Raf

The epistles to Timothy and Titus were written AFTER Paul's death. He didn't dictate them. He never even READ them, much less wrote them. And Acts was written after Paul's death, too. By someone who disagreed with Paul about Paul's own biography. Which is not an alternative point of view or a different way of looking at things, but one Bible writer actively calling the other a liar. [The remainder of the original post here has been adequately addressed and so is being deleted by me. Thanks].

Dont. Speculation is not a spoiler by definition

Both stars of Moulin Rouge were successful WAY before that movie

Oakspear, Steve and I are no longer assuming God-breathed = inerrant. I'm not sure about Mark. [Deleting a portion of this post that was not necessary. While it is quoted in the next post, I apologize for including it originally. It was inappropriate].

Let me get this straight, Mark. You're using the salutation in a forged document to prove that it wasn't forged, because it was written in Paul's name? And you think I'M the one without sense? WTF do you expect a forger to write? "HI people! I'm not REALLY Paul, but I hope you think I am because I have some really cool ideas about how women should STFU even though the real Paul taught the opposite"? "Hi! I'm Paul! Pay no attention to the man holding the quill"? Of COURSE a forger is going to pretend he's really Paul!

"Guard well this shield, for one day it will guard your life."

Saving Private Ryan ?

From Steve: This is crucial to what we're discussing. Serious issues are raised by the authorship of the pastoral epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus). One thing most modern scholars agree on: whoever wrote these letters, it wasn't Paul. What does that tell us? For one thing, it tells us that people were writing things while claiming to have authority they did not have. They wanted their words to count, not just get lost in the sea of ridiculous letters and gospels that were being circulated at the time. How do you do that? Well, you pretend to be Paul! What? Who would do that? No one for centuries implied that the author of the epistles to Timothy and Titus was anyone but Paul. No alternatives were ever presented. Not one. [This is being stated ironically: The fact that no one presented an alternative does not validate Paul as the author]. In fact, there are good reasons to doubt Paul wrote I and II Timothy. For one thing, the letters assume a church hierarchy that was not in place at the time Paul lived and wrote. That's why Corinthians is written to the Corinthians, as opposed to the bishop at Corinth. We have a serious problem if Paul didn't write II Timothy, though. Because then we have no idea who wrote it. We only know one thing about this person: He's a liar. He's pretending to be Paul writing to Timothy, knowing full well he is not. And this is the only book of the Bible that says scripture is "God-breathed." What are the implications of that? We take the very concept of "God-breathed" scripture from a forgery. Without it, you have some concepts that come close, but nothing that outright says scripture has this quality. P.S. The same motive -- artifically bolstering credibility -- that led a forger to claim he was really Paul, knowing he wasn't, could easily lead someone who wasn't traveling WITH Paul to claim that he was. How would we know? Easy: Compare what that person says happened to what Paul says happened. If they don't agree, you have very valid reasons to doubt the pretender. The writer of Luke, whoever he was, pretends to be a companion of Paul, but disagrees with Paul about Paul's own biography. Now, what was his source for Paul's life, if not Paul himself? Paul is pretty clear about what happened after Jesus knocked him off his horse: Go ahead. Now read Acts 9. I'll wait. Back already? Note how quickly Paul's "I did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was" gets translated by his faithful and accurate companion Luke to "I went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles there." They can't both be right. Paul DID have a companion named Luke. Whether he was a physician or a Gentile is in question: that comes from another FORGED letter, Colossians. Maybe Luke was a Gentile physician and maybe he wasn't. Not really much way of knowing, but I wouldn't bank on it from a letter written by someone claiming to be someone he isn't. Nonetheless, if Acts were written by someone who knew Paul, then we have a big problem. Because that person would have known the letter to Galatians. Thus, when he writes that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles, plural, he knows full well that he is calling Paul a liar. If "Luke" is right, Paul IS a liar. If "Luke" is wrong, then "Luke" is a liar. Or at least unreliable. One thing he's not, by even the most lenient standard, is God-breathed. This is not metaphor. This is not symbolism. This is one Bible writer flat-out calling the other a liar. The writer of Luke pretends to be a companion of Paul for a few select passages, but a real companion of Paul would not call Paul a liar about what happened after his conversion. Just like someone who really interviewed Mary would not have botched the Nativity story. Just like someone who interviewed eyewitnesses would not, ahem, borrow so heavily from someone who did not. Writing in the year 150 or so, Justin Martyr quoted the gospels numerous times. He never called them by name. Just "The Memoirs of the Apostles." Luke was not an apostle. Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the gospels. Nor did he appear to care very much. It wasn't until 20 years later that Iraneus (spell check, please) is the first person we know of to give the gospels their current names. And why? To argue against heresies. THAT is a motive to reinforce the legitimacy of the gospels by attaching them to real people. Why Matthew and Mark? Because Papias hinted that gospels written by Matthew and Mark should exist, though the descriptions he gives don't match the gospels we have. Why Luke and John? Because the writer of Luke pretended to be a companion of Paul, and Luke was the best match. Why John? Because John was mistakenly believed to be the Beloved Disciple AND the author of the gospel. Careful reading should have shown that the Beloved Disciple is explicitly NOT the author of John, but oh well. No other names have been attached to the gospels, but that absolutely positively does not prove they were written by the people they are attributed to. The evidence is SQUARELY against those attributions. So if Matthew didn't write Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark, Luke didn't write Luke and John didn't write John, does that mean it's not God-breathed? To me, that question is secondary. How can ANYTHING be "God-breathed" if the concept of "God-breathed" itself comes from a fraud (a writer pretending to be Paul who knew full well he was not)?

He got it

I posted already I posted already

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Alone. Oops. Wrong thread Don't make me hungry. You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry. Wait, that's not right.

The only thing I will say about Supergirl is that they aired last week's episode out of order. It was supposed to air this week. But the episode slated to air LAST week hit a little too close to home after the Paris massacre. So Thanksgiving came a little early to National City. Also, HELEN SLATER! She's so pretty. Anyway, anything else would be a spoiler. I'm ALMOST caught up on Arrow, and while I appreciate that they have to expand their universe after introducing the Flash, I do miss the gritty "this can happen in the real world" tone of the first season. Now we have the Lazarus Pit and the creepy corpse thing (which we knew had to happen because, crap, she's in Legends of Tomorrow). In the most recent episode I saw, Felicity is getting text messages she can't explain (with hit-me-over-the-head-with-it hints that the messages are coming from a still very much alive Ray Palmer, who also HAS to come back because Legends of Tomorrow). I like Brandon Routh. I think his Ray Palmer is loads of fun. Expect to be caught up in a couple of weeks, but not in time for next week's crossovers.

Cate Blanchett was Marian in the Russell Crowe movie. Audrey Hepburn was Sean Connery's Marian. Mastrantonio was Kevin Costner's. The other chick was on Once Upon A Time. I threw her on the list to make you go, huh?

The original plan for this movie was to turn it into a weekly HBO series. A pilot was shot, starring Kiefer Sutherland. But HBO passed on it. Not that it wouldn't have been great, but the film was a major critical and box office success, launching the careers of two Australian actors who, until then, had been relative unknowns. It was nominated for Best Picture and lost to a juggernaut, but it won best adapted screenplay and best supporting actress.

Easy to forget how things start. This particular digression begins with the claim that the writer of Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. The writer of Luke never claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses. We've seen emphatic assertions that he could have interviewed Mary, therefore he must have. But the evidence argues strongly against it.

Well! That settles it then, doesn't it! I wonder why scholars don't just read the first couple of verses of each letter. They'd save a lot of time. Talk about blinders! P.S. I have not been plagiarized, but I supervised someone who was. Mark, a non-eyewitness, was plagiarized by Matthew, who was an eyewitness, and by Luke, who interviewed multiple eyewitnesses. If you believe that, and think I'M the one blinded by bias, there's really nothing to argue.

No one in history ever suggested anyone other than Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Yet he probably didn't. No one in history ever suggested someone other than Matthew wrote Matthew. Yet he clearly didn't. (Why would an eyewitness plagiarize a non-witness to the events he had witnessed?) For centuries, MANY centuries, it was assumed Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. What does THAT prove? Nothing. At. All. The fact that history offers no alternatives in no way whatsoever demands we accept the traditional authorship when the evidence weighs so heavily against it.

Insisting Luke wrote Acts doesn't make it so. Misrepresenting the motives and sincerity of scholars who recognize he did not write Acts does not magically make Luke the author. Simply put, an independent researcher who relied heavily on eyewitness testimony would not have needed to plagiarize Mark as shamelessly as "Luke" did. He would not have botched the Nativity story if he were really a careful historian (because he would have known full well that Herod was long dead by the time of the Quirinian census. And that the census did not require anyone to travel FROM their homes based on ancestry). Mary would have known that. Had Luke interviewed Mary, he would not have gotten that fact so pathetically wrong. And no, that's not a metaphor. It's a blunder. And it's not a blunder that would have been made by someone who really interviewed eyewitnesses. It's abundantly clear that you've reached your conclusion based on faith rather than evidence.

Ah. The Hunger Games

Yes

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio

Nope

Looking for the character: Cate Blanchett Audrey Hepburn Christie Laing

I was wondering if Ashley was Ash. Bruce Campbell

If you don't want me to argue authorship on this thread, you really need to stop counterarguing authorship on this thread.