Raf

Wasn't it Victor Grant?

Free post. If I come up with one first, I will. If you do, don't wait for me.

Christopher Reeve Switching Channels Burt Reynolds

Character 1 is Peter Parker/Spider-man Character 2 is War Machine Character 3 is Tony Stark/Iron Man If you haven't seen the movie, the scene of that first exchange, and the circumstances, are handled excellently. The other quotes are from the same scene: Spider-Man commenting on Captain America's shield, Tony asking if anyone on his side can do what Ant-Man just did (reveal a surprise power). The last quote was Tony recruiting Peter Parker. The only other movie Tony Stark was in, to my recollection, was a cameo in The Incredible Hulk.

Technically, it's not an Iron Man or Avengers movie. And that narrows it down to two possibilities, one of which doesn't make sense at all, and the other... DUH!

Closer, but still no.

You were closer the first time. Come on, TONY. Character 3 (same as earlier): Got a passport? Character 1 (same as earlier): Um, no. I don't... I don't even have a driver's license. Character 3: You ever been to Germany? Character 1: No. Character 3: Oh, you'll love it. Character 1: I can't go to Germany! Character 3: Why? Character 1: I got... homework. Character 3: Alright, I'm gonna pretend you didn't say that.

I didn't remember Grady, but the Sanford Arms and Sanford shows, I remembered.

Right track, wrong train.

Sanford and Son

I'm surprised. This one was really recent and really popular. "Okay, anybody on our side hiding any shocking and fantastic abilities they'd like to disclose? I'm open to suggestions."

Correct

Anyone who's seen it would know. If you don't know, you haven't seen it. Or touched it. Or, you know, experienced it.

The ability of God to raise the dead does not equate to a belief in an eternal life after this one, so Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac establishes nothing about a belief in eternal life, IMO.

Naked Gun Ricardo Montalban Spy Kids 2

TLC wrote: "The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change." But that makes total sense for the purposes of our conversation. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but when you say "the gospel whereby a man is saved," YOU are not referring to deliverance from our enemies, are you? If not, then any OT references to salvation that can be defined as "deliverance from our enemies" is off-topic, not relevant to the point YOU were raising. So if God says, "Do this and I will save you," and He is NOT talking about eternal life, then that statement would not be relevant to the point you were trying to raise. "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness." In the New Testament, that statement is related to salvation/resurrection/eternal life. In the OT, there is no hint of that. We see no indication that Abraham expected a life after this one, and the BEST we can do is conjecture that if Job expected it, Abraham could too. Fine. I accept that (within the confines of this thread in this forum). We seem to have forgotten that I already answered the questions I raised, becoming fixated instead on what my alleged preconceived notions are and the horrible unfairness of not using documents that were written in 100 AD to determine what someone could or should have known in 1600 BC, barring some corroborating, contemporaneous evidence. That's what's irritating about this line of discussion. We're done. We were done a WHILE ago.

TLC said: "Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies." I'm not quite sure I understand the point of asking a question and then immediately answering it. If salvation in the early Old Testament did not refer to eternal life, then it's not what we're talking about on this thread. There are plenty of references to God imputing righteousness unto people in Genesis, but none that equate that action with eternal life, and the promise of eternal life is what we're talking about, isn't it? Where is there such a "gospel" in the Old Testament? We have, at best, hints of one, and (at this point in our admittedly cursory look at the book), we don't get to a "gospel of salvation" that we can articulate until Psalms, and that one is a tad vague. It's good enough for me. I'm not being picky. But it seems to me that's an awful long time to go without a gospel of salvation. Assuming Job to take place contemporaneously with Genesis, we have some clue that a restoration to life after death was an expectation. But no how? Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? Yeah. First there was none articulated. At some point, early, it was expected of believers (and trusting God as a precondition can be inferred solely on the basis that it makes sense on its face. Evidence of that precondition would be nice, but it doesn't strain the imagination even a little even without an explicit verse reference).

First of all, I deliberately limited the scope of my questions because I'm trying to seek common ground. Failure to do so would unnecessarily derail the thread (if I were to, for example, challenge the authorship of Genesis and its date, then we're no longer talking about what the Bible teaches. We would be firmly in "Questioning Faith" territory, and that is not my goal). That might explain what you see as inconsistencies in my position. There's nothing inconsistent. I'm simply yielding points to find common ground. Word Wolf put it well, I think. More later.

Jerry Maren lives.

Ok, your move.

Also, let me quibble with the wording of "If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate." That is not my position and it is not relevant. It would be more correct to say "If we do not take it as a given that the Bible is accurate." That gives the book room to be accurate in some places, inaccurate in others, each piece standing on its own. ALL of it can be accurate and it wouldn't change the outcome. "We view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?" Where I come from, we call that "common ground." Whether you believe it or not is not the point. An unbeliever cannot argue that the people of the time could not know that information because it's RIGHT THERE. Even the Shelliak would have to agree. :)

The only problem with "what did God reveal and when did He reveal it" is, hypothetically, if Hebrews says the people of the OT knew something, then that settles the question from the believer's perspective but not the historical. So we'll see if that becomes an issue.

Agreed. Unbelief is irrelevant to the conversation. Intellectual honesty is the approach we're seeking, believer or skeptic.

And by the way, I've already refuted my own preconceived notions by looking at the material honestly and following up on vague suggestions to uncover verses that addressed my questions with less ambiguity. Still willing to see more.

Sorry I misunderstood your post, WW. If you can think of a better way to phrase my questions, have at it. I need to pass the point of finding this thread irritating.