Tag: Jesus

  • Why No Woman Pope?

    There has been no woman Pope  in the History of The Catholic Church.

    Christianity is touted to be a religion which treats every one equally, it is its USP.

    But no woman?

    Pope Joan.
    Pope Joan.

    There is also the controversy that Jesus Christ had left Christianity in the hands of Mary Magdalene.

    Why are women not allowed and what is so unique in Men ?

    In Hinduism, right from the Vedic Ages, there have been  many Rishis, like Gargi to Modern ‘Amma(Ma Anandmayi)’

     

    ” There has never been a female pope. There is a myth about a Pope Joan that in recent times has been revived, but which has been clearly rebutted by scholars.

    Wikipedia has a good outline of the Pope Joan myth here:

    – Roman Catholic Answer

    The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, if he is not a Bishop when elected to the Papacy, he is tonsured, ordained a lector, then an acolyte, then a deacon, then a priest, and finally consecrated a bishop. Up until the ninth century, bishops were never elected popes as bishops never moved out of their diocese. Regardless, he is always a bishop, and only a man can be consecrated a bishop, so, no, there has never been a female pope.

    – In the legend she was supposed to have been very talented, and, disguised as a man, to have risen through the church hierarchy to become pope, sometime in the Middle Ages.
    It has been a popular story since the thirteenth century, but no one has ever found any reason to believe it actually happened.
    Since there have always been women who felt they were really men, it is most likely that one was unmasked trying to become a priest. This would have started a rash of ‘what if she hadn’t been discovered’ stories, culminating in the Pope Joan myth.(wiki answers)

    Ordaining of Woman in Catholic Church.

    As more Protestant denominations, including the Church of England, have begun ordaining women, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood has come under attack, with some claiming that the ordination of women is simply a matter of justice, and the lack of such ordination is proof that the Catholic Church does not value women. The Church’s teaching on this matter, however, cannot change. Why can’t women be priests?

    Answer:

    In the Person of Christ the Head

    At the most basic level, the answer to the question is simple: The New Testament priesthood is the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, have become priests (or bishops) participate in Christ’s priesthood. And they participate in it in a very special way: They actin persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church.

    Christ Was a Man

    Christ, of course, was a man; but some who argue for the ordination of women insist that His sex is irrelevant, that a woman can act in the person of Christ as well as a man can. This is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the differences between men and women, which the Church insists are irreducible; men and women, by their natures, are suited to different, yet complementary, roles and functions.

    The Tradition Established by Christ Himself

    Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women’s ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 1577) states:

    “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

    Priesthood Not a Function But an Indelible Spiritual Character

    Still, the argument continues, some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests.

    The Impossibility of Women’s Ordination

    In other words, it’s not simply that the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained. If a validly ordained bishop were to perform the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Orders exactly, but the person supposedly being ordained were a woman rather than a man, the woman would no more be a priest at the end of the rite than she was before it began. The bishop’s action in attempting the ordination of a woman would be both illicit (against the laws and regulations of the Church) and invalid (ineffective, and hence null and void).

    The movement for women’s ordination in the Catholic Church, therefore, will never get anywhere. Other Christian denominations, to justify ordaining women, have had to change their understanding of the nature of the priesthood from one which conveys an indelible spiritual character on the man who is ordained to one in which the priesthood is treated as a mere function. But to abandon the 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the priesthood would be a doctrinal change. The Catholic Church could not do so and remain the Catholic Church.

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

     

     

  • How Jesus Became ‘White”

    Though I know a bit of Christianity, it never occurred to me to question why Jesus Christ is portrayed as a White, though he was from the Middle east.

    I did some search.

    First I came up with this article in Salon.

    Is Jesus White?

    The first century Jewish writer Josephus (37-100 AD) penned the earliest non-biblical testimony of Jesus. He reportedly had access to official Roman records on which he based his information and in his work Halosis or the “Capture (of Jerusalem),” written around 72 A.D., Josephus discussed “the human form of Jesus and his wonderful works.” Unfortunately his texts have passed through Christian hands which altered them, removing offensive material. Fortunately, however, Biblical scholar Robert Eisler in a classic 1931 study of Josephus’ Testimony was able to reconstruct the unaltered testimony based on a newly-discovered Old Russian translation that preserved the original Greek text. According to Eisler’s reconstruction, the oldest non-Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:

    “At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power … if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet … he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. ‘with a long face’ [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose … with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard.”

    This short, black-skinned, mature, hunchbacked Jesus with a unibrow, short curly hair and undeveloped beard bears no resemblance to the Jesus Christ taken for granted today by most of the Christian world: the tall, long haired, long bearded, white-skinned and blue eyed Son of God. Yet, this earliest textual record matches well the earliest iconographic evidence.

    The earliest visual depiction of Jesus is a painting found in 1921 on a wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura Europos, Syria and dated around 235 A.D. The Jesus that is “Healing the Paralytic Man” (Mark 2:1-12) is short and dark-skinned with a small curly afro – see below.

    Scroll down for video.

    http://fed-up-with-republicans.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/28/17135412-how-did-jesus-and-the-hebrews-become-white

    Jesus earliest Image
    Jesus earliest Image

     

    Image Of Jesus
    Image Of Jesus

    Then I checked Wiki and I came up with this information.

    The race and appearance of Jesus have been discussed on a number of grounds since early Christianity, although the New Testament includes no description of the physical appearance of Jesus before his death and its narrative is generally indifferent to racial appearances.[1]

    Despite the lack of direct biblical or historical references, from the second century, various theories about the race of Jesus were advanced and debated.[2][3] By the Middle Ages a number of documents, generally of unknown or questionable origin, had been composed and were circulating with details of the appearance of Jesus. Now these documents are mostly considered forgeries.[4][5][6] While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources.[7]

    By the 19th century theories that Jesus was European, and in particular Aryan, were developed, as well as theories that he was of black African descent. However, as in other cases of the assignment of race to biblical individuals, these claims have been mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis.[8] For two millennia a wide range of artistic depictions of Jesus have appeared, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts.[9][10] Beyond being Jewish, there is no general scholarly agreement on the ethnicity of Jesus.[11]

    Images of Jesus Through the Ages.
    Images of Jesus Through the Ages.
  • Did The Jews Destroy Western Culture?

    I have often been intrigued by the hounding of the Jews throughout History by all Races, Nations.

     

    My feeling is that not all of them could be the aggressors and that all of them were wrong.

     

    I have not been able to spot of a single reason for this persecution,barring the oft-repeated statements like the Jews are miserly,they stick together, they bleed others white by usury and they occupy the Highest offices wherever they go, irrespective of the nation where they live.

    Did the Jews destroy Western Culture?

    Take a look ,for example at US.

    List of Politicians of Jewish origin.

     

    Former cabinet Members.

    • Henry Kissinger (R-Secretary of State: 1973-1977)
    • Arthur Goldberg (D-Secretary of Labor: 1961-1962) also Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
    • Oscar Straus (politician) (R-Secretary of Commerce and Labor: 1906-1909)
    • Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (D-Secretary of Treasury: 1934-1945)
    • Abraham Ribicoff (D-Secretary of HEW (HHS): 1961-1962)
    • Wilbur J. Cohen (D-Secretary of HEW (HHS): 1968-1969)
    • Edward H. Levi (R-Attorney General: 1975-1977)
    • Harold Brown (D-Secretary of Defense: 1977-1981)
    • W. Michael Blumenthal (D-Secretary of Treasury: 1977-1979)
    • Neil Goldschmidt (D-Secretary of Transportation: 1979-1981)
    • Philip Klutznick (D-Secretary of Commerce: 1980-1981)
    • Robert Reich (D-Secretary of Labor: 1993-1997)
    • Robert Rubin (D-Secretary of Treasury: 1995-1999)
    • Dan Glickman (D-Secretary of Agriculture: 1995-2001)
    • Mickey Kantor (D-Secretary of Commerce: 1996-1997, US Trade Representative: 1993-1996)
    • Lawrence Summers (D-Secretary of Treasury: 1999-2001)
    • Michael Chertoff (R-Secretary of HS: 2005-2009)
    • Michael Mukasey (R-Attorney General: 2007-2009)
    •  Not to forget Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_politicians

    You also have world Class entertainers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Jewish_entertainers#Film_directors

    And , of course , not to forget Christ!

    Jewish Culture was integrated by the Western Culture and , in my opinion, not other wise.

    Even Christianity is for the Reformation of the Jewish practices and not out right condemnation of Judaism.

    To me to state that Judaism destroyed Western Culture is akin to saying Protestantism destroyed Christianity!

    But Historical evidence points out to the persecution of Jews more than the persecution of the West by The Jews.

    The Judaic Destruction of Western Culture
    The Judaic Destruction of Western Culture

    Persecution of The Jews by all Races.

    “In the Middle Ages Antisemitism in Europe was religious. Though not part of Roman Catholic dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, have held the Jewish people collectively responsible for killing Jesus, a practice originated by Melito of Sardis. As stated in the Boston College Guide to Passion Plays, “Over the course of time, Christians began to accept… that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus Christ’s death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God-killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America.”[3]

    During the High Middle Ages in Europe there was full-scale persecution in many places, with blood libels, expulsions, forced conversions and massacres. An underlying source of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious. Jews were frequently massacred and exiled from various European countries. The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France were subject to frequent massacres. The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds’ Crusades of 1251 and 1320. The Crusades were followed by expulsions, including in, 1290, the banishing of all English Jews; in 1396, 100,000 Jews were expelled from France; and, in 1421 thousands were expelled from Austria. Many of the expelled Jews fled to Poland.[4]

    As the Black Death epidemics devastated Europe in the mid-14th century, annihilating more than a half of the population, Jews were taken as scapegoats. Rumors spread that they caused the disease by deliberately poisoning wells. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed by violence in the Black Death persecutions. Although Pope Clement VI tried to protect them by the July 6, 1348 papal bull and another 1348 bull, several months later, 900 Jews were burnt alive in Strasbourg, where the plague hadn’t yet affected the city.[5]

    Jews in India faced no persecution from Hindus from the time they migrated to India, but they were subjugated by Christian missionaries during the Goa Inquisition from the year 1552. Portuguese invaders in the South India committed massive atrocities on South Indian Jewry in the 17th Century.[6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

    I chanced upon one Video and a News Article on the subject, but I remain unconvinced that the Jews destroyed the Western Culture.

    In case you have any information, please share.

    Jews destroyed Western Culture.

    “Divorce replaces marriage, abortion replaces birth, the home acquires a mere utilitarian function, and the family becomes the battleground of individual strife.

    Promoting the erotic-as-its-own-end, Jewish Hollywood deliberately undermines the propagation of the White race, scorns its history, and crushes its destiny.

    The disintegrated victims shorn of their organic and historic connections with the great super-personal content of Life, become unfruitful, lose both their will to power and theirwill to propagate.

    Following in this wake of Judaic wreckage, the White Christian victims lack the ability to believe in or to follow anything noble and future-reaching.

    The Jew has attained his goal in destroying Western culture while at the same time he remains embodied in an organism immune from his destructive programme.

    Could another “organism” with its own self-preserving aims and boundaries surface to oppose Judaic rule?

    Militarism is emerging as a potent political and economic force in the West. Could the military be the Western world’s last hope in overturning the power of the Jew?…

    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=561

     

  • ‘Jesus’ Name Is Not Real

    Jesus is the name attributed the Founder of Christianity.

    Jesus means the ‘anointed’

    There other meanings ascribed based on the writings from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

    Most of the allusions given indicate that it is not the real name but allusions, which can be inferred from the com the context in which it was used.

    While the Old Testament was compiled at the behest of Constantine, The New testament was written to suit King James.

    So th name Jesus is not real.

    Jesus Name Origin.
    Jesus Name Orig

     

     

    References:

    Further information: Jesus (name), Holy Name of Jesus, Name of God in Christianity, and Yeshua (name)

    “Jesus” is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (IēsoĂťs), itself a hellenization of the Aramaic/Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yēšûă‘) which is a post-Exilic modification of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) under influence from Aramaic.[38] In the Quran, it is عيسى‎ (‘Īsa).[39][40]

    In the Bible he is referred to as “Jesus from Nazareth”,[Mt 21:11] “Joseph’s son”,[Lk 4:22] and “Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth”.[Jn 1:45] Before his death and resurrection, his followers may have begun to refer to him as the Messiah—”Christ” in Greek translation, the anointed one. After his death and resurrection, his followers regularly referred to him as both “Lord” and “Messiah”.[Ac 2:36] In his writings, Paul variously used both “Christ” and “Son of God“. Paul used “Christ” as if were Jesus’ name rather than a title. As an example, in Romans 6:4 he wrote “Christ was raised from the dead”. He most often referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ”, “Christ Jesus“, or “Christ”.[41]

    The etymology of the name Jesus in the context of the New Testament is generally expressed as “Yahweh saves”,[42][43][44] “Yahweh is salvation”[45][46][47] The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[47][48] The first century works of historian Flavius Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus.[49] Philo’s reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of the name Joshua was known outside Judea at the time.[50]

    In the New Testament, in Luke 1:26–33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary to name her child “Jesus”, and in Matthew 1:21 an angel tells Joseph to name the child “Jesus”. The statement in Matthew 1:21 “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” associates salvific attributes to the name Jesus in Christian theology.[51][52]

    “Christ” (pron.: /ˈkraÉŞst/) is derived from the Greek Χριστός (KhrÄŤstos), meaning “the anointed” or “the anointed one”, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (MāťÎaḼ), usually transliterated into English as “Messiah” (pron.: /mɨˈsaÉŞ.ə/).[53][54] In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written well over a century before the time of Jesus), the word “Christ” (Χριστός) was used to translate the Hebrew word “Messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ) into Greek.[55] In Matthew 16:16, the apostle Peter’s profession “You are the Christ” identifies Jesus as the Messiah.[56] In postbiblical usage, “Christ” became viewed as a name, one part of “Jesus Christ”, but originally it was a title (“Jesus the Anointed”).[5(wiki)

     

    ..

    The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua.  Our Saviour’s Name in Hebrew is    (read from right to left). The English name “Jesus,” which later employed the letter “J,” is a derivation from Greek “Iesous” and the Latin “Iesus” version.

    This name “Jesus” commonly used in Christianity today did not exist and would not be spelled with the letter “J” until about 500 years ago. This article will also discuss the grammatical errors involved in the transliteration of Yahshua into Greek and Latin, which radically changed the form of Yahshua’s name.

    http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Etymology_of_names

     

     

  • Jesus Born 24 December 4BC

    There have been a lot of papers on the date of birth of Jesus Christ.

    We now celebrate Christmas, the Birth Day of Jesus on 24 December.

    New Research indicates that Jesus was born on 24 December between  5 and early 4 Centuries  BC.

    This has been arrived at by calculating date on the basis of an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C.

    The Bible was compiled later, about 500 later by Constantine, with the help of a Conclave of Cardinals.

    While it seems alright to accept the date of Birth of Christ as authentic as this was compiled later,some 300 versions were prepared before one version was adopted.

    This is what we follow as The Old Testament.

    http://saccsivdotcom.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/on-what-day-was-jesus-really-born-a-new-testament-manuscript-expert-responds/

    Related:

    Monogram of Jesus.
    Ihs (Monogram of Jesus)

    “Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy” scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! This fact is revealed in the second counter-rebuttal to Brian Show’s first rebuttal to this article. This counter-rebuttal makes the following important statement and backs it up with FACTS – “Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use.” Of course, I’d like to express my deep appreciation to fellow Deist Peter Murphy for the great research work he did in order to write such a great counter-rebuttal!(deism.com)

    Constantine requests for The Bible.

    Jesus Christ.
    Jesus Christ.

    ‘have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.[3]

    About accomplishing the Emperor’s demand:

    Such were the emperor’s commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.[4]’

    (Bibles of Constantine)

    Related:

    Birth date of Pord Rama.

    As for as The Ramayana goes, external evidence is provided in the Puranas(means ‘ very old’) , Eighteen in Number( in Sanskrit) and in regional Languages of India, be it Tamil,Telugu,Kannada, Malayalam,Hindi,Bengali,Oriya,other languages .

    In addition Dialects of India have this spread through word of mouth.

    Though the versions vary in embellishments, the basic fact that there was a King called Rama , he had been sent to forest with his wife called Sita by his father who wanted to appease his wife(not Rama’s mother),she was abducted by a Chieftain called Ravana of Sri Lanka and he was killed by Rama , never varies.(History of The Tamils by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar)

    Reference to the Ramayana has been made in Mahabharata, which is posterior to The Ramayana.

    One of the characters in The Mahabharata is Lord Krishna, whose palace has been unearthed off Gujarat coast , India.(please see my blog filed under(‘Videos)

    http://ramanisblog.in/2011/03/13/birth-date-of-lord-ramaroute-taken-by-him-to-sri-lanka-maps/

    Enhanced by Zemanta