Sunday, 26 April 2015

World’s tiniest bible to be presented at Israel Museum for 50th anniversary

English: Logo of the Technion – Israel Institu...
Logo of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As part of its yearlong 50th anniversary celebration, the Jerusalem-based Israel Museum will display the “Nano Bible,” the world’s smallest bible, an Israeli innovation created at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology.

The tiny bible will be displayed alongside the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aleppo Codex, a manuscript of the Jewish bible from 10th century C.E. The Nano Bible is a gold-coated silicon chip smaller than a pinhead. It is 0.04 square millimeters, and 0.00002 millimeters (20 nanometers) deep. The 1.2 million letters of the bible were written using a focused ion beam generator that shot gallium ions onto a gold surface covering a base layer of silicon.

Dr. Ohad Zohar and Professor Uri Sivan of the Technion Physics Department developed the idea, and the engineers of the Technion’s Sara and Moshe Zisapel Nanoelectronics Center were responsible for the manufacturing of the chip and the development of the software that allows the engraving of the letters.

The Israel Museum will also exhibit a documentary on the creation of the Nano Bible and will enable the reading of the biblical text under a microscope.

http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015/4/16/worlds-tiniest-bible-to-be-presented-at-israel-museum-for-50th-anniversary

Thursday, 23 April 2015

Noodzaak om geweld tegen moslims ook in kaart te brengen

English: Illustration about a lesbian girl, tr...
English: Illustration about a lesbian girl, traditionally dressed, asking if one can be gay and Muslim Nederlands: Illustration over een meisje, moslima, die zich afvraagt of je tegelijk Moslim en Lesbisch kan zijn. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
De 16de april is er in Nederland een positief initiatiefvoorstel 'Zicht op moslimdiscriminatie' ingediend bij het parlement. Volgens de partijen hebben twee op de vijf moskeeën in Nederland in de afgelopen tien jaar te maken gehad met gewelddadige incidenten. Dat ging dan om dreigmails of bekladding en zelfs in één geval een varkenskop voor de deur.

Zoals in België wordt daar in Nederland niet echt een registratie van moslim discriminatie gemaakt, terwijl wij toch in een vrije democratische samenleving zouden moeten wonen waarbij iedereen het recht moet hebben dat geloof te belijden welk zij persoonlijk willen belijden.

Met financiële bijdragen van de Open Society Foundations en stichting het PALET en met steun van het Meldpunt Discriminatie Regio Amsterdam heeft Ineke van der Valk een document opgesteld met de resultaten van haar studie over de Islamofobie die in de hand wordt gewerkt door de enkele gevallen die een hele gemeenschap in een slecht daglicht stellen.


Het onderwerp discriminatoire agressie en geweld tegen moslims bevond zich in de winter van 2014/ 2015 in het middelpunt van de actualiteit. De behoefte aan concrete gegevens,achtergrondinformatie en duiding is groot. Vandaar dat Ineke van der Valk zulk een Monitor Moslim Discriminatie studie heeft voorgesteld.
Monitorstudies tonen elke keer weer aan dat discriminatie op belangrijke terreinen, zoals op de arbeidsmarkt, nog steeds voorkomt en dat verschillende maatschappelijke groepen, zoals etnische minderheden, homo’s en mensen met beperkingen, hierdoor sociaal worden achtergesteld. Dat moslims meer en meer doelwit zijn geworden van discriminatoir handelen en deze vorm van discriminatie zich niet zelden verschuilt achter religiekritiek, bleef vaak onderbelicht. Dit heeft mede geleid tot het besluit een meerjarig Monitor project te starten.

Er is nog zeer veel werk aan de winkel. Alsook valt het op dat door dat er zoveel negatiefs over moslimterroristen op televisie komt dat mensen erg bang zijn geworden voor een groeiend aantal islamieten. die angst bij veel mensen brengt teweeg dat er een versterking van discriminatie optreed, maar dat politie eenheden geen slechte beurt willen halen bij de plaatselijke oorspronkelijke christelijke bevolking. dit maakt dat als er vandalenstreken worden uitgevoerd tegen moslims deze vaak ongestraft gaan en deze niet altijd correct worden geregistreerd. Uit onderzoek van de Universiteit van Amsterdam blijkt bijvoorbeeld dat wanneer er een raam wordt ingegooid bij een moskee, de politie zoiets vaak onder andersoortige incidenten zoals vernieling schaart. Dat maakt het lastig om de omvang van de incidenten te meten.

D66-fractievoorzitter Jan Paternotte:
 'Het is al erg genoeg dat deze geweldincidenten er zijn, maar breng het in kaart zodat er wat aan gedaan kan worden. Betere en aparte registratie is nodig. Geen Amsterdammer zou moeten vrezen om zijn of haar geloof te belijden'.

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

Talpiot Tomb a family grave of the tribe of Jesus

  A 1st century AD stone ossuary (bone box) found in a burial tomb in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot. In 2007, James Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, made the startling claim that the tomb shows Jesus wasn't resurrected and was in fact buried with his family in this tomb (Getty Images) A 1st century CE stone ossuary (bone box) found in a burial tomb in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot. In 2007, James Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, made the startling claim that the tomb shows Jesus wasn't resurrected and was in fact buried with his family in this tomb (Getty Images)

Further research on Talpiot Tomb which was discovered in East Jerusalem in 1980 may indicate that it is with “virtually unequivocal evidence” the family grave for Jesus of Nazareth, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his son, Judah.

In 2007 already a documentary made a case that the 2,000-year-old "Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries" belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. The inscriptions and the approximate dates of burial have led some to suggest the Talpiot Tomb means Jesus married, that he fathered a child, and that the existence of bodily remains means the Resurrection could never have happened.

About that last tomb of Jesus they seem to overlook the inscription in Aramic which  reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”, which for me would more indicate that it could perhaps be the grave of Jesus his brother but not that one of Jeshua himself. It is not because an inscription ‘Yeshua bar Yehosef’ (‘Jesus, son of Joseph’) can be found written in the tomb that it has to be the tomb in which Jesus was buried. It also just could be a reference to the people buried in it their connection with Jeshua, the son of man from Nazareth who was considered to be the Messiah.

The scientist makes a reference to a gravestone for the people when it could be found in Liverpool. But he does seem to forget that when there is such a mention on it of the four Beatles it does not have to be that all four  would really be buried together in that one grave at that one place where they were born.

It would be wrong to hail the found bones and ossuary boxes as the most significant of all Christian relics. It at the same time could be wrong to say it is a forgery, misinterpretation and reckless speculation. But to say it is really the place where Christ Jesus would have been placed after he died is doubtful, also because it does not comply with the writings from scripture and previous civic writings about the tomb and about the place which was guarded by the Roman soldiers.

In any case the two ancient artifacts found there in East Jerusalem have set off a fierce archaeological and theological debate in recent decades.

How can they have "unequivocal evidence" of the grave being that one of Jesus? Do they have DNA of Jesus? Many at the time could see and hear the witnesses of those who had seen the risen lord and were even prepared to die for what they had witnessed. Their statements made that others after them did not need (further) physical proof.

Many people against Christianity are pleased with those findings of those scientist but forget that we do have the writings from earlier days which are convincing enough and the writings which are God-given for our Christian community to continue to go strong.

+++


Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Yazidi, they who were created

Conical roofs characteristic of Yazidi sites m...
Conical roofs characteristic of Yazidi sites mark the tomb of Şêx Adî in Lalish (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Yazidi comes from "Azdaim" which means "I was created". They say they follow God and His angels. For them there is only One God Who has good and bad in His Hands. They are not against any religion and are not against any people.

The Yazidi or Ezidis have been oppressed for many years by the Ba'athists, Al Qaeda,  and now IS. According to one of the preachers it is because they are a small community of believers, a closed religion of a people of faith, mercy and humanity, which does not have much contact with the world, and by being humble an opportunity is taken by others to oppress them. Others want to annihilate them and not having their own state to defend themselves, not having weapons, they need protection.

They just want to live in peace and do not want a specific country for them because according to their faith the world (or globe) is a garden for every one. In a garden are many flowers and they consider them also one of the flowers which can give colour to the garden.



Many Kurds know the Ezidis as refugees, IDPs, even as devil worshippers - though mostly through biased media reports. Kawa wants to learn the truth about the people’s religion and daily life. In a ZLR episode Kawa goes to a Ezidi community in Lalesh, the main Yazidi temple complex in the KR. He meets a young man called Zaid, who shows Kawa various aspects of Ezidi life; from how they eat, to prayer in their temple, to who is protecting them from IS. Zaid and his family were on Mount Sinjar and along with others subjected to much horror and deprivation.

In a video on Middle East Alliance Community Baba Chawesh tells about that garden and his people

> https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEastAlliance/videos?fref=photo

Not able to make contact with God because to busy

Do you have that feeling that there is to much to do in a day and that you do not have any time to do something different than your work and afterwards to fall in the couch to relax?

Do you find everyday like a battle to stay on top of things?

There are the kids,which you have to get them ready for school, before you are off to work. Then you have to tackle all the problems at work.
Having a day job, family commitments and then there are so many things you want to have done or which consume your day.

Seeing the clock tick, the time passing by fast, you do not seem to find time to do something else than those things which are required from you.
Finding time for some alone-time with God can be a hassle and at times seem impossible.
Do you know it is not so difficult to take time with God?

Any moment of the day you can pray and have a little word with God. You can use your own words. If you do not know how to start off, you can begin with saying "Our Father" and than building your phrases around the text of that prayer Jesus gave us as an example to pray.

Another way is just before you get out of bed, to take a little moment, waking up with a prayer.
After you get home from work, have done the cooking, even watched some television, before going to bed, take some time to read in the Bible. Make it a custom just before putting yourself at rest to take one moment to let the Words of God come to you. Even when you would read just some or at least one bible verse a day, and let it inspire you, you will grow in the Word of God.

It is not bad to end the day with a retrospective. Just take one moment really for yourself and for your Maker.
At the end of the day check if you tried once more to live your life as God asks you to do. Know that it does not have to be so hard hard to reach out to Him in prayer. He is there to listen to you at any moment. Be it that you are in the bathroom or any small room, no matter where, you can talk to Him. Dare to speak to Him and ask Him to help you lead a Christian life.

Monday, 20 April 2015

Problems correspondents have with the Trinity Doctrine

cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario...
cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario della Santissima Trinità - Vallepietra RM) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Several people have difficulty with taking the words of the bible like they are written. When there is written that God says  "This is my beloved son" they still prefer to read that God says He came down and is standing there being incarnated, instead of His son standing there.

We got a message saying
Now here is one of the problems I have with the Trinity Doctrine:

If it was taught by the Bible then why didn't Christians of the first century believe in it? Why didn't Christians of the second century believe in it, or Christians of the third century believe in it? The council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. only talked about the Son and Father, but not the Holy Spirit. So if you do not believe in the Trinity then you share the Faith of Christians for more than 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.
And that sums up the reason why we prefer too to keep to the same faith of Jesus and his disciples, worshipping the Only One True God, the God of Abraham. By the years lots of false teachings entered Christianity and as the leaders of the country insisted to have a worship system allowing all the traditions of the regions being kept, several preachers and priests adapted their teachings and way of worship to the regional customs.


bambootigerwrites:
 First let's look at a definition of the Trinity: do you agree with this one?


According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons
(the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each
said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists.


First of all there are not three divine persons described in the first chapter of John's gospel, the Word is not described as eternal here or anywhere else, and the Word is not said to be almighty, or equal with God, or being one with God. but the Word is described here as a separate and distinct individual since the Greek text says that he is "toward (pros)" God, rather than using the prepasition for "in (en)", "from (apo)", or "out of (ek)" , and in a diagram of Greek prepositions "toward" would have to be describing someone outside of and separate and distinct from God.


So not only does the word "Trinity" appear here, but neither does any possible description of a Trinity, and for someone to say that the Word is equal to God because it is with him they would have to explain why this is the case for the Word, but not for the Angels who are elsewhere said to be with God as well.


(Proverbs 8:22) 22 "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of

his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago.


Livingbreeze writes:

Commentators have observed (cf. Keener) that the book of John is bracketed by references to Jesus as theos (God - I want to be clear that I am not arguing here for a translation of Jn. 1:1, only that application of the title theos to Jesus) in Jn 1:1 and Jn 20:28.  This seems to draw the attention of the reader to Jesus as theos in both its introductory and concluding remarks. 
 
Jesus is also called theos in v. 18 and seems to reflect in a couple of ways both on Jn 1:1 and Jn 20:28.  First, it links the prologue and the remainder of the Gospel by highlighting the dual themes of the Father as directly and fully known to the Son and the Son as the unique exegete of the Father - themes that are prominent throughout the Gospel.  Second, together with the opening verse of the Prologue, verse 18 forms one of the two bookends that support and give shape to the whole Gospel, for 1:1 and 1:18 (at the beginning and the end of the Prologue) and 20:28 (at the end of the Gospel) all use theos of Jesus, whether he be thought of as the eternally preexistent Logos (1:1), the incarnate Son (1:18), or the risen Christ (20:28).  The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity. 
 
As elsewhere in John, the title ho uios tou theou (the Son of God), which is in apposition to ho christos (the Christ) in John 20:31, denotes more than simply the Davidic Messiah.  The Gospel was written to produce belief that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah and that this Messiah was none other than the "one and only" Son of God who had come from the Father (Jn 11:42; 17:8), who shared his nature (Jn 1:1, 18; 10:30) and fellowship (Jn 1:18; 14:11) and who therefore might appropriately be addressed and worshipped as ho theos mou ("My God").  Unique sonship implies deity (Jn 5:18; cf. 19:7). 
That is basically what I think - that because Jesus is God (theos) he may rightfully be called Messiah and Son of God.  Unless the former Jn 20:28 is true the latter Jn 20:31 is not true. 
So when making reference to God, and God alone, which person are we refering to?
In surveys of the NT use of theos it has been suggested that when theos occurs with the article it generally means the Father.  That would suggest that in Acts it is the Father who annoints the Son with the Holy Spirit. 
I think this applies to your question regarding the "Revelation of Christ" as well.
 
In the modern era, in his treatment of Sabellianism and the beginning of the trinitarian discussion, W. P. du Bose remarks (72; similarily Liddon, Romans, 154) that "the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was perhaps before anything else an effor to express how Jesus was God (theos) and yet in another sense was not God (ho theos), that is to say was not the whole Godhead."  In particular reference to Johannine usage (which is found to be representative of the NT in general; cf. Murray, 37), B. F. Westcott claims that "the difference between ho theos and theos is such as might have been expected antecedently.  The former brings before us the Personal God who has been revealed to us in a personal relation to ourselves:  the latter fixes our thoughts on the general conception of the Divine Character and Being" (Epistles, 172). 




About the Trinity it self we can find:

from the Encyclopedia Britannica 2005:
The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little aboutthe Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.
+
Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity, states:
 "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear."
He says the idea of a coequal trinity
 "was only adopted by the [Roman Catholic] Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan."
On page 198 of his book Weigall gives a brief history of the trinity doctrine, saying:
 "In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: ‘All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.’
The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One, and the Apostles’ Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it."
(1 Timothy 4:1) 4 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons,
++
Please do find also to read:
  1.  Only one God
  2. God of gods
  3. Attributes to God 
  4. The trinity – the truth
  5. Is God comprised of three persons, or is He just one person? 
  6. How did the Trinity Doctrine Develop 
  7. History of the acceptance of a three-in-one God 
  8. The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine
  9. Trinity in the Bible
  10. Altered to fit a Trinity
  11. The Trinity: paganism or Christianity?
  12. Trinity And Pagan Influence
  13. Questions for those who believe in the Trinity
  14. How do trinitarians equate divine nature
  15. The Word being a quality or aspect of God Himself
  16. The Great Trinity debate
  17. Newton not believing in the Holy Trinity
  18. Trinitarian philosophy
  19. About a man who changed history of humankind
  20. For the Will of Him who is greater than Jesus
  21. Word – John 1:1
  22. The Word being a quality or aspect of God Himself
  23. Servant of his Father
  24. One mediator
  25. The true vine
  26. On the Nature of Christ
  27. Jesus Christ being dispatched as the Figurehead of a Religion
  28. The Christ, the anointed of God
  29. Jesus begotten Son of God #4 Promised Prophet and Saviour
  30. Jesus begotten Son of God #6 Anointed Son of God, Adam and Abraham
  31. Jesus begotten Son of God #8 Found Divinely Created not Incarnated: The Anointed begotten Son of God
  32. Jesus begotten Son of God #10 Coming down spirit or flesh seed of Eve
  33. Jesus begotten Son of God #14 Beloved Preminent Son and Mediator originating in Mary
  34. Jesus begotten Son of God #15 Son of God Originating in Mary
  35. Jesus begotten Son of God #16 Prophet to be heard
  36. Jesus begotten Son of God #18 Believing in inhuman or human person
  37. Matthew 1:1-17 The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
  38. Raising digression
  39. Politics and power first priority #1
  40. Politics and power first priority #2
  41. Politics and power first priority #3 Elevation of Mary and the Holy Spirit
  42. What is the truth asked also Pontius Pilate
  43. In Defense of the truth
+++