Raf

Been a while since I've done this. My moderator handle, modcat5, is a play on my long-ago habit of posting hurricane information as storms approached South Florida. Not a lot of people know this, but Hurricane Katrina hit us before it hit New Orleans. Of course, it was just a cat1 when it swept by here. Anyway, the Cone of Matthew is upon us. And it looks like this is the "Oh boy, here we go" storm we've been waiting for. So, to revive my old habit, here it goes: IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!!

"I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine."

An American officer who spent seven years in a North Vietnamese POW camp leads an investigation team back to Ho Chi Minh City to rescue a Detroit cop eager to return home so he can stop a car magnate (not magnet, lol) who's using violent means to eliminate his competition.

Nip/Tuck Everlasting ?

Nip/Tuck? I'm at a loss.

Wrong Allie Earp

Kate McCallister Allie Earp Delia Deetz

Doctor Doctor By the trio of nonsiblings known as the Thompson Twins.

I thought so. Julie Andrews.

Wasn't it Victor Grant?

Free post. If I come up with one first, I will. If you do, don't wait for me.

Christopher Reeve Switching Channels Burt Reynolds

Character 1 is Peter Parker/Spider-man Character 2 is War Machine Character 3 is Tony Stark/Iron Man If you haven't seen the movie, the scene of that first exchange, and the circumstances, are handled excellently. The other quotes are from the same scene: Spider-Man commenting on Captain America's shield, Tony asking if anyone on his side can do what Ant-Man just did (reveal a surprise power). The last quote was Tony recruiting Peter Parker. The only other movie Tony Stark was in, to my recollection, was a cameo in The Incredible Hulk.

Technically, it's not an Iron Man or Avengers movie. And that narrows it down to two possibilities, one of which doesn't make sense at all, and the other... DUH!

Closer, but still no.

You were closer the first time. Come on, TONY. Character 3 (same as earlier): Got a passport? Character 1 (same as earlier): Um, no. I don't... I don't even have a driver's license. Character 3: You ever been to Germany? Character 1: No. Character 3: Oh, you'll love it. Character 1: I can't go to Germany! Character 3: Why? Character 1: I got... homework. Character 3: Alright, I'm gonna pretend you didn't say that.

I didn't remember Grady, but the Sanford Arms and Sanford shows, I remembered.

Right track, wrong train.

Sanford and Son

I'm surprised. This one was really recent and really popular. "Okay, anybody on our side hiding any shocking and fantastic abilities they'd like to disclose? I'm open to suggestions."

Correct

Anyone who's seen it would know. If you don't know, you haven't seen it. Or touched it. Or, you know, experienced it.

The ability of God to raise the dead does not equate to a belief in an eternal life after this one, so Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac establishes nothing about a belief in eternal life, IMO.

Naked Gun Ricardo Montalban Spy Kids 2

TLC wrote: "The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change." But that makes total sense for the purposes of our conversation. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you? If not, then any OT references to salvation that can be defined as "deliverance from our enemies" is off-topic, not relevant to the point YOU were raising. So if God says, "Do this and I will save you," and He is NOT talking about eternal life, then that statement would not be relevant to the point you were trying to raise. "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness." In the New Testament, that statement is related to salvation/resurrection/eternal life. In the OT, there is no hint of that. We see no indication that Abraham expected a life after this one, and the BEST we can do is conjecture that if Job expected it, Abraham could too. Fine. I accept that (within the confines of this thread in this forum). We seem to have forgotten that I already answered the questions I raised, becoming fixated instead on what my alleged preconceived notions are and the horrible unfairness of not using documents that were written in 100 AD to determine what someone could or should have known in 1600 BC, barring some corroborating, contemporaneous evidence. That's what's irritating about this line of discussion. We're done. We were done a WHILE ago.