Raf

Yes The first three played him in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

Yes

Yes

I get what you're saying, Bolshevik, but there is a distinction to be made between a religion, which you can choose, and a cultural/heritage background, which you cannot. I am not Irish because I was not born in Ireland, nor was I born to parents who are from Ireland, etc. It's not that I'm rejecting Irishness. Choosing Christianity DOES mean rejecting other religions, at least in principle. If you are a Christian by religion, then you have concluded (whether by default or by explicit analysis) that other religions are false. That alone is a defining different. It does not mean that people of differing faiths cannot get along with each other. That's a separate issue. True, this does not address people who are only Christians in a cultural sense, or people who've never looked at it the way I'm presenting it. But they CAN look at it that way, and I'm encouraging them to. And if they choose not to, ok by me. Big world. Lots of people. Just because one asks a question does not make him entitled to an answer from everyone. Anyone not interested in the conversation is free to move along. (That's not directed at you. Just a statement of fact).

I said, Yes.

The first movie directed by an African American (a groundbreaking actor in his own right) to gross over $100 million dollars in North America.

On his way to work, Teddy spots Charlotte - an incredibly beautiful woman. He really wants to meet her - but what would his wife say? A Soviet invasion on the United States interrupts his quest.

It was a good clue because it forced us to consider the setting: it would have to be the kind of job one COULD take while pursuing another career. The obvious choice was restaurant worker, but it made no sense with Cheers or Alice. So I was stumped. Took me a while to consider "cab driver" as a profession that fit the description. This TV series featured a recurring character who was played by the real-life father of the female lead. In the final episode, it is revealed that he (the character) is the father of the title character (not the female lead). The title character is a con-man who assumed the identity of a fictitious character created by the female lead character. (Are you following along?) The title character never actually knew his own real name, and when he learned the recurring character was, in fact, his father, he finally was able to ask him. The recurring character has a heart attack and dies before he can answer.

Adding: River Phoenix One more person has played this character to date. Naming that actor would be a giveaway.

The film contains three distinct stories tied together by a wraparound story.

Correction: "You promised you'd never tell!'

Here's the only "spoiler" I'll give you. "Out of Time" may well have been the best single hour of superhero television I have ever seen. Excellent, excellent writing.

You started the Biblical Unitarian site? Kudos! That was good work.

I don't understand your objection to this thread question. "Why spend any more time testing faiths?" To whom is that question addressed? Why would anyone who subscribes to a religion not want to be honest about why he believes what he does? On what basis does he reject other religions in favor of the one he has adopted? Would his own religion survive the scrutiny he applies to other religions? Only a dishonest person would avoid that question.

Since this is a Bart Ehrman thread, his view on similarities between Jesus and previous figures is the priority for this discussion (which I humbly suggest belongs in the Questioning Faith subforum in Doctrinal). Without going into too much boring detail, Ehrman's position is that the similarities between Jesus and the earlier figures are overstated. I am inclined to believe him for two reasons, both having to do with bias. Bart Ehrman is a self-described agnostic. He no longer believes in the Biblical God. Therefore, he has no vested interest in the Bible being true, or in the stories about Jesus being based on an actual historical figure. If the evidence led him to believe Jesus was a mash-up of earlier messianic figures, there's nothing in his belief system to stop him from pursuing and adopting that belief. He doesn't. That tells me, at the very least, that he is being sincere in his belief that the similarities are overstated. The second reason has nothing to do with Bart Ehrman directly, but with a historian who disagrees with him about the historicity of Jesus. Richard Carrier is probably the most academically qualified and prominent of those who refer to themselves as Jesus Mythicists. These are people who believe Jesus never existed, or at least that if there was a historical character, he has been so overwhelmed by legend and exaggeration that he might as well not have existed. For them, the gospels are literally historical fiction, much the same as Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot was entirely fictional, despite its verifiable historical settings and despite the fact that the main character is indeed based on someone who existed in real life. So many liberties were taken with the historical character that we rightly say the movie character never existed. So Richard Carrier is a full-on mythicist. He thinks the Jesus of the Bible is a complete work of fiction. And even Carrier believes the similarities between Jesus and previous figures are overblown. Now, BIAS would lead both these scholars to accept and adopt the position that the similarities are significant. In fact, predictably, Carrier accepts more of the similarities than Ehrman. But they agree that as a whole, the similarities are overstated. I recognize that I am appealing to authority here, and none of this guarantees that either of these men are correct. But when a dentist tells me what's wrong with my teeth, and shows me the evidence, I'm inclined to accept his expertise and believe him. Unless I were inclined to investigate the historical record on my own, I feel I am on safer ground relying on experts -- especially when those experts are adopting a position that runs contrary to what you would expect them to find given their biases. Note: I am suggesting that the similarities are overstated and overblown, not non-existent. It's like comparing Wierwille to Jim Jones. Yeah, there are similarities. But the differences!

But... but it says so.

The problem is that they didn't understand the Old Testament law as well as we do 2000 or so years later. Oh, and no love.

WordWolf was correct. E.T.

I missed that.

Wolf, how far behind are you? Exactly one week?

Like I said, it was the only thing in the REV concerning the Lazarus story that got my attention. It may not even be the subject of MRAP's concern. I hope he clarifies. That was fun.

No. Later line: "YOU PROMISED YOU WOULDN'T TELL!!"

Original first post on this thread: This thread was merged on 11/4/2015 with a new thread posted by George St. George. Here is the first post of that thread (still in place as post #92 on this thread)

Most of the people who CAN aren't posting here now either. Most of the people have put it behind them. Years ago.

Nope. Easier than that.