Raf

Must be a shortage of fine people.

So about 75-100 years after it's written, tradition gives us Luke as the author. And that's according to people who believe it WAS Luke. Nelson is not exactly what I would call an unbiased source. Would you expect them to confess Luke was not the author? Not in a billion years. They would lose support among evangelicals, their bread and butter. I would recommend the Oxford Companion to the Bible. When I have time I'll write up their summary. They still think it's Luke, but they're honest enough to show the case is weak and boils down to "why not."

Direct to video. That rules out the unreleased Fantastic Four movie. I'm thinking along those lines though, because you have some reason to think we would know a D2V movie. I know there was a godawful Captain America tv series in the 70s or 80s. But that's not D2V. I don't know either. Don't even know if I'm on the right track. Or tree. Or forest.

Looks like Juedes and I made the same observation: you have to add a word no matter how many you think were crucified with Jesus. Mark, believe it or not, we all know who the Biblical characters of Matthew and Luke are. The issue is not their identity. It is their authorship. Most scholars agree that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote the gospels attributed to them. The case for Matthew is horribly weak, because he's plagiarizing Mark (who wasn't there) and, it must be said, straight up lying about history (the slaughter of the innocents) and fulfilled prophecies (a virgin shall be with child, a prophecy that had zero to do with the Messiah). All that said, you raise good points about the crucifixion. Thank you for the contribution.

I wouldn't say debunked. I don't buy it, but that doesn't make it debunked. The picture of the five crosses in the Companion Bible: THAT's debunked. It had nothing to do with the gospels. But not being an expert in Greek, I can only speculate about whether John meant to say one on this side and one on that side or two on this side and two on that side. Either interpretation involves adding to the text. (It doesn't say two on this side and TWO on that side, nor does it say on either side ONE). It's just bizarre that Matthew mentions two but fails to mention the other two, while Luke mentions the other two without mentioning Matthew's two. Why can't either of them have mentioned all four? (Because there weren't four, and Luke straight up invented the penitent evildoer, manufacturing a contradiction in the process).

I will likely be unable to continue this countdown between now and April 1, so I encourage you fine people to lend a hand.

Before this goes any further: the significance of number in scripture is off topic for this thread. The value of Bullinger in general is off topic [his views on the resurrection and the reliability of the gospel accounts is fair game]. Let's stay on topic please.

I want to know the source of this "only a computer" claim. Bullinger supposedly worked backwards, coming up with the significance of numbers through scriptural usage. To marvel at how well it fits is to marvel that a ring is in the exact same shape as the cast in which the gold was poured.

Bullinger believed the earth is flat. Are you SURE you want to rely on his judgment?

You actually don't get to tell us what to cite in retort. Especially if you worship a God who ordered a man's execution because he picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week. The same God to the Israelites that if they have a kid who explored other gods, they are to throw heavy rocks at the kids' heads until they die. Oh, but that was the Old Testament. I know.

Ok, so this ongoing series is part of a genre that everyone knows, but for some reason, no one in the show ever mentions it. No one ever says the word "zombie." The current lead male character does not appear in the source material. The character of Daryl, played by Norman Reedus, was a fan favorite from his first appearance in the second episode. You might still be able to find shirts that say "If Daryl dies, we riot." No one from the pilot episode is still with the show. The original main character was Rick Grimes. He wasn't killed off, but the other characters think he was. His partner, Shane, was killed at the end of the second season. His wife, Lori, was killed in the middle of the third season. His son, Carl, was killed in the middle of the eighth season.  If you're paying attention, time moves very slowly in the series. One character is pregnant for more than two years of our time. The show resolves this with a sudden time jump, allowing one toddler to age considerably while the baby is old enough for dialogue (not that we've actually seen the kid much, if at all). The character of Maggie learns she is pregnant in season 6. By the end of season 8, not only has she not delivered, but she is still not showing. A time jump starts season 9 and, yes, the baby is already born. The baby would now be about six years old, following another time jump. (still season 9).

Bravissimi. Edmond Dantes. Like the Three Musketeers, also based on a novel by Alexandre Dumas

You likely have not seen Gerard Depardieu in this role. I chose him because it's legit: he DID play this character, and because I needed you guys to get to exactly where WW went. But you picked the wrong story. Now look at the other actors, one of whom you never heard of, and the other who starred in the title role of...

That would be the same tree but a different branch. Same forest, different tree.

so close. same forest. different tree

it is. The word Zombie has never been spoken on the show

I am in love with the idea of invisible information. This is $#!t you get to make up and attribute to God even though God could easily have said it but didn't. It's a mystery. You have to take it on faith. None dare call it Horse$hit. More seriously, though: It is false that I do not accept "pertinent" additional information. Speculation is fair. Extrapolation is fair. The reasoning process is fair. What's not fair is making $#!t up to pretend the conflicting accounts are in harmony when they are not. Peter denying Christ six times when each gospel says three. That's not reasonable. That's grasping at straws. Five crosses on the hill when each gospel says three is not reasonable. It's grasping at straws. Reasonable is when you say Christ died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday, and the Thursday sabbath was a high holy day, not the weekly sabbath. It's consistent with the facts and it does seem to fit together. There's nothing wrong with learning from history or other sources and incorporating that knowledge into your analysis of the scripture. What's wrong is making up excuses because without them your thesis of inerrancy falls apart. What's wrong is bolstering the reliability of one book because you need it to be accurate, even when the actual subject of that book has left behind his own testimony that its account is incorrect. That's just dishonest. It's not "pertinent invisible information." It's a cheap excuse that might as well be signed by Epstein's mother for all its reliability.

nope

Oh I'm sure if you tried hard enough you would find it. Ok, so this ongoing series is part of a genre that everyone knows, but for some reason, no one in the show ever mentions it. The current lead male character does not appear in the source material. No one from the pilot episode is still with the show. If you're paying attention, time moves very slowly in the series. One character is pregnant for more than two years of our time. The show resolves this with a sudden time jump, allowing one toddler to age considerably while the baby is old enough for dialogue (not that we've actually seen the kid much, if at all).

This character was played by: Gerard Depardieu Robert Donat Jim Caviezel

I submit that what you need to do is ask yourself, what is the most reasonable explanation for the set of facts presented? Is it a. When Luke said "many days," he meant more than 1,000. b. Paul was knocked off his horse by Jesus Christ himself, received a life changing revelation, went to Jerusalem, met with the actual apostles who actually walked with Jesus... and showed no interest in talking to them about his life, his teachings, or the details surrounding the resurrection. [Later add: This would also entail the apostles being completely uninterested in discussing anything with Paul, who just "many days" earlier was persecuting the church and, at least, standing idly by while their brothers in Christ were being stoned to death. No one wanted to question him. They took Barnabas' word for it. They had him right in front of them, but saw no point in quizzing him about the gospel he learned from God to see if it squared with what they learned from Jesus Christ himself]. c. Paul lied or was in error when he said he did not go to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles. d. Luke lied or was in error when he said Paul met the apostles at the onset of his ministry. Which is the most likely? No doubt someone can think of an e. f. and g. Personally, I don't find it necessary, but feel free. a. and b. defy reason. They are the kinds of answers you'd come up with if you were determined to find no error or contradiction, facts be damned. You can insist they are plausible and call me names for pointing out their absurdity, but it's hard to take you seriously if you believe them. c. and d. are equally plausible. Mistakes are easy, but lies need a motive. Two plausible motives come to mind. Paul wanted everyone to know he got his revelation straight from God. He could be expected to downplay any interaction he had with the apostles. Luke would have the opposite motive: to show that Paul didn't lock himself in a room and manufacture the gospel. To demonstrate that Paul learned about Jesus from the apostles, you need a story that puts them in the same room. Luke gives us that story. The problem is, why doesn't Paul want us to know this? Paul would have us believe he was so tight with God that he got the gospel without having to talk to the apostles. Either way one of these guys is, to put it charitably, wrong. But each has such a good reason to be wrong that it's hard to imagine it's an accident. Someone's lying.

Only if they're REALLY gullible. Because if you think Paul met with the apostles shortly after his conversion and did not discuss the life, teachings and doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, and that explains the obvious discrepancy between Galatians and Acts, you're gullible as a toddler who really thinks I got his nose. But anyway, you can say what you want about my insidious spin, but you are the one in this discussion who actually came out against facts. So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to cast aspersions.