Raf

Paul didn't write either of those letters. Signed, Epstein's mother.

There is nothing to critically assess. In 19 days I will announce something. Hopefully something awesome, but maybe less than awesome.

20

It was a good, good, good, good guess

free post

It's part of the fun. It's personal, and not a sure thing. But worth the anticipation, i think

21

dupe

yes, we are on the same page. i ruled out FF because it was never released at all and the CA TV series because itcwas never supposed to be a feature.... oh snap. it IS Captain America. just not the cheezy tv show.

Must be a shortage of fine people.

So about 75-100 years after it's written, tradition gives us Luke as the author. And that's according to people who believe it WAS Luke. Nelson is not exactly what I would call an unbiased source. Would you expect them to confess Luke was not the author? Not in a billion years. They would lose support among evangelicals, their bread and butter. I would recommend the Oxford Companion to the Bible. When I have time I'll write up their summary. They still think it's Luke, but they're honest enough to show the case is weak and boils down to "why not."

Direct to video. That rules out the unreleased Fantastic Four movie. I'm thinking along those lines though, because you have some reason to think we would know a D2V movie. I know there was a godawful Captain America tv series in the 70s or 80s. But that's not D2V. I don't know either. Don't even know if I'm on the right track. Or tree. Or forest.

Looks like Juedes and I made the same observation: you have to add a word no matter how many you think were crucified with Jesus. Mark, believe it or not, we all know who the Biblical characters of Matthew and Luke are. The issue is not their identity. It is their authorship. Most scholars agree that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote the gospels attributed to them. The case for Matthew is horribly weak, because he's plagiarizing Mark (who wasn't there) and, it must be said, straight up lying about history (the slaughter of the innocents) and fulfilled prophecies (a virgin shall be with child, a prophecy that had zero to do with the Messiah). All that said, you raise good points about the crucifixion. Thank you for the contribution.

I wouldn't say debunked. I don't buy it, but that doesn't make it debunked. The picture of the five crosses in the Companion Bible: THAT's debunked. It had nothing to do with the gospels. But not being an expert in Greek, I can only speculate about whether John meant to say one on this side and one on that side or two on this side and two on that side. Either interpretation involves adding to the text. (It doesn't say two on this side and TWO on that side, nor does it say on either side ONE). It's just bizarre that Matthew mentions two but fails to mention the other two, while Luke mentions the other two without mentioning Matthew's two. Why can't either of them have mentioned all four? (Because there weren't four, and Luke straight up invented the penitent evildoer, manufacturing a contradiction in the process).

I will likely be unable to continue this countdown between now and April 1, so I encourage you fine people to lend a hand.

Before this goes any further: the significance of number in scripture is off topic for this thread. The value of Bullinger in general is off topic [his views on the resurrection and the reliability of the gospel accounts is fair game]. Let's stay on topic please.

I want to know the source of this "only a computer" claim. Bullinger supposedly worked backwards, coming up with the significance of numbers through scriptural usage. To marvel at how well it fits is to marvel that a ring is in the exact same shape as the cast in which the gold was poured.

Bullinger believed the earth is flat. Are you SURE you want to rely on his judgment?

You actually don't get to tell us what to cite in retort. Especially if you worship a God who ordered a man's execution because he picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week. The same God to the Israelites that if they have a kid who explored other gods, they are to throw heavy rocks at the kids' heads until they die. Oh, but that was the Old Testament. I know.

Ok, so this ongoing series is part of a genre that everyone knows, but for some reason, no one in the show ever mentions it. No one ever says the word "zombie." The current lead male character does not appear in the source material. The character of Daryl, played by Norman Reedus, was a fan favorite from his first appearance in the second episode. You might still be able to find shirts that say "If Daryl dies, we riot." No one from the pilot episode is still with the show. The original main character was Rick Grimes. He wasn't killed off, but the other characters think he was. His partner, Shane, was killed at the end of the second season. His wife, Lori, was killed in the middle of the third season. His son, Carl, was killed in the middle of the eighth season.  If you're paying attention, time moves very slowly in the series. One character is pregnant for more than two years of our time. The show resolves this with a sudden time jump, allowing one toddler to age considerably while the baby is old enough for dialogue (not that we've actually seen the kid much, if at all). The character of Maggie learns she is pregnant in season 6. By the end of season 8, not only has she not delivered, but she is still not showing. A time jump starts season 9 and, yes, the baby is already born. The baby would now be about six years old, following another time jump. (still season 9).

Bravissimi. Edmond Dantes. Like the Three Musketeers, also based on a novel by Alexandre Dumas

You likely have not seen Gerard Depardieu in this role. I chose him because it's legit: he DID play this character, and because I needed you guys to get to exactly where WW went. But you picked the wrong story. Now look at the other actors, one of whom you never heard of, and the other who starred in the title role of...

That would be the same tree but a different branch. Same forest, different tree.