Felipe VI de España es el actual rey de España, desde su ascenso al trono el 19 de junio del 2014 tras la abdicación de su padre, Juan Carlos I, lo que le confiere, constitucionalmente, la jefatura ... Wikipedia
Nacimiento: 30 de enero de 1968 (edad 56 años), Madrid, España
To prepare for his future role as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, Felipe joined the Spanish Army in 1985. During the next two years, he completed his military training in the Navy and Air Force. After completing his civil and military studies, he undertook official duties representing his father in different social and institutional events, such as chairing charity foundations or attending inaugurations of Latin American leaders. At one of these events with the press, Felipe met TV news journalist Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano, whom he married in 2004. They have two daughters, Leonor, Princess of Asturias, and Infanta Sofía.
Shortly after his birth Felipe was styledinfante. The dictator Francisco Franco died just over two months before Felipe's eighth birthday, and Felipe's father ascended the throne, as the latter had been appointed as Prince of Spain back in 1969. In his first official appearance, Felipe attended his father's proclamation as king on 22 November 1975.[11]
Juan Carlos, Prince of Spain (left), with his son Felipe and his brother-in-law Constantine II of Greece (right) with his son Pavlos, 1968
In 1977, Felipe was formally proclaimed Prince of Asturias.[15][16][17] In May, nine-year-old Felipe was made an honorary soldier of the 1st King's Inmemorial Infantry Regiment.[18] The occasion was marked on 28 May and was attended by the king, the prime minister and several other ministers in a ceremony at the infantry's barracks.[19][20] On 1 November the same year, he was ceremoniously paid homage as Prince of Asturias in Covadonga.[21] In 1981 Felipe received the Collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece from his father, the Chief and Sovereign of the Order.[14][22] On his 18th birthday on 30 January 1986, Felipe swore allegiance to the Constitution and to the King in the Spanish Parliament as required by the constitution, fully accepting his role as successor to the Crown.[11][23]
Time Travel offers a journey into the past of the Catholic Church in order to learn theological lessons in the present. It is part-history, part-theology, part-apologetics, and part biography. Time Travel faces head-on some of the more controversial moments within Catholic history and tells their story from the inside out. Just as stained-glass windows look more beautiful from the inside, so does the Church. Catholic history is seeing the scenes depicted in the windows at the speed of Light - Christ's light.
Different cyclotron size: a) Lawrence ́s first one, b) Venezuela First one (courtesy of Dorly Coehlo), c) Fermi National Laboratory at CERN. And size matters, and Cyclotrons win as best hospital candidates due to Reactors are bigger, harder and difficult to be set in a hospital installation. Can you imagine a nuclear reactor inside a health installation? Radiation Protection Program will consume all the budget available. Size, controlled reactions, electrical control, made cyclotrons easy to install, and baby cyclotrons come selfshielded so hospital don ́t need to spend money in a extremely large bunker. Now on, we are going to talk about our first experience with the set up of a baby cyclotron for medical uses inside the first PET installation in Latin America. “Baby” means its acceleration “D” diameters are suitable to be set inside a standard hospital room dimensions, with all its needs to be safetly shielded for production transmision and synthetized for human uses for imaging in Nuclear Medicine PET routine. When we ask why Cyclotrons are better than reactors for radioisotopes production to be used in Medicine, we also have to have in mind that they has: 1. Less radioactive waste 2. Less harmful debris
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in 2015.—Ed.
Although the famous “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” inscription on an ancient ossuary (bone box) has been authenticated by two world-class paleographers, not everyone is convinced that the inscription is authentic.
The purported ossuary (bone box) of James, the brother of Jesus, is back in the news, as questions concerning its authenticity continue to plague the world-famous relic. The James Ossuary, as it’s come to be known, is a limestone bone box that bears an Aramaic inscription reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Controversy—including charges of forgery—has surrounded this ossuary since the Biblical Archaeology Reviewfirst reported on the artifact in 2002. The saga of the James Ossuary culminated in 2012 with the acquittal of Israeli antiquities collector (and owner of the ossuary) Oded Golan in a seven-year “forgery trial of the century,” but the story isn’t over yet. In “Predilections—Is the ‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription a Forgery?” in the September/October 2015 issue of BAR, Hershel Shanks reviews the latest argument against the authenticity of the inscription.
The antiquity of the 20-inch-long James Ossuary itself is not questioned—it dates between the first century B.C.E. and 70 C.E., a period when the practice of ossilegium (the collection of the bones of a deceased person) was prevalent among the Jewish population. It is the inscription on the James Ossuary—a mere 20 letters written in Aramaic—that has incited years of debate. If real, the inscription would be the earliest written reference to Jesus. Because the ossuary was purchased with an unknown provenance from an antiquities dealer, the authenticity of the “brother of Jesus” inscription needed to be verified by experts.
The Aramaic inscription on the so-called James Ossuary reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Drawing by Ada Yardeni.
The inscription, reading “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” has been authenticated by two eminent paleographers (specialists in dating, interpreting and authenticating inscriptions): André Lemaire of the Sorbonne and Ada Yardeni of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2003, however, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) appointed a committee of scholars to study the “brother of Jesus” inscription and report its findings. The committee concluded that the inscription was a forgery.
According to Dutch scholar Pieter van der Horst, who published an analysis of the IAA committee’s report in his new book,1 the IAA “appointed almost exclusively committee members who had already expressed outspoken opinions to the effect that the inscription was a forgery.” Van der Horst observes that the committee members didn’t abide by the IAA guideline “to arrive at the truth based on pure research only—without taking into account any other related factors regarding the collector, current gossip, rumors or prejudices,” nor did they follow the directive that each scholar “should work in his own discipline.”
The “forgery trial of the century” charging five people of running a massive forgery ring lasted seven years and included 138 witnesses, more than 400 exhibits and over 12,000 pages of testimony. Three paleographers were called to testify: André Lemaire, Ada Yardeni and Christopher Rollston, now of the George Washington University. When Rollston took the stand, he refused to give an opinion on the authenticity of the “brother of Jesus” inscription because he did not specialize in Second Temple inscriptions (the time of the ossuary).
“I only talk about what I am sure of,” Rollston said in court. “That is not my field.”
The trial concluded with the acquittal of antiquities dealer and James Ossuary owner Oded Golan and the other defendants on all charges of forgery (though Golan was convicted of minor charges, including trading in antiquities without a license).
“I thought that this was the end of the matter until the Easter season in 2015, when I watched an hour-long TV program on CNN regarding the ossuary and its ‘brother of Jesus’ inscription,” writes Shanks in his BAR article. “Only one scholar addressed the question of the authenticity of the inscription—the same Christopher Rollston who could not express an opinion at the trial. Now he was prepared to opine on the authenticity of the inscription—for all of 33 seconds.”
What is Rollston’s reasoning for why the “brother of Jesus” inscription is a forgery? Is his judgment based on his predilection against unprovenanced inscriptions, as Shanks suggests? Learn more by reading the full article “Predilections—Is the ‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription a Forgery?” by Hershel Shanks in the September/October 2015 issue of BAR.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on August 31, 2015.
For more on the “forgery trial of the century,” visit the BAS Library to see a collection ofBARarticles highlighting the various scholarly and scientific arguments that have been made both for and against the authenticity of the James Ossuary, the Yehoash tablet and other ancient artifacts.
Notes:
1. Pieter W. van der Horst, Saxa Judaica Loquuntur: Lessons from Early Jewish Inscriptions, Biblical Interpretation Series 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 67–87.
Thème précédent
_met_zoon_Felipe_en_Koning_Constantijn_met_zijn_zoon_Pa,_Bestanddeelnr_921-9796.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/spanish-royal-family-tree-b95d718f70ed451da978dac461ce3825.jpg)
