Raf

Then that rules out the Bible

I was using a pop culture reference to explain forgery to you.

This is not about what I will and will not like. It's about actual research that people with no vested interest do when they study the Bible. In the tv show Welcome Back Kotter, one of the characters used to hand in notes to excuse himself for being absent or late, or for missing homework. The notes were always signed, "Epstein's mother." The joke was, of course Epstein's mother didn't write those notes. Epstein only wanted people to THINK his mother wrote those notes. Of COURSE if someone in the ancient world wanted to pass off a letter as an epistle from Paul, that letter is going to say it was written by Paul. THAT'S HOW FORGERIES WORK. They don't announce themselves as forgeries. Start here: https://ehrmanblog.org/faint-heart-authorship-colossians-members/ i will post more when i have time

Forgery was rampant in the first century, and many letters were excluded from the Bible because, even though they claimed to be written by certain people, they were not. Some of those letters made it into the N.T. Colossians was one of them.

Paul didn't write either of those letters. Signed, Epstein's mother.

There is nothing to critically assess. In 19 days I will announce something. Hopefully something awesome, but maybe less than awesome.

20

It was a good, good, good, good guess

free post

It's part of the fun. It's personal, and not a sure thing. But worth the anticipation, i think

21

dupe

yes, we are on the same page. i ruled out FF because it was never released at all and the CA TV series because itcwas never supposed to be a feature.... oh snap. it IS Captain America. just not the cheezy tv show.

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.