The Melody of Living Water: Music Ministry and Holy Baptism

(Excerpt) And It came to pass, when Paul was at Corinth, he and certain disciples came upon a mob that was stoning an organist. And Paul said unto them, What then hath he done unto thee that his head should be bruised? And the people cried with one voice, He hath played too loud. Yea, in the singing of psalms, he maketh our heads to ring as if they were beaten with hammers. Behold, he sitteth up high in the loft, and mighty are the pipes and mighty is the noise thereof, and though there be few of us below, he nonetheless playeth with all the stops, the Assyrian trumpet stop and the stop of the ram\u27s hom and the stop that soundeth like the sawing of stone, and we cannot hear the words that cometh out of our own mouths. He / always tosseth in variations that confuse us mightily and he playeth loud an discordant and always in a militant tempo, so that we have not time to breathe as we sing. Lo, he is a plague upon the faith and should be chastised. Paul, hearing this, had himself picked up a small stone, and was about to cast it, but he set It down, and bade the organist come forward. He was a narrow man, pale of complexion, dry flaking, thin of hair. And Paul said unto him, Why hath thou so abused thy brethren? And the organist replied, I could not hear them singing from where I sat, and therefore played the louder so as to encourage them. And Paul turned round to the mob and said loudly, Let him who has never played an organ cast the first stone. And they cast stones for a while until their arms were tired and Paul bade the organist repent and he did. And Paul said unto him, Thou shalt take up the flute and play It for thirty days, to cleanse thy spirit, and afterwards they returned to Corinth and sang psalms unaccompanied and then had coffee and were refreshed in the faith

They Are Not Gods! Jewish and Christian Idol Polemic and Greco-Roman Use of Cult Statues

Excerpt: One set of trademark convictions of early Judaism and Christianity includes their aniconic tradition, monotheistic commitment, and polemic against idols. In the late second or early third century c .e ., for example, Christian apologist Minucius Felix mocked pagan idol worship with these words: “When does the god come into being? The image is cast, hammered, or sculpted; it is not yet a god. It is soldered, put together, and erected; it is still not a god. It is adorned, consecrated, prayed to—and now, finally, it is a god once man has willed it so and dedicated it” (see Oct. 22.5). The Christian haranguing of idolatry goes back to the Jewish Scriptures, most notably Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the Psalms.2 Similar polemical statements can be found in Habakkuk (2:18-20). This tradition is expanded in early Jewish texts such as Bel and the Dragon, Wisdom of Solomon, Apocalypse o f Abraham, the tractates of Philo, and, most extensively, the Epistle of Jeremiah.3 We find idol polemic in the NT in places such as Acts 19:26 and Rev 9:20.4 The wider idea that stands behind almost all Jewish and Christian idol-polemic texts is this: Do not worship statues, because they are not gods! (So Jer 16:20: “Can people make for themselves gods? Yes, but they are not gods!”; cf. Isa 37:19; Josephus A.J. 10.4.1 §50; Epistle of Jeremiah passim). According to this logic, idols should not be worshiped because they are handmade works; they are creations, not creators. As far as the early Jews and Christians were concerned, pagans worshiped blocks of metal, stone, and wood, and this was improper because such materials could never amount to a real “god.

Interproximal Distance Analysis of Stereolithographic Casts Made by CAD-CAM Technology: An in Vitro Study

Statement of problem The accuracy of interproximal distances of the definitive casts made by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology is not yet known. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the interproximal distances of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology with those of stone casts made by the conventional method. Material and methods Dentoform teeth were prepared for a single ceramic crown on the maxillary left central incisor, a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) on the second premolar for a metal-ceramic crown, and a maxillary right first molar for a metal crown. Twenty digital intraoral impressions were made on the dentoform with an intraoral digital impression scanner. The digital impression files were used to fabricate 20 sets of stereolithographic casts, 10 definitive casts for the single ceramic crown, and 10 definitive casts for the FDP. Furthermore, 20 stone casts were made by the conventional method using polyvinyl siloxane impression material with a custom tray. Each definitive cast for stereolithographic cast and stone cast consisted of removable die-sectioned casts (DC) and nonsectioned solid casts (SC). Measurements of interproximal distance of each cast were made using CAD software to provide mean ±standard deviation (SD) values. Data were first analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), using different methods of cast fabrication (stone and stereolithography) as one within subject factor and different cast types (DC and SC) as another within subject factor. Post hoc analyses were performed to investigate the differences between stone and stereolithographic casts depending upon the results from the repeated measures ANOVA (α=.05). Results Analysis of interproximal distances showed the mean ±SD value of the single ceramic crown group was 31.2 ±24.5 μm for stone casts and 261.0 ±116.1 μm for stereolithographic casts, whereas the mean ±SD value for the FDP group was 46.0 ±35.0 μm for stone casts and 292.8 ±216.6 μm for stereolithographic casts. For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, there were significant differences in interproximal distances between stereolithographic casts and stone casts (P\u3c.001). In addition, the comparisons of DC with SC of stone and stereolithographic casts for the single ceramic crown and FDP groups demonstrated there was statistically significant differences among interproximal distances between DC stereolithographic casts and SC stereolithographic casts only for the FDP group (P\u3c.001). Conclusions For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, the stereolithographic cast group showed significantly larger interproximal distances than the stone cast group. In terms of the comparison between DC and SC, DC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group only showed significantly larger interproximal values than those of the SC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group

Interproximal Distance Analysis of Stereolithographic Casts Made by CAD-CAM Technology: An in Vitro Study

Statement of problem The accuracy of interproximal distances of the definitive casts made by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology is not yet known. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the interproximal distances of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology with those of stone casts made by the conventional method. Material and methods Dentoform teeth were prepared for a single ceramic crown on the maxillary left central incisor, a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) on the second premolar for a metal-ceramic crown, and a maxillary right first molar for a metal crown. Twenty digital intraoral impressions were made on the dentoform with an intraoral digital impression scanner. The digital impression files were used to fabricate 20 sets of stereolithographic casts, 10 definitive casts for the single ceramic crown, and 10 definitive casts for the FDP. Furthermore, 20 stone casts were made by the conventional method using polyvinyl siloxane impression material with a custom tray. Each definitive cast for stereolithographic cast and stone cast consisted of removable die-sectioned casts (DC) and nonsectioned solid casts (SC). Measurements of interproximal distance of each cast were made using CAD software to provide mean ±standard deviation (SD) values. Data were first analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), using different methods of cast fabrication (stone and stereolithography) as one within subject factor and different cast types (DC and SC) as another within subject factor. Post hoc analyses were performed to investigate the differences between stone and stereolithographic casts depending upon the results from the repeated measures ANOVA (α=.05). Results Analysis of interproximal distances showed the mean ±SD value of the single ceramic crown group was 31.2 ±24.5 μm for stone casts and 261.0 ±116.1 μm for stereolithographic casts, whereas the mean ±SD value for the FDP group was 46.0 ±35.0 μm for stone casts and 292.8 ±216.6 μm for stereolithographic casts. For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, there were significant differences in interproximal distances between stereolithographic casts and stone casts (P\u3c.001). In addition, the comparisons of DC with SC of stone and stereolithographic casts for the single ceramic crown and FDP groups demonstrated there was statistically significant differences among interproximal distances between DC stereolithographic casts and SC stereolithographic casts only for the FDP group (P\u3c.001). Conclusions For both the single ceramic crown and the FDP groups, the stereolithographic cast group showed significantly larger interproximal distances than the stone cast group. In terms of the comparison between DC and SC, DC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group only showed significantly larger interproximal values than those of the SC stereolithographic casts for the FDP group

“Danes do it melancholy”: allusions to Shakespeare in films and TV

The focus of this article is not adaptations of Shakespearean plays per se, but source-text allusions to Shakespeare and to Shakespeare’s plays, which in either an overt or covert form are contained in dramatic dialogues and in visual elements in US-produced films and television shows, a form of intertextuality in which references to Shakespeare in audiovisual texts have multiplied