Toto

These are my notes on the Craig – Luedemann debate held January 25, 2002 in San Luis Obispo.

William Lane Craig, a staff member of Campus Crusade for Christ, is a professional debater. He is extremely well organized and has a slightly aggressive stance, without appearing too overpowering. His hair is neatly trimmed, and he wears business casual garb - a shirt with an open neck, no tie. He would work well in the modern corporation – his presentation might have been designed for a PowerPoint™ slide show, and I could visualize him giving a similar talk to the sales executives on the new product line. He had 2 major points, with four points under the first and five under the second, and he seemed peeved when Luedemann did not respond in the same format.

Luedemann, in contrast, is a German academic. It is not that he is a bad debater - he is just NOT a debater, not even trying to be a debater, either unclear on the concept of debate or deliberately ignoring its rules. He may appear slightly disorganized, but the disorganization obviously comes from having too many facts, with too many nuances, to fit into neat bullet points. His grey hair is a little unruly, and he wears a suit and a tie. While Craig speaks like a corporate clone, Luedemann speaks from his heart. He projects genuine emotion, genuine distress at the harm that religious intolerance has done, but also an aura of personal inner serenity. His German accent (more than an accent – he is not comfortable in English) left me wondering if I heard him correctly at times. But I ended up with a more positive impression of Luedemann than I expected. If I were looking for a religious experience, he is the one I would want to follow. Perhaps he is the true Christian, in spite of his lack of belief.

Craig started with the four facts that he claims historians agree on. Then he said he will show that the best historical explanation for those facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead. The four “facts” are that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, that the tomb was found to be empty later by women, that the disciples and others reported that Jesus appeared to them, and that they then went out to proclaim the Gospel. Craig claimed that this is the majority opinion among scholars, with the false implication that this establishes it as having some kind of factual basis. Craig then gave 5 reasons why the explanation that God raised Jesus is the best explanation. He discussed some of the oddball theories of what happened to the body, and made fun of them. He claimed that the only reason people do not accept the Resurrection as fact is that they rule out the possibility of miracles.

Luedemann started by addressing the word “atheism”. There are different types of atheists. There are those who think that all religious belief is delusion, that the universe is all that there is and that reason is the best tool for dealing with it, and he does not count himself among them. But there is also the definition from the word itself – a, meaning not, and theist, one who believes that God intervenes in history. Many Christians would be atheists under this definition. He says that he believes in some unseen order to things (but I think I missed part of this due to his accent.) He noted that the Romans considered the early Christians to be atheists since they did not worship the Roman gods, and that Christians later used the term “atheist” for heretics of all sorts.

Luedemann then spoke on various things without providing a unifying theme. He said that, after the Holocaust and after 9-11, you have to start with the assumption that God does not intervene in history. Trying to see God in history is divisive and keeps us from those with other faiths or no faith, so he does not use God to explain history.

(In the Q&A following the lecture, someone asked Craig to respond to Luedemann’s arguments on the existence of evil. Craig stated “that problem has been solved.” He rattled off a list of names of philosophers who had allegedly solved the problem, then said we don’t know what ultimate purpose God might have by allowing evil, as if that counted as a solution. Luedemann said he was a historian and avoided speaking about philosophy, so he had no rebuttal. But I was astounded to hear that the problem of theodicy has been “solved.” In Craig’s debate with Eddie Tabash, Craig stated that the Holocaust, after all, led to the formation of the state of Israel. Some thought he lost the debate at that point.)

In the previous debate, Luedemann discarded his prepared notes and spoke about the anti-Semitism in the Bible, his point being that the anti-Semitism of the Bible discredits it as a moral guide. (The Christian response to this was that the anti-Semitic bias did not mean that the Bible was not true.) In this debate he did not get diverted in that direction.

Luedemann did not directly tackle Craig’s points except to say that the Gospels are legendary, not objective descriptions, and cannot be used as evidence. He pretty much ignored Craig’s 5 criteria for good historical explanation. He said that the basis of Christianity is not the Resurrection, but the Exhaltation. (But I may have missed something there.)

The factual disagreement between Craig and Luedemann was not always clear in the debate, and I would have missed a lot if I had not read the book about their prior debate. (And even then, Luedemann had to answer some questions by saying "read my books" ) Craig stated that Luedemann agrees with him that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in a tomb, and Luedemann did not dispute this, although he has described the Gospels as legendary and Joseph is not referenced before the Gospel of Mark. Craig emphasized Joseph because if Jesus was buried in a known place, and the tomb was then empty, he can argue that the authorities could have squelched the early church by producing Jesus’ body, and they did not do this. (An argument from silence, needless to say.) Luedemann, however, alludes to other possibilities: Joseph could have put the body in a tomb, but moved it the next day; he could have forgotten where the tomb was, the women could have gone to the wrong tomb, etc. He also pointed out that the disciples, according to Acts, (which he says is unreliable Christian propaganda) did not start preaching the Gospel until 50 days after Jesus death, by which time the body would have decomposed to an unrecognizable state. (Note that there are stronger arguments: John Dominick Crossan thinks that Jesus’ body was thrown into a common grave, which is what happened to most crucified criminals. And the “empty tomb” story cannot be dated before Mark, despite Craig’s attempts to read it into a phrase in one of Paul’s letters. By the time the Gospel of Mark had been written, the Romans had leveled Jerusalem along with any tomb.)

Luedemann has an alternative explanation for the appearances. He thinks that they can be explained as visions induced by the emotional state of Peter and Saul/Paul. Peter was overcome by guilt at having denied Jesus, and after the crucifixion had a conversion experience, and thought he saw Jesus. He thinks that Jesus planted the seeds for this by speaking about bodily Resurrection in the context of Jewish practice. Saul persecuted the Christians because he repressed his attraction to them, until it became overwhelming, something like a homophobe who is denying his own homoerotic urges. Saul/Paul’s loss of sight was a psychosomatic phenomenon familiar to psychotherapists.

If Luedemann had just been trying to counter Craig’s arguments, he would have had an easier time, but asserting his own thesis allowed Craig to attack details that seemed improbable. Craig continually referred to Luedemann’s theories as the “hallucination” hypothesis, in attempt to discredit it. Luedemann preferred to call the appearances “visions.”

All in all, I learned some things. I learned where Nomad gets his stuff. I figured out why Robert Price is so distraught over <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html" target="_blank">the way Craig distorts Biblical scholarship</a>.

Craig’s arguments are extensively dissected and refuted by Jeffrey Jay Lowder in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html" target="_blank">this article on the secular web</a>. Lowder’s arguments would have to be condensed and massaged into a PowerPoint™ presentation to be used effectively in a debate.

But the most offensively dishonest part of Craig’s presentation was his claim that his theory (that 'God did it' ) passes the test for being the best explanation of the facts. Craig cited 5 criteria from McCullogh’s Justifying Historical Descriptions. He says that his theory has explanatory scope and power; it is plausible, given the historic context of Jesus’ unparalleled life and claims; it is not ad hoc or contrived because it requires only one additional hypothesis, that God exists; it is in accord with accepted belief, because Christians do not believe that anyone would rise from the dead without supernatural intervention, and it far outstrips any rival theories.

I was astounded at his chutzpah. He has proposed a theory based on supernatural intervention, but he claims that it is “plausible” and “in accord with accepted beliefs.” It is definitely not plausible based on how we know the world works now, and it is not in accord with the accepted beliefs of many Americans. The problem with his explanation is not some prejudice against miracles; it is the fact that every time someone tries to examine a miracle, it turns out to be something else – either fraud or mistake or an ordinary event misinterpreted. If a miracle did happen, it would require much more proof than an obviously legendary writing from close to 2000 years ago that lacks supporting evidence.

I can think of a number of more plausible theories than divine intervention – in particular the theory that GMark is an allegory and there never was a tomb, empty or otherwise.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000032" target="_blank"> Prior thread</a>

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Seth K

I also attended the same debate, and have some of my own observations, and some additions to what Toto said:

1. Lüdemann started out with the discussion about atheism because the debate sponsors promoted him as an atheist and he objected.

2. An crucial point of Lüdemann's is that the "visions" were of a spirtual ressurection, not a physical one. The belief of physical ressurection was a legendary embellishment by the time the Gospels were written.

Here is part of draft I'm writting on the debate:


The debate was sponsered and set up by
Veritas Forum. They put on a week long lecture series at the local college, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), of which the debate was the final event. The purpose of the forum was, in the words of the student introducing the debate, "to present the intellectual truths of Christianity."

The debate was held in the church gymnasium. A friend and I ended up in the sanctuary, which was set up for the overflow to watch the proceedings on TV screens, even though we arrived 15 minutes early. Both gym and sanctuary were filled to overflowing before the proceedings got underway. Others in our local atheist group ended up on the floor between the pews. The crowd was mostly college students but there were a fair number of community members.

This is the second matchup between Craig and Lüdemann. A report on the first can be read at:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/september.html#ludemann" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/september.html#ludemann</a>
This report is critical of Lüdemann's performance in that debate, and colored the expectations of me and my atheist friends that Craig, considered one of the best oral debaters in Christian apologetics, picked an easy opponent. In comparing the two debates, I think Lüdemann did bit better in this one, and Craig stuck pretty much to the same presentation.

DEBATING STYLES

Lüdemann, a native of Germany, was criticized in the first debate over his shakey English and think accent. These were not a problem this time around. Though his diction was a little slow, there was no problem in understanding him and his English was articulate and correct. Lüdemann was better prepared this time around, and stuck with his presentation. He also came across as relaxed and affable, and made good use of humor on occasion.

Craig is still the better stump debater though. He talks fast and smoothly. He is well prepared, and from his speaking schedule, he gets lots of practice. His presentation is well polished. He repeatedly pounded on his main points every round, probably to good effect with the mostly Christian crowd.

MISSED OPPROTUNITIES

I do feel that Ludemann missed some opprotunities in rebutting Craig's arguments. The biggest was not explictly addressing Craig's "Five Criteria." By not doing so he let Craig set the playing field. Lüdemann did discuss the issue of plausibility, but never in direct reference to Craig's list. It could be argued that miraculous intervention is rarely ever a plausible explaination for other "miracles" in historical texts. The fifth criteria, being in accord with accepted beliefs, should have been soundly criticized as well for effectively assuming the conclusion.

Something Craig should have been called on, in my opinion, but wasn't, was his interpretation of 1 Cor 15, in which he said that Paul really believed in a physical not spiritual resurrection, but soft-pedalled it to the Greeks of Corinth who would have been scared off by physical ressurection. This seems flagrantly ad hoc, and pointing out that Craig says the Scripture contains even a "white lie" could have cost him with this audience.

CONCLUSION

Lüdemann did well, but not great, in this debate. While not as polished or slick as a full-time speaker/debater like Craig, he gave a good account of his reasons to consider the Resurrection to be legendary, though he could have done a better job in directly countering Craig. While a debate professor would probably say that Craig won, largely on style and glibness, Lüdemann gave the freethinkers and fence-sitters some solid food for thought.

Nomad

Just so that I am clear, a Christian that is organized and presents himself well is "slick" and some kind of "salesman" (presumably like those that hustle shampoo or weapons systems, or whatever ), while an atheist that is not as organized and presents himself less well is so overloaded with facts that he just can't get them all into a single presentation...

This is what passes for critical freethinking?

Also, to clarify a point, W.L. Craig is not a full time speaker/debater. He happens to be a research professor of philosophy, and an author. He does debate widely, but this is the first time that I have heard this presented as if it were somehow a bad thing. For those interested, his virtual office can be found here:

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/index.html" target="_blank">Dr. William Lane Craig</a>

Now, I gotta ask...

What the heck does this mean? I have read some of Craig's essays, but none of his books, nor have I ever seen him debate. I did read his contribution to the debate between J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen in Does God Exist, (New York: Prometheus Books, 1993) and found his arguments there interesting. All of that said, as best as I can recall, I have never quoted him in a discussion, nor do I typically defend his views. If he actually thinks that his four points are agreed upon "historical facts", then I would definitely not agree with him, and would argue that he has overstated his case. At most they could be classified as both historically plausible and probable, but they are far from certainties.

At the same time, Luedemann's assertion that the NT is anti-Semetic is a sad betrayal of his own prejudices, and ignores the evidence of the NT itself.

So, if I may, to Toto, what did you mean by this statement please?

Thanks,

Nomad

P.S. Anyone that thinks a person can survive and thrive in the professional scholarly world (as both Craig and Luedmann have) without being able to hold your own in a debate has no idea what life is like in the scholarly world. I think it is unfortunate that the two reviewers could not look past their own biases, and simply reported what happened, together with their own conclusions.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Toto

Well, I beg your pardon, Nomad, if I insulted you by associating you with Craig. It just seemed that his approach and yours had a lot in common. You did start or participate in several threads on topics that seemed to come straight out of Craig's topics - the empty tomb, the significance of the spread of Christianity.

If you read the posts here, you would be aware that Luedemann does not consider himself an atheist by the usual definition, although he was labeled as such by the Campus Crusade for Christ. (It sounded like he might consider himself a non-theist.) He considered himself a liberal Christian at the time of his first debate with Craig, but later decided that he should not call himself a Christian. (He did not change his views on anything.)

I don't know what observing that Craig is slick and well organized (and, in my opinion, not intellectually honest about his case), and that Luedemann's style is more meandering, has to do with critical thinking. I did not look on the debate as a way to discover the truth. I was interested in this debate for what it would show about communication, and I observed that Craig appeared to have learned some lessons from the modern corporation in effective communication. This doesn't mean that what he says is wrong, any more than it means that Crest is not a good toothpaste. It does show that atheists and humanists need to develop some of the same skills to survive in the marketplace.

You say "At the same time, Luedemann's assertion that the NT is anti-Semitic is a sad betrayal of his own prejudices, and ignores the evidence of the NT itself."

Luedemann was speaking specifically about the charge in the Gospels that the Jews killed Christ. He might know a little more about anti-Semitism than you do. What he specifically said:

"Let me speak about the negative statements about the Jews made in the Bible. When you look at the passion narratives, all four New Testament Gospels not only exonerate Pilate but say he's a very nice fellow. Then who killed Jesus - who was responsible for his death? The bad Jews. This anti-Jewish attitude has permeated Christian theology since the first century and has had disastrous consequences for the Jewish people. No one in the world today would assume that what the New Testament writers say about the Jews is true. But if what they say about the Jews is not true, then all that they have written has to be reexamined if we really want to know what happened."

What part of that do you not agree with?

As to your last point, a debate such as this one, with time limits and under pressure, is not how scholars normally conduct business or decide the truth or value of scholarly work. It is a highly artificial bit of performance that Craig specializes in.

And as for your last little insult "I think it is unfortunate that the two reviewers could not look past their own biases, and simply reported what happened, together with their own conclusions." I am not a reporter. My point of view is well known, as is Seth's. In what way do you think I could not look past my biases? I did appreciate Craig's skill in debate. I did not find what he said persuasive, because of my own knowledge and analysis. If you just what to know what happened, you can probably get a tape of the debate.

Seth K

This was an oral debate. In oral debates, matters of oral style and presentation also matter, over and above the actual arguments. You can have a pretty well thought out argument, or a point to make, but if you end up stammering for 30 seconds straight and can't get your point across, as someone during the Q&A did, you'll be ignored or laughed at by both you opponent and the audience. Also, due to the limited time, there are also issues of tactics and strategy.

What passes for critical thinking, period, is the ability to look past the style of an oral presentation and actually examine the substance of what is said.

Craig is a very good oral debater. I mean that with respect and some admiration. But I still think his arguments don't hold up to examination.

Dude, you are reading way too much into that. I'm only pointing out the speaking is how Craig makes his bread and butter, and that he is very experienced at it. You have to admit that his speaking schedule does seem rather packed.

[snip]
I'll just reiterate what Toto said: A time-limited, oral debate is simply not how issues are resolved in scholarly circles. Issues, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or what ever, are debated in unlimited discussion, were time can be taken to address the myrid points raised. They are decided on actual arguments and evidence over the long run, not on who has the best sales pitch of the evening.

I've noted that many Christian tend to prefer the later, though it's the least reliable at reaching any sort of truth. I've noted that creationists prefer show debates and generally keep out of getting to more free form discussions. Discussion forums such as this one are closer to the scholarly form of debate in being unlimited and free form. The big name creationists avoid these like a plague (unless they can exercise total control), because a through examination is rather harsh on them. This is part of the reason I'm more skeptical of the "results" of oral debates.

Nomad

I was not insulted so much as I was puzzled by your statement that you now knew where I get my "stuff." Since I do not defend Craig's views, but express my own, even as I cite my sources, I was curious as to how you thought I was connected to Craig.

This kind of makes sense, but these arguments are hardly unique to me or Craig. If you read A.N. Sherwin-White, or Robin Lane Fox, or Michael Grant (all atheists or agnostics), they make the same arguments, though they obviously draw different conclusions from them.

Yes, I am aware of this, and think quite highly of him that he presents his views openly and honestly. I am very glad that he recognizes that one can hardly make the arguments Luedemann presents and call oneself a Christian in any meaningful sense.

See? As someone once said, there you go again. You simply cannot set aside your anti-Christian biases long enough to keep from questioning not only the arguments of someone with whom you disagree, but you must question his intellectual integrity and honesty. To me that is quite sad, though it is your right to hold to such prejudices.

*If* you honestly believe that one cannot be verbally articulate and possess critical thinking skills, then I think you need to see more debates. Luedemann has his own style, and he seems to be comfortable using it before live audiences. To me that is cool, and he is to be commended for his efforts. But do not make the mistake of equating his ponderousness with superior intellectual skills, nor a more solid reasoning ability.

Now I have to break down Luedemann's next argument into its components in order to show how it is flawed.

First error, as none of the Gospels present Pilate as a "very nice fellow." Any unbiased reading of the text will see that he is weak and indecisive, not to mention fearful of the crowds. Given the numbers of people that were in Jerusalem during the Passover, this is not an unreasonable fear, of course. Further, since he began his reign with a riot (when he tried to introduce Roman pagan symbols into the Temple), and knew of predecessors that had been recalled for riling up the Palestinian people, his caution is probably reasonable as well. But, more importantly, Luedemann's statement is simply not true, and as a scholar he should know better.

Can we use an early Christian creed?

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried...
Apostles' Creed

If you like, you can also look up the Nicene Creed that says the same thing, and both derived their information from the Gospels.

Now, if Luedemann had been more cautious, and truthful, he would have said that the Jewish establishment and authorities were seen as playing a key role in Jesus being brought to trial, and sentenced to death. They, in effect, blackmailed Pilate, presenting him with some very unpalatable choices, the easiest of which was to execute Jesus and get the Sanhedrin off his back.

As for 1st Century Christians being anti-Semitic, perhaps he could explain why virtually all of the first Christians were Jews themselves, and the leadership certainly was entirely Jewish at least until the mid 60's. Further, in all of his books, I would look for Luedemann's understanding of Paul's words when he wrote:

Romans 11:26-29 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins. As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Since Paul tells us that all of Israel will be saved on account of God's irrevocable promise to the patriarchs, it is obvious that the charge of anti-Semitism (at least concerning Paul) is false, if not libelous.

Finally, it would be nice if Dr. Luedemann would at least admit that the Gospels are not more anti-Semitic in their language than what we find in the writings of the DSS as well as other polemical Jewish works. Quite simply, with the exception of Luke/Acts, all of the books of the NT were written by Jews, often primarily to other Jews, and any attacks on opposing groups was not directed against the Jewish people as a whole. It is disingenuous for a scholar of Luedemann's calibre to refuse to acknowledge this. Best case, he is arguing from an anachronistic reading of the Bible, derived from later admittedly anti-Semitic writings found in the Early Fathers and later Christians. As for the Gospels themselves, they are not anti-Semitic.

I happen to believe that they are true. So does the Church. Of course, that does not mean that I believe the strawman that Luedemann has created here, but it is the nature of weak arguments to put themselves up against strawmen instead of against the facts.

And this just shows Luedemann's motivation for wanting us to believe his propaganda. He wants us to reject the historicity of the Gospels and NT. Such is his right, of course, but if he is going to make such an argument, it is his obligation to do so honestly.

See above.

Actually, the forum is one of many used, and it is true that some are better at public oral debates than others, just as some are better at writing articles or books on their subjects. A part of gaining a doctorate, for example, involves the presentation of a doctoral thesis, and defending it verbally before one's peers and professors. It is also common to give a prepared presentation (to the SBL for example), and then to respond to questions and follow up points from one's peers.

I am not saying that debates should be the only forum used to advance ideas, but it is a very important one, and one which all sides of the debate use as best as they can.

What is "artificial" about it?

This is not an insult Toto, it is a statement of opinion that is well supported by your presentation, and the way you clearly belittle Craig, while trying to salvage as best as you can whatever strengths you could find in Luedemann's presentation.

If you are looking for my advice, I would suggest you focus more on criticizing Craig's actual arguments, rather than the way he dresses, combs his hair, or presents himself.

In any event, thanks for your thoughts.

Nomad

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Nomad

I would agree that debates are not always the best forum from which to discuss issues and ideas, especially ones as complex as we will find on NT studies. That said, neither Craig nor Luedemann limits himself to such a forum, as both have written extensively, both in articles and books, some popular, and many scholarly. Given that it is a fact, however, that not everyone is going to read these books and articles, public exchanges like this can be useful, if only to generate more interest in the public at large, and hopefully inspiring them to pursue the subject more intensely on their own.

All I will say here is it depends a great deal on what you consider to be the "long run." Back in the 19th Century and early 20th Century it was common to argue and believe that GJohn was a late 2nd Century Hellenistic document. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and P52 put an end to that nonsense, but for those living during this prolonged period of time, it would be possible to be wrong one's entire life.

Such examples of incorrect beliefs lasting for years should serve as a caution to those that would make bold assertions as to what is known to be "historically certain", and this caution extends to all sides of the debate.

Hmmm... just thinking out loud? Or is there a meaningful charge being made here?

I happen to think that the Creationist (the Young Earth variety at least) argument is untenable, but it is held by a very tiny minority of Christians, and taught as doctrine by virtually none of the major Christian denominations.

Well, these forums have their uses, and obviously I enjoy using them, or I would not be here. At the same time, they do have serious limitations, and the chances that participants have serious misunderstandings of each others positions, and that discussion then degenerates into ad hominem does appear to be pretty common (and unfortunate).

Interestingly Jesus Mythers seem to have the same attitude towards (and aversion to) these kinds of forums. In any event, I know what you mean Seth.

BTW, nice to meet you, and welcome to the Boards.

Nomad

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Toto

Nomad - I did include some substantive criticisms of Craig's actual arguments, and I notice that you ignored them completely. As I said, my primary interest in this debate was to observe the communication skills. General appearance, unfortunately or not, is an important part of communication.

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, remember that Luedemann comes from a country that has had to confront its long history of Christian anti-Semitism. It is not that easy to explain away. I have to assume that when Luedemann called Pilate a "very nice fellow", that he was speaking ironically. Certainly Pilate is not portrayed in the Gospels as the evil and decisive tyrant that other sources show. And it didn't take very long before Christians started to elevate him (and his wife) to sainthood. (check out the thread on Pilate in this Forum.)

Notice that the Nicene creed says that Jesus suffered under Pilate, (meaning - during his rule? under his reign?) not that he was crucified by him.

You may see some difference between saying that "the bad Jews killed Jesus" and "the Jewish establishment and authorities were seen as playing a key role in Jesus being brought to trial, and sentenced to death" and that they blackmailed Pilate into crucifying Jesus. I frankly don't. I think that you are working hard to say that the Gospels were misinterpreted by European Christians for close to 2000 years, but now you know better. Of course, if you insist on believing that the Gospels are true, I hope you find a way to interpret them as not being anti-Semitic. But I think you are ignoring a lot of evidence.

You have broken up your reply in a way that makes it hard for me to respond, so I may have missed a point or two. In regard to my obvious prejudice, I think it is clear that Craig is offering arguments that do not hold water. You can read how they are demolished in Lowder's article. Since Craig is obviously well read and smart, I have to treat his presentation as intellectually dishonest at some level. He is presenting the basis of Christian faith as having a level of historical veracity and confirmation that it lacks.

In fact, I think that Luedemann may have been at a disadvantage because he didn't think anyone could take seriously an argument that the Gospels can be trusted for that level of historical detail.

And of course I am not a follower of Luedemann. I am an atheist under his first definition, he is still religious in some sense. He gives the Bible much more credit as history than I would.

lpetrich

I don't know where Nomad gets the idea that Jesus-mythers are all cowards who don't want to participate in online debates.

However, Earl Doherty had tried, and he had given the strong impression of being out of his element when he tried.

Also, Nomad refused to directly address the contents of his books and website. Yes, I'm serious. Directly. For example, he refused to address in any careful manner Paul's lack of mention of much of the content of the Gospels. Earl Doherty has an imaginary dialogue about that toward the end of The Jesus Puzzle; I'm surprised that Nomad has not indignantly objected to it.

Toto

Out of his element? More like out of patience with someone he thought was not worth his time.