WordWolf

It's definitely familiar. I'm not getting the answer yet.

"Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Good. I remembered one, Mrs Wolf remembered the other. We would have been stuck to name the third.

How would you describe YOURSELF at this moment, Human? (Mrs Wolf likes that Jane Austen/ BBC stuff, so she's mentioned adapting "Emma" just like I mention adaptations of Shakespeare.)

I'm sorry, I can't do anything with the hints you've provided so far. I'm completely befuddled.

Here's how the clues went. "This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) " The 2018 date was the 50th Anniversary. 1999 was the first time US audiences saw the scene where the Beatles met Sgt Pepper's Band, and the scene with "Hey Bulldog." "In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie." Yes, "prop" not "car." They released the yellow submarine. "This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success." The soundtrack was all Beatles songs. ""Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan." A sample of the humorous dialogue, from when the Beatles were hiding in Pepperland. "English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Hebrew, Greek, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, English, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, Swahili, Sanskrit, French, Hebrew, Swedish, Chinese, German, Japanese, English- that's the order at the end of the movie." The final song was the reprise of "All Together Now" had the screen show the phrase in those languages, in quick succession. "The guy who said he knew a thing or two about motors was correct. He'd worked as an apprentice electrician, and had plans to work with a mechanic- but his successful career took off and that was that." George Harrison. His brother was a mechanic. He was planning on joining his brother's business as his Plan B. "The Mrs and I just re-watched this. We began speculating that the PhD was actually related to some of the others. She speculated he stayed where they had lived and the others moved on, and I speculated that he may have fled the others and gotten lost and ended up where he did. " Jeremy Hilary Boob PhD was the Nowhere Man. (Said so on his cards.) He looked a LOT like the meanies. If the meanies had leveled their homeland, it would have ended up barren. If Jeremy had fled the meanies as they became mean, he might have ended up lost and "nowhere." BTW, Mrs Wolf asked me to ask you guys what you think of our idea that they're related- Jeremy and the meanies. "We also think this movie features one of the finest middle-management examples in cinematic history." Max. He immediately processes that he could only say "No" instead of "yes" but nod to indicate the meaning. When BBM was transformed at the end, he quickly adjusted to addressing him not as "Your Blueness" but "Your Newness" immediately, and instantly changed from "No" to "Yes" at the first reaction from BBM. We think Max was incredibly competent, and probably ran the meanies himself, with BBM giving overall orders and being the visible head. "Fred Astaire and Joan Crawford were the originals for the couple that ballroom-danced. They did that in "Dancing Lady"(1933)." They were rotoscoped for the "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" dance number,.

CORRECT!

Mrs Wolf said "Tomorrow Never Dies" was another of PB's flicks as JB. (TD did 2 of them.)

Sonny Wortzik Arthur Kirkland Steve Burns

This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie. Also in 2016, Lego released a set of the movie. This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success. "Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan." English, French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Hebrew, Greek, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, English, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Arabic, Spanish, Farsi, Swahili, Sanskrit, French, Hebrew, Swedish, Chinese, German, Japanese, English- that's the order at the end of the movie. The guy who said he knew a thing or two about motors was correct. He'd worked as an apprentice electrician, and had plans to work with a mechanic- but his successful career took off and that was that. The Mrs and I just re-watched this. We began speculating that the PhD was actually related to some of the others. She speculated he stayed where they had lived and the others moved on, and I speculated that he may have fled the others and gotten lost and ended up where he did. We also think this movie features one of the finest middle-management examples in cinematic history. Fred Astaire and Joan Crawford were the originals for the couple that ballroom-danced. They did that in "Dancing Lady"(1933).

No, it was Baz Lehrman's "Romeo + Juliet" which was LOADED with famous actors and actresses. Paul Sorvino played Fulgencio Capulet, Juliet's Dad. That's the one that was set in modern-day southern California, in the town of "VERONA." The dialogue was all straight Shakespeare, but the visuals all were updated. Example: "Put up your swords!" *closeup shows the pistols are "SWORD 9MM" * "Bring me my Long Sword!" (Fulgencio, putting his hand on a rifle) "I will send it post-haste." ("Post-Haste" delivery service trucks were seen at least once.)

The plot was a small piece of dirt about 5'x9'. Ok, I was just saying he was in 2 movies yesterday (3 movies? Dalton and him were in 5 total, IIRC, so one did 3 and one did 2.) I know Brosnan did "Goldeneye." Was that it?

Jeremiah 31:14-16 King James Version (KJV) 14 And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the Lord. 15 Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. 16 Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Matthew 2:17-19 King James Version (KJV) 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, ======================================================================== I think some people think the idea of a prophecy coming true twice is something someone made up, and that recently. If the Gospel of Matthew is to be believed, it includes at least one example of that very thing. (If it isn't to be believed, I don't know why we're having a discussion.)

If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.

For everybody now convinced that the con man who conned us into thinking he knew the Bible and conned us about that all the time, and now think that he conned us about "speaking in tongues" and what he said was the Biblical thing was just another con, we're certainly not convinced that hearing anyone "SIT" is proof of any holiness or godly connection. In his case, it was a smokescreen for his evil acts. If anyone's going to heaven, I'm suspicious about where he'd end up.

The opportunity was there- a small window in history. wierwille wanted followers with no roots. He read about Leonard's class and plagiarized the entire class. He heard about Bullinger's work and plagiarized as much of it as he could manage. (About 4 sessions of the later versions of the pfal Foundational class were right out of "How To Enjoy the Bible.") He heard from Stiles and plagiarized his book, sometimes word-for-word, moving a few words around in later editions to conceal his plagiarism more thoroughly. So, wierwille had material, but where where the folllowers? He needed gullible, naive, well-meaning people with no roots whom he could con, trick, and impress, and convince to move around since they were already mobile. Then vpw read about the Christian hippies at the House of Acts. He rushed over there and did his best to recruit them while he trawled for information on orgies. (I'm unsure if he asked Jim D about them only out of prurient interest, or if he was trying to inveigle an invitation. Since he usually used this method to get in places- like the Jain Convention- I suspect he was trying to con an invite to one.) He conned some of the young, naive, well-meaning Christians, and diverted their work from simplicity in Christ to the cult assembly line he was assembling out of people. If there is a God (and I am fully persuaded there is) I'm confident vpw will be punished for all of that in addition to the crimes he successfully committed and hid.

No, but he did play Dr something Bruce Banner, the scientist who turned INTO The Hulk when his work went wrong. (I call him "something" because his first name changed. The very first time was a young, sloppy Stan Lee using alliteration to remember full names of Peter Parker, Reed Richards, etc. He remembered Banner's first name started with "B". So, it was Bruce Banner. And when he forgot, it was Bob Banner. Eventual explanation- Robert Bruce Banner's name included both. (Star Trek novels used a similar excuse when Riker ended up with 2 middle names, both starting with "T".) And then the TV show came along and made him "David Bruce Banner." If Stan's writing at the time was correct, he was confused as to why, and never given a reason, and didn't like it. But Bill Bixby played "DAVID Bruce Banner", (shown written on his headstone from his presumed death), called "David Banner" for the entire run of his role. Despite that, it was all clearly meant to be the same character, creative interpretations notwithstanding.

Looking him up to move this along (allowed when the thread stalls for a few days due to obscurity of movie or actor), I see he was in Oh, God! Paul Sorvino Romoeo + Juliet

Ok, a month with no answer means it's up for grabs. (I hope we don't start getting those "I'll answer and then refuse to take my turn" posts like we got a few years back.) This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie. Also in 2016, Lego released a set of the movie. This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success. "Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan."

From an emotional perspective, it was a lot more difficult than from any other. We were able to get it all done using resources found in the twi bookstore, using skills any wayfer could have displayed. Digging into "the word in the stars" didn't have to go any further than "JC-OPS",and "the Witness of the Stars", and finding verses that refuted each claim as he made them was done with a simple Concordance. On its own terms, it should have been plainly obvious it was too flawed to hold. "...had God foreknown- or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there...." Honestly, that sentence alone should have been a tremendous embarrassment, and that's not even the whole sentence. We were even able to quote 8ruce M@h0ne to refute him- and BM probably was going around agreeing with him at the time. EMOTIONALLY, it was a heavy burden, and I readily acknowledge that.

I agree.

Jennifer Lawrence Hunger Games Donald Sutherland

If the canon had been decided by a dozen good old boys in a basement with a case of 'shine and a stack of scrolls, deciding what should be "promoted" to canon and what shouldn't, then the question of the authority would ride on Paul's having written them and saying so, and a bunch of drunks. FF Bruce ("The Scrolls and the Parchments") and Neil Lightfoot ("How We Got the Bible") among others, argue an entirely different scenario took place. According to them, what was canon of the New Testament, FOR THE MOST PART, was considered self-evident. They were written within the 1st century AD, and all carried the feel of Scripture and the quality of same. (I'm paraphrasing heavily for brevity's sake.) What didn't make it, FOR THE MOST PART, was agreed to have been clearly of a different caliber. There were books written several centuries later, and most pushed some esoteric or Gnostic POV that felt like it didn't match the others. As for books like "the Infancy Gospel of Thomas", that was written as a fanfic and was accepted as such at the time- considered good for entertainment but hardly Scripture. When just grabbing all old documents together that didn't make it and calling them some sort of "Lost books" or "forgotten books", that's a lot like grabbing the contents of my Bible case (with any songs, poems, short stories, etc) and claiming they're of equal authority as the Bible that's in the case because it's in the same case. That was possible then because they didn't have leatherbound Bibles as a single book- they would have had a bunch of scrolls stored together. So, someone just grabbing all the scrolls indiscriminately could easily think they were all meant to be read the same, with equal authority and equal utility. Obviously, not everyone would agree with either or both writers. I find that it's a sensible position to hold even if one thinks it isn't what happened.

"Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. " That's what I thought you were asking me about, and I answered making it clear I was addressing HIS positions specifically. "(I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) " I'm giving him the credit of the doubt when I say that his reason was an honest attempt to understand God that went horribly off-track into what vpw called "private interpretation". That's the best possible motive he could have had for what he taught. I'm willing to grant him the best possible motive by speculation. "However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. " He wasn't original, and I certainly knew that at the time. The book "the Trivialization of God" was published around that time, a book addressing "Open Theism" (I was familiar with the term, and with the existence of the book.) In fact, "Christianity Today" addressed this subject around that time also-which is how I heard about this stuff pre-internet. "Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did." I assure you, we had an easy time of it. He spent 3 different tapes laying out his position, and we successfully refuted each tape point by point, as well as the entire premise. Perhaps it might have gone differently with someone else presenting "Open Theism", but I'm skeptical it would have gone DRASTICALLY different. We refuted the premise in addition to every point he made, attempting to make his case. But that's an exercise in imagination, at this point. "'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.) If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help: https://probe.org/god-and-the-future-examining-the-open-view-of-god/ ======================================== Well, anyone's welcome to explore different POVs, and different ideas. I have too much to catch up with now that the World Cup ended.(Vive la France!)

Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.