how to make him loves me......????

how to make him loves me...???
i donk know....!!!
and maybe,for now i dont care....
but..
i feel so hurt...
every time he talked about women who are his favorite...
do you think,im ur Diary..??
ur jurnal....???
huuhhh...
i want you to go....
go away from my life...


hey...what this is abt...??
i donk know(again)
i just wanna share what i feel now...
and till now....
i donk know what the kind of feeling this is...??



and...
i have ever listen "how to break a heart' by westlife....

Soup Cream My Version

• 2 tablespoons butter
• 1/2 cup cream, heavy, light or
• 1 onion, chopped
• half-n-half
• 1 russet potato, peeled and chop
• Nutmeg, to taste
• 6 cups canned chicken stock, warmed
• Salt
• 3 cups chopped broccoli florets and stems
• Pepper

Directions

In a large pot, melt butter and cook onion until tender over medium high heat. Add potato and toss to coat with butter. Add hot stock and bring to a simmer. Stir brocoli and return to a simmer. When potato and broccoli are tender, puree in batches in a blender or food proccesor. Return to pot and add cream. Season to taste and serve warm


Indonesian Version : butter diganti mentega,mericane mrica bubuk yah,biar ga kerasa keras di lidah :DD

Islamic and Christian Beliefs

 

*Allah (God Almighty) is the only Creator of all that exists.

#God Almighty is the only Creator of all that exists. (Gen. 1:1)

 

*There is one God (Allah). Jesus is the Christ, miracle birth- and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his last prophet, both of them said, "God is One and you have to serve Him with all your heart, mind and strength.

#There is one God. He exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (There is no "Trinity" in the Bible)

 

*Allah reveals His 99 Divine Attributes and does not compare Himself to any of His creation.

#God has revealed Himself as "One God" and "One Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:3; Mark 12:29)

 

*Allah created man from dirt and "in His image" and of "His spirit," yet God has no likeness of anything in creation.

#God created man from dirt and the image of God (Genesis 1)

 

*Adam & Eve sinned, then repented and were forgiven, with no continuing effects on their children.

#Adam and Eve sinned and thus brought sin into the world and their sins passed on to their children. (Genesis 3:1-7)

 

*God Forgives Adam and Eve after they repent. Then He makes Adam his deputy (caliph) and the first prophet.

#Original Sin - all of Adam's posterity are born with a sin nature and are sinful from birth (Romans 3:22-23, 1st John 1:10)

 

*Man is basically good but prone to mistakes. Muslims who repent and submit to God are forgiven without intercession from Christ (or anyone) needed.

#Man is by nature sinful and has need for redemption by the atonement of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:6, 8:32, Colossians 1:19-20, Hebrews 7:26-27, 9:26, 10:12, 1st John 4:10)

 

*Through submission to the Will of God in peace, anyone, anytime, any place becomes a servant of Allah and draw closer to Him.

#Through the work of Christ, God adopts Christians into His family and calls them His children (Romans 8:14-15, Ephesians 1:5, Galatians 4:5)

 

*Allah is not like His creation. He is neither male nor female, nor is creation like Him.

#Bible says; "God is not a man... not the son of man.." (Numbers 23:19) Other places contradict this(?)

 

nb : * for Islam and # for Christianity

how did 1 bcome 3

God (or Gods)?
Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church History
By Brother John Raymond

Introduction

Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius. Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian world was the contrast between the

"One and the Many, between the ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the incalculable variety that exists in the world."

[Ward 1955, 38]

Relationship of God And World

The relationship between God and the world had to be solved.

The Jews proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a mediating

"Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and took possession of him."

[Guitton 1965, 81]

The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a

"mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first principle which reduced the distance between God and the world"

[Guitton 1965, 81]

The primitive Church had to

"reconcile the notions they had inherited from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in the scriptures."

[Ward 1955, 39]

This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for such a long drawn out battle as we will see.



Arius And His Teaching

Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called the "Father of Arianism" because

"Arius and almost all the 4th-century Arian theologians were his students. Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy."

[Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058]

With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. His teaching in Alexandria was the following:

"Personal distinctions were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the power of the Word to be His agent in creation.

The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering."

[Ward 1955, 41]

This teaching of Arius

"drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and two inferior deities."

[Ward 1955, 43]

The Person of Christ

"belonged to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was neither God nor man."

[Ward 1955,42]

Arius Versus The Alexandrian Bishop

Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued to spread his teaching.

Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as being of one substance.
Alexander

"used a term which was to become the keyword of the whole controversy."

[Ward 1955, 43, 44]

With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed to have good grounds for this condemnation.

The term homoousios was rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.



Constantine And Ossius

With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine, certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither was involved in heresy.

The letters failed to have an effect. In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner of the latter Council in Nicaea.

Under the influence of Ossius a new Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement. At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.

Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic Church of Rome). It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia.

That an Emperor should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in Hellenistic thought he

"was given by God supreme power in things material and spiritual."

[Davis 1987, 56]

The Council of Nicaea. The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed. Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318 was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.

If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that

"daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius."

[LeClercq 1913, 45]

Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council

"Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted."

[LeClercq 1967, 792]

But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to exclude the Arian position.

"Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon of 451."

[Davis 1987, 59]

When the creed was finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it. Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All three were exiled. The Creed and an Analysis some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as follows:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church anathematizes."

[LeClercq 1913, 45]

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only.

The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms

"that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father"

[Davis 1987, 61]

This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation. In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not."

The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."

Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished. Terminology Problem With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance."

The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West.

This instance of confusion

"points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position."

[Davis 1987, 63]

A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios. At that time this word could have three possible meanings.

"First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.

Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being.

Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay."

[Davis 1987, 61]

The Council intended the first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father.

If the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy.

The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff.

Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with heresies.

The word was originally used by the Gnostics

[1]

. The word had even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata.

Another factor making the word unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture. The Council's defeat by Arianism. It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the Council could be called into question.

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians.
With the death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who ruled the East was anti-Nicaea.

Supporters of Nicaea in the East especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases "from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios."

Some attempts were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360

"in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula."

[Barry 1913, 709]

Not all Arians, or their new name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son relationship.

With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini.

Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoios formula.

"This Homoean victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of Constantinople in the following year"

which condemned the terms homoousios, homoousios and anomoios.

[Ward 1955, 57]

It seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed. The Final Battle. The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived.

First it gained its popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of Constantius in 361 it collapsed.

Second by persecuting both homoousios and homoousios supporters alike

"it brought about better understanding and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups."

[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.

The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians.

The point of departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the Cappadocian Fathers

"had never meant to deny the unity but only to preserve the distinction of persons."

[Ward 1955, 58]

Both came to the conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to say was the same.

The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis).

At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others theological terminology.

At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned.

Under the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial favor. In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.

In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople. The first canon from this Council states that

"the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established."

[Davis 1987, 126]

In 380 the Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them

"sealed the final adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church."

[DeClercq 1967, 793]

Conclusion

The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one.

The Arian doctrines condemned were the following:

The Son was created by the Father out of nothing.
Thus the Son was not God in the strict sense but by grace and
  in name only.
The Father and Son did not share the same substance.
The Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability
 and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.

Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.

The Arians took advantage of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it. This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar), homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).

It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the Emperor.

The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to the final Arian downfall.

---

REFRENCE:

[1] Gnostics - meaning "to know secret or hidden knowledge"; lit., those who know; a mystic order of Christianity. Often known for giving up all worldly matters, often living apart from society and being reclusive, fasting and remaining celibate. Possible forerunners of the sufi orders found amongst some Muslims today.

---

WORKS CITED:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 1. Arianism, by V.C. Declercq.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Vol. 8. St. Lucian of Antioch, by P. W. Harkins.

Davis S.J., Leo D. 1987. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787):
Their History and Theology. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc.

Guitton, Jean. 1965. Great Heresies and Church Councils. New York: Harper and Row.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,  Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 1, Arianism, by William Barry.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen,
Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne, eds. 1913. The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: The Encyclopedia Press. Vol. 11,  Councils of Nicaea, by H. Leclercq.

Ward D.D., Bishop J.W.C. 1955. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray and Co. Limited

who wrote bible

Friedman, Richard Elliott

Artistry Upon Artistry

The redactor , whom I identify as Ezra, has been the least appreciated of the contributors to the Five Books of Moses. Usually, more credit is given to the authors of the stories and the laws. That may be an error.

The redactor was as much an artist, in his own way, as the authors of J, E, P and, D were in theirs. His contribution was certainly as significant as theirs.

His task was not merely difficult, it was creative. It called for wisdom and literary sensitivity at each step, as well as a skill that is no less an art than storytelling.

In the end, he was the one who created the work that we have read all these years. He assembled the final form of the stories and laws that, in thousands of ways, have influenced millions.

Is that his influence? Or is it the influence of the authors of the sources? Or would it be better to speak of a literary partnership of all these contributors, a partnership that most of them never even knew would take place? How many ironies are contained in this partnership that was spread over centuries? How many new developments and ideas resulted from the combination of all their contributions?

In short, the question for the last chapter of this book is: is the Bible more than the sum of its parts?

[end of quote]

Pentateuch [First five books appearing in the Old Testament]:

Moses is the major figure through most of these books, and early Jewish and Christian tradition held that Moses himself wrote them, though nowhere in the Five Books of Moses themselves does the text say that he was the author.

[Deut. 31:9,24-26 describes Moses as writing a scroll of the torah - but no claim that the scroll included all five books. Only later did torah come to mean the Pentateuch]

But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it would say that those same events happened in a different order. It would say that there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there was fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses as going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle.

People also noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth. (17f.)

Objections largely met through various forms of explanation (including midrash). But in the medieval period, the objections began to be met with an acknowledgment that Moses may not have been the sole author:

In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer."

[19]

But the man who called him this, 12th century Spanish rabbi Ibn Ezra added:

Several passages that appeared not to be from Moses' own hand: passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms that Moses would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and locale from those of Moses.

[19-20]

Friedman suggests that Ibn Ezra recognized that these passages confirmed ibn Yashush's claim - but advised silence.

The silence was broken in the 14th ct. by Bonfils in Damascus. Bonfils wrote

"And this is evidence that this verse was written in the Torah later, and Moses did not write it; rather one of the later prophets wrote it." Bonfils was not denying the revealed character of the text. He still thought that the passages in question were written by "one of the later prophets." He was only concluding that they were not written by Moses. Still, three and a half centuries later, his work was reprinted with the references to the subject deleted.

[19]

[contrary to the old tradition that Joshua wrote the account of Moses' death] ...in the sixteenth century, Carlstadt, a contemporary of Luther, commented that the account of Moses' death is written in the same style as texts that precede it. This makes it difficult to claim that Joshua or anyone else merely added a few lines to an otherwise Mosaic manuscript.

In a second stage of the process, investigators suggested that Moses wrote the Five Books but that editors when over them later, adding an occasional word or phrase of their own. In the sixteenth century, Andreas van Maes, who was a Flemish Catholic, and two Jesuit scholars, Benedict Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, thus pictured an original text from the hand of Moses upon which later writers expanded. Van Maes suggested that a later editor inserted phrases or changed the name of a place to its more current name so that readers would understand it better. Van Maes' book was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books.

[19-20]

In the third stage of the investigation, investigators concluded outright that Moses did not write the majority of the Pentateuch.

Hobbes (17th ct.) - example: the use of the phrase "to this day," which is not a phrase used by someone describing a contemporary situation

Four years later, Isaac de la Peyrère (French Calvinist) - "across the Jordan" (Deut 1:1), which would place Moses in Israel, which otherwise contradicts the claim that Moses never entered Israel. (book was banned and burned; de la Peyrère was arrested, forced to become a Catholic.)

Roughly contemporary, Spinoza published a unified critical analysis demonstrating the problematic passages pervaded the text:

There were the third-person accounts of Moses, the statements that Moses was unlikely to have made (e.g., "humblest man on earth"), the report of Moses' death, the expression "to this day," the references to geographical locales by names that they acquired after Moses' lifetime, the treatment of matters that were subsequent to Moses (e.g., the list of Edomite kings), and various contradictions and problems in the text of the sort that earlier investigators had observed. He also noted that the text says in Deuteronomy 34, "There never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses...." Spinoza remarked that these sound like the words of someone who live a long time after Moses and had the opportunity to see other prophets and thus make the comparison. (They also do not sound like the words of the humblest man on earth.) Spinoza wrote, "It is...clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by someone who lived long after Moses." Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism. Now his work was condemned by Catholics and Protestants as well. His book was placed on the Catholic Index, within six years thirty-seven edicts were issued against it, and an attempt was made on his life.

[20-21]

(Richard Simon, a Catholic priest who converted from Protestantism, wrote what he intended to be a critique of Spinoza, claimed that:

The core of the Pentateuch (the laws) was Mosaic but that there were some additions. The additions, he said, were by scribes who collected, arranged, and elaborated upon the old texts. These scribes, according to Simon, were prophets, guided by the divine spirit, and so he regarded his work as a defense of the sanctity of the biblical text.

[21]

But his contemporaries were not ready - he was attacked by Catholic clergy, expelled from his order, and his books were placed on the Index. Protestants wrote 40 refutations of his work. 1294 copies of his book were burned - 6 survived. An English translation landed the translator in the tower.

[21]

Eighteenth ct. - in response to doublets:

A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac, two stories of Abraham's claiming to a foreign king that his wife Sarah is his sister, two stories of Isaac's son Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia, two stories of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-el, two stories of God's changing Jacob's name to Israel, two stories of Moses' getting water from a rock at a place called Meribah, and more.

[22]

- Three independent investigators (H. B. Witter, a German minister; Jean Astruc, a French medical doctor, and J. G. Eichhorn, a German professor) arrived at the same conclusion: two different sources for these stories, from writers who lived after Moses.

[23]

The sources:

J -- Yahweh/Jehovah as the name of God
E -- Elohim as the name of God
P -- The largest: includes most of the legal sections, priestly matters
D -- Only found in the book of Deuteronomy

opposition to the Documentary hypothesis in the 19th ct. - but in the 20th ct., major turning point with the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943, "the Magna Carta for biblical progress."

The Pope encouraged scholars to pursue knowledge about the biblical writers, for those writers were "the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit..." He concluded:

Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.

[27]

Eventually accepted by Protestant and Jewish scholars as well. In the current generation of Biblical scholars, the Documentary Hypothesis "continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it."

[28]

It is, in my terms, the equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics.

---

The World that Produced the Bible: 1200-722 B.C.E.

Little historical information about the patriarchs, their experiences as slaves in Egypt, the wandering in the Sinai. Evidence for accurate picture of life of biblical only from about 12th ct. B.C.E., as the Israelites become established in this region.

Tribal - thirteen, "with considerable differences in size and population from the smallest to the largest. Twelve of the tribes each had a distinct geographical territory. The thirteenth, the tribe of Levi, was identified as a priestly group. Its members lived in cities in the other tribes' territories. Each tribe had its own chosen leaders."

Judges, priests: judges both heard disputes and provided military leadership. Priests served at religious ceremonies - first of all, sacrifices (receiving a portion of the sacrificed animal, produce).

Prophets - from any occupation: Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a cowboy. "The word in Hebrew for prophet is nabi, which is understood to mean 'called.'"

[36]

---

Who is Richard Elliott Friedman?

"Friedman, one of our brightest young biblical scholars, adroitly combines the history of scholarship with an autobiographical account of his own search and findings. A fascinating and brilliant book, full of new insights and fresh discoveries. Reads like a detective story."

-- Frank Moore Cross, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, Harvard University

"Achieves that rare combination of serious scholarship and an eminently readable, even racy style. The finest book of its kind that I have read in years."

-- David Noel Freedman, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Michigan, and Editor, Anchor Bible Series

"A new paradigm for understanding the composition of the Bible. Novel, stimulating, a breath of fresh air, and a desideratum for Hebrew Bible research."

-- Abraham Malamat, Professor of the Bible, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

"Fascinating, full of suspense and surprises, a well written detective story,"

-- Richard J. Clifford, S. J., Dean and Professor of Old Testament, Weston School of Theology

"I ran through the manuscript in the space of a day, much as one might pick compulsively at a box of chocolates. It was simply too provocative to put down. Has the potential of being highly influential inside the field and among an informed public."

-- Baruch Halpern, Professor of Bible, York University, Toronto

"Not just another book about the Bible. One is amazed how much new data and how many intriguing ideas emerge from this newly published research."

-- Yigal Shiloh, Professor of Biblical Archeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

"Conveys a freshness and excitement of discovery that the old discipline has lacked for many decades. I find Friedman's account especially sympathetic, as will any other Bible reader who has ever stopped to wonder just whose text they are reading."

-- Alan Cooper, Professor of Bible, Hebrew Union College

REFERENCE:

[1] Redactor; someone who 'rewrites' or 'revises' text

no place that far

A fragile heart was broken before
I don't think it could endure another pain
But there's a voice from deep inside of you
That's calling out to make you realize

That this new bond gives inspiration
To all who feel no love appeal no more
So how can I break this wall around you
That's aiding both our hearts to grow in pain

So forget your past, and we can dream tomorrow
Save our hearts for care and lovin too
It's hard I know, but oh
One thing for sure
Don't go and break this fragile heart

A hurting mind in need of emotion
I don't think I could endure another pain
But baby in you, I've found affection
Affection I have never felt before

So don't let your past destroy what comes tomorrow
Don't go and break this fragile heart

With all this fire that burns between us
There's so much to lose
Yet so much more to gain
And if I could choose, the world around me
The world I'd choose would all revolve around you
So help me complete the game inside me
And help to mend, to mend this fragile heart

Economics With Guns

Much talk has been bandied about before, but especially after the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, regarding guns and gun ownership. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a strong political force in the United States. Guns mean big bucks to legitimate dealers and even bigger bucks to those who sell them on the streets. Guns are a source of great emotional turmoil to many - those who passionately oppose their existence and those who desperately want to keep them around. It almost seems like the politics of guns is threatening to surpass the abortion issue as the political issue of our time.
The day following the tragic shooting in Littleton the sponsors of a concealed weapons bill, Doug Dean (Colorado Springs) and Ken Chlouber (Leadville) let the bill die without ever getting the chance to let the legislators vote on it. Mr. Dean told the press about threats he and his family had received as a result of his sponsorship. Some callers told him that he killed the students at Columbine High School.
President Clinton and Elizabeth Dole have raced to the forefront of the public eye in declaring their support of certain restrictions on guns. Liddy Dole in an effort to completely alienate 90% of her republican support even declared her opposition to concealed hand-gun permits.
Professor John Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard published a study in the January 1997 issue of Journal of Legal Studies using cross-sectional time-series data from 1977 - 1992. They found that when states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons it actually deters crime. It is curious to note that according to the professor's study nearly half of all home burglaries in Canada and Britain (where they face much more strict gun control laws) occur when the occupant is home. Yet in the United States (where gun laws are more relaxed) only 13% of burglaries occur when someone is home. Many American convicted felons admit to fearing armed occupants and spend far more time watching a house to determine when the owners will be gone than do Canadian and British felons.
Someone tersely commented to me after the Littleton massacre, that the killers wouldn't have dared go to a certain high school near downtown Denver because, They wouldn't have made it two feet into the school before someone else would have shot them because at (this school) they're all packing heat! Whether or not you find any ironic humor in this statement there is a certain truth to it. The Columbine killers knew very well they faced little or no danger from the students.
faculty, or staff at Columbine. Even the lone armed guard was no match for their superior fire power. The copyright of the article Guns and Economics in marketplace economics is owned by Beth Skinner. Permission to republish Guns and Economics in print or online must be granted by the author in writing

Lott and Mustard's results are startling. When counties adopted the state concealed handgun laws murders fell by 7.65% and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7%. Their study also indicates that murders in the United States would have declined by 1,414 if the counties studied had adopted state concealed handgun laws.
An interesting sidebar involving accidental deaths is that in 1988, 200 accidental gun deaths occurred. 22 of these were in states with concealed handgun laws and the remaining 178 took place in states without concealed handgun laws.
.

The copyright of the article Guns and Economics in Marketplace Economics is owned by Beth Skinner. Permission to republish Guns and Economics in print or online must be granted by the author in writing. 

by  Beth Skinner