codex sinaiticus - 1,600 yrs bible do...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1400 Feb 6, 2013
The database under construction will contain all the attested phonetic spellings and meanings of the compared Sumerian and Ural-Altaic lexical items, as well as, for control purposes, all Indo-European etymologies proposed for these items. The relevance of each comparison is assessed separately for form and meaning on a scale from 4 to 1 (Fig. 4). The highest score, 4+4, indicates perfect agreement in form and meaning; a low score correspondingly poor agreement and doubtful relevance. In deciding whether a comparison is relevant or not, the governing principle has been that all compared items must match reasonably well in both form and meaning, and any differences in form or meaning must conform with the phonological and semantic variation attested in the languages compared.

To date, I have systematically gone through about 75 per cent of the Sumerian vocabulary and identified over 1700 words and morphemes that can be reasonably associated with Uralic and/or Altaic etyma, allowing for regular sound changes and semantic shifts. Somewhat surprisingly, words with possible Altaic etymologies constitute only a small minority (about seven per cent) of the total, and it is unlikely that the picture will essentially change by the time the project has been finished. Although a close relationship of Sumerian with the Altaic family as a whole thus seems excluded, a genetic relationship with Turkish seems possible, as most of the matches are with Turkic languages, and they are basic words and grammatical morphemes also found in Uralic languages.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1401 Feb 6, 2013
Practically all the compared items are thus Uralic, mostly Finno-Ugric. The majority of them are attested in at least one major branch of Uralic beside Finnic and thus certainly are very old, dating to at least 3000 BC. A large number of the words are known only from Finnic, but this does not prevent them from being ancient as well, since they have no etymology and are for the most part common words attested in all eight Finnic languages.

This collection of words runs the gamut of the Sumerian vocabulary (Fig. 5) and includes 478 common verbs of all possible types, such as verbs of being, bodily processes, sensory perception, emotion, making, communication, movement etc., adjectives, numerals, pronouns, adverbs, interjections, conjunctions, and 589 nouns including words for body parts, kinship terms, natural phenomena, animals, plants, weapons, tools and implements, and various technical terms reflecting the cultural level of the neo- and chalcolithic periods (in the fields of agriculture, food production, animal husbandry, weaving, metallurgy, building technology, etc.). I would like to emphasize that the majority of the words in question are basic words, and 75 per cent of them show a very good match in form and meaning. This does not mean that they are necessarily all correct, but they stand a very good chance of being so. About 20 per cent of the comparisons are more problematic and about 5 per cent of them are conjectural only. All clearly impossible comparisons will of course be excluded once the material has been thoroughly analysed.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1402 Feb 6, 2013
Over 1700 lexical matches with Uralic surely sounds like an awful lot, "too good be true," if compared with all the previous fruitless attempts to find a cognate for Sumerian. But it is not at all much for genetically related languages; on the contrary, it is what must be legitimately expected of languages that are related. Who marvels at the fact that members of the Indo-European language family, even ones widely separated in time and place, have a large number of words in common? The large number of common words is precisely the reason why these languages can so easily and securely be identified as members of the same family.

It may be asked why all these numerous lexical matches with Uralic have not been found earlier. The explanation is simple. It takes a good knowledge of the Uralic languages plus familiarity with the intricacies of Sumerian phonology and cuneiform writing system to recognize the connections between Sumerian and Uralic, and such a combination of special expertise is rare. Very few Assyriologists know any Uralic languages, and experts in Uralic studies do not know any Sumerian. Of course, beside the required special expertise one would also need the will to study the matter seriously, and such will has been entirely lacking in Assyriology for the past 120 years.

In order to get a better idea of the relationship between Sumerian and Uralic, let us now have a look at some of the comparisons to see what they are like and how they work in practice.

34 years ago, Miguel Civil in his article "From Enki's headache to phonology" showed that late Sumerian ugu, "top of the head," is the same word as earlier a-gù; and from the alternation of a-gù with the divine name dab-ú, he concluded that it probably originally contained a labiovelar stop in the middle (Fig. 6). Recently, Joan Westenholz and Marcel Sigrist have shown that beside "top of the head," ugu also means "brain." { Hungarian agy=brain} Both formally and semantically, the Sumerian word thus matches the Uralic word *ajkwo "brain, top of the head," which can be reconstructed as containing a labiovelar stop in the middle based on its reflexes in individual Uralic languages. Remarkably, Sumerian ugu4 "to give birth," a homophone of ugu, likewise has a close counterpart in Finnic aiko-, aivo-, "to intend; to give birth." The semantics of the Finnic word show that it derives from the word for "brain," and the alternation of /k/ and /v/ in the stem confirms the reconstruction of the labiovelar in the middle of the word.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1403 Feb 6, 2013
Several other words discussed by Civil also display an alternation of /g/ and /b/, including gurux or buru4 "crow," and gur(u)21 "shield," also attested as kuru14, e-bu-ùr and íb-ba-ru (Fig. 7). These two words certainly were almost homophonous, since they could be written with the same logogram. The common Uralic word for "crow," *kwarüks, indeed contains the posited labiovelar stop and provides a perfect etymology for the Sumerian word. The original labiovelar is preserved in Selkup, but has been replaced by /v/ in other Uralic languages except Sayan Samoyed, where it is appears as /b/. Sumerian gur(u)21 "shield" can be compared with Finnic varus "protection," whose original form can be reconstructed as *kwaruks and thus provides a perfect etymology for the Sumerian word.{?Hungarian óv=to protect from harm, vár=a fort}

The regular replacement of the labiovelar by /g/,/k/ or /b/ in Sumerian and by /v/ in Uralic amounts to a phonological rule and helps establish further connections between Sumerian and Uralic words displaying a similar correlation, for example Sumerian gíd "to pull" and Uralic *vetä- "to pull," {Hungarian huz t>z} and Sumerian kur "mountain" and Uralic *vor "mountain." {also common as kur in many FU languages} The reconstruction of an original labiovelar in the latter case is strongly supported by Volgaic kurok, "mountain." The phonological correspondences between Sumerian and Uralic remain to be fully charted, but a great many of them certainly are perfectly regular. For example, in word initial position Sumerian /š/ regularly corresponds to Finnic /h/, while Sumerian /s/ regularly corresponds to Finnic /s/(Fig. Cool.{In Hungarian its often s, ch, sh }

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1404 Feb 6, 2013
The word a-gù just discussed was written syllabically with two cuneiform signs, A and KA, both of which have several phonetic values and meanings based on homophony and idea association (Fig. 9). All these phonetic values and meanings have close counterparts in Uralic, and the homophonic and semantic associations between the individual meanings work in Uralic, too; compare the homophony between a, aj "water" and aj, aja "father" in Sumerian, and jää, jäj and äj,äijä in Uralic. And this applies not only to the signs A and KA but, unbelievable as it may sound, practically the whole Sumerian syllabary. Consider, for example, the sign AN (Fig. 10), whose basic meaning, "heaven, highest god," was in Old Sumerian homophonous with the third person singular of the verb "to be," am6. The Uralic word for "heaven" and "highest god" was *joma, which likewise was virtually homophonous with the third person singular of the verb "to be," *oma. These two words would have become totally homophonous in Sumerian after the loss of the initial /j/. The loss of the initial /j/ also provided the homophony between Sumerian a "water" and aj "father" just mentioned.

Such a close and systematic parallelism in form and meaning is possible only in languages related to each other. Accordingly, the logical conclusion is that Sumerian is a Uralic language. This conclusion is backed up by the great number of common words and the regularity of the phonological correspondences between Sumerian and Uralic already discussed, as well as by many other considerations. Sumerian displays the basic typological features of Uralic; it has vowel harmony, no grammatical gender but an opposition between animate and inanimate, and its grammatical system is clearly Uralic, with similar pronouns, case markers, and personal endings of the verb. In addition, many Uralic derivational morphemes can be identified in Sumerian nouns and verbs. The non-Uralic features of Sumerian, such as the ergative construction and the prefix chains of the verb, can be explained as special developments of Sumerian in an entirely new linguistic environment after its separation from the other Uralic languages.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1405 Feb 6, 2013
The Sumerians thus came to Mesopotamia from the north, where the Uralic language family is located (Fig. 11), and by studying the lexical evidence and the grammatical features which Sumerian shares with individual Uralic languages, it is possible to make additional inferences about their origins. The closest affinities of Sumerian within the Uralic family are with the Volgaic and Finnic languages, particularly the latter, with which it shares a number of significant phonological, morphological and lexical isoglosses. The latter include, among other things, a common word for "sea, ocean" (Sumerian ab or a-ab-ba, Finnic aava, aappa), and common words for cereals, sowing and harvesting, domestic animals, wheeled vehicles, and the harness of draught animals (Fig. 12). A number of these words also have counterparts in Indo-European, particularly Germanic languages. These data taken together suggest that the Sumerians originated in the Pontic-Caspian region between the mouth of the Volga and the Black Sea, north of the Caucasus Mountains, where they had been living a sedentary life in contact with Indo-European tribes. I would not exclude the possibility that their homeland is to be identified with the Majkop culture of the North Caucasus, which flourished between 3700 and 2900 BC and had trade contacts with the late Uruk culture (Fig. 13). Placing the Sumerian homeland in this area would help explain the non-Uralic features of Sumerian, for the Kartvelian languages spoken just south of it are ergative and have a system of verbal prefixes resembling the Sumerian one. The Sumerian words for wheel and the harness of draft animals that it shares with Uralic show that its separation from Uralic took place after the invention of wheeled vehicles, which were known in the Majkop culture since about 3500 BC.

About 3500 BC, the Indo-European Yamnaya culture that had emerged between the Danube and the Don began to expand dynamically to the east, reaching the Caucasian foreland by about 3300 BC. This expansion is likely to have triggered the Sumerian migration to Mesopotamia. It would have proceeded through the Caucasus and the Diyala Valley, and since wheeled transport was available, could easily have been completed before the end of the Late Uruk period (c. 3100 BC). The arrival of the Sumerians would thus coincide with the destruction of the Eanna temple precinct at the end of the Uruk IVa period.

The lexical parallels between Sumerian and Uralic thus open up not only completely new possibilities for the study of Sumerian, but also a chance to identify the original homeland of the Sumerians and date their arrival in Mesopotamia. In addition, they provide a medium through which it becomes possible to penetrate into the prehistory of the Finno-Ugric peoples with the help of very ancient linguistic data. Of course, it is clear that the relevant evidence must first pass the test of verification or falsification before any part of it can be generally accepted and exploited.

I am currently preparing an Internet version of the database in collaboration with the Department of General Linguistics of the University of Helsinki. This web version is planned to be interactive and will contain a search engine and a program to check the regularity of the sound changes involved in the comparisons. I heartily invite all sceptics to visit the site once it is ready and falsify as many of the comparisons as they can, and everybody else to look at the evidence, check it out, and contribute to it by constructive criticism and new data.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1406 Feb 7, 2013
You obviously do not quite understand the meaning of the word theory in scientific terms

I can quite understand this, you are obviously a godbot and just like the word “truth” you have no concept of the meaning outside of your faith.

In religion truth means what you believe in, in real-life truth means conformity to fact or actuality.

In religion theory means guess. In science a scientific theory explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".

The theory explains the fact

The theory of gravity explains the fact that of gravity

The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution


ChristineM
“Aut Pax Aut Bellum”
continued

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I will continue to ask you this question, if truly the bible and Christianity is false, both would have died out of existence, but the reverse were/ are the case. Instead both of them have passed many criticisms to date.
Don’t be stupid,(oh, sorry if you can’t help it) how can it die when there are gullible fools like you unwilling to accept proven scientific fact but would rather suckle on bronze age mythology and fall in line behind those who are earning a living out of fooling people?

Muslim terrorist believe that is thy die in jihad that will go to a place with 72 virgins to wait on there every need. No one has ever proven this true but it does not stop the terrorists.

E=MC^2 proves that no omnipotent (infinite power/energy) being (Revelation 19:6 KJV) can exist in this universe because you exist.

DNA proves that genetic adam and genetic eve lives 80,000 years apart, yet the babble says otherwise

Biology shows that snakes and donkeys do not and have never been able to talk yet the babble says otherwise

The geological column proves that Noah’s flood was a crock, yet the babble says otherwise. Based on the mores of the time it was as good a story as any, but time and knowledge advances.

Astronomy proves that no supanova occurred to turn carbon into a column of salt, yet the babble says otherwise, actually it does not understand what it says and puts the whole thing down to god magic.

The roman archives and other documents show that the jesus of the babble was a terrorist who was crucified for his crimes

But I see that you have not yet bothered answering my question, whassup? No answer?

You have still not provided any evidence after all this time. Honey what is this showing, it is showing that you are a christian from nothing more than incredulity

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1407 Feb 7, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1410 Feb 9, 2013
http://www.angmalta.net/clients/alan/existenc...
A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF CONTINUED EXISTENCE AFTER PHYSICAL DEATH
Three consecutive papers.
Alan Baldwin

http://universe-review.ca/F05-galaxy.htm
Summary of the latest studies.
(QMG is out note to self)

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
The Catholic Church's Respons to Our Critique of Christian Credibility.
Lawrence Kelemen
About the main difference between judaism and christianity. And the Vatican's point of view.
Entertaining!

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/messa...
The Message Of The Hebrew Wisdom Literature.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1411 Feb 9, 2013
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter9 ...
45% we would say nowadays.

Wasn't Garjarev discussed somewhere on this forum recently? The torsion effect?

Emotions effect our DNA with blue UV light.
---Needs more research.

Actually, scientists have known for some time that it's possible that organisms may use arsenic instead of phosphorous, it simply doesn't make sense to. This is not because it's impossible, it's simply because that organism has a disadvantage against phosphorous cased organisms. Lab tests has shown that phosphorous based organisms will replace the phosphorous with arsenic if subjected to an increasingly arsenic-laden environment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment ...

Why don't DNA based organisms discard error repair?
http://www.virology.ws/2009/05/20/why-dont-dn ...


https://docs.google.com/viewer ...

50+ pages 'spacemath'.
Also with the Mono-lake organism in Nevada.

We came upon these discussing the Atacama. Aridity.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1412 Feb 10, 2013
TEKTOLOGY - THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT A GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY:

"Tektology must clarify the modes of organization that are perceived to exist in nature and human activity; then, it must generalize and systematize these modes; further, it must explain them, that is, propose abstract schemes of their tendencies and laws.....Tektology deals with organizational experiences not of this or that specialized field, but of all these fields together. In other words, tektology embraces the subject matter of all the other sciences..."

- Dr Alexander Bogdanow, Russian medical researcher, philosopher and economist.

SOURCE: "The Web of Life" by Dr Fritjof Capra, page 43.

COMMENTS: This is an attempt at a unification of the various sentient and insentient aspects of nature via an analysis of the particulars leading all the way up to the generals. Analysis leads to synthesis. Knowledge is nothing else but a discovery from the particular to the general and the unification of all these manifested aspects into one system. The ultimate reality is not a being or a singularity (one force), rather it is a system of various unified principles.

pg 44 of this thread for quick ref. to yethro extending his blessing to Moses, origin yakub-el, chrom 2, exodus, ugarit-akrit, hyhsos etc. also surrounding pages.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1413 Feb 10, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1414 Feb 10, 2013
SSS wrote:
A word about the 'new' covenant in Jeremiah. Many Hebrew words are formed from concepts and 'chadash' is a good example. It is derived from the Hebrew word for month, or the period of time for the moon to be renewed. So when Jeremiah's words 'brit chadasha' are translated as 'new covenant', it is not technically a new covenant, but rather a 'renewed' covenant. Although chadash is commonly used as new in the sense of never having existed before, as King Solomon noted in Ecclesiastes 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1415 Feb 10, 2013
Chazal tell us that all mitzvos were given at Sinai, repeated from the Ohel Moed, and repeated once more in the plains of Moav. While this would seem to assign equivalent roles to all mitzvos, this cannot be the case. Why does the Torah emphasize the Sinaitic nature of some – but not all – mitzvos? Why does it tell us about some – but not all – that they were given from the Ohel Moed?

We see that Hashem had reason to attach certain mitzvos to particular locations. The long inventory of the various offerings in the Mishkan belong especially to the Ohel Moed, the place from which revelation continued to come once the Shechinah had taken up residence with the Jewish camp. The Torah, however, is an indivisible and non-subdividable entity.“Hashem’s Torah is perfect.” 5 A perfect entity cannot be divided and partitioned. Therefore, all the mitzvos of the Torah were visited anew in the course of the Ohel Moed communication.

HKBH had two goals in commanding mitzvos upon His people. The first was simply to bring them, as it were, into His domain and control. The Dibros impressed upon the people that their role for all time would be faithful servants, ready and eager to do the bidding of their Creator and Commander.

A second goal was to perfect each individual. The rest of the mitzvah system – the vast majority of mitzvos of the Torah – support this goal. The process began at Sinai; the purpose of Hashem’s descent upon the mountain was to launch the program with a number of specific commandments: the ones identified in some manner as specific to Sinai. These mitzvos were presented to the people at a mountain still enveloped in the presence of the Shechinah; other mitzvos waited for a later time. Because of the essential oneness of Torah, however, all the other mitzvos were also became part of the package. They were not the reason for which the Shechinah descended, but they were included because the Torah is a unified entity. More accurately, they were given by way of allusion and hint, but not explicitly. And they were given to Moshe alone. It would not be till later that the people would learn of their demands.

Mishpatim are included among the mitzvos that were part of this mitzvah launch. That is what Rashi means to tell us. Just as the Aseres HaDibros were part of the Sinai experience, and just as the short parshah of the altar also part of it, so was Mishpatim.

Dinim, civil laws, point to an element that is not necessarily apparent or present in other mitzvos. In a sense, mitzvos like tzedakah are made for humans. They tug at human emotions, and they don’t require absolute precision to be effective. Dinim are much the opposite. Justice demands finding the absolute point of propriety, without any deviation in any direction. We quickly realize that humans cannot attain this goal. Such perfection can only be found within Hashem. It is for this reason that the Torah attributes mishpat to Hashem (“Judgment belongs to Hashem” 6 ), unlike any other mitzvah.

The narrative just before matan Torah describes the queues waiting for Moshe to adjudicate disputes. Revelation is thus part of a Mishpatim sandwich, with sections about law surrounding the “filling” of the Aseres HaDibros.

The reason should be clear. Just as true mishpat can only be found in Hashem, the Aseres Hadibros – and the entire mitzvah system that it symbolizes – is much more a product of the Divine than the possession of the human. It belongs to a higher place, and should not be seen as simply a guide to proper living.

end quote.
context.
Sanhendrin, elders are set near the altar. But so is the dinim civil law (mishpath larger) since the wordchoice implies this, stresses it. The people are part and package. The elements cannot work without each other.

Most people are kind of used to projecting god outside of them, far away, an abstraction, and have lost that direct warmth and intent.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1416 Feb 11, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, nothing! That is correct. The largest scrap is the size of a credit card. Many Johns wrote John and scholars/Bishops agree with this.
I hope you did do research for yourself.
Well enough of those sites around about debunking christianity.
But i must be a veritable quotemine since that thread on the codex.
Good thing that i referenced the material.

That said, you write interesting things like the one on god quoting psalms. ;)p

Meanwhile another correction. The god of abram was not El.
Who was Terah's god is the question. Uruk should probably be sounding as Unug acc.to new research. So that would make Ur into Un? and Terah and some more are all ancient cities to be found in the lake Van area. In between the rivers. So not Ur of the sumerians. Though there could be a connections given the fortress at Haran.
But Abram calls on the name YHWH: genesis 12:7-8, 12:4.
When Seths son is born (inserted Seth as latter-born son, otherwise we would have no human lineage since Ham disappeared from the scene)calls out to the name YHWH, first record thereof: gen.4:26.

Of further notice: psalm 116:16-19
...calling in the name of YHWH...courts of the house of YHWH...In your midst O Yerushalayim, praise Yah!

Yerushalayim. Holy etc. interpretation is christian, as far as i know.
The Hittite called the Yisraeli G'res, so using this, Gres ha-they al-over/belonging ayim-water. First site of the temple was over/near the watersource, for purification.
Though halayim can have another meaning. Urusalem and variations.
And Jebus can very well also have been a form of Gres, with a b-r shift.
Mayim-water gen. 1:1 ha'sha'm ayim
Can be compared to genesis 1:1-3 were water actually stands for 'ether' and is filled and devided. Gen 1:1-2 by the way form clauses to end in Light Be.
Be-'in' implying to the side of/part of. Ra-'first' form head rosh. Bara-to first fill, later as allusion the word bora-poured.
Tohu and bohu- markless (not to fill markless- not filled in vain/to no purpose).
So it's not so much creating but filling with presence, so everything can be. And then take old Heraclitus logos, for a better understanding.

Analysis of the term mayim-water

https://docs.google.com/viewer...

YHWH and the Geneva bible of 1560 CE

http://christadelphians.wordpress.com/2013/01...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1417 Feb 11, 2013
http://www.badhebrew.com/
fire in the womb, the Sumerian concept attested.
See: man wants to get pregnant.

http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Person...
Concerning The Logos

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy-meta...
Logos, Dynamic Unity of Reality.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/b...
New method to calculate the size of black holes.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1418 Feb 11, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1419 Feb 11, 2013
http://books.google.nl/books ...

I'm always a bit carefull in simply accepting christianity and judaism thrown together as far as developments go.
Though this development of pneuma might coincide with ideas of logos.
It could also be a grammatical progression.
Old Greek is/was quite simplistic in structure, as is church-latin.
Just add on.
You could argue that all concepts in christianity were developed by the greek stoics.
But hebrew is a flowing language, everything is in motion, so solidification does not really fit.

I'm by the way rather curious as to what theological concept the pope developed to reconcile relations with the jews.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1420 Feb 11, 2013
Nostre aetate 2005 One god and stessing humanism and such alien concepts.
---
2012 meeting of the committee for improving relations.

Born in Israel on May 15, 1948, the first official day of statehood for the brand new nation, Lewy spent much of his talk describing the momentous change wrought by Nostra Aetate, adopted by Pope Paul VI in 1965 which condemned anti-Semitism and called for Christians to abandon the millennia-old practice of blaming Jews for the death of Jesus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1421 Feb 11, 2013
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION
FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
ON THE OCCASION OF THE 40th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE DECLARATION "NOSTRA AETATE"



To My Venerable Brother
Cardinal Walter Kasper
President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

Forty years have passed since my predecessor Pope Paul VI promulgated the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Church’s relation to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, which opened up a new era of relations with the Jewish People and offered the basis for a sincere theological dialogue. This anniversary gives us abundant reason to express gratitude to Almighty God for the witness of all those who, despite a complex and often painful history, and especially after the tragic experience of the Shoah, which was inspired by a neo-pagan racist ideology, worked courageously to foster reconciliation and improved understanding between Christians and Jews.

In laying the foundations for a renewed relationship between the Jewish People and the Church, Nostra Aetate stressed the need to overcome past prejudices, misunderstandings, indifference, and the language of contempt and hostility. The Declaration has been the occasion of greater mutual understanding and respect, cooperation and, often, friendship between Catholics and Jews. It has also challenged them to recognize their shared spiritual roots and to appreciate their rich heritage of faith in the One God, maker of heaven and earth, who established his covenant with the Chosen People, revealed his commandments and taught hope in those messianic promises which give confidence and comfort in the struggles of life.

On this anniversary, as we look back over four decades of fruitful contacts between the Church and the Jewish People, we need to renew our commitment to the work that yet remains to be done. In this regard, from the first days of my Pontificate and in a particular way during my recent visit to the Synagogue in Cologne, I have expressed my own firm determination to walk in the footsteps traced by my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II. The Jewish-Christian dialogue must continue to enrich and deepen the bonds of friendship which have developed, while preaching and catechesis must be committed to ensuring that our mutual relations are presented in the light of the principles set forth by the Council. As we look to the future, I express my hope that both in theological dialogue and in everyday contacts and collaboration, Christians and Jews will offer an ever more compelling shared witness to the One God and his commandments, the sanctity of life, the promotion of human dignity, the rights of the family and the need to build a world of justice, reconciliation and peace for future generations.

On this anniversary I assure you of my prayers for you and your associates, and for all those who have committed themselves to fostering increased understanding and cooperation between Christians and Jews in accordance with the spirit of Nostra Aetate. Upon all of you I cordially invoke God’s blessings of wisdom, joy and peace.

From the Vatican, 26 October 2005

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI



© Copyright 2005 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Judaism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 2 min bmz 250,753
Jewish family hates Black people? Mon HughBe 3
News The Unraveling of Zionism? Mon Demon Finder 2
News JPost editorial: Status quo? Mon USA today 1
News Female Deacons: Pope Francis Walks It Back, Wom... Mon RevKen 2
News Who Is Allah? (Jul '08) Sun Joel 13,168
News Bill Maher vs. God: 'Real Time' host crucifies ... (Sep '08) May 21 Yeshua WasIS God-... 2,315
More from around the web