Raf

I posted already I posted already

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Alone. Oops. Wrong thread Don't make me hungry. You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry. Wait, that's not right.

The only thing I will say about Supergirl is that they aired last week's episode out of order. It was supposed to air this week. But the episode slated to air LAST week hit a little too close to home after the Paris massacre. So Thanksgiving came a little early to National City. Also, HELEN SLATER! She's so pretty. Anyway, anything else would be a spoiler. I'm ALMOST caught up on Arrow, and while I appreciate that they have to expand their universe after introducing the Flash, I do miss the gritty "this can happen in the real world" tone of the first season. Now we have the Lazarus Pit and the creepy corpse thing (which we knew had to happen because, crap, she's in Legends of Tomorrow). In the most recent episode I saw, Felicity is getting text messages she can't explain (with hit-me-over-the-head-with-it hints that the messages are coming from a still very much alive Ray Palmer, who also HAS to come back because Legends of Tomorrow). I like Brandon Routh. I think his Ray Palmer is loads of fun. Expect to be caught up in a couple of weeks, but not in time for next week's crossovers.

Cate Blanchett was Marian in the Russell Crowe movie. Audrey Hepburn was Sean Connery's Marian. Mastrantonio was Kevin Costner's. The other chick was on Once Upon A Time. I threw her on the list to make you go, huh?

The original plan for this movie was to turn it into a weekly HBO series. A pilot was shot, starring Kiefer Sutherland. But HBO passed on it. Not that it wouldn't have been great, but the film was a major critical and box office success, launching the careers of two Australian actors who, until then, had been relative unknowns. It was nominated for Best Picture and lost to a juggernaut, but it won best adapted screenplay and best supporting actress.

Easy to forget how things start. This particular digression begins with the claim that the writer of Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. The writer of Luke never claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses. We've seen emphatic assertions that he could have interviewed Mary, therefore he must have. But the evidence argues strongly against it.

Well! That settles it then, doesn't it! I wonder why scholars don't just read the first couple of verses of each letter. They'd save a lot of time. Talk about blinders! P.S. I have not been plagiarized, but I supervised someone who was. Mark, a non-eyewitness, was plagiarized by Matthew, who was an eyewitness, and by Luke, who interviewed multiple eyewitnesses. If you believe that, and think I'M the one blinded by bias, there's really nothing to argue.

No one in history ever suggested anyone other than Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Yet he probably didn't. No one in history ever suggested someone other than Matthew wrote Matthew. Yet he clearly didn't. (Why would an eyewitness plagiarize a non-witness to the events he had witnessed?) For centuries, MANY centuries, it was assumed Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. What does THAT prove? Nothing. At. All. The fact that history offers no alternatives in no way whatsoever demands we accept the traditional authorship when the evidence weighs so heavily against it.

Insisting Luke wrote Acts doesn't make it so. Misrepresenting the motives and sincerity of scholars who recognize he did not write Acts does not magically make Luke the author. Simply put, an independent researcher who relied heavily on eyewitness testimony would not have needed to plagiarize Mark as shamelessly as "Luke" did. He would not have botched the Nativity story if he were really a careful historian (because he would have known full well that Herod was long dead by the time of the Quirinian census. And that the census did not require anyone to travel FROM their homes based on ancestry). Mary would have known that. Had Luke interviewed Mary, he would not have gotten that fact so pathetically wrong. And no, that's not a metaphor. It's a blunder. And it's not a blunder that would have been made by someone who really interviewed eyewitnesses. It's abundantly clear that you've reached your conclusion based on faith rather than evidence.

Ah. The Hunger Games

Yes

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio

Nope

Looking for the character: Cate Blanchett Audrey Hepburn Christie Laing

I was wondering if Ashley was Ash. Bruce Campbell

If you don't want me to argue authorship on this thread, you really need to stop counterarguing authorship on this thread.

Yes sir

Sorry for the delay. Work. The former crew of a destroyed spaceship must travel back in time to assist an accidentally abandoned pre-teen defending his house from inept burglars.

And in case I haven't mentioned it, I deeply appreciate how welcome you are of my input, even given my change of heart about the Bible, the existence of God, etc. I'm trying to keep my lack of faith in its place and engage in discussions on their own terms. Not that I make a secret of where I stand, but facts is facts. "The Bible contains errors and contradictions" is a fact, and I'm prepared to argue that (you seem to be somewhat in agreement, although we may quibble on what "error" means in the context of our discussions). But "therefore the God of the Bible is not real" is an opinion (or, more to the point, a conclusion), and that's not always a welcome viewpoint or fair game in a discussion. In THIS thread, it's out of line, so I refrain from saying it. (That's also why I moved the thread, and I appreciate your graciousness in accepting that decision). Get better.

Some Like It Hot To Trot

Hoping you're being melodramatic about your health, but otherwise, proceed at whatever pace makes you comfortable. Best wishes.

I've got at least three on my Kindle. Did Jesus Exist (probably. More than likely). Jesus, Interrupted. And Forged.

Oakspear: I wrote mostly from memory and I'm nopt going to wed myself to any particular line. That Ehrman cites eight books, and which ones they are, is definite. Why Revelation and not James? I don't recall specifically. I seem to remember him saying that Revelation was written by "John, but not THAT John," but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he gave some other reason that escapes my memory.

True story: A man was on trial for kidnapping and rape in Broward County. During one of the breaks, the judge was chatting with him, and the defendant said some things that made the judge question whether the defendant was sane at the time the crime was committed. This led the judge to ask, "Have you considered a mental health defense?" The defendant responded: " To tell the truth, I was demonically possessed?" Judge: "You were what?" Defendant: "I was demonically possessed." The defendant then explained that he had been exorcised between the time of the incident and the time of the trial, so it was no longer an issue. Judge: "Are you saying you were possessed when you committed these crimes?" Defendant: "Oh, no. I didn't commit any crimes. This incident was consensual." You heard it here first, folks: a demon possessed a man, causing him to engage in consensual sex with a willing participant. The defendant was convicted.

Right. I just wanted to he clear about why I wo I kdnt be chiming in on every show. I'm halfway through the Whiplash... I mean Reactron episode of Supergirl.