Raf

Entirely. And if you read it, it flows much better without it. It was CERTAINLY forged partially. Josephus never said "he was the Christ." I mean come ON. There's a second reference to a Jesus that I have to double check because I honestly don't recall the details other than "um, that's not what happened." There's also another reference from a historian who is simply repeating what Christians believe, but people act like his reference is a validation of historicity. That would be Tacitus, for those who know. His reference to Jesus is parenthetical to a different point he's making, but because he talks about Pilate, people assume Tacitus checked out Roman records and verified Jesus' execution. No, he did not.

WIll watch this later, but the story of Jesus becomes a lot more interesting when you go in chronological order of when the books of the Bible are written. What emerges is the story of something that happened in "the heavenlies" that could only be discerned through scripture, which would EASILY explain why Paul would be the first person writing about it while others who were allegedly closer to him don't actually commit much (if anything) to paper. The closest you get is Peter, who mentions nothing of an earthly ministry (I Peter being relevant, II Peter being recognized by scholars as a forgery). Paul's failure to acknowledge the betrayal/death of Judas makes a LOT more sense when you realize he wrote before that story was concocted. For him, Jesus was seen of the 12 after his resurrection. But to Paul, everything about Jesus is cosmic. None of it happens on earth. Jesus isn't killed by Pilate and the Romans. He's killed by the princes of this world, who would not have done it had they known the consequences. It's been long acknowledged that "Matthew" didn't write the gospel that bears his name (he would not have needed to plagiarize Mark if he were an eyewitness to what he recorded). It's not until the gospel writers, LONG after Paul, that we see stories of Jesus as an actual human being. They took what he wrote and historicized it. But they didn't collaborate on their accounts. So Luke has him born after the census, Matthew years before. Had he actually been an historical figure, that conflict would have been resolved easily. Matthew has him moving from Judea to Egypt and finally to Nazareth. Luke has his family from Nazareth all along, with the trip to Bethlehem carrying an absolutely absurd justification (a census that makes you register someplace other than where you live? AYFKM?). We KNOW from history that John the Baptist existed. So we make Jesus his cousin and concoct a story where John defers to Jesus' ministry. The cult around John is thereby coopted to become a Christian appendage. Honestly, if not for Paul referring to James as "the Lord's brother," I would be utterly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character (not just that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but that he was never around to claim it, as historical as King Arthur and Odysseus).

Briefly, sure. Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met. Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him! The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down. Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal. This is just glossing over the info, not really giving it full consideration. GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.

correct

If not for this TV Show, the Super Bowl Halftime Show as we know it would not have been a thing. For years, the halftime show was a cheesy spectacle of dance numbers, bands, magic... you know, filler fluff. So this show decided to capitalize on halftime one year by airing a live segment during Super Bowl halftime. Producers promised to end the segment so that viewers would be able to go back to the Super Bowl in time for the second half to start. It worked brilliantly. They got 20 million viewers to switch channels during halftime. The following year, the Super Bowl Halftime Show was a Michael Jackson concert. Name the show that changed the Super Bowl.

"The 26-year-old Arraez became only the second player in the Modern Era to capture a batting title in both leagues, joining DJ LeMahieu (Rockies in 2016, Yankees in '20), and the first to do so in back-to-back seasons." mlb.com

Most Historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant preacher in what we now call the early first century who was executed by the Romans and around whom Christianity was founded. I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle. I believe his entire earthly history is completely fictional, and when we weed out the known forgeries of scripture, you are left without a scrap of evidence of an earthly ministry of Jesus. This thesis comes with some questions that are difficult to answer, but in my view, those questions are not nearly as difficult as the questions raised by the hypothesis that he was a real historical figure. I have read Bart Ehrman's book on the topic, which holds the traditional/majority view that Jesus really existed and his identity/fate is a question of faith. I've also read numerous writers who claim he never existed at all. The most convincing of them is named Richard Carrier, who is well qualified in the field of the history of the time. I found Carrier's position far more convincing than Ehrman's. Am I 100% convinced? No. But at least 90. I'll be sharing thoughts on the subject on this thread. Feel free to ask questions. I I can answer them I will. If not, I will admit I have no response. I assure you there are questions I cannot answer. But the conversation is, in my view, far more interesting than traditionalists would have you believe.

I've totally lost track of this thread. Everyone ok with it? No moderating needed?

THAT'S IT! Not just two different teams, but two different leagues. AL Batting champion in 2022 NL Batting champion in 2023. ONE other person has done both, but not in consecutive years.

Ok, let's wrap this up: What Luis Arraez did in 2022 is something that happens twice a year in baseball. It's impressive because only two people can accomplish that feat in one year. What Luis Arraez did in 2023 is something no one could have done unless he were in Arraez' shoes. Namely: * Something specific had to change between seasons FOR THAT PLAYER. Not a change in the rules, not a pandemic. Something that could happen to any player at any time, but for Arraez happened between the 2022 and 2023 seasons. * THEN he had to repeat the achievement. Had he repeated the achievement without the change, it would have been less remarkable. Numerous people have done that. Some have done it three or four times in a row. But NO ONE has ever done what Arraez did. (Hint: it has something to do with the uniform he wore).

The more precise you are with your guesses, the more precise I am with my clues. He did bat over three hundred both seasons. I do not believe he switched from left to right. His batting average is the correct stat. But most switch hitters, I dare say all, alternate lefty/righty all the time. They don't go full seasons one-way and the next season another. Don't get complicated: Whose batting average do you care about?

Ok, clarifying. The seasons were 2022 and 2023. No interruptions. It's a single season stat, accomplished both seasons. The stat alone won't give you the answer, but the context around it will. Example: Barry Bonds hit 77 homecruns in a single season. That's a stat. No one else ever hit that many. That's what makes the stat significant. Luis Arraez did something significant [not THAT significant, but still impressive AND recognized] two years in a row. Something changed from 2022 to 2023 that altered the significance of his achievement, making it something no one had ever done before. The change was to Arraez, not to the sport.

This achievement took two years. It could not have been accomplished in one. WW's guesses are also incorrect. I wouldn't expect to find either on a baseball card. So here's what's important: It IS a single season stat. It was over two CONSECUTIVE seasons. That's part of what made it interesting. Another part: something significant changed between 2022 and 2023 that focuses this achievement. Without that change, it still would have been impressive. Just not as unique.

um. fielded 1.000 IS a one-season stat. Your guess contradicted your premise. Your guess was wrong. More importantly, your premise was wrong.

No, nothing that obscure. This is an achievement/stat that is more simple, a stat you would find on a baseball card without other metrics getting in the way. Simple stat: Home Runs in a season. Other metrics getting in the way: Home runs with runners on base. Leadoff home runs. Home runs with two outs. Home runs with runners in scoring position. This is a simple stat for which he would receive recognition. (MVP is not a stat. Golden Glove is not a stat).

And then there was one. WordWolf?

Curb Your Enthusiasm

I try not to get too excited about it when it comes on.

Miami Marlins second-baseman Luis Arraez did something in 2023 that had never been done in the history of Major League Baseball. It took him two years to do it. What was it?

if only it were that interesting. The Webcam was pointed at a coffee pot, so people going on break would know whether it was full.

you are

Patrick Swayze

Pot. J/K. Almost.

Ok, free post. "Ok, this might help, might not. I know most book-to-movie adaptations don't get this convoluted, but that's part of the fun." The name of the movie is Adaptation.

Ok, this might help, might not. I know most book-to-movie adaptations don't get this convoluted, but that's part of the fun. Anyway: There are a couple of scenes in which the screenwriter is on the (fictitious) set of another movie (let's call it BJM). That other movie (BJM) is real, written by the same screenwriter and made by the same director. In real life, the screenwriter was tasked with adapting the book while production was underway for BJM. So having a scene set on the set of BJM brought everything back full circle. Now listen carefully, I've given you the name of the movie, and then some.