we are a Christian country

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

I think you have the wrong idea about why I am here. I am not here to convince anyone of anything, or to sell anything to anyone. I am not here to prostelysise. To be honest it would make a change to be asked about something other than my faith; for humanists there certainly seems to be a terrible lot of interest here in what I happen to believe.

Precisely what difference does it make to anyone what I get up to in my spare time or at church?

Ermmm...you started your foray into this topic entitled We are a Christian country with three consecutive posts and have continued this discussion. However, feel free to find another topic that you'd like to contribute to - discussing religion is just a small part of this forum - or start a new topic about something you'd like to discuss or share.

[Cathy]

As thundril has just asked, where did he claim that?

Seriously? You want me to give you a Scripture reference? Are you feeling well?

Christians (and I don't know if this includes you) frequently refer to Jesus as merely a lowly carpenter as - it seems to me - to highlight the humility of him (although I'm not sure of the logic of that). I was trying to balance that. However, I recall reading that 'carpenter' was a mis-transaltion and that something like builder was more appropriate. Also, didn't Origen say that early versions of the NT never even mentioned carpenter, so the word was added later?

Outside of this forum I have not used the name 'Jesus' for about five years, perhaps longer. I don't use his first name, and I certainly don't call him a lowly carpenter, or anything else; I am a bit too high for that. I have had to amend my language, because I didn't think you would want me to use my normal language, which is to refer to him as 'Our Lord' and his mother 'Our Lady.'

St Joseph was a carpenter; this could translate to artisan or builder if you like. His son was probably trained in that profession, but went on to become a Rabbi. My own brothers learned a lot of building work from my dad, but they both went on to become accountants, and they are now accountants. They are not builders just because dad was, and because they know how to do it as well. They are what their own profession is. Therefore, the Lord was a Rabbi.

[Cathy]

There was one study (in the US) that concluded that atheists were more familiar with the bible than christians.

Jolly good. I have no problem with that. The US has a very high proportion of evangelical Christians. The UK has far fewer, proportionately. I think apostolics may be rather more familiar with the Bible, but who knows?

However, you said that Luke's lineage was that of Mary. Luke 3:23 says:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

Where does Mary fit in?

St Mary is the Lord's mother.

I do like to be helpful.

[Alan C.]

Cathy
I am afraid this one is way outside my ability to answer; I am not a doctor, nor a forensic pathologist. The gospels say the two thieves were still alive, so their legs were broken. Christ was dead, so his were not. The conclusion drawn from this is that breaking their legs hastens their demise, but further than that I can't really go.

The crucifix apparently had a small platform that the victims stood on, by breaking their legs it caused their head to fall forward onto the chest, thus speeding up asphyxiation. (Nice)

[thundril]

As thundril has just asked, where did he claim that?

Seriously? You want me to give you a Scripture reference? Are you feeling well?

If you can give any references apart from John to back up your statement that 'He claimed that for Himself.' it would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

[Alan H]

As thundril has just asked, where did he claim that?

Seriously? You want me to give you a Scripture reference? Are you feeling well?

My state of health is irrelevant, but thanks for enquiring. However, that evades the point. You asserted that Jesus claimed he was the son of god here, so I was interested in how and where he claimed it. Do you have a reference?

[Alan H]

However, you said that Luke's lineage was that of Mary. Luke 3:23 says:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

Where does Mary fit in?

St Mary is the Lord's mother.

I do like to be helpful.

So where is her lineage?

[Cathy]

Cathy
I am afraid this one is way outside my ability to answer; I am not a doctor, nor a forensic pathologist. The gospels say the two thieves were still alive, so their legs were broken. Christ was dead, so his were not. The conclusion drawn from this is that breaking their legs hastens their demise, but further than that I can't really go.

The crucifix apparently had a small platform that the victims stood on, by breaking their legs it caused their head to fall forward onto the chest, thus speeding up asphyxiation. (Nice)

Thanks for the clarifcation, Alan.

Brutal times, clearly.

[Cathy]

So where is her lineage?

Luke Chapter 3.

[Alan H]

Cathy
I am afraid this one is way outside my ability to answer; I am not a doctor, nor a forensic pathologist. The gospels say the two thieves were still alive, so their legs were broken. Christ was dead, so his were not. The conclusion drawn from this is that breaking their legs hastens their demise, but further than that I can't really go.

The crucifix apparently had a small platform that the victims stood on, by breaking their legs it caused their head to fall forward onto the chest, thus speeding up asphyxiation. (Nice)

But surely if they were no longer supported by their feet, all the bodyweight would be taken by the nails through their hands (was it their hands or wrists?) and I can't see that being robust enough to support their whole weight - won't they fall to the ground before they are asphyxiated?

[Cathy]

My state of health is irrelevant, but thanks for enquiring. However, that evades the point.

I was not trying to evade the point. I was surprised that humanists would want Scripture references. I am used to Christians asking for them, but did not expect that here.

You asserted that Jesus claimed he was the son of god here, so I was interested in how and where he claimed it. Do you have a reference?

One or two.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_ ... inity.html

[Alan C.]

Cathy.
To be honest it would make a change to be asked about something other than my faith;

As Alan H has already said, there are lots of (non religious) threads you could comment on but you choose to only talk about your "faith" So; naturally, that's what we'll respond to.

Alan H
But surely if they were no longer supported by their feet, all the bodyweight would be taken by the nails through their hands (was it their hands or wrists?) and I can't see that being robust enough to support their whole weight

You need to read up Alan in most cases the wrists were tied to the cross no nails involved, (nails at that time might have been too precious)
Don't ask me for citations, it was something (a book) I read years ago, might have been the Catholic encyclopedia, not sure.

Nope! I can't find it there but I did read it somewhere.

[Alan H]

So where is her lineage?

Luke Chapter 3.

I quoted Like 3:23 earlier, but that appears to be Joseph's lineage:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

Is this the wrong verse? If so, where is the verse that shows Mary's lineage?

[Alan H]

You need to read up Alan in most cases the wrists were tied to the cross no nails involved, (nails at that time might have been too precious)
Don't ask me for citations, it was something (a book) I read years ago, might have been the Catholic encyclopedia, not sure.

Nope! I can't find it there but I did read it somewhere.

Thanks for that Alan. I assumed that because stigmata usually seem to be portrayed as nails through the hands, that was all there was. I suspect that ropes around the wrists taking full body weight would have caused significant abrasion and contusions, so why is that never mentioned (AFAIK)?

[Dave B]

Even supposing that part of the Bible relates an actual happening how many ways can the real events be distorted over time and multiple translations or rewritings to match some theologian's pet theory?

A look at the images of the crucifixion on Google shows that the only ones that include ropes are those photos from films and passion plays. Though in my mind I have memories of altar crucifixes and pendants where ropes are used to support the arms at the elbow and wrist.

There was a series of experiments done on how the body reacts to various forms of support on a cross, will try to find it. But I do remember reading that the palms of the hands would never support the weight of the upper body anyway, even if the victim were able to put any weight on his feet.

[Tetenterre]

(I've just checked a Bible.) That must be why Luke says "...Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." I just don't buy the Xian wriggle-excuse that "son" in this instance means "son-in-law";

You don't buy it? Good. Who said it was for sale?

Hmmm. Another "witty riposte" to avoid addressing the substantive issue?

I think you have the wrong idea about why I am here.

I have absolutely no idea why you are here, and it is none of my business. However, it is becoming clear to me that you are not here to directly answer questions posed to you in direct response to what you have written here.

To be honest it would make a change to be asked about something other than my faith;

If so, opening your account with several posts about your faith was a pretty curious way of going about this. There are other topics for discussion in these forums, you know -- why not engage with some of these instead?

for humanists there certainly seems to be a terrible lot of interest here in what I happen to believe.

You expected to post what you did here and not get a response?

Precisely what difference does it make to anyone what I get up to in my spare time or at church?

None whatsoever, unless what you do affects "anyone". But why bring it up if you don't want to discuss it?

[Cathy]

To be honest it would make a change to be asked about something other than my faith;

If so, opening your account with several posts about your faith was a pretty curious way of going about this. There are other topics for discussion in these forums, you know -- why not engage with some of these instead?

Because I don't know enough about what is being discussed. I began by talking about what I know, and then I was asked questions, and I answered them.

Nobody asked me whether I like sport, or where I am going on holiday. Instead they asked me to explain why there are two different genealogies for the Lord, and to provide references to his self claimed divinity in Scripture. I don't remember saying anywhere that I was a Concordance, but it certainly seems as if I am perceived as being rather 2 dimensional. Could it be that all that talk of unthinking, rather ignorant believers, has been swallowed a little too readily by some? In fact I am a normal person; I have a home, a daughter, an extended family and friends. I do not work due to ill health, but I do voluntary work for my church and for a local school, where I am a governor, and where, incidentally, in relation to the OP the school policy is that our assemblies are to have a 'predominantly Christian' message. (Yes, it is a state school.) I am not just my faith.

Don't get me wrong; I love talking about this stuff, as long as it can stay civil, and not get too heavy, but I am certainly surprised by the interest in faith here. Clearly I underestimated humanists; or at least those on this forum. It is useful to begin to understand a little more.

As for why I came; because I was invited.

[Cathy]

You don't buy it? Good. Who said it was for sale?

Hmmm. Another "witty riposte" to avoid addressing the substantive issue?

Why, thank you.

Addressing the substantive issue:

The genealogy in Matthew is understood to be that of St Joseph. Because the genealogy in Luke is different, and because Luke provides a great deal of information not found in the other gospels, but said to derive from St Mary herself, it is understood that his genealogy is from St Mary's lineage. In this way the gospels provide both.

Genealogies traditionally feature the male line, and in the one in Luke Joseph is shown as the son of Mary's father, and as I understand it (although I am no expert) this is explained in terms of him being adopted in some way. I am not sure personally how convincing this particular aspect is as an explanation; being a son through marriage would work for me, but nonetheless that is the explanation that the Church offers, and I am not knowlegeable enough to evaluate any alternative, so I will go with what we have.

Even if both genealogies were composed by the gospel writers on the back of a cigarette packet, using names from the obituaries column of the Times, it would not make any difference to my faith, which is not dependent on the accuracy or inerrancy of Scripture. You might compare this with wandering the streets of London clutching an A-Z. If the A-Z happens to be a bit mistaken about a couple of roads it might be annoying, but it wouldn't stop you enjoying the glories of the City all around. What matters is where you end up, not the inerrant quality of the streetmap. The map has to be good enough to get you to the right place, but it does not have to be perfect.

I hope that helps.

[Alan H]

The genealogy in Matthew is understood to be that of St Joseph. Because the genealogy in Luke is different, and because Luke provides a great deal of information not found in the other gospels, but said to derive from St Mary herself, it is understood that his genealogy is from St Mary's lineage. In this way the gospels provide both.

When the words (as in English, anyway) clearly say something completely contrary, this looks like no more than ad hoc reasoning.

Genealogies traditionally feature the male line, and in the one in Luke Joseph is shown as the son of Mary's father, and as I understand it (although I am no expert) this is explained in terms of him being adopted in some way. I am not sure personally how convincing this particular aspect is as an explanation; being a son through marriage would work for me, but nonetheless that is the explanation that the Church offers, and I am not knowlegeable enough to evaluate any alternative, so I will go with what we have.

It clearly says in the KJV that they are talking about Joseph, not Mary. Now it may be that that was not what was meant at the time or that it is a wrong translation, but it would be helpful to either accept the contradiction or to point to a source that offers a plausible and cogent explanation.

Even if both genealogies were composed by the gospel writers on the back of a cigarette packet, using names from the obituaries column of the Times, it would not make any difference to my faith, which is not dependent on the accuracy or inerrancy of Scripture. You might compare this with wandering the streets of London clutching an A-Z. If the A-Z happens to be a bit mistaken about a couple of roads it might be annoying, but it wouldn't stop you enjoying the glories of the City all around. What matters is where you end up, not the inerrant quality of the streetmap. The map has to be good enough to get you to the right place, but it does not have to be perfect.

Of course, it's up to any believer to believe in whatever they want, no matter how flimsy the evidence or the number and depth of the contradictions. But for many, the bible is the inerrant word of their god - when it plainly isn't. That's where the trouble starts.

[Nick]

First of all, hats off to Cathy!

We have bowled her a great number of bouncers and she has addressed them all as best she can. And she has done so with wit and panache, which is great to see. It is also clear that she is generally answering our questions, not asking us to believe anything in particular. I invited Cathy here, partly so she could see a bit more of my world, and partly in the hope that the tolerance which is supposed to be part of humanism would shine through. At the Other Place, they are all too eager to sensor and censure, and ban people for fairly trivial things. Don't let me down, guys!

It is true that many humanists take an (unhealthy?) interest in religion, but in our defence, that is because so many believers take their faith as being the basis for other aspects of life (whether it is morally OK to be a practicing homosexual, say). If they did not do so, our interest would be about the same as criticising an interest in stamps or Shakespeare, say.

With so many posts since I last looked at this thread, I've a lot of catching up to do, but maybe I should start with the grizzly subject of crucifixion. I am not medically qualified, but as I understand it, crucifixion causes death by asphyxiation.

[ETA: Wiki casts doubt on what I've just written, but it's all to gruesome for me to want to continue..]

This arises as a consequence of hanging by the arms causing pressure on the chest. As the feet were nailed too, it was possible to relieve the asphyxiation by raising oneself up to allow more air to reach the lungs. By breaking the legs (seen as a merciful act!) this was prevented, thus speeding up death. (I don't think breaking the legs would affect the head, Alan, except that one might pass out with the pain, which might lead to choking.) Whipping would also reduce the body's ability to stay alive, but is unlikely to be the cause of death, and lack of water would kill you eventually too. Altogether a thoroughly nasty way to go.

Apparently, it was also a shameful death, which on the one hand makes such a demise an unlikely plan for the hero of the story. Also, it seems that the crucifixion, possibly because of its shamefulness, did not seem to be used as a symbol by early Christians, who tended to use the fish instead.

A bit about the chronology. Let's take Cathy's suggestion that death happened on Friday afternoon. If (ha! if! ) the resurrection occurred on Sunday, that is only 48 hours, not 3 days....

The Romans were more than happy to leave the victims hanging indefinitely, much like the heads on spikes outside London walls in medieval times, as a warning to others. Apparently, there were, on occasion, hundreds of crucifixions along the Appian Way. Nice. But there would be several reasons for burying Jesus asap. First, as is the custom in the middle east today, burial are carried out within 24 hours, purely because of decomposition in the heat. Secondly, it ends the shamefulness of the victim's death. I does occur to me to wonder whether it constituted working on the Sabbath, but I don't know...

It would have been so more less gory if Jesus had instead waved a magic wand and sprinkled us all with fairy dust....

[Tetenterre]

I think there would be a good case for saying that the use of atomic bombs is intrinsically evil,

Diverting a "doomsday asteroid" through radiation pressure? (It's about the only potential "diverter" for which we already have all the technology readily available -- but not yet co-ordinated)