. Once again, it is not infallible, but it is a process whose purpose is to overcome individual biases.
The reason I have read Strobel is because Bible believing Christians challenged me to “look at the evidence” for myself. I could have said “I have looked at the evidence. I have read Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris,” but the Christians would have said that I had not looked at the whole story. I could answer “Hey, I just went where the evidence led me,” but the Christians would reply that I had stacked the deck in such a way as to avoid challenging my preconceived notions. On the other hand, Strobel interviews only Christian scholars and gets away with claiming that he “set out to believe whatever the evidence led him to believe, regardless of how much he wouldn't like it.”
I would agree that everyone has an agenda, but there are different ways of presenting evidence. When a preacher makes a factual claim in a Sunday sermon, he expects his congregation to rely on his personal trustworthiness. When a journalist reports a story in a newspaper or a lawyer presents evidence at a trial or a scholar presents research in a peer reviewed journal, the recipient at least knows that procedures were used to develop and present the material that mitigate or neutralize the effects of personal agendas.
When Strobel includes “A Journalist Investigates” in his book titles and fills his chapters with analogies to court cases, he is invoking methods and procedures that are intended to make his conclusions more credible. Having an advocate for one side present the other side’s case is fundamentally contrary to those principles. I realize that skeptics and apologists are never going to see eye to eye, but I would like to think it is possible to agree on what kinds of things can be considered facts and evidence and what kinds of methodologies can be considered most likely to produce facts and evidence.
You have a couple of good points. In light of his "A Journalist Investigates", he didn't fully uphold what a typical journalist would (or at least "should") do: interview both sides PERSONALLY. You are absolutely correct.
But of course, as we all know from countless newspaper articles from journalists, this is rare. I can't even begin to count all the articles that I have read where a journalist interviews a person, asks them all the big questions that have been spreading around on the subject, the person interviewed responds, and the article is published. It definitely is not the best way of doing it, but it happens. However, with Strobel I don't believe his interviews were purely question and answer. Strobel did some substantial research into several (I don't know if I can be safe in saying "all") of the authors he quoted from when doing the interview. He was familiar with a lot of the material in their books which aides his credentials as a "representative". Nothing beats having both scholars ACTUALLY speaking for their views in a book, but that is rare and can be remedied by a representative who isn't misquoting the other side.
Additionally, if a person wants scholars from both sides to be the ones presenting the views (over against a representative which is the most common form in academia literature today) then the reader has two options: Listen to debates such as William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main
or "debate-oriented" books like "Four Views on Salvation", "Five Views on Eternal Security" (liberal and conservative views written by the scholars themselves followed by responses) etc., etc., etc.
And I agree with what you said that we can't JUST read books like Strobel's. Although (and I know you disagree) I believe he was "fair" and "honest" in being a "representative", the book is not the end-all issue. No matter the research we do on a subject, believing full heartedly that it is true, we have to balance it with the ACTUAL words of the other side. Even if there was a book that totally satisfied you in how all views were represented, to go the great distance you must STILL read the very words of the scholars in their own books, right? I respect William Lane Craig because he would read several of the books written by the people who he would debate with (what comes to mind is Ehrman and Crossan) before commencing with the debate.
But regardless if someone should go about that kind of procedure, would that undermine books that "represent" ones side fairly over the scholars actual voice? If that is true, then most books out there must be tossed aside and forgotten.
On a final note, I must let you know that I do recognize your point on procedures for Journalists and Cross-examinations. In this area, Strobel shows a flaw. Point taken.
Now I may be standing out on a limb here, but I believe the error is a technicality and nothing more. Simply erase "A Journalist investigates..." and you are still left with what I believe: he was honest about the other side and asked good questions, having done his own personal research prior to this. Perhaps that does not matter. Perhaps putting that in the title and not upholding all the principles that a journalist would do on the matter makes his book useless. Maybe, but I sure don't think so.
Sorry, I believe that website got cut off. It is
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=debates_main
All I know is that when I read his books, I find myself wanting to ask a pointed follow up question just at the point when Strobel is saying something like “I had to admit that Craig (or Blomberg or Habermas or Craig, etc.) had made a convincing argument. Perhaps that is the thing that bothers me most. Not only is Strobel acting as representative for the skeptics in presenting their arguments, he is acting as their representative in conceding all the points
Strobel has the right in "conceding all the points". As we both admit, no book is completely depraved of an agenda. In this particular point you make, you must also remember that no book is depraved of the author's opinion. Strobel has a right to state how convinced he is by the evidence just as much as you, the reader, has a right to disagree.
I do not agree because Strobel concedes the points, but because I am convinced.
Strobel was convinced before he ever saw the evidence. If he ever had any real questions, he would have investigated both sides of the issues. I don't think that "depraved" was the word that you were looking for, but the fact that everyone has an agenda does not excuse people who deal with questions in an intellectually dishonest way. If you are convinced after only reading one side of the argument, then I don't see how it means much.
First off, just because I'm convinced doesn't mean I'm right. It simply means I'm convinced. I am not implying that I need no further questions to be answered, nor have I claimed complete ignorance from the opposite view. I have either heard or read ACTUAL debates between prominent scholars on the topic (something you highly value).
You may believe Strobel was convinced before he ever saw the evidence, but I disagree because of one main issue. Strobel set out to do this historical "quest" (if you will) because he was "disturbed" by all the claims going around. In my book, you are disturbed because you do believe it might be true and you need answers.
If he was truly convinced beforehand, then he is an outright liar. His book would be a complete distortion of his real purpose behind writing the book. And frankly, that is a hard claim to defend. To make such a claim sounds like a personal attack more so than an objective observation. Even if it could be proved that, at the beginning, he would have "preferred" not to change his beliefs, who could blame him? Can anyone HONESTLY tell me that they would have absolutely no reservations about throwing away their entire belief system or worldview?
Moreover, issues that aren't religious can still cause people to hesitate when it needs changing; such as a scholar who has to recant his views on the absurdity of the Hittite existence. I'm sure the scholars who fully believed the Hittites was a grave error in the Bible would have preferred to have been right over against being proved wrong years later by archaeologists. No one likes being wrong, especially with big issues that pertain faith or our perception of the world.
Like I said previously, Strobel did investigate the other side, just not in the way YOU preferred. He did research on some of the scholar's works (a trait that ALL scholars do in their books when countering an opposite argument). He didn't randomly pick quotes that he heard flying around, tag them to Crossan, Erdman, and Funk and and say, "Evans, here are a bunch of random qoutes, prove them wrong please." What Strobel actually did was: research where these claims were coming from, take the claims and conclusions from the sources (i.e., scholar's works that were largely affiliated with the Jesus Seminar) and use their arguments up against critically acclaimed scholars from the other view and see where the chips fall.
That is a COMPLETELY acceptable method in scholarship today.
As such, to think that you believe he was being "dishonest" baffles me. I can completely understand if you weren't at all convinced by the book, but intellectually dishonest? I don't know, Vinny, I'm just not seeing that.
You keep saying that people need to read the other side, but didn't Strobel do that? The only difference in his book is he didn't INTERVIEW them. But a scholar's words in a book is a viable source for boldly quoting the conclusions/opinions/claims of those scholars (according to the world of modern scholarship). It is hard evidence and deemed just as credible as words coming out of their own mouths. If this wasn't so, then things like "contracts" would be useless! The fact that a person's signature follows a contract is damning evidence that the has read all the material and agrees to it. One does not need to interview the person to prove what he agreed to. Similarly, in scholarship, you don't NEED to interview the people to adequately share their conclusions. You only need to clearly state their claims. And, like I felt the people did who Strobel interviewed, they would trace the reasons WHY those claims came to be and then proceed to challenge them.
Jeremiah,
I apologize for the tone of my last comment. I wrote it at about the same time that I was posting a comment in response to another blog that had greatly irritated me. I think we have been having a civil exchange of ideas, and I am sorry that I pushed it in another direction.
Strobel does not provide much information about what he did to research the skeptic’s claims. I am not personally persuaded that he actually read any of the opposing views. I suspect that he simply went to the conservative Christian scholars and got their version of what the skeptics had said and scripted his questions from that.
One of the reasons I suspect this is that the quality of the interviews varied according to the scholar. I have visited Dan Wallace’s blog and posted comments there and he impresses me as someone who responds forthrightly to challenges to his positions. In The Case for the Real Jesus, I thought that Wallace tried to engage Bart Ehrman’s arguments honestly and fairly. I may not have been persuaded by the answers but I thought they dealt with the substance of Ehrman’s positions.
On the other hand, I thought that Licona and Evans did a much poorer job. It seemed to me that they sidestepped the substance of the skeptics’ positions and Strobel let them get away with it. This leads to believe that they told Strobel what questions he should ask. I think Wallace gave Strobel better questions to ask because that is the way he routinely conducts himself.
The other reason I am not personally persuaded that Strobel actually reads things is the questions he asked in The Case for a Creator. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the same experts from the Discovery Institute acted as expert witnesses for the school board in an Intelligent Design case. I have read many of those transcripts to see how the plaintiffs presented their case and how they cross-examined those experts. While it is true that Kitzmiller went to trial in 2005 after Strobel wrote The Case for a Creator in 2004, I think there were plenty of articles and books out there responding to the ID movement that contained the same arguments. If Strobel had actually read any of them and truly intended to challenge his Discovery Institute experts, he could have asked much tougher questions.
I recently ran across a video in which one of Strobel’s frequent interviewee’s, William Lane Craig, makes the following statement:
The way that I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. This gives me a self authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances, the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity. I don’t think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, and I should regard that simply as a result of the contingent circumstances that I am in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time I would discover that in fact that the evidence—if I could get the correct picture—would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ
In other words, it does not really matter where the evidence leads because, should it lead in the wrong direction, the witness of the Holy Spirit trumps the evidence.
I personally do not believe that Strobel is any more willing to follow the evidence wherever it goes than Craig is. However, I believe he is much less forthright than Craig is.
Once again, I apologize for letting the tone of our exchange degenerate. I appreciate your cordiality.
I admit I was a little insulted and perplexed by the previous comment as I couldn't identify where the source of the irritation came from. It is not a problem though, I completely understand (I have done no less myself). And I am thoroughly enjoying your input on this whole matter. Similarly, I do hope I have contributed some substance on the issue for you as well.
As for your paragraphs 2-5, all of what you says sounds like a good observation. I will add one note however, mainly that my own detective work sensed a much deeper level of research on Strobel's part than what you claim. But I can't claim it with 100% certainty, considering Strobel never blatantly admits it nor have I asked him. Now I believe that goes your way too in regards to your claim that he didn't do any substantial research. Nevertheless, I do understand where you are coming from.
I will need to watch the youtube video to see the surrounding context and further dialogue on his comments. I say this because I am totally aware of those words from Craig and I understand the logic behind what he is saying. He wrote a relatively large section on the matter in the book "Five Views of Apologetics". Of course, those words you quoted removed from what I know he said in detail on the matter makes him sound irrational.
However, I will need to post on the matter tomorrow (it's my wife's birthday today and I need to cook her dinner right now). So please stop by again, Vinny, and I will try my best in explaining Craig's position.
By the way, have you ever read N.T. Wright's work on the "People of God" series?
Post a Comment