All Activity

Like so many other "lessons" propounded by TWI, 4 crucified was meaningless drivel. If one hasn't learned to treat their fellow man with the respect and equity with which they, themselves, would yearn to be treated, they have leaned nothing at all. You can learn to ride a bike, put it away for 50 years, and climb right back on after all that time, still possessing the ability to ride a bike. Not so with interpersonal relationships. There is no end point. Every day is another chance to do better than you did the day before. This concept of becoming a better human being is lost to TWI's endless pursuit of pedantic excellence.

Supergirl? I don't think her appearance in Action Comics was meant as a one-off (and it was in 1959, not the 60s), and I don't remember her having a cartoon, though she probably appeared in others. Her live action show started on CBS and then moved to CW, and she guested on Flash and other Arrowverse shows. George

Is there some song called "Hold Your Breath"? George

Just in case- and to prevent anyone veering off wildly- I'll state outright that the correct answer this round is not any version of Batgirl, Barbara Gordon, Josie Mc Coy, or Josie the lead singer of the Pussycats. Since you'd named both, I would have accepted the posting as a correct guess, had it been the correct answer even if said inadvertently.

Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.) A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.) This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie. There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.

You know, if you read your post slowly, and use that as a guide, then review the clues, I think you (you George) have enough to get to the answer already.)

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside."

"This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus." [Any time someone invokes a document they can't present or cite precisely, but upon which their entire argument hinges, I've found it was nothing but hot air. Some overheard something from someone else. "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. It is true that experts can learn things, but it's not the same to say that an expert MUST be correct BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXPERT. If an expert is correct, they have all sorts of resources they can access- and, more to the point, present- to strengthen their case and DOCUMENT their case. Those who try to SHUT DOWN THE DISCUSSION are all but admitting they've got nothing, and just want to distract from that. We had lots of that in twi, and the ex-twi communities still have large amounts of that, depending on the community.] "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus." [Horse manure. The ex-twi people would lift that thing high like a banner if that was the case. The photograph in the Companion Bible was shown everywhere- and that didn't make the case, no matter what Bullinger thought. He was mistaken. He saw 5 old stone crosses sitting together, and jumped to the conclusion that it could only have been to support his claim. If that were the case, they would have been made as a set. Instead, they were mixed and matched. Someone collected stone crosses from different sources, possibly sparing them destruction out of respect, possibly for any of a number of other reasons. They were proof of nothing except that people used to make different kinds of stone crosses. There is no such variant. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It is to be accepted to be nonexistent until evidence is presented to show it actually exists. ] "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating circus clowns were crucified with Jesus." "Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating Jesus died from slipping in a tub." [See how that works? Anyone can claim anything. On the internet, there's always someone ready to claim the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. A claim means NOTHING. By the way, there's a reason there's "critical" Greek texts. Centuries later, people came along and wrote fanfics, whether for entertainment, to advance their agenda, or with noble intent. If you look hard enough, there's texts out there that were written MUCH later with NONSENSE. It would not surprise me to find a "text" from the 20th century asserting 4 crucified.. None of that, BTW, means definitively 4 were NOT crucified, just that the case can't be made that way. I remain flexible on the subject due to a lack of consistent evidence.] "A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either. " [That's old news, and I'll fill in the blanks for you for free. 1) The word "one" was added to the English by a translator who thought that it needed to be there to make the English grammar make sense. He was wrong. If the word was apt, the sentence made as much sense without it, and if the word was not, then he inserted a concept that wasn't in the text- which is a bad thing. What was there in the Greek was the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen" (excuse my spelling if it's off), meaning, word for word, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE", or, to adjust for English grammar, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THAT SIDE." So, two, on this side and on that side. The argument that the English word "midst" makes a difference here is dishonest because the English meanings of the words are irrelevant when studying the Greek. 2) The other point made was that, when they removed the crucified ones, and went to kill them by breaking their legs, they killed one, then another, and then got to Jesus. If one is going efficiently in a line, that makes Jesus the third in a line. There's some shuffling about the word "other" in the Greek there, as to whether it means something different if there are exactly two in a group, or if there is more. Bullinger asserted there was, but he never supported his claim. It comes out of nowhere, and just happens to support the case he felt the need to make. But we have no guarantee that they went in a straight line. Perhaps they started with the noisiest prisoners and silenced them to stop the screaming. Maybe they cared more about highway robbers than political prisoners, and made sure the most dangerous criminals were dead first. Or any of a number of things of which we could have no knowledge. We suppose we have a lot more answers than we do about their culture. Nuances can vary widely. 3) A third point made is that one account has 2 thieves (or robbers) and another 2 "evildoers". In one, both join the crowd in reviling Jesus, in the other, one does, the other does not. The most common explanation is that there were 2 guys, and both reviled Jesus but one reconsidered and changed his tune. They were up there for hours, he had lots of time to think, it's not illogical. 4) Finally, the order of things is sometimes given differently. 2 of the guys were said to have been led out with Jesus, and it sounds like the other 2 were not. But, really, aren't we squeezing the text? We're approaching texts from another part of the world, many centuries ago, with a modern thinking process. We're expecting a CNN news feed with a minute by minute breakdown, when that was never the point in the first place. How badly were the first century disciples concerned with making every minute fit precisely? It was a few centuries later that anything resembling a "harmony of the Gospels" was made. That was from Greek to Aramaic, and I'm not convinced it wasn't more to try to spare the scribes hundreds of hours of hand-translating and hand-copying Greek texts long before the printing press was around. Frankly, the harder I look at it, the weaker is the case for "4 crucified." I'm open to the possibility, but they'd have to make a strong case that could answer all objections before I'd change positions. That's not impossible- I reversed my position in the past, and I'm willing to change again if there's a strong enough case for it. Ultimately, it matters not in the plan of salvation. It mattered to vpw, because he could present this and pretend he had access to esoteric, secret knowledge. It matters to certain ex-twi people for exactly the same reason.]

Wow, I was trying to play it safe with this one, so, then I must be doing a good job. I didn't think it would go another round.

That's it.

Me too. Then, some initials of the band should do it, George. Or, not, just go, you got it.

This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus. It's late for me, so more to come later, but I'll leave you with this. A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either.

She did have one in the 60s. And she was a major character in DC Super Hero Girls, along with appearances in various Batman titles. I assumed you kept using the plural "they" rather than "he" or "she" to obscure the character's gender. Your grammar is usually better than that. I'm also guessing you would more likely do that for a female character. Of course, the comics don't even have to be Marvel or DC. Josie McCoy was in Archie comic books and led Josie and the Pussycats and also appeared regularly in Riverdale. Lots of choices, so I'll need more specific clues. George

The ministry = TWI. Dr Wierwille = vpw. M&A would freak me out too - have to have a second look. The Corps - agh! My mum joined the local Salvation Army when her Methodist church closed down. They call the leaders there, and the singers, "the Corps." Made my hair stand on end the first time I heard that.

Can you narrow SOMETHING down? Can you limit the possible answers in some way, to some category, or some author?

No. Has she really been getting her own television shows while I wasn't looking?

YOU ALMOST HAD IT, you crazy mover you!

The man-made term, “pre-trib,” is in direct opposition to what Christ revealed from the right hand of God regarding the mystery: our “hope of glory,” when the Church is raptured to His throne, how? In other words, how does “pre-trib” contradict Christ’s revelation of the mystery? If you subscribe to “pre-trib,” you will be set free from the “pre-trib” snare—free to believe the totality of the mystery: Christ’s terminology. Peace. revvel

Batgirl? George

This sounds vaguely familiar, if only because some of the clues remind me of ones you've used before. Not getting it yet. George

Correct. George

Don't hold your breath. George

All right, I don't think I've done this one before. Some characters become more famous than others, and some are longer-lasting than others. In this case, I'm thinking of a specific character. They first appeared in the 1960s in someone else's comic book, intended as a one-off character. They were brought back as a recurring character before getting their own comic book. Before the 60s were over, they had made guest appearances in someone else's cartoons, and did so again in the early 1970s (in completely unrelated cartoons) before getting their own cartoon. (Personally, I watched the second series and not the first nor their own cartoon.) Those cartoons may all be remembered dimly after all this time, but I'm not done. This character's comic book continued, and the character returned to television. (Other than the 80s being all comics, they have appeared on television in one form or another each decade, not counting the current one.) There's been a variety of cartoons (naturally, they all contradict each other, since obviously can't be in continuity with each other; the character would easily be in their 70s by now. As for live action, they've appeared in their own series for several seasons and 2 networks, not counting syndication. There were rumors of an appearance guesting in an existing show to result in a backdoor pilot for an alleged spinoff series, but they elected to just start the new series alongside an existing one. (Odd, since, at the time, they probably would have fit in perfectly with the other series.) Besides their own series, they did eventually guest on the other series. So, we have a long-lived character, who keeps getting their own cartoons and their own television shows, and also guests on the cartoons and shows of others- often exactly the SAME "others" regardless of decade. Who is this?

Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.) A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie.

(In the English language, I would expect.)