There you say:

“Surely if Antony Flew had read his own book, he would know that NT Wright is the present Bishop of Durham, and has never been the Bishop of Derby.”

Perhaps you missed the part where I very deliberately said that my correspondence took place before “There is a God” was published. In fact, that particular letter was written in 2006.

Clearly, his book hadn’t yet been written for him to have read it, eh? Another alternative might be that Flew simply didn’t know where Wright was Bishop.

At any rate, you do not apparently deny that Flew really did mean Wright. In that case, the point that really was crucially relevant holds: Flew explicitly states in my letter that Wright presents the best arguments for the resurrection “that he has ever seen.” Far from an imposition by the book’s ghostwriter, it is now documented as Flew’s actual position.

What is your source for Flew commenting on this?

“Mind you the present Bishop of Derby, sorry, Durham, also seems to forget the contents of the Gospels.”

Like I said. No reasonable person will dispute what he meant here. For all I know, Derby is near Durham. I trust that this sort of cheap shot doesn’t exhaust your ammunition.

Let me make it perfectly plain: I am not discussing the state of Flew’s mind. I am addressing whether or not the book comports with Flew’s actual views. As I have in hand letters written by Flew that provide an outline of the book and that outline closely matches what is actually in the book, assertions that it was all a ‘forgery’ and ‘bogus’ are grossly overstated.

This post has a very narrowly stated premise: surely what matters is that the book accurately reflects Flew’s actual views.

Flew also forgets who allegedly was the first person to announce the resurrection to the world in each of the 4 Gospels.

They are a young man, an angel, two men in dazzling clothes, and Jesus himself.

Mind you the present Bishop of Derby, sorry, Durham, also seems to forget the contents of the Gospels.

He claims women were the first witnesses to the resurrection.

So I presume that these tall tales of angels being the first to tell people of a resurrection are so much moonshine.

Wright can be forgiven for claiming that women were the first people to tell readers of a resurrection. He has to say something.

But surely Flew would have checked out if Wright was correct?