Raf

Mine was. Maybe a Nestle Crunch?

I thought "You wish" was an adequate hint.

Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one. It is an event that either happened in history or did not. If you believe the gospels and Acts preserve history, that is your prerogative. I disagree and articulated why. TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses. TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture]. The problem with questioning my motives is, even if you are correct to do so, it does not alter the evidence. Luke is still unreliable on history and not above inventing miraculous tales [nativity, esp. its timing]. I'll cite more on request. The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence. Every single religion without exception claims some form of non-senses evidence. On what basis do you accept one religion's extrasensory claims over another's? You can't do it without engaging in circular reasoning. That is, testing it against the Bible assumes the Bible to be true, but that is what we're questioning in the first place. The thing with a falsifiable thesis is, if you assume it is NOT true, the evidence will still lead back to it. That is how evidence works

You wish

You need a snickers. You get cryptic when you're hungry

I've pretty much dropped everything but Flash. Supergirl is good, but the obvious political overtones are too much even for me. And Arrow is just one damn fight sequence after another. Legends is goofy, but i just lost track of whatever the hell it is they are trying to accomplish.

I was going for non-iconic lines spoken by other characters to get it to be at least a LITTLE bit of a challenge. You are of course, correct

"Listen, you promise me something, OK? Just if you're ever in trouble, don't be brave. You just run, OK? Just run away." *** "This is a new company record! If it wouldn't be such a waste of a damn-fine enlisted man I'd recommend you for OCS! You are gonna be a general someday."

it is

I I I posted the video. Mmmbop, by Hanson

Halloween iii was an unrelated story. The rest were about Michael Meyers. H2O ignored everything after Halloween Ii. Halloween (2018) considered ALL sequels apocryphal

yes

By the way, there were at least 8 sequels before this one. One of the sequels, oddly, told a completely unrelated story. A few sequels were completely ignored by a later sequel. Then there was a remake (not a sequel) that had the same name as the original. That had a sequel too, though part 2 of the remake bore little resemblance to the original part 2. It was not called "part 2." I'm just using that for ease. So when the latest sequel was announced, it had the exact same name as the original. But it was announced as a sequel. However, its storyline ignored everything except the first movie. The sequels were no longer canon. It is not sci fi

close enough. I Want You was the name of the song. And according to the lyrics included with the cd, it is indeed a chick-a-cherry cola. You're up

I don't know where you're going with that, so I can't tell if you're on the right track. I can tell you that a little kid could figure this one out. Only goes to show what little people can do.

Independence Day Resurgence did not have the same title as its predecessor

Pretty sure but not 100%: This is the only sequel to share its name with the original (no "ii," 2, part two, etc). It was released and set 40 years after the original.

The power of myth, the resonance of these stories, does not make them true in the historical sense. Perseus was never sent in a crate down a river anymore than Moses was, and vice versa. The Jesus myth is an expression of a lot of things, but historical truth is not one of them.

Jesus rose from the dead as surely as Gandalf did.

We have now entered the horsesh*t as evidence phase of this discussion

we're on a new song now. Not sure this one made it to number 1, but it was a big hit. Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes And I am taken to a place Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings Take up shelter in the base of my spine Sweet like a chica cherry cola I don't need to try to explain I just hold on tight and If it happens again I may move so slightly to the arms And the lips and the face Of The Human Cannonball that I need to I want to Come stand a little bit closer Breathe in and get a bit higher You'll never know what hit you when I get to you Ooh [title], I don't know if I need you but Ooh I'd die to find out Ooh [title], I don't know if I need you but Ooh I'd die to find out I'm the kind of person who endorses a deep commitment Getting comfy getting perfect is what I live for But a look and then a smell of perfume It's like I'm down on the floor And I don't know what I'm in for Conversation has a time and place in the interaction Of a lover and a mate but the time of talking Using symbols, using words can be likened To a deep sea diver who is swimming with a raincoat Come stand a little bit closer Breathe in and get a bit higher You'll never know what hit you when I get to you the rest of the lyrics are repeated.

By the way, why would the Bereans search the scriptures to see if the resurrection was a historical event? Wouldn't there be, you know, evidence? I mean, what were they looking at scriptures for? They weren't looking at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or Acts. So... prophecies? No one is saying there were no prophecies. But prophecies don't prove the resurrection happened [the topic of this thread]. Again, the fact that people believed Paul does not entail that the things Paul taught were true. People believe con men all the time. The truth of what someone teaches is independent of who is doing the teaching and whether anyone or everyone believes it. The truth emerging from your scripture citations is that you're abandoning any pretense of argument and are instead appealing to piety as a substitute for the examination of evidence. That tactic might work if we were discussing what the Bible means. But it is pointless in a conversation where one side isn't impressed by the admonition of scripture to revere scripture because scripture said so. Scripture is not evidence of itself. It is a claim. The evidence either supports the claim, refutes it, or is neutral. it is possible to construct a strong, evidence-based argument for the resurrection. I praised one earlier in this thread. But quoting scriptures to shame non believers for not revering scripture as the arbiter of truth would be like me accusing you of paying insufficient homage to the Q'uran while evaluating the claims of Islam. Might work on another Muslim, but only a jackass would think it sways you at all.

you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations. I did not say throw all scripture out. I said you cannot use scripture to prove itself. That Exodus and Noah's flood did not happen are historical facts. They do not entail throwing all scripture out. David, for example, probably existed. Solomon almost certainly did. Nebuchadnezzar absolutely did. The book of Daniel actually does record some history. Daniel himself is a fictional character. Psalms and Proverbs make no historical claims. The Prophets contain some stories that in all likelihood actually happened (probably not Jonah, which we can explore separately if you wish). But I never said toss out all scripture and I would seriously appreciate it if you would STOP LYING ABOUT ME. As for the rest of your ignorant comment: i have done nothing but produce evidence for my position, which itself required me to change my mind and abandon decades of preconceived notions. To suggest that I'm the one who has "shut the door" on examining the evidence with an open mind and heart is the height of hypocrisy. YOU are the one who has stubbornly shut the door refusing to consider evidence that conflicts with the myths you hold dear.

"So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid?" I literally said the opposite of that. I never said he was a fool. But gullible? Sure! You say that about the followers of literally every religion other than your own! You believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on Golden Plates? How gullible are you? You believe Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? How gullible are you? You believe Buddha did this, Confucius did that, Thor did the other thing? Oh my God. Scientologists believe WHAT? You have no problem dismissing the claims of every other religion except your own. Everyone can fall victim to gullibility (a point that was raised earlier in a post by Rocky). EVERYONE. No matter how intelligent. No matter how skeptical. No matter how discerning. It doesn't make people stupid. It makes us human. My kid still believes in Santa. He's not stupid (and he's figuring it out on his own, by the way, which I think is awesome). My wife never told her daughters "the truth" about Santa. They're in their 20s now. They play along. But they figured it out. There is nothing "foolish" about faith. I have never called anyone here stupid or foolish (at least not without a reprimand). I know many believers who are brilliant. That doesn't make what they believe true. Whether the specific people you mentioned actually existed or not, real people in the first century became Christians, and they weren't stupid. You know what they were? Superstitious as f---. Seriously, how did Paul convert those very people. By appealing to the statue of the "unknown God" that they had erected, just in case they missed someone in all the statues they had erected. Huh? How gullible do you have to be to believe in the gods of Greek mythology? But they did, and they were just as smart when they believed in Zeus and Apollo as they were when they believed in Yahweh and the resurrected Y'shua.

Ok, couple of things going here. First: the existence of Yahweh would not preclude other cultures from making up their own gods. Second: Noah.... you know that never happened, right? You read Actual Errors in Genesis? Because I'm not going to relitigate that b.s. story here. Third: Even assuming that story to be true, it still remains that Yahweh would be perfectly capable, post-flood ESPECIALLY, of revealing himself to more than one culture. This notion that he chose Israel because no one else would listen is a little convenient, no? An Almighty God can't reveal himself to more than one culture? Everyone else said no? Must not have tried very hard. Jehovah's Witnesses get doors slammed in their face all the time. Know what they do? Move to the next house. They're persistent that way. And the fact that a Jehovah's Witness congregation popped up in Fort Lauderdale and another congregation popped up in West Africa, with the exact same doctrine and reading the exact same Bible, is proof that there is such a thing as "Jehovah's Witnesses." You mean to tell me Yahweh himself, THE ALMIGHTY, is less persuasive than one of the most irritating groups of people on the planet? They can spread his message to multiple cultures but HE can't? Please.