1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
jasenka [17]
3 years ago
15

According to the Bible, what made the circumstances of Jesus’s death unique?

History
1 answer:
Angelina_Jolie [31]3 years ago
5 0
On the last day of Jesus life he had his apostles passed a bread tray and a glass of wine around their table the wine representing his blood and the bread his body and Jesus said "Keep doing this in rememberance in me". And that's what made his death unique.
You might be interested in
Read the following scene from Trifles. COUNTY ATTORNEY. You mean that they didn’t get on very well? MRS. HALE. No, I don’t mean
Ksju [112]
One possible advantage is if you hear the characters' voices, they can put much more emotion into the script and give it feeling.
3 0
3 years ago
What compromises were reached concerning enslaved people?
Alchen [17]
The compromises were reached concerning enslaved people were The Northern states <span>had already banned the slave trade. They wanted to prohibit it nationwide.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
How different is the practice of anthropology in the 19th century with the 21st century
nataly862011 [7]

The anthropology of religion is the comparative study of religions in their cultural, social, historical, and material contexts.



The English term religion has no exact equivalent in most other languages. For example, burial practices are more likely to be called customs and not sharply differentiated from other ways of doing things. Early Homo sapiens (for example, the Neanderthals at Krapina [now in Croatia]) began burying their dead at least 130,000 years ago. To what end? And how and why have such practices changed over time? What might they have in common with the multitude of burial customs—known to be associated with differing conceptions of death and life—among people in the world today; for example, what might embalming practices in ancient Egypt and 19th-century Bolivia have in common with each other and with 21st-century embalming practices in North America? How do these relate to secondary burials, involving the exhumation and reburial of the corpse or its bones, as in Madagascar and Siberia, or rituals of cremation, as in Japan, India, or France? Paradoxically, anthropologists’ documentation of the enormous diversity of human customs, past and present, puts into question the very existence of “religion” as a single coherent system of practices, values, or beliefs. Indeed, what constitutes “religion” may be hotly debated even among coreligionists. The study of religion in anthropology requires consideration of all these matters, including anthropologists’ own terms of analysis.



Scholars of religion throughout the world have long recognized what the American philosopher and psychologist William James (1902) called “the varieties of religious experience.” Since the mid-19th century, one of the first and most important contributions of anthropologists has been to extend the study of those varieties beyond the formal doctrines and liturgies of established religious institutions to include related customs, regardless of when, where, and by whom they are practiced and whether they are celebrated, suppressed, or taken for granted. The anthropology of religion is the study of, in the words of the English anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard (Theories of Primitive Religion [1965]), “how religious beliefs and practices affect in any society the minds, the feelings, the lives, and the interrelations of its members…religion is what religion does.” Although Edward Burnett Tylor’s classic Primitive Culture (1871) documented the wide-ranging doings of his fellow Europeans, most anthropologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on so-called primitive peoples living outside Europe and North America, on the grounds that religion, increasingly defined by contrast to reason, was a historically primitive form of behaviour that was already giving way to science. Subsequent research has proved these assumptions to be wrong. As anthropology has grown to include the study of all humans on an equal footing and the field of anthropology is practiced throughout the world, anthropologists continue to confront their parochial biases.




Over the next century, as museums with anthropological collections continued to develop as research institutions, many of the anthropologists who worked there turned away from collection-based work. Archaeologists and physical anthropologists continued to use collections for study, but, until a late 20th-century revival of interest in the history of anthropology and museums and in studies of material culture and the anthropology of art, few cultural anthropologists worked actively with collections.

The last quarter of the 20th century witnessed great change in the practice of anthropology in museums. The civil rights and decolonization movements of the 1960s increased awareness of the politics of collecting and representation. Ethical issues that had been ignored in the past began to influence museum practices. By the turn of the 21st century, most anthropologists working in museums had understood the need to incorporate diverse points of view in exhibitions and collections care and to rely on the expertise of people from the cultures represented as well as museum professionals. At the same time, many new museums—such as the U’mista Cultural Centre (1980) in Alert Bay, British Columbia, Canada—were established within the communities that created the objects on display. Anthropologists in museums also were concerned with issues such as the ethics of collecting, access to collections and associated data, and ownership and repatriation.


I just got a whole story for you to get it xD (I made some mistakes i think ;-;)

Hope this helps! ~ Kana ^^


6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did the treaty of versailles mean for Europe?<br> -Land<br> -Peace Keeping
Paul [167]
The Treaty of Versailles meant peace at the times, as it ended the WWI. However, it also established very harsh conditions for Germany (high war reparations), which later led to Germany's poverty and the rize of Nazis to power : so it's blamed for instigating (causing, leading to) the WWII.

The Treaty of Versailles also brought a big land loss for Germany, Austria and Hungary. 
8 0
3 years ago
39 Germany states joined the ___ to promote economic interests
Sholpan [36]

Answer:

The German Confederation

Explanation:

It was an association of 39 German states in Central Europe, created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to coordinate the economies of separate German-speaking countries. It was a loose political association, formed for mutual defense, with no central executive or judiciary.

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Mark each description if it is a feature of ancient Indus cities. A. a sanitation system B. huge structures that served as templ
    5·2 answers
  • QUICK
    6·1 answer
  • Why would feminists champion the selection of Madeleine Albright as secretary of state?
    5·2 answers
  • What impact did World War II have on the American economy?
    6·2 answers
  • A key factor of the empires the United States and European countries built in the late 1800s was:
    7·2 answers
  • "Georgia and the lower South may just as well face facts-simple facts presented in the lower South by the President of the Unite
    15·2 answers
  • The ideas Roosevelt articulated in this excerpt led to which foreign policy initiative?
    13·1 answer
  • Question 14(4 points)
    9·1 answer
  • How did the Zhou justify their overthrow of the Shang dynasty?
    6·1 answer
  • Can someone plss help me with this it would mean a lot to me I dont really understand this!
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!