JuliaGillardHasFailed,

You must be totally out of breath....dashing about so fast between threads, you're liable to become a little addled....I suggest a good lie down and a Bex.

Dear Pericles
'which' ones do I believe? well that question would become increasingly obvious if you actually devoted some serious time to not only reading the Old and New Testaments, but in understanding them.
Galatians 2:20 is a good place for you to begin.

I'm pressed for time right now.. got ZAPPED by lightning yesterday and lost half of my USB inputs.. only back on line now.

I've no idea what you are talking about, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles 'which' ones do I believe?<<

Which ones of what? Your "verse of the day" didn't help much.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me"

Enigmatic, to say the very least.

And nothing whatsoever to do with the subject we were - theoretically, at least - discussing.

Although I guess it is not much of a discussion when one side asks a question, and the other responds with an unrelated quote.

"Hi Boaz, do you think Collingwood are in with a chance this year?"

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity"

"Yeah, right..."

But back to this reality. What I asked, put simply, was this:

What is it about the miracles that you selected, that convinces you that they might actually have occurred as described?

And are they different in some way from the others, e.g miracles performed directly by God, miracles performed by the prophets with God's power, miracles by apostles and saints, miracles by dead saints, and miracles in conjunction with the relics of saints?

If there are some that you reject, on what basis do you reject them?

Golly Perilous.. it's a bit late at night for this.. mentally exhausted +toothache extrordinaire.

"Which...ones"

Old and New testament.. all.

It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions. Back to Gal 2:20

I'm not surprised you dont get that... it's deeper than you realize.
(Perhaps)

You are approaching it academically, but the transformative impact of the Gospel is not an academic exercise. The Gospel of Christ encounters the human heart, and it responds.. one way or the other.

We believe and affirm that the Almighty speaks to us through the Gospel.. He knocks.. will we open? If we do.. we experience Gal 2:20

There is something supernatural about the human heart/Gospel encounter.

Here is one more verse to ponder... and I'm not meaning to talk down to you:

II Cor 4:3ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4&version=NI

As always, Boaz, your concept of "common sense" and mine are as chalk and cheese.

>>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions.<<

Also, it has to be said, if you "readdd" the Da Vinci Code, and note the details about each incident... they are suggestive of a liaison between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Common sense tells us that at least one of these is fiction.

Common sense also tells us that if it were your intention to start a religious movement, you would need an event, or series of events, to kick it off.

Christians have the stories made available in the selected books that make up the current "Bible" as their motivation. Muslims have the Qur'an, that performs a similar function. Mormons have Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni's golden plates. Hindus have the vedas. Scientologists have Hubbard's Dianetics to refer to.

Common sense also tells us that not all of these can represent an absolute - whether this is an absolute "truth" (it happened this way, folks), or an absolute morality (this is the only way to run your life).

Common sense also tells us that because there are so many different approaches to religion, and belief systems in general, that the odds strongly favour the notion that none is actually valid in its entirety - i.e. including its provenance, its history and its modern-day conduct.

Which is why I cannot accept your use of your own chosen "gospels" as evidence for anything, except your own dedication to them.

and... dear Pericles... your last post is why I ended my previous one with:

II Cor 4:3ff
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+4&version=NI

//And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.//

It is veiled to you.. and I know exactly why... I hope and pray you will come to see it as it really is in due course. But that is a divine work... not a human one.
We can sow the seed... we can even add a little water.. but it all needs the SON...to shine on it to make it grow.

The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.

That inspiration can come from an open heart and something as simple as John 3:16...

Or.. an enlighened reading of Isaiah 53 with a humble heart.