pkwwjd

Just to address a couple of these issues, ... briefly. translation of the word for virgin ... yes, in fact the original prophecy in Isaiah actually refers to the birth of Isaiah's son by his wife who in fact not a virgin. However, Biblical prophecy is multilayered. In order for a prophet to be accepted, his prophecy had to come true, so long term prophecy had to have a short term layer to prove he was from God. As another layer came true it would always grow in intensity, no longer just a young woman bearing a child, but now a virgin -- a sign that the child was not from the will of man, but the will of God / the Holy Spirit. Subsequent fulfillment of prophecy always increases. I don't know what early church fathers you have read, but the virgin birth was very widely accepted very early on. "Top Theologians" is also a very loosely defined group of people. Most "top theologians" of our era are simply in the business to discredit any biblical accounts -- such as the Jesus seminar which has "decided" that Jesus did not actually say roughly 98% of the quotes attributed to Him. Top theologians in my estimation would fully support Biblical texts -- and from that group, there is no argument against any of these things. Roman execution was generally practiced as the Bible describes -- but there were a few alterations in this case. Thanks to Mel Gibson for a fairly accurate portrayal of crucifixion. Generally the bodies would be left up for the birds to eat from, thus denying the afterlife (from the point of view of the Romans and Jews). However, the account of the bodies being taken down from the crosses because of the Jewish Passover celebration is consistent with secular historians of the time. Pilate (the governor) while a bloodied ruler was at a point in his career that he was concerned about the populace, if only for the furthering of his career. He was in the practice of capitulating smaller things to the Israeli people -- such as releasing a prisoner during Passover. It would not be a far reach to have Pilate allow the bodies to be taken down and buried as to not desecrate the holiday which he understood to be important to the peace of the Palestinian region.

Lucas said the reason he put JarJar in the first time was for kids & ladies. So, ... I guess it worked!

still, Christ's resurrection, our resurrection ... either God can do it or He can't. One isn't tougher than the other.

I dunno, I thought the Ewoks were worse than Jar Jar could have hoped to be

When you believe in a sovereign God who is fully in control of His creation, there isn't any problem believing in any miraculous action -- virgin birth, physical resurrection ...

That really is the question: Was Jesus a lunatic, liar, or is He really Lord? Josh McDowell asks that question. He was a scholarly, academic atheist who set out to disprove the incarnation (God becoming flesh) of Jesus. Now he is one of the top speakers / authors defending the Christian faith. His book, More Than a Carpenter is an excellent short book exploring these questions. For a more academic approach, try Evidence That Demands a Verdict. He can articulate the Christian position much better than anyone who frequents a sports message board. If you are open to hearing the Christian position, from an expert, give this a read.

and the great lefty David Humm

Good thing for the Jax punter that hacking your leg with an axe is covered too.

Walt is the key. Locke is only a pawn in Walt's reality. Sorry about the LAMP quote, but my wife and I have really been leaning this way since January. It was definitely exciting for us to hear that Walt is getting back into the bizarreness.

I'd be happy to sign a contract with a $100,000 signing bonus -- only to be hurt and never play again. I think that the money would hold me over 'til I found something else.

No knock on Newton, but I find it "senseless" to blindly accept religion as "fact". Simply the fact that there are so many They can't all be right.I mean, there are tribes out there that believe in rain gods and gods for just about everything. Are they "wrong" for their beliefs? It makes more sense to accept the fact that we truly do not know exactly how the Earth and life came to be. Atheism is the conclusion that these explanations are not good enough. I voted "no" in this poll as the choices were not good enough. I guess I'd say I believe something created our universe. But probably not the traditional"God" that everyone is talking about. And definitely not in any "heaven and hell" type concept. I think when you're dead, that's probably it. 328448[/snapback] Seems like a bunch of things just "aren't good enough" for you. Sorry about the attitude

Don't bring up TH, his "discounted" contract is a result of his personal financial mismanagement. If he doens't spend all his cash, he would have cashed in on a reneged contract. We wouldn't have drafted WM (IMHO) because we wouldn't have questioned our ProBowl RB's smarts.

#21 is tough to arm tackle & pretty fast too ...

when was the last time any 2nd stringer held out? TH is really a bizarre situation.

Actually, IIRC, the vast majority of religions believe in at least a couple of chances to accept their message (some sort of post-death opportunity). What you or I think have no impact on reality though. There is a true reality and it will eventually be revealed to everyone.

that's ok, judgmental doesn't have an "e" in it either i think we all need to step back from this one and just take it easy. she is probably not some psycho mom who will destroy her kids' lives. it's just a movie, guys.

I just finished the novel adaptation of the movie. This is by far the darkest of the six movies and will probably have the most violence of the six as well -- by that I mean individuals dying that the story is connected to, not just someone's starship blowing up, or generic Rebel soldiers / faceless stormtroopers falling over after getting hit by a FX laser

Mrs. PKWWJD and I will be going to the midnight show on May 19. We already know that this might be the SW that we don't take our 8 YO son to -- he may need to wait for the video/DVD. We told him that, and he'll deal with it. He's excited for the movie, but it won't hurt his life to wait a few months either. But again, it's up to his mom and dad to make that decision, not Lucas, not a paranoid mom someplace, not general consensus at work (and I work at a church).

Can you point to any scientists who have conducted a "Big Bang"? The conditions surrounding a purported original big bang are IMPOSSIBLE to recreate. It is not a testable theory. Thank you for at least calling the big bang a theory instead of fact.

And you know this how? I have the most widely read, historically supported ancient text to support my beliefs. You? My intent (as it was earlier in this thread) is not to be flammatory, but to point out that you find it absurd to believe in something, while telling us what you believe. If you believe something, please tell us why.

Sith is supposed to be the first that is rated worse than PG -- it's supposed to be PG-13. I haven't heard that confirmed yet though. I have a six and eight year old. They love Star Wars. We're definitely more cautious than the average parent with our kids Star Wars violence (in the first 5 movies) has been relatively inocuous (sp?), little blood, often off screen. In fact, the first Star Wars (Ep IV) would have been rated G but Lucas added the charred skeletons of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru to make sure that it got the 'better' PG rating. For as good as the special effects are, the violence in the movies has always been very corny, more implied than shown.

Does any know when the last time a second stringer held out? I can't recall that ever happening ... Just doesn't make sense at all.

That may be correct (that's why I put IIRC). I do know for sure that the commercial language of the first century was Koine Greek.