All Activity

" 'El Breako the Leaso'?" "Introducing Rhea, the Medium. Well done, Medium Rhea!" "I got the golbloots from a booshoo bird?!" "We may have to remove her Zorch." "How can you sell meat so cheap?" "I'm glad you asked that. We rope, we brand, we butcher. We do everything but eat it for you." "What do you know about rice?" "Well, I had it thrown at me on one of the darkest days in my life." "It's going to be called "Bitter Grapes." I wonder what part they want me for." "Oh, you're probably going to be one of the bunch."

"Russian Chick," by "I Don't Know."

kakourgoi vs. lestai Victor himself said all robbers are criminals but not all criminals are robbers. He solved his own contrived problem. There is no contradiction. It's a word choice. _________________________________________________________________ IIRC, vpw never solved it. He brought up the useless point of all "ROBBERS" being "THIEVES" but not all "thieves" being "robbers." (A thief steals. A robber is a violent thief who accosts you with violence or the threat of violence. A burglar sneaks in and steals. A pickpocket sneaks and takes what's in your pocket. A cutpurse is similar to a pickpocket, but cuts a purse's straps or cuts a hole in the purse. So, all of those are "thieves". Only robbers commit assault and battery, and possibly murder. So, the guys being crucified weren't pickpockets, they were threats to public safety. So, the thieves (who stole by robbery, if anyone actually cares) were, by virtue of criminal actions. "evil-doers" or "malefactors". It's not inaccurate to call them either. It's like calling vpw a plagiarist (which he was) and a thief (because all plagiarists are thieves.) So, duo lestai, two thieves, duo kakourgoi, two evil-doers. If another Gospel had called them 2 robbers, we would have people teaching 6 crosses were up there on Calvary surrounding the main cross. Ultimately, it's NOT IMPORTANT. The cross in the middle was important. The shape and construction weren't the important parts, either. Obsessing over either is missing the main point.

Glowwwry!

God wrote it, but he was unable (because He was unwilling?) to accurately and precisely say what he meant and mean what he said. So, for 1900 years He sat wringing his hands over holy men wrongly dividing his word, until... a British flat-earther comes along to clear it all up. Isn't that just tremendous!

To your point, the prologue to GLuke explicitly says: this is it, this is all you need, as I have investigated everything carefully and will lay it out orderly for you. What an opportunity to separate truth from error! "You were told two, but there were actually four, and I should know after my exhaustive investigation." The attempts to harmonize the gospels, indeed the WHOLE bible, are infinitely regressive. The solution to a perceived problem is problematic which requires another solution to resolve the problem that arose from the problematic solution which requires... kakourgoi vs. lestai Victor himself said all robbers are criminals but not all criminals are robbers. He solved his own contrived problem. There is no contradiction. It's a word choice. Luke has his reasons for this, but they are not mathematical.

Correct. George

This movie was simply "The Simpsons." (Or "The Simpsons Movie.")

You got it. Meanwhile, this is "Dirty Harry" by The Monkees. What?

I'm going. I'm pretty sure that it. I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad, I got sunshine in a bag I'm useless but not for long, the future is comin' on I ain't happy, I'm feeling glad, I got sunshine in a bag I'm useless but not for long, the future is comin' on

Do what I do. Look up a movie you like (preferably, something that the others have a chance of knowing) on IMDb and get clues from the Trivia section. George

Unfortunately, I can't think of anything at the moment. That and I'm not the best at writing clues anyway.

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.

No. Simpler. George

Mama Told Me not to Come (not the first line) "Don't come a-hangin' around my door I don't wanna see your face no more" George

Walk Like an Eqyptian ~The Bangles~?

Homer Simpson Goes to Hawaii???

That's very generous of you, WordWolf. Thanks. Some radio's blastin', someone's knockin' at the door, I look over at my girlfriend, she's passed out on the floor.

Yes. It was the beginning of her closing theme song. George

Not even close. I do expect that you've seen this movie, though. (Incidentally, Zeus appears in "Thor, Love and Thunder" but not the Shazam movies.) George

"D'oh!" George

One actor was the star of three shows, The first one had a different title in the US from its title in the UK. The second one had the same title in both the US and UK, and it was the US title of the first show. The third was never officially called a sequel to the second, but it was, for all intents and purposes. All remaining clues pertain to the third show. Throughout the show, the star is menaced by "Rover" (not a dog). The Butler (played by Maltese actor Angelo Muscat) never speaks, and appears in more episodes than anyone else, other than the star. Name the third show. For extra credit, name the other two. George

The Carol Burnett Show.

Wild swing here.... "Shazam-War of the Gods"????

That's it.