Raf

The problem with "scrip[ture build up" as a hermeneutical approach is that it assumes the reader will have the multiple scriptures to build on each other. The writers of the gospels assume no such thing. Without reverting to my presupposition, I need to challenge the believers' (assumed) presupposition that the authors of the Bible are aware that they are writing scripture, or that God is behind it all. The writer of Mark had no idea others would come after him. The writers of Matthew and Luke thought they were improving Mark, once and for all. No origin story? Let's fix that with two utterly incompatible accounts. No resurrection appearances? Let's fix THAT with more utterly incompatible accounts. None of the gospel writers assume the existence of the others or access to the others. Each seemed to think their gospel was the only one you needed to get the point. That makes the argument for scripture build-up almost entirely supernatural. That is, the writers didn't know this tactic would be used later, even if the Author did. I mean, FINE if you want to believe that. But it strains credulity, even assuming divine inspiration. Why not have all four gospel writers make it clear there were four others crucified? Why not have AT LEAST ONE do so? Why not have Matthew make it clear Judas was still alive through the resurrection? Why force us to read angst into a passage that's clearly about suicide by hanging? Why have one writer clearly say Jesus appeared to The Eleven (not 11 of the 12) and then have ANOTHER one imply Thomas, not Judas, was the missing disciple? John never says Jesus appeared to 10 of the 11, with Thomas missing. Luke (or was it Matthew?) never says Jesus appeared to "the 11" but one was missing, but I'm going to leave it to someone else to tell you who it was. It's true that different blind men can have wildly different descriptions of an elephant. But that's hardly an argument for omnisciently divine authorship of the documents we're reading. Assuming any historical value to the narrative, the story is abundantly clear there were three crosses on that hill. For what my heathen opinion is worth.

Nifty bunch of cards you got there, Matthew.

I am confident George is right. I will add one of my favorites: Chester Alan Arthur.

WHH was in his 60s.

Sleeper

My guess was Wednesday as well, which streams on Netflix here and, as such, is not considered "broadcast."

I think I figured it out. But I'm up on too many other threads. If I'm right, the current show is not being broadcast.

Ok?

And THIS is why this post had to be removed from ATHEISM/Questioning Faith. Because as an unbeliever I would have torn this to shreds. But believers should feel comfortable discussing it without worrying about what unbelievers think, which, let's be honest, if kinda predictable.

Out of respect: You posted this in atheism. You do NOT want to know what I think of Charlie Kirk. So I will move it and I will ask that we refrain from referring to the killer's motive as "demonic," which (under the umbrella of the atheism forum) is a lazy scapegoating that robs a homicidal a-hole of responsibility for his despicable act. And I will ask that we refrain from politics, which is impossible in a conversation about Charlie Kirk (which is why I feel compelled to change the name of the thread). So henceforth, this thread is narrowed to the following: Do we agree? [moving to doctrinal).

Then I will guess the actor Morgan Freeman snapped back at: Rutger Hauer.

I can put some of these pieces together but not all of them. Clark Gable inspired the Bugs Bunny habit of talking with your mouth full of carrot, but to the best of my knowledge he never said "What's Up Doc," the name of a 1970s comedy. 1972? I don't know. So I'm going to go minimalist and say It Happened One Night inspired a major character trait of Bugs Bunny, speaking with his mouth full of carrot. Final answer.

My typo was actually a subtle hint. Was it Movie I saw and regret (Suicide Squad) or was it THE movie I saw (The Suicide Squad) and regret a little less?

You have the right characters but the wrong episode. This was called Reunion. Worf learns he has a son, and the baby mama learns Worf's dad was innocent. She pays with her life when Duras kills her and Worf straight up kills Duras in the most "this is not your father's Star Trek" moment to date. So the reason this episode popped into my head was: The woman who plays Alexander's mother, Worf's super hot Klingon babe, is none other than... Marshall's Mom from How I Met Your Mother! WOW that's an actress. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0686442/mediaviewer/rm835094016/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

I was mistaken about the last post on this thread, so let's pretend for a moment it was.... The Ensigns of Command. I'd know the "You're damn right" line anywhere. It was early season 3, new uniforms, new intro, and the first time I finally felt like I could get and stay into this show. But that's not why I'm reviving an old thread. So here's a quote. Name the episode. "A reprimand will appear on your record. Dismissed. Mr. Worf, isn't it time for the truth about your father's innocence to be told?"