What do you think?
Rate this book
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig & John Dominic Crossan
Based on a debate between John Dominic Crossan and William Lane Craig, this book provides a forum for evangelicals and members of the Jesus Seminar to dialogue.
188 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1995
About the author
Paul Copan
95 books171 followersPaul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.
From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”
In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."
From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”
In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
February 8, 2012
This debate reflects the distinction that is made between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. Over the past two hundred years, the traditional supernaturalistic understanding of the Gospels has been challenged by those who propose that the message of the Gospels is contained in myth. They say that the Bible represents important moral truth but not historical accuracy, in the sense that Jesus was resurrected but not physically. The events recorded in the Gospels, especially those that involved violation of natural laws, did not happen but represented the beliefs that the church projected
backwards. This view was first proposed by David Friederich Strauss (1808-1874) and developed by Martin Kãhler and most recently by Rudolf Bultmann, who suggested that even searching for a historical Jesus was in fact anti-thetical to Paul's justification of grace through faith. Seeking historical verification represents failure of faith.
The pendulum swung back when Ernst Kãsemann delivered a lecture in 1953 that rejected these arguments. He proposed that without a historical grounding Christianity "would collapse into docetism — a faith in a chimera." Crossan, former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, sides with the earlier thinkers, reiterating that Jesus must be separated from theological encrustation, that the Gospels contradict each other on significant historical descriptions, and that believing in the traditional supernatural events becomes an obstacle to faith.
Craig, an evangelical, supported by Buckley, of course, argues that if we cannot believe in the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the miracles, then the foundations of belief will come crashing down. If any of those events can be disproved, faith is destroyed.
Crossan uses Aesop's Fables as an example of his position. Animals speak in those stories. We accept today that animals can't speak now, but we can't prove they couldn't in ancient Greece. To debate whether they could or could not may be fascinating, but it obscures the real point and moral messages Aesop was trying to convey. Jesus and the Gospels similarly used fables and parables to convey a truth. Did the
Good Samaritan really exist as a person? The debate can go on ad infinitum, but whether he did or not misses the point. To debate the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, Crossan suggests, also misses the point. We get lost in the debate and are distracted from the moral of His message. As Crossan states, "When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity: 'Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching, and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story) — that's a myth.
We have the truth; you have a lie.' I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity."
Marcus Borg, in his commentary on the debate, provides a valuable insight regarding how we understand resurrection. He states that resurrection as understood by the Jews and Romans of the first century is different from common interpretation today. Modern Christians confuse it with resuscitation, i.e., the restoration of life to the corpse that then goes on as before requiring sustenance, elimination, etc. Crossan prefers the first century interpretation that meant moving on to a new life, something different, a spirituality not requiring a body or physical existence. Hence the presence of Jesus’ corpse in the tomb is irrelevant for Borg and Crossan. The visions seen by the Apostles and Paul do not require a physical being.
This debate, which was held at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, and the essays from other scholars reflecting on the debate, are fascinating and a model of how a reasonable dialogue can be conducted between two diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Of course, it's all non-sense, but enchanting, nevertheless.
P.S. William Lane Craig has gained a reputation recently for trying to take on Richard Dawkins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...) and his debate with Christopher Hitchens is available on YouTube.
backwards. This view was first proposed by David Friederich Strauss (1808-1874) and developed by Martin Kãhler and most recently by Rudolf Bultmann, who suggested that even searching for a historical Jesus was in fact anti-thetical to Paul's justification of grace through faith. Seeking historical verification represents failure of faith.
The pendulum swung back when Ernst Kãsemann delivered a lecture in 1953 that rejected these arguments. He proposed that without a historical grounding Christianity "would collapse into docetism — a faith in a chimera." Crossan, former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, sides with the earlier thinkers, reiterating that Jesus must be separated from theological encrustation, that the Gospels contradict each other on significant historical descriptions, and that believing in the traditional supernatural events becomes an obstacle to faith.
Craig, an evangelical, supported by Buckley, of course, argues that if we cannot believe in the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the miracles, then the foundations of belief will come crashing down. If any of those events can be disproved, faith is destroyed.
Crossan uses Aesop's Fables as an example of his position. Animals speak in those stories. We accept today that animals can't speak now, but we can't prove they couldn't in ancient Greece. To debate whether they could or could not may be fascinating, but it obscures the real point and moral messages Aesop was trying to convey. Jesus and the Gospels similarly used fables and parables to convey a truth. Did the
Good Samaritan really exist as a person? The debate can go on ad infinitum, but whether he did or not misses the point. To debate the historical accuracy of Jesus' life, Crossan suggests, also misses the point. We get lost in the debate and are distracted from the moral of His message. As Crossan states, "When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity: 'Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching, and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story) — that's a myth.
We have the truth; you have a lie.' I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity."
Marcus Borg, in his commentary on the debate, provides a valuable insight regarding how we understand resurrection. He states that resurrection as understood by the Jews and Romans of the first century is different from common interpretation today. Modern Christians confuse it with resuscitation, i.e., the restoration of life to the corpse that then goes on as before requiring sustenance, elimination, etc. Crossan prefers the first century interpretation that meant moving on to a new life, something different, a spirituality not requiring a body or physical existence. Hence the presence of Jesus’ corpse in the tomb is irrelevant for Borg and Crossan. The visions seen by the Apostles and Paul do not require a physical being.
This debate, which was held at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, and the essays from other scholars reflecting on the debate, are fascinating and a model of how a reasonable dialogue can be conducted between two diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Of course, it's all non-sense, but enchanting, nevertheless.
P.S. William Lane Craig has gained a reputation recently for trying to take on Richard Dawkins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...) and his debate with Christopher Hitchens is available on YouTube.
October 21, 2010
This is a difficult book for me to rate in a way. First it won't be for everybody, second it is limited (necessarily) in what the debate attempts to cover (IE: the "historical" Jesus vs. the "real" Jesus). A great deal of the debate revolves around defining terms as in what is meant by "real" and "historical".
If you are interested in the debate (as I would think most would be but find actually most aren't) then this is an interesting and sometimes more than interesting book.
I find the most absorbing or involving section to be the actual exchanges that make up the central portions of the volume. The opening statements and rebuttals will be fairly predictable to any who are familiar with Dr. Craig and Dr. Crossan. (Many will undoubtedly be at least slightly familiar with Dr. Crossan from his appearances in many "TV" documentaries as each time the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, or some other network does a program on Christianity he shows up as the critic or skeptic of the piece.) The central portion of the book is an extended exchange between the two with questions and interest points raised by Mr. Buckley (William F. Buckley Jr. the moderator who for some reason isn't listed as a "contributor").
The least interesting and (to my mind) least valuable part of the book is the second part which entails responses and attempted exposition. There is even an attempt to "graph" the Gospels and the "Resurrection accounts". Ultimately something that can only mislead rather than elucidate...the events given as separate eye-witness accounts can't logically be "graphed".
So, the statements and discussion is interesting. I like the debate and I think those interested in Christian views and the degrees of belief from the more "secular" to more "traditional" will find this (I would think) a fairly enthralling read. Those who reject Christianity on the other hand will probably not find this such a relevant read...unless they still have an "open mind" on the subject and are not necessarily "set" in a different view.
If you are interested in the debate (as I would think most would be but find actually most aren't) then this is an interesting and sometimes more than interesting book.
I find the most absorbing or involving section to be the actual exchanges that make up the central portions of the volume. The opening statements and rebuttals will be fairly predictable to any who are familiar with Dr. Craig and Dr. Crossan. (Many will undoubtedly be at least slightly familiar with Dr. Crossan from his appearances in many "TV" documentaries as each time the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, or some other network does a program on Christianity he shows up as the critic or skeptic of the piece.) The central portion of the book is an extended exchange between the two with questions and interest points raised by Mr. Buckley (William F. Buckley Jr. the moderator who for some reason isn't listed as a "contributor").
The least interesting and (to my mind) least valuable part of the book is the second part which entails responses and attempted exposition. There is even an attempt to "graph" the Gospels and the "Resurrection accounts". Ultimately something that can only mislead rather than elucidate...the events given as separate eye-witness accounts can't logically be "graphed".
So, the statements and discussion is interesting. I like the debate and I think those interested in Christian views and the degrees of belief from the more "secular" to more "traditional" will find this (I would think) a fairly enthralling read. Those who reject Christianity on the other hand will probably not find this such a relevant read...unless they still have an "open mind" on the subject and are not necessarily "set" in a different view.
June 27, 2021
3 stars [Humanism]
(W: 2.5, U: 3, T: 3)
Exact rating: 2.83
A debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, moderated by the late William F. Buckley, Jr. It includes post-debate critiques and debators' responses.
There is decent material here from Craig and Buckley. Crossan of course defends the pseudo-Christian position of the Jesus Seminar.
The "Response" by Robert J. Miller was slightly asinine. He neither fully understood nor faithfully presented his opponents' position. He whacked a straw man, and didn't even knock it down. A good example to be studied on how not to respond to a debate.
Blomberg was a breath of fresh what-scholarship-actually-looks-like, evincing clear awareness of the entire discussion, both in the previous publications of the authors, as well as the broader discussion over the last 100 years.
Borg's response takes one back into the imaginary land of Deconstructionism, which is barely distinguishable from insanity. His only good point distinguished resuscitation from resurrection, but Craig adequately dealt with it afterward.
Borg and Crossan pepper their opinions with the phrase, "As a Christian...." The urge to claim the title so awkwardly and continually is telling, but their statements are what put them firmly outside the realm of Christian belief. For instance, Borg says things like, "I simply do not believe that God is known primarily in our tradition [Christianity]." And Crossan holds to a position [here simplified by Craig] wherein "God does not exist independently of the human imagination," which is in practice, atheism. I barely underlined this book, so I don't have a direct quote ready to reference.
The heresies of the Jesus Seminar have, as Craig pointed out in his conclusion, the potential to make America as post-Christian as Europe, if widely believed. Their conclusions ought to be fought simply to hold off European "Enlightenment" casuistry a little longer, to say nothing of the souls it may help to make an allegiance change to God rather than the Kingdom of the Perishing.
I recommend this book only to those interested in the Jesus Seminar, and Christian criticism of it. Otherwise, I hope there are more focused works out there that effectively deal with its heresy.
(W: 2.5, U: 3, T: 3)
Exact rating: 2.83
A debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, moderated by the late William F. Buckley, Jr. It includes post-debate critiques and debators' responses.
There is decent material here from Craig and Buckley. Crossan of course defends the pseudo-Christian position of the Jesus Seminar.
The "Response" by Robert J. Miller was slightly asinine. He neither fully understood nor faithfully presented his opponents' position. He whacked a straw man, and didn't even knock it down. A good example to be studied on how not to respond to a debate.
Blomberg was a breath of fresh what-scholarship-actually-looks-like, evincing clear awareness of the entire discussion, both in the previous publications of the authors, as well as the broader discussion over the last 100 years.
Borg's response takes one back into the imaginary land of Deconstructionism, which is barely distinguishable from insanity. His only good point distinguished resuscitation from resurrection, but Craig adequately dealt with it afterward.
Borg and Crossan pepper their opinions with the phrase, "As a Christian...." The urge to claim the title so awkwardly and continually is telling, but their statements are what put them firmly outside the realm of Christian belief. For instance, Borg says things like, "I simply do not believe that God is known primarily in our tradition [Christianity]." And Crossan holds to a position [here simplified by Craig] wherein "God does not exist independently of the human imagination," which is in practice, atheism. I barely underlined this book, so I don't have a direct quote ready to reference.
The heresies of the Jesus Seminar have, as Craig pointed out in his conclusion, the potential to make America as post-Christian as Europe, if widely believed. Their conclusions ought to be fought simply to hold off European "Enlightenment" casuistry a little longer, to say nothing of the souls it may help to make an allegiance change to God rather than the Kingdom of the Perishing.
I recommend this book only to those interested in the Jesus Seminar, and Christian criticism of it. Otherwise, I hope there are more focused works out there that effectively deal with its heresy.
June 7, 2014
A rather quick read with an easy to follow debate by two intelligent Christians (one conservative, one liberal) on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Craig (the conservative) opens with two sets of claims (Jesus' radical claims of divinity were vindicated by his resurrection, and if Jesus did not rise then Christianity is a shame). Crossan had two opening sets of claims as well (Historical: Mark as primary, three levels of tradition within biblical sources, and an evolving tradition like folk hypothesis, and Literary: metaphorical interpretation of the resurrection). The discussion section was somewhat disappointing as none of the substantive discussion that could have taken place were interrupted by the moderator or somewhat off topic questions where asked by the moderator. The four responses to the debate where all pretty good (I enjoyed Borg and Blomberg the best, the first response was very very bad). The summary responses were also good. All in all, some logical organization to two very different thoughts on Jesus.
August 23, 2024
A DEBATE, FOLLOWED BY WRITTEN COMMENTARIES
Editor Paul Copan explained in the Introduction to this 1998 book, "In October 1994... a radio-show host ... invited [John Dominic] Crossan to debate evangelical Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig... Crossan and Craig discussed which approach was most appropriate for arriving at an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus... William F. Buckley ... participated as the moderator... This book asks a similar question about Jesus... Two evangelicals and two participants in the Jesus Seminar were asked to respond to the debate... It is hoped that the vigor and frankness of this debate and the responses will stimulate future interaction between the two groups." (Pg. 16-19)
Craig points out that Crossan "thinks that the so-called Gospel of Peter, which is almost universally acknowledged to be a second-century forgery ... actually contains the original account of Jesus' death and resurrection, and that the Gospel accounts are based on it. No major New Testament scholar agrees with this view." (Pg. 30)
Crossan says, "I reject absolutely the naturalist position that Dr. Craig attributed to me." (Pg. 37) He says, "I do not think... that Dr. Craig is right... to assert that a majority of New Testament scholars say that Jesus claimed he was God... I'm not even certain a majority of New Testament scholars say Jesus claimed he was Messiah." (Pg. 46)
In his closing statement, Craig observes, "As for Dr. Crossan's presuppositions... in tonight's debate he hasn't tried to defend any of them: (1) the priority of the Gospel of Peter, (2) the Secret Gospel of Mark, (3) the inventive community of early Christians." (Pg. 69)
Marcus Borg notes, "Paul includes himself in the list of people to whom the risen Christ appeared; implicitly, he regards his own experience as similar to the others. His own experience on the Damascus road... was a vision. I think visions can be true; unlike Craig, I never put them in the same category as hallucinations. The fundamental point here is that a vision does not require a physical body." (Pg. 123) He adds, "In rejecting supernaturalistic intervention, I am not arguing for either a deistic or naturalistic position. I think paranormal things happen, including paranormal healings. But supernatural intervention is not a helpful way of explaining such events." (Pg. 128)
This is an excellent exchange of views, that should be of tremendous interest to those studying the historical Jesus, apologetics, the Jesus Seminar, etc.
Editor Paul Copan explained in the Introduction to this 1998 book, "In October 1994... a radio-show host ... invited [John Dominic] Crossan to debate evangelical Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig... Crossan and Craig discussed which approach was most appropriate for arriving at an accurate portrait of the historical Jesus... William F. Buckley ... participated as the moderator... This book asks a similar question about Jesus... Two evangelicals and two participants in the Jesus Seminar were asked to respond to the debate... It is hoped that the vigor and frankness of this debate and the responses will stimulate future interaction between the two groups." (Pg. 16-19)
Craig points out that Crossan "thinks that the so-called Gospel of Peter, which is almost universally acknowledged to be a second-century forgery ... actually contains the original account of Jesus' death and resurrection, and that the Gospel accounts are based on it. No major New Testament scholar agrees with this view." (Pg. 30)
Crossan says, "I reject absolutely the naturalist position that Dr. Craig attributed to me." (Pg. 37) He says, "I do not think... that Dr. Craig is right... to assert that a majority of New Testament scholars say that Jesus claimed he was God... I'm not even certain a majority of New Testament scholars say Jesus claimed he was Messiah." (Pg. 46)
In his closing statement, Craig observes, "As for Dr. Crossan's presuppositions... in tonight's debate he hasn't tried to defend any of them: (1) the priority of the Gospel of Peter, (2) the Secret Gospel of Mark, (3) the inventive community of early Christians." (Pg. 69)
Marcus Borg notes, "Paul includes himself in the list of people to whom the risen Christ appeared; implicitly, he regards his own experience as similar to the others. His own experience on the Damascus road... was a vision. I think visions can be true; unlike Craig, I never put them in the same category as hallucinations. The fundamental point here is that a vision does not require a physical body." (Pg. 123) He adds, "In rejecting supernaturalistic intervention, I am not arguing for either a deistic or naturalistic position. I think paranormal things happen, including paranormal healings. But supernatural intervention is not a helpful way of explaining such events." (Pg. 128)
This is an excellent exchange of views, that should be of tremendous interest to those studying the historical Jesus, apologetics, the Jesus Seminar, etc.
October 9, 2019
This book is a debate book between two prominent figures, Dr. William Lane Craig (Hereafter WLC) and Dr. John Dominic Crossan.(Hereafter, JDC) I have enjoyed both men’s work so I was excited to read the clash they were going to have on just who Jesus was.
To read the rest of my review, please go to https://godisread.com/2019/10/09/will...
To read the rest of my review, please go to https://godisread.com/2019/10/09/will...
October 31, 2012
This book is based on a debate between the liberal John Dominic Crossan, of the Jesus Seminar dedicated to debunking the historical Jesus, and evangelical William Lane Craig. The moderator was William F Buckley Jr, and the debate was held in the historic Moody Church in Chicago.
Craig took the position that Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his claim to divinity, and defended the position very well.
Crossan tried to take the position that there's a difference between the real Jesus and the historical Jesus, and tried to claim authority based on a consensus of scholarship (which means nothing, since scholarship is, or should be, based on facts, not on consensus).
Lane clearly won the debate by sticking to the subject and defending it, while Crossan frequently went off-subject.
Craig took the position that Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his claim to divinity, and defended the position very well.
Crossan tried to take the position that there's a difference between the real Jesus and the historical Jesus, and tried to claim authority based on a consensus of scholarship (which means nothing, since scholarship is, or should be, based on facts, not on consensus).
Lane clearly won the debate by sticking to the subject and defending it, while Crossan frequently went off-subject.
May 6, 2008
This book includes a debate between W.L. Craig and J.D. Crossan over the "real" Jesus, four response articles (two liberal, two conservative), and a concluding chapter reflecting on the debate and response articles by Craig and Crossan.
The debate is rather weak. I wouldn't go to it for any knock-down arguments for the traditional, conservative view of who Jesus is. The response articles are likewise underwhelming.
The best part about this book is that you get to read first-hand what liberals are saying and how they (try) to argue it. Their ideas are sufficient to repel you from their view and insufficient to compel you to their view.
And, if you must know, I find that Craig "won" since Crossan didn't bother to debunk any of his claims. And Crossan even admits as much.
The debate is rather weak. I wouldn't go to it for any knock-down arguments for the traditional, conservative view of who Jesus is. The response articles are likewise underwhelming.
The best part about this book is that you get to read first-hand what liberals are saying and how they (try) to argue it. Their ideas are sufficient to repel you from their view and insufficient to compel you to their view.
And, if you must know, I find that Craig "won" since Crossan didn't bother to debunk any of his claims. And Crossan even admits as much.
April 5, 2012
The actual debate is fairly lame, though that makes it a bit interesting: Craig way overstates his case and misses out on quite a bit of research on placing Jesus in the historical context. Crossan was clearly chosen by the believers as their opponent (the "debate" took place on a christian campus with a christian moderator) because 1) he is not much of a debater 2) his previous works provide a lot of low-hanging fruit for Craig to pluck and 3) he takes the "liberal believer" position, which is hard to defend.
But, it's kind of un to read. And some of the follow-up essays are really good.
But, it's kind of un to read. And some of the follow-up essays are really good.
January 11, 2014
Admittedly, I only read the transcript of the debate itself because that was what I was really interested in at this time. It's always enjoyable to listen (read) to a debate on this topic. The physical resurrection is denied by Crossan while it is affirmed by Craig. Briefly, I'm not convinced by Crossan's apologetic for a metaphoric resurrection as the historical evidence is convincing enough to make a highly persuasive case in favor of Christ's physical resurrection. Crossan also relies on some extremely creative exegesis to come to this metaphorical conclusion. Craig makes a much stronger case for the physical resurrection than Crossan makes for a metaphoric one.
December 31, 2009
This book is also in mp3 formate as an audio debate that can be found at various links. Craig defends the resurrection against one of the leading Jesus Seminar scholars. A personal debate favorite of mine.
December 17, 2008
Great introduction to the position taken by the liberal Jesus Seminar. Crossan simply could not hide some of his more radical views from Craig.
April 15, 2014
Fun to go back and read every once in a while as my position shifts between both sides.
March 31, 2017
I really enjoy books which feature opposing viewpoints contrasted - this is just such a book. Not only did it include a complete transcript of the debate, but it also featured two other scholars from each camp - the metaphorical view of the resurrection and the literal view - critiquing the debate and the debaters' views. I found a lot of valuable information for myself looking for details that can be helpful in interacting with skeptics and with those on a journey exploring Christianity.
April 4, 2017
This was a very interesting book on a complex topic. It was based off the debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, but it also had responses and conclusions from other well known theologians (both conservative and liberal). If you are interested in reading about various theologians understanding of who the real Jesus is then check out this book.
Read
June 5, 2017This is really a weird book to review because it is a record of a debate. Read the book and you can decide for yourself who "won" the debate. However, the real purpose in debate is to present more than one idea (usually opposing ideas) in a formal and reasonable setting. It is hard not to consider our current cultural climate when reading Craig's and Crossan's debate. For the most part, our culture is emotionally charged rather than reasonable. We've usually made up our mind before the ideas are presented so we just like the candidate...errrr...debater that most resembles our beliefs rather than allow ourselves to be persuaded by logic. We also assume that the two debating dislike or hate each other. Craig and Crossan do a wonderful job, for the most part, in laying out the ideas in a thoughtful way and allowing the audience to interact with those thoughts.
Now, this debate probably has a niche audience, but it is a fast read and would have been fun to be in that setting.
Now, this debate probably has a niche audience, but it is a fast read and would have been fun to be in that setting.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews