click links in text for more info

Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians referred to as Second Thessalonians or 2 Thessalonians is a book from the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It is traditionally attributed with Timothy as a co-author. Modern biblical scholarship is divided on. Scholars who support its authenticity view it as having been written around 51–52 AD, shortly after the First Epistle; those who see it as a composition assign a date of around 80–115 AD. The authenticity of this epistle is still in widespread dispute; as Professor Ernest Best, New Testament scholar, explains the problem. There is a great dissimilarity between the two. At the same time the second letter is alleged to be less intimate and personal in tone than the first, in some of its teaching in relation to eschatology, to conflict with the first; the structures of the two letters include opening greetings and closing benedictions which frame two, sections. In 2 Thessalonians these begin with similar successions of nine Greek words, at 1:3 and 2:13.

The opening letter section itself comprises two halves, 1:3–12 and 2:1–12. The second, letter section comprises two halves: 2:13–3:5 and 3:6–16c. Of the twelve pieces in 2 Thessalonians seven begin with'brother' introductions. Of the eighteen pieces in 1 Thessalonians fourteen begin with'brother' introductions. In both letters, the sections balance in size and focus, in many details. In 2 Thessalonians, in 2:5 and 3:10, for example, there is a structural balance of the use of'when I was with you...' and'when we were with you...'. One piece of evidence for the authenticity of the epistle is that it was included in Marcion's canon and the Muratorian fragment, it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, quoted by Ignatius and Polycarp. G. Milligan argued that a church which possessed an authentic letter of Paul would be unlikely to accept a fake addressed to them. So Colin Nicholl who has put forward a substantial argument for the authenticity of Second Thessalonians, he points out that'the pseudonymous view is... more vulnerable than most of its advocates conceded....

The lack of consensus regarding a date and destination... reflects a dilemma for this position: on the one hand, the date needs to be early enough for the letter to be have been accepted as Pauline... the other hand, the date and destination need to be such that the author could be confident that no contemporary of 1 Thessalonians... could have exposed 2 Thessalonians as a... forgery.'. Pp. 5–6 Another scholar who argues for the authenticity of this letter is Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. Admitting that there are stylistic problems between Second Thessalonians and First Thessalonians, he argues that part of the problem is due to the composite nature of First Thessalonians. Once the text of this interpolated letter is removed and the two letters compared, Murphy-O'Connor asserts that this objection is "drastically weakened", concludes, "The arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians are so weak that it is preferable to accept the traditional ascription of the letter to Paul."Those who believe Paul was the author of Second Thessalonians note how Paul drew attention to the authenticity of the letter by signing it himself: "I, write this greeting with my own hand, how I write in every letter.".

Bruce Metzger writes, "Paul calls attention to his signature, added by his own hand as a token of genuineness to every letter of his."Other scholars who hold to authenticity include Beale, Jones, Morris and Kretzmann. According to Leon Moris in 1986, the majority of current scholars at that time still held to Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians. At least as early as 1798, when J. E. C. Schmidt published his opinion, Paul's authorship of this epistle was questioned. More recent challenges to this traditional belief came from scholars such as William Wrede in 1903 and Alfred Loisy in 1933, who challenged the traditional view of the authorship. In his book Forged, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman puts forward some of the most common arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. For example, he argues that the views concerning the Second Coming of Christ expressed in 2 Thessalonians differ so strikingly from those found in 1 Thessalonians that they cannot be written by the same author: The author of 2 Thessalonians, claiming to be Paul, argues that the end is not, in fact, coming right away.

Certain things have to happen first. There will be some kind of political or religious uprising and rebellion, an Antichrist-like figure will appear who will take his seat in the Temple of Jerusalem and declare himself to be God. Only will the "

Raymond of Poitiers

Raymond of Poitiers was Prince of Antioch from 1136 to 1149. He was the younger son of William IX, Duke of Aquitaine and his wife Philippa, Countess of Toulouse, born in the year that his father the Duke began his infamous liaison with Dangereuse de Chatelherault. Following the death of Prince Bohemund II of Antioch in 1130, the principality came under the regency first of King Baldwin II King Fulk, Princess Alice, Bohemond's widow; the reigning princess was Constance. Against the wishes of Alice, a marriage was arranged for Constance with Raymond, at the time staying in England, which he left only after the death of Henry I on 1 December 1135. Upon hearing word that Raymond was going to pass through his lands in order to marry the princess of Antioch, King Roger II of Sicily ordered him arrested. By a series of subterfuges, Raymond passed through southern Italy and only arrived at Antioch after 19 April 1136. Patriarch Ralph of Domfront convinced Alice that Raymond was there to marry her, whereupon she allowed him to enter Antioch and the patriarch married him to Constance.

Alice left the city, now under the control of Raymond and Ralph. The first years of their joint rule were spent in conflicts with the Byzantine Emperor John II Comnenus, who had come south to recover Cilicia from Leo of Armenia, to reassert his rights over Antioch. Raymond was forced to pay homage, to promise to cede his principality as soon as he was recompensed by a new fief, which John promised to carve out for him in the Muslim territory to the east of Antioch; the expedition of 1138, in which Raymond joined with John, and, to conquer this territory, proved a failure. The expedition culminated in the unsuccessful Siege of Shaizar. Raymond was not anxious to help the emperor to acquire new territories, when their acquisition only meant for him the loss of Antioch. John Comnenus returned unsuccessful to Constantinople, after demanding from Raymond, without response, the surrender of the citadel of Antioch. There followed a struggle between the patriarch. Raymond was annoyed by the homage which he had been forced to pay to the patriarch in 1135 and the dubious validity of the patriarch's election offered a handle for opposition.

Raymond triumphed, the patriarch was deposed. In 1142 John Comnenus returned to the attack, but Raymond refused to recognize or renew his previous submission, John, though he ravaged the neighborhood of Antioch, was unable to effect anything against him. When, however Raymond demanded from Manuel, who had succeeded John in 1143, the cession of some of the Cilician towns, he found that he had met his match. Manuel forced him to a humiliating visit to Constantinople, during which he renewed his oath of homage and promised to acknowledge a Greek patriarch. In the last year of Raymond's life Louis VII and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine visited Antioch during the Second Crusade. Raymond sought to prevent Louis from going south to Jerusalem and to induce him to stay in Antioch and help in the conquest of Aleppo and Caesarea. Raymond was suspected of having an incestuous affair with his beautiful niece Eleanor. According to John of Salisbury, Louis became suspicious of the attention Raymond lavished on Eleanor, the long conversations they enjoyed.

William of Tyre claims that Raymond seduced Eleanor to get revenge on her husband, who refused to aid him in his wars against the Saracens, that "contrary to royal dignity, she disregarded her marriage vows and was unfaithful to her husband." Most modern historians dismiss such rumours, pointing out the closeness of Raymond and his niece during her early childhood, the effulgent Aquitainian manner of behaviour. As the pious Louis continued to have relations with his wife, it is doubtful that he believed his charge of incest. Louis hastily left Raymond was balked in his plans. In 1149 he was killed in the Battle of Inab during an expedition against Nur ad-Din Zangi, he was beheaded by Shirkuh, the uncle of Saladin, his head was placed in a silver box and sent to the Caliph of Baghdad as a gift. Raymond is described by William of Tyre as "a lord of noble descent, of tall and elegant figure, the handsomest of the princes of the earth, a man of charming affability and conversation, open-handed and magnificent beyond measure".

For his career see Rey, in the Revue de l'orient latin, vol. iv. With Constance he had the following children: Bohemond III Maria, married emperor Manuel I Komnenos Philippa Baldwin Catlos, Brian A.. Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors: Faith and Violence in the Age of Crusade and Jihad. Farrar and Giroux. Hamilton, Bernard. "Ralph of Domfront, Patriarch of Antioch". Nottingham Medieval Studies. 28: 1–21. Luscombe, David; the New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, C.1024-c.1198, Part II. Cambridge University Press. Tyerman, Christopher. God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Harvard University Press. Murray, Alan V.. Van Houts, Elisabeth. "Constance, Princess of Antioch: Ancestry and Family". Anglo-Norman Studies XXXVIII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2015; the Boydell Press

Holte baronets

The Holte Baronetcy, of Aston in the County of Warwick, was a title in the Baronetage of England. It was created on 25 November 1611 for Sir Thomas Holte, of Aston Hall in Warwickshire, he was High Sheriff of Warwickshire in 1599 and had been knighted by King James I in 1603. He was succeeded by the second Baronet, he was Member of Parliament for Warwickshire. The third and sixth Baronets represented Warwickshire in Parliament while the fifth Baronet was Member of Parliament for Lichfield; the title became extinct on the death of the sixth Baronet in 1782 and the substantial estate was broken up, under an Act of Parliament of 1817, in order to meet the interests of the various claimants. Edward Holte, father of the first Baronet, was High Sheriff of Warwickshire in 1583. Sir Thomas Holte, 1st Baronet Sir Robert Holte, 2nd Baronet Sir Charles Holte, 3rd Baronet Sir Clobery Holte, 4th Baronet Sir Lister Holte, 5th Baronet Sir Charles Holte, 6th Baronet Holt baronets * Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies pp. 267–8

Miss Cote d'Ivoire

Miss Côte d'Ivoire is a national beauty pageant in Cote d'Ivoire. Miss Cote d'Ivoire has existed since 1956 but Miss Cote d'Ivoire new team was placed since 1996; the committee Miss Côte d'Ivoire is an association. The organizing committee created in 1996 consists of an executive committee of six members and regional committees throughout Côte d'Ivoire. There are elections were held for the Ivorian out in 2002, 2008, 2009 and 2010 organized by the EU-Comici under the supervision of the Secretary General of the Committee Miss Côte d'Ivoire. In 1956 Miss Cote d'Ivoire organized by another partner group. In 1985 Miss Cote d'Ivoire debuted at Miss World 1985 in the United Kingdom. In 1986 Miss Cote d'Ivoire debuted at Miss Universe 1986 in Panama and Miss International 1986 in Japan. In 2009 Miss Cote d'Ivoire returned at Miss World 2009 in South Africa. In 2013 Miss Cote d'Ivoire debuted at Miss Earth 2013 in Philippines. In 2014 Miss Cote d'Ivoire debuted at Miss Grand International 2014 in Thailand.

The winner of Miss Côte d'Ivoire represents her country at the Miss World. On occasion, when the winner does not qualify for either contest, a runner-up is sent. -- Marie-Françoise Kouamé was competed at Miss Universe 1986 in Panama. She was represented CI at the pageant. Cote d'Ivoire never return again until now. Maria was appointed to compete at Miss International 1986 in Japan, she failed at the pageant but she is the only one Ivorian who marked her country at two prestigious pageants in the World. Madaussou Kamara became the second representative at Miss International 1999 in Japan, she was the runner-up at Miss Cote d'Ivoire, in unknown reasons the reigning winner of Miss CI in that year, Sylviane Dodoo did not compete at all pageants. Miss France Miss CI Official site

Edward Hart (settler)

Edward Hart was an early settler of the American Colonies who, as town clerk, wrote the Flushing Remonstrance, a precursor to the United States Constitution's provision on freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. Little is known with any degree of certainty regarding Edward Hart's life before 1640. Genealogical sources give place and date of birth and manner of emigration to North America, first places of residence within the American colonies, but none provide documentary evidence for their assertions. A man named Edward Hart was one of the early settlers of Rhode Island having obtained a plot of land from Roger Williams and signed an agreement for the government of Providence in 1640; this man married. There is no definite evidence that this Edward Hart is the same as the Edward Hart of Flushing, Long Island, but sources accept that he is. Although there is some level of uncertainty about his prior whereabouts, there is no doubt that on October 10, 1645, Hart was one of 18 men who received a charter from the Dutch governor of New Netherland, William Kieft, to establish the town of Vlissingen in Long Island.

Three of these men may have known Hart there. The others, so far as is known, came from Connecticut, or other towns in Long Island. In 1642, after efforts to attract Dutch immigrants had disappointing results, the administration in New Netherland and its parent governors in Amsterdam began to accept applications from English settlers to form towns on Long Island; these settlers brought with them the forms of government common in the settlements of New England. Based on practices common in English towns, these were more liberal than the ones granted to New Netherland's Dutch communities and the charter granted to the applicants from Flushing was no exception. Having obtained privileges of self-government that were not granted to the towns where Dutch settlers resided, the settlers from New England were energetic in defending and where possible expanding these rights against efforts of the administration in New Amsterdam to erode them. In 1648 Hart, as one of Flushing's landholders, joined with four other men to protest the payment of tithes to the pastor of a state-sponsored church and to question the manner of choosing the town's sole magistrate, the schout, who acted as court officer and sheriff.

On January 17 of that year the government of New Netherland, now headed by Peter Stuyvesant summoned the five men to answer for this resistance to the authorities in New Netherland and ordered them to accept the Dutch method for electing their schout. Stuyvesant did not relent in his efforts to require the inhabitants of Flushing to support a pastor of his choosing nor did he change the method for electing a schout. However, a few months he expanded local government by granting the town's freeholders the right to elect three additional magistrates, called schaepens, a clerk; the election of the officials would be subject to confirmation by the New Netherland government but in practice the town's nominations of its officials were accepted. Although there is some doubt about the names and terms of early clerks, it is certain that Hart was clerk in 1656 for in July of that year he signed himself clerk in responding on behalf of the town's schout and schaepens to a demand from the New Netherland government for payment of a tenth of the town's agricultural production as annual tax as provided in its charter.

Hart's letter said that Flushing was "willing to do that, reasonable and honest" and proposed an amount of produce, acceptable. That he continued as clerk in 1657 is shown by a letter of his dated January 23, 1657, affirming the town's rights and privileges and complaining that the neighboring town of Hempstead was encroaching on its lands; the next document bearing Hart's signature as clerk is the famous Flushing Remonstrance of December 27, 1657. The towns settled by immigrants from New England were granted charters recognizing their right to freedom of conscience but not freedom of religion. In the case of Flushing, the relevant clause granted the original patentees the right "to have and Enjoy the Liberty of Conscience, according of Religion. In practice this meant that men would not be prosecuted for religious practices that did not contradict those of the Dutch Reformed Church, the official public church in Holland, it meant that personal beliefs that were contrary to the tenets of the established church would be tolerated so long as they were kept private and expressed only in the narrow circle of the family.

Meetings for the public expression of dissenting worship would be prosecuted. Although the early settlers of Flushing complied with these strictures, some of them came into conflict with Stuyvesant and the New Netherlands government when charismatic speakers began to come among them proclaiming nonconformist beliefs. Believing that Quakers posed the most serious threat to religious and civil tranquility, the administration in New Amsterdam proclaimed that any person who took a Quaker into his home for a single night, would be fined fifty pounds and that any ships bringing any Quaker into the province would be confiscated; the schout, magistrates, of Flushing, along with twenty-eight other freeholders of that town and two from neighboring Jamaica recognized that they could not, in conscience, obey this regulation and signed a protest, the Remonstrance, explaining why they could not comply. The docume

Sideridis reticulata

Sideridis reticulata, the bordered Gothic, is a moth of the family Noctuidae. It is found in the Palearctic ecozone, throughout Europe and the temperate regions of Central Asia and the Russian Far East from the Iberian Peninsula. In the north it occurs in Fennoscandia south of the Arctic circle. In the south to the Mediterranean, it rises to over 2000 metres above sea level in the Alps. The wingspan is 32–37 mm. Forewing dark fuscous, with a purplish sheen when fresh; the moth flies from May to August depending on the location. Larva greenish or pinkish ochreous, irrorated with darker; the larvae feed on Saponaria officinalis, Silene vulgaris and Polygonum aviculare. The species has disappeared from the United Kingdom as a resident species during the first decade of the 21st century. Bordered Gothic at UKmoths Funet Taxonomy