Dear Pericles,

I'm only human for heavens sake - and if I've offended you I apologize. I can't always come up with the right words to express my feelings - and obviously I've failed miserably this time. I didn't mean to be arrogant, condensing, whatever ... But it also sounds to me like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder if you take offense so easily.

What I meant to say to you is - "whatever gets you through the night."
As David Nicholls (Atheist Foundation - President) once said to me.

And because I'm feeling rather fragile at the moment - I possible transferred my feelings onto you (and got slapped for it). My mistake.
It won't happen again.

Welcome back Pericles.

However, Foxy's a very soft target :)

OK, “Pericles” – so I was indulging in a little hyperbole! I admit – I can really vouch for only two servant-girls. While Peter was in the Roman Governor’s courtyard, one servant-girl came and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” Peter denied it. A second servant-girl told the crowd, “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene.” Again Peter denied it. Some of the bystanders remarked, “You are one of them for sure. Even your accent gives you away!” Peter vehemently denied it. Then a cock-crow was heard – and Peter suddenly remembered what Jesus had predicted (Mt.26:69-75).

My point was that lots of Jerusalem people knew that Jesus had come from Nazareth. Many had been at Bethany where Jesus had called Lazarus out of the tomb. Crowds welcomed his “triumphal” return to Jerusalem, mounted not on a great warhorse [cf. Job 39:19-25] but on a mother donkey with foal at foot! His actions against the “stock exchange” at the Temple were soon reported to the Sanhedrin (Mark 11:18). Was none of that reported to the Roman Governor? Was Pontius Pilate completely unaware that Jesus of Nazareth had come to town. The Romans ruled mostly by terror. If Pilate had sniffed the least whiff of insurrection from Jesus, he would have been annihilated long before the Last Supper. Most Romans couldn’t care less about the Jews and their religion. They were allowed to kill each other under Jewish Law. Thus – having emptied himself of his divinity or equality with God (Ph.3:3), including omniscience! - Jesus expected to die a Prophet’s Death (Lk.13:33) – by stoning WITHIN the walls of the Holy City. But only the Romans were allowed to execute a person by crucifixion – and that was done OUTSIDE the walls of Jerusalem. So when Jesus was brought to the Governor as a “political agitator” (Luke 23:14), Pilate saw that as a sick joke. But he was moved to probe Jesus more deeply and asked, “Where DO you come from?”(John 19:9)

Roch

Where are you getting your information from?

From which authenticated historical text do you determine the knowledge of serving girls and, incidently, that Christ actually existed?

So far as I know only the NT mentions Jesus and this was composed and collated by men at least 50 years after his supposed death.

OK, Roch, YOU believe in all this, but there is no point quoting from stories that others do not believe in and for which there is no evidence. It is analogous to quoting from Harry Potter to prove the existence of Dumbledore.

My questions to Foxy was whether she saw items like the 'virgin' birth more as a symbol than an actual event. I'm still not too sure. However, she has made clear that her belief gives her comfort, also she does not preach at others who question her. She is also very reasonable, so I respect her for that.

Roch, I politely suggest you use reason instead of fairy stories.

Thank you.

BD stands back while Foxy and Pericles go at it :) the drama unfolds...

Foxy..if you have been around as long as I have and know Perilous as I do..you would realize why I could anticipate P's words back at ya with almost verbatum prediction :)

I note your words also:

FOXY "I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right."

FOXY "BD is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, and religions differing from his own."

Now..Foxy.. forgive me for raising my eyebrows there :) but 'personal attack' is pretty close to 'denying one the right to express views'

In fact. "BD is"..... is addressed as a blanket statement to all the forum.. it is aimed specifically at character assasination..

You could have said "I don't agree with BD's views and thus I choose to ignore them" :) aah..now that would have been acceptable. You could have even said "I find BD's views repulsive".. that too is ok.
but when you go beyond 'views' to 'the person'.. it's called playing the man.

PERICLES sickem boy..sickem!

I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect. But that's another story.

Pericles.. we've had the 'contemporary accounts' debate before so I won't revisit it fully.
I find it curious though, that you don't place much weight on the account of Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally. In some ways, considering the 'balance of probability' .. it takes more 'blind faith' to disbelieve Luke than to believe him.

OH..yes..welcome back by the way. Missed your acidic pen and 'chemically sharpened' double barbed attacks. :)

I leave this post with the Words of the Total Christ....

"I am the Bread of life, he who comes to me will never hunger, he who believes in me will never thirst"

John 6:35

For a full account of the foundational truths on the Christ I suggest a reading of the NT text and note its emphasis. The emphasis is upon character, attitudes, actions, wisdom and aspirations etc. It is these aspects that define the purity of a person and identify him as God, to be admired and followed.