Peter Craig Puns

While everyone and their mother knows that Matt Reeves directed and wrote this movie, does anyone else find it weird that his co writer Peter Craig is almost completely ignored? Even Mattson Tomlin(who’s uncredited in the writing) has been talked about more than Craig. We have interviews of the cast and crew promoting the movie but I find it a bit odd that one of the co writers has almost been ignored during the now ongoing promotion of this movie.

Had a discussion with another user in a thread and here’s some similarities I found between Craig and Peter:

-Photography

-Drug addiction

-Being in a band

-Emma had a crush on both of them right away

-Had some sort of relationship with manny that went from good to sour.

-Good friends with spinner

-Dated a girl that left to an entirely different continent

-Dated girls that would go on to be big on camera (modeling/acting)

-Both had a complicated relationship with their father.

-Had a little sibling they cared about

I know eli eventually became the new Craig but was Peter also suppose to be one as well? What caused Peter to fail at this? Why do you think the writers made all these same character beats?

Very good episode featuring Elliotte Friedman

https://youtu.be/COZ0vl0szDE

did anyone else notice how similar Craig & Peter are? Both of them had family issues, a band, a drug problem, a gay friend that kissed them by surprise, money (after Craig received money after his dad’s death), an initial interest in photography/videography that fizzled out over time, and both liked Manny! they introduced Peter in season 5, which happens to be Craig’s exit as a regular, too

edit: also just realized that they both had girlfriends that left for another country and they both tried to follow them

>This chapter appears in a book focused on the meaning and use of Isaiah 53, the famous Song of the Suffering servant. It is suggested that both Peter and Paul, in their letters and in speeches in the book of Acts, link Isa 52:7-12 to the Song (Isa 52:13--53:12), which is done in the Targum and in the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran. This means that in some Jewish circles the good news of Isa 52:7 was understood as related in some way to the Suffering Servant.

Evans notes Justin Martyr alludes to portions of Isaiah 52 and 53 in reply to Trypho when he is said to not have accepted the idea that “the Messiah should be so shamefully crucified”, Dialogue cum Trypho §89 and §90 (though suggests "this part of the debate between Trypho the Jew and Justin the Christian reaches back to the first century, to the time of the composition of the Gospel of John").

> "The suffering and death of Jesus do not prove that he was not the Messiah; they in fact prove it, for they fulfilled the Scriptures ... Not only did the original apostolic generation appeal to this great prophetic oracle, their successors did too, as we see in Justin Martyr in his debate with Trypho and even today in ongoing dialogue and debate with Abraham’s descendants."

Previously,

>I think the identification of the Servant as the Messiah arose from the description of David as the Lord’s servant. We see this in Isaiah itself, where through the prophet God assures the people of Jerusalem: “I will shield this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David [... ΔαυÚδ τÙν παῖδά μου". We again hear this language in the title of Psalm 18: “A Psalm of David the servant of the Lord [... τῷ παιδÚ κυρίου τῷ Δαυιδ]” (Ps. 18:0 = LXXPs. 17:1). David is referred to as the Lord’s servant by the Chronicler also (1 Chron. 17:4; 2 Chron. 6:17).

Isaiah 53 in the Letters of Peter, Paul, and John | Craig Evans - Academia.edu (pdf)

You can find the debate here

I'm curious what others think of this debate and I'd like to be challenged in my evaluation of the arguments presented.

Context

Although I grew up Protestant and still lean toward belief in something transcendent, these days I find agnosticism to be the label which fits me best. As such, I've been diving further into philosophy of religion in search of answers to the questions which led here (or, if nothing else, to better understand those questions and why they're so difficult to answer).

Main idea

In approaching things like this debate, I try to be aware of any bias which remains from my Christian upbringing and maintain an open mind. With that said, I found Atkins' arguments for atheism and against theism to be poorly structured and unconvincing. Aside from the arguments regarding the resurrection, I found Craig's arguments quite compelling, especially in the face of Atkins' counter arguments, which hardly challenged my thoughts on the arguments at all.

Am I being swayed by my bias in criticizing Atkins' arguments, or were his arguments really that bad?

Additional thoughts

What, of Atkins' arguments or counter arguments, did you find particularly convincing? Perhaps I did not understand his arguments well enough to be persuaded by them.

How might you have attacked any of the debate's arguments differently than was done by either debater?

Lastly, any other thoughts?

So mad that the writers dropped that one.

Per the new detailed write-up in the teaser's YouTube description:

>“The Batman” was written by Matt Reeves & Peter Craig. Reeves and Dylan Clark (the “Planet of the Apes” films) are producing the film, with Simon Emanuel, Michael E. Uslan, Walter Hamada and Chantal Nong Vo serving as executive producers.

The original press release from when production began strangely did not list its writers, but Tomlin has been repeatedly noted by the trades as its co-writer, while Craig has not been mentioned at all until now.