Our dedicated team of professional YMCA Directors work year round to make your camp experience the best that it can be! We take pride in our long history and all of our traditions and are excited to make Hazen a part of your family.
Denise Learned first came to Camp Hazen YMCA in 1971 as the daughter of staff members, Gene & Carol Phaneuf. On the summer staff since 1979, Denise was an Assistant Counselor, Counselor, Waterfront Director and Village Director. After graduating with a BS in Human Development and Family Relations from the University of CT, Denise joined the year-round staff at Hazen as Program Director for 5 years. She was Executive Director of the Shoreline Soup Kitchens for 7 years, while remaining involved with Hazen as a member of the Board of Directors. As her passion has always been camping, and specifically Camp Hazen, Denise rejoined the Hazen staff as Executive Director and CEO in 1999. Denise is currently active as a member of the CT Alliance of YMCAs Public Policy Committee, and a member of the Alliance's Strategic Planning Task Force; a member of the Board of Trustees of the Chester Historical Society; and a Trustee at Essex Savings Bank. Denise lives in Chester with her husband Michael, longtime Hazen alum and current Maintenance Director.
Kath Davies' first summer was in 1999, flying to the States for a summer of fun while studying to be a teacher in the UK. Little did she know it would turn in to a career. After graduating with a B. Ed from the University College of St. Mark and St. John, Plymouth, she was lucky enough to be offered an 18 month training visa through the YMCA to work at Hazen. During this time a position became available on the Professional Staff. Kath started out overseeing our Group Camping Programs and during the summers she had a great time running our Day Camp. These days, in addition to overseeing all programs at Hazen, she also works closely with our Food Service and Maintenance Departments. Kath particularly enjoys volunteering in the wider YMCA community, as she has been the chair of the CT Membership & Program Network and the Northeast YMCA Camp Conference and is currently on a sub-committee of the Y-USA Overnight Camp Task Force. Kath is also commissioned to serve on the Youth Camp Safety Advsory Council for the State of CT Office of Early Childhood. She also teaches several YMCA classes at Regional Training Events, including Day Camp Director and Introduction to Fiscal Management. Outside of work she likes to spend her time pretending to play golf and is an aspiring race car driver.
Alex is the Senior Program Director at Camp Hazen YMCA. He grew up at Hazen, first attending in 1994 and joining the staff in 2005. He worked in all aspects of the camp world as a cabin counselor and program instructor in both Hazen's overnight and day camps before joining the summer leadership team in 2009. After graduating from the George Washington University with a BA in History and Religion, he accepted a year round position at Hazen. His current role includes overseeing parts of the year round youth and family camps, camp marketing, staff hiring and training, and summer specialized activities. Alex is a Camp Yankee committee member and Vice-Chair for the Connecticut Y Network, a member of the Chester Winter Carnivale planning committe and volunteer at Chester Elementary School. When not at camp he can be found heading back to camp.
Ben is a full blooded Hazenite starting as Day Camper in 2007. After 5 years in Overnight Camp Ben took part in our LEA program and then joined us in 2014 on staff for the first time as an Assistant Counselor. Ben worked through the ranks and has most recently spent the past two summers as our Boys Village Director. We are excited for Ben to be part of our Professional Staff team. His primary role will be to supervise our seasonal Village Director's and be the go guy to help our campers have the best time at Hazen. When Ben is busy preparing for the summer, he secretly enjoys star gazing and discovering new galaxies.
Nicky is from Enfield, CT and is one of our Program Directors on the Year Round Staff. She graduated from the University of New Haven in 2014 with a degree in Communication. Nicky oversees our Summer Program Directors and leads our Vacation Days throughout the year. Nicky started out as one of our Overnight Cabin Counselors working in Creative Arts, she joined our Leadership Team as Creative Arts Director and in the summer of 2017 she was one of our LEA Directors. In her spare time she enjoys reading, playing sports and doing arts & crafts. Before joining us, Nicky worked in the radio industry, where she hosted her own country music show and was a panelist on a talk show. One thing to know about Nicky is that she loves cheesy jokes and riddles.
Jake first summer at Hazen was in 2014. It was a summer of fun while he was at University, he returned each summer to work in Creative Arts, Quest and as part of our Leadership Team. Originally from just down the road in Westbrook, CT, Jake joined our professional staff in 2018. Jake holds a Bacholor of Science in Social Work from Salve Regina University, RI. While at University he enjoyed being part of StageFright theatre, now he is quite content with a nice walk on the beach collecting shells.


The Santorini wedding took place at La Maltese Estate Villa and the little church right across the street. It was an amazing experience to witness a traditional Greek wedding. I loved all the dancing and music! They sure know how to party!
Welcome to the "Big Fat Greek Indian Wedding!" Today we are headed to Santorini, Greece, to celebrate Philpa and Manish's fabulous destination Indian wedding! I cannot wait until you see the incredible images of the wedding, taken by Vangelis Photography.


You may be thinking of hiring a consultant for your small business. That's wonderful. But before you go any further, we recommend thinking things through a bit further.
First of all, why are you considering hiring a consultant?
Did someone else suggest this to you? That's fine, as long as you are sure. But if you decided to hire a consultant simply because someone else recommended it, and you really have no intention of cooperating with or listening to the consultant, then don't do it. You will just waste everyone's time, and your own money. We speak from experience.
When we look back at all of the small business consulting engagements we have done, the picture becomes very clear. The business owner has to be engaged. Otherwise, it just won't work.
Do you have clear goals, or do you have broad, open questions? Either is fine, as long as you are honest with yourself and with the consultant. But if you really don't have clear goals, but say you do and insist on a narrow project scope so you can "save money", you will probably be disappointed. The usual result is that long before the initial project is finished, the scope changes, so the questions we thought were important turn out to be irrelevant, or minor, whereas the truly important questions were never even asked. The end result is frustration, wasted time and money.
Of course, if you are seriously looking for a business consultant, you may not even know what questions to ask. That is fine. A good consultant can work with you to help you figure out what the most important questions are. But you have to be honest.
How do you want to interact with the consultant?
Do you want somebody to solve problems while you go about your daily activities, or do you want someone to work closely with you so you are involved throughout the engagement?
There is no right or wrong answer here, but if you are expecting a turnkey solution, whereas the consultant is expecting a collaborative consulting engagement, you have a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, if you are expecting a lot of collaboration and interaction, but the consultant specializes in turnkey solutions, you are also going to be disappointed. At Ground Floor Partners, our level of involvement depends both on the client's needs, and on the type of project we are working on. For market research and feasibility study projects, we usually don't need much involvement by the client once we get started. Whereas for business planning, strategy and management consulting projects, we always need to stay in close communication with clients throughout the entire engagement.
Do you have a reasonable budget for the project?
Budgeting is always a difficult decision. Clients usually want to pay less, and consultants usually want to charge more. The challenge is to find the right balance. Inexperienced consultants will often compromise on price just to land a project. That was certainly our strategy when we first started out. But over time we learned that often neither party was happy with the results. In fact we discovered that our highest paying clients were usually our happiest clients.
We try to accommodate our clients when it comes to price. We try to find ways to deliver high quality results while cutting back on things that don't affect the overall integrity of the project. But the reality is that high quality work usually does come at a higher price. Our skills, experience, network of partners, and our consulting methodology all have significant value, and we charge accordingly.
Clients often tell us they want a project done within two or three weeks. The reality is that budget, quality and timing all tie together. For example, if you cut back on the time, you usually increase the budget or you decrease the quality. In the end, you need to decide what really matters to you. Most of the projects we work on take at least a few months. If we cut back too far on the timing, the quality suffers, and nobody is happy. We understand that time is always in short supply, and we work hard to accommodate our clients when there is a real urgency. But if we know a certain type of project usually takes three months and a client wants it done in three weeks, we take a pass.
Bottom Line: Hiring a business consultant can be a great investment. Hiring the right one can make a huge positive difference in your company's future, whereas the wrong one can lead to unnecessary frustration and pain. A little preparation and thought in advance can save you money and time in the long run.


text:
BRITAIN'S NEXT PM?
David Cameron and his Tories have Gordon Brown on the run
MICHAEL PETROU September 22 2008
BRITAIN'S NEXT PM? MICHAEL PETROU September 22 2008
MICHAEL PETROU
During his 10 years as British prime minister, Tony Blair confronted and dispatched four Conservative Party leaders without breaking much of a sweat. There was little reason to believe things would be different on Dec. 7, 2005, when he faced David Cameron, the newly minted Tory leader, who rose in the House of Commons to challenge him during his first Prime Minister's Questions as leader of the opposition. Cameron, only 39 years old, had assumed office the day before after a come-from-behind leadership campaign that surprised many observers. He argued that the Conservative Party needed to modernize and widen its appeal, but he spoke in a plummy accent that reminded listeners of fox hunts and silverware. He was educated at Eton and Oxford, and his smooth, boyish face looked as though it wouldn't grow a beard if he were stood on his head. Easy pickings, it seemed, for a scrapper like Blair.
Cameron's first strike was tactical—an unexpected stiletto thrust to hit Blair where he was weak. Blair was facing a backbench revolt over reforms he wanted to make to the education system. Cameron assured the government of his party's support, thereby underlining divisions within government ranks. His next blow was a blunt, strategic wallop. "I want to talk about the future," Cameron said, and then looked across the narrow floor of the House to Blair. "He was the future, once." Cameron's remarks might have been spun as precocious boasting at the time. No longer. The Labour Party under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who took the leadership mantle from Blair a little more than a year ago, is facing not just electoral defeat, but quite possibly a disaster from which it will take a decade or more to recover. David Cameron, a
man many Britons would have struggled to identify only three years ago, can now claim to represent the future of British politics without anyone snickering. Most opinion polls place his Tories 20 points above Labour. He will almost certainly become the next prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Cameron's rapid ascendancy owes much to the fall of his opponent. Brown served as chancellor of the exchequer, or finance minister, for 10 years under Blair. But he always wanted the top job himself. Brown
and Blair were both elected for the first time in 1983. They were rising stars in the Labour Party and even shared an office for a while. Brown was perceived as more substantial, if less exciting, than the younger Blair. But when party leader John Smith died suddenly in 1994, it was to Blair, not Brown, that Labour looked for renewal. Brown was devastated. "He was the big brother," Simon Hoggart, a political sketch writer for the Guardian, said in an interview with Maclean's. "Imagine a duke dying and the family lawyer calling in the eldest son and saying, 'Look, I know you're the eldest son, and you're supposed to inherit all the land, but your younger brother looks better on television.' It would be a crushing blow.
And Brown never forgave Blair for that."
He did, however, secure a consolation prize. It is widely believed that the two men hatched a deal at the Granita restaurant in central London in which Brown agreed not to run against Blair, if Blair would later step down as prime minister and make way for Brown. Everything went according to plan, for a while. But after Blair contested a second election, tensions between the two grew. Blair's popularity among voters and within the Labour Party suffered when he sent British troops to Iraq as part of the American-led invasion to depose Saddam
Hussein. Despite this, he contested and won a third general election in 2005. But Brown's supporters knew he was weakened. They plotted and pressured Blair to quit. Finally, reluctantly, he agreed to do so, endorsing Brown as his successor last May.
Brown enjoyed an initial political honeymoon. The British had grown tired of Blair, and Brown's sombre, brooding persona suited them last summer, following floods, a failed terrorist attack, and ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The warm feelings didn't last. Some of the reasons for Brown's declining popularity, among them rising food and energy prices, are not his fault. But after coveting power for 10 years, Brown had little to offer voters once he finally got it. "A lot of people, myself as well, I'm afraid, we expected some great plan to be brought out of the drawer," says Tony Travers, a political science professor at the London School of Economics. "And of course there was nothing. Nothing at all—to the point that Gordon Brown has been able to publicly demonstrate his indecision."
This touches on a deeper character flaw, and it is one that now even an inspirational campaign platform is unlikely to fix. Brown seems pathologically unable to make tough choices quickly. "If Gordon Brown was walking past a lake and saw a small child drowning in it, he would immediately leap into action and set up a committee to investigate the best path forward," Hoggart said. "He seems to live in the agony of indecision." Sarah, Brown's wife, says her husband often
works until 4 a.m. According to Hoggart, he spends this time fretting over the details of matters that aren't that important to begin with. "He always bangs on about his vision, but his vision seems to be sitting up all night going through numbers," Hoggart says. Throw in Brown's habit of chewing his fingernails, and it adds up to an image of an obsessive man who can't absorb or act on the big picture. Brown, who was often compared to former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin, has now inherited a variation of Martin's moniker. He's been dubbed "The Ditherer," and after Brown compared himself to Heathcliff, the troubled protagonist in an Emily Bronte novel, British wags have taken to referring to the PM's residence as "Dithering Heights."
Brown earned the nickname last fall, when he ordered his party to prepare for a snap election—and then called it off. His incredible claim that his decision was not motivated by slipping poll numbers but by a desire to develop policies and demonstrate his "vision for change" angered Britons, who felt
AFTER A STRING OF LOSSES, IAMER0N KNEW THE TORIES HAD TO CHANGE
their collective intelligence had been insulted. It also allowed Cameron to mercilessly mock him in the House of Commons—most cuttingly by quoting from Brown's own book, Courage, a collection of essays on heroic figures such as Nelson Mandela, who stood by their convictions in the face of adversity. "Does he remember writing this?" Cameron asked during Prime Minister's Questions, and then read from Brown's book: " 'As far back as I can remember, I've been fascinated by men and women of courage, stories of people who took brave decisions in the service of great causes, especially when more comfortable and far less dangerous alternatives were open to them.' Does he realize what a phony he now looks?"
Brown responded lamely that no one from the Conservative front bench had signed a petition posted on the Downing Street website calling for an election. The weekly matchups between Cameron and Brown have unfolded in a similar fashion ever since. That those who have spent time with Brown say he can be relaxed and charming in private doesn't matter. He's judged on his public image, and that has become irrevocably tarnished.
avid Cameron hasn't reached the cusp i of power simply by kicking Brown when I he stumbles. He was first elected to Parliament in 2001, winning the rural Oxfordshire riding of Witney, which he has held ever since. But his rise to the top of his party began after the 2005 general election, which saw a tired and stale Labour Party thump the Tories, led by the lacklustre Michael Howard, for the third straight time. Conservative brass finally woke up to the fact that their party, in its current form, was unelectable and needed a radical change. "In the 1990s, none of my friends voted Tory," Gareth Compton, 36, a Conservative councillor in Birmingham, told Maclean's, "ft was like being rude at a dinner party."
Even before the 2005 election, a group of mostiy young, reform-minded Conservatives
began meeting over dinner to plan how to remake their party after the expected electoral defeat. Michael Gove, a former journalist at the Times whom Cameron had convinced to enter politics, hosted the first such dinner at a restaurant in the exclusive London neighbourhood of Mayfair. Cameron was there. The two were old friends; they'd been at Oxford together, and Gove was a guest at Cameron's stag party—a tame affair—in 1996. "We were all thinking about ideas. We knew we had to change," Gove to\d Maclean's. "The issue was our unbudgeable unpopularity. We had spent too much time talking about issues that pleased our supporters and not enough on those that mattered to the greater population." Trashing the European Union, for example, resonated with long-time Tories, but it didn't win the party new votes.
Howard agreed to step down as leader shortly after the election to make way for new blood. There were several prospective candidates to champion the message that the Conservative Party needed to modernize. Gove thought Cameron was the best choice for renewal and backed him even before Cameron had publicly decided to run. "I had known him for 20 years, and I knew he had these qualities—coolness under fire, good judgment, a great speaker."
The latter is what vaulted Cameron ahead
of other candidates at the Conservative Party conference in October 2005. He delivered his speech without notes, speaking of the future and a "compassionate Conservatism." He has built on this message since—promising to rebuild society rather than cut taxes or dramatically reduce the role of the state in people's lives. "We will be as radical in social reform as Margaret Thatcher was in economic reform," he wrote recently. Cameron is fond of saying he will use conservative means to achieve progressive results. He's even embraced environmentalism, and was pleased to be photographed cycling to Westminster (while his shoes and briefcase were delivered separately by car).
Cameron thinks all this has been necessary to decontaminate the Tory brand. He has said that before he can get voters to sign on to difficult or challenging policies, he needs to convince them that his party is decent and reasonable and that he is a practical person who understands the concerns of average people. But Cameron also faces accusations that his soothing words hide an absence of convictions and solid ideas. "He's obviously very charming and fairly charismatic. But I think he lacks the substance and depth that voters look for," Sarah Owen, a Labour Party member, told Maclean's. Coming from a par-
tisan source, these barbs are predictable. But similar criticisms have flown from Tories such as Robin Harris, a former director of the Conservative Party's research department, and Cameron's boss when Cameron worked there for several years after graduating from university. "I don't think that in any shape or form he could be described as a Conservative in philosophical terms," Harris says. "He has no principled sense of direction; his only sense of direction is upward. The opportunism he displays is deplorable."
Gove, Cameron's ally, rejects this. "Pragmatism and opportunism are pejorative terms for what someone else might call commonsense politics and reasonableness," he says. And James Hanning, deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday and the co-author of a recent biography on Cameron, believes that Cameron's convictions, or "enthusiasms," even when recently adopted, as is the case with his avowed environmentalism, are likely genuine. "There is a sort of sweet-naturedness, almost childishness, in his enthusiasm for things," Hanning says.
Hanning argues that Cameron's political tenets are Conservative, but he says they more closely resemble the principles of Harold Macmillan, a centrist who was Conservative prime minister from 1957 to 1963, rather than those of the more revolutionary Margaret Thatcher. This doesn't mean that Cameron is not shrewd or pragmatic. "He believes in what works," Hanning says. "He's a democratic politician, and he knows what needs to be done. He has a very good nose for which way the wind blows."
The political winds in Britain have changed directions and are blowing stronger. Gordon Brown's MPs are mutinous. The only thing preventing them from twisting a knife in the Prime Minister's back is the fear that replacing him before the next election will make things worse. Brown can delay that election until 2010. It's possible that his fortunes will change once more between now and then, but it's unlikely. "It's now all terribly turning to ashes," says Hoggart. "I don't see the Tories losing unless they make catastrophic errors. And I don't think they will." M
M.B.A.s who want to save the world
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By COLIN CAMPBELL
Just another night in major emergency
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By CAMERON AINSWORTH-VINCZE
WILL WOMEN DECIDE THE ELECTION?
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By JOHN GEDDES, AARON WHERRY
Six months in a leaky boat
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By JOEY COLEMAN
FRESH NEAT FOR A FEEDING FRENZY
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By LUIZA CH. SAVAGE
JUSTICS
CAUGHT IN THE NO-FLY WEB
SEPT. 22nd 2008 2008 By MICHAEL FRISCOLANTI, MARTIN PATRIQUIN
Hawaii to birthers: enough!
MAY 31st 2010 2010 By MICHAEL BARCLAY
Is Galilee running out of fish?
MAY 31st 2010 2010 By JEN CUTTS
Feeling the bite of a cannibal joke
MAY 31st 2010 2010 By RACHEL MENDLESON
Poetry slammed
April 2012 By MICHAEL PETROU
OLMERT'S NOT SO BRILLIANT CAREER?
AUG. 28th 2006 2006 By MICHAEL PETROU
War now? Or war later?
October 2012 By MICHAEL PETROU

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home Science Hubble sees red supergiant star Betelgeuse slowly recovering after blowing its top
Hubble sees red supergiant star Betelgeuse slowly recovering after blowing its top
The star Betelgeuse appears as a brilliant, ruby-red, twinkling spot of light in the upper right shoulder of the winter constellation Orion the Hunter. But when viewed close up, astronomers know it as a seething monster with a 400-day-long heartbeat of regular pulsations. This aging star is classified as a supergiant because it has swelled up to an astonishing diameter of approximately 1 billion miles. If placed at the center of our solar system it would reach out to the orbit of Jupiter. The star's ultimate fate is to explode as a supernova.
Colchester United 1-0 West Ham: George Moncur's free-kick sinks former side as trialist Devante Cole started for visitors
Arsenal should have bid £75m to sign Karim Benzema… their lack of transfer activity is cheating the fans, says Paul Merson
CRTC gets an earful at hearings on future of TV
GMs don't favor Nets in Atlantic Division
Haitian slain in Dominican Republic town after local residents call for expulsion of migrants
13 Killed, 40 Injured In Thailand Nightclub Fire


It is made with slightly larger leaves than the premium grade matcha green tea and therefore carries a little more astringency in its flavour.
This organic matcha is great all around matcha. It's an excellent choice if you are looking for a matcha to make a cake, mix up a smoothie or mix with orange juice.
Our basic grade matcha is ground using slightly larger leaves than the premium organic grade and has a slightly astringent in flavour than higher grades.


text:
A spirit at war
Posted by Kory Glover | Oct 24, 2018 | News | 0 |
Fort Wellington has stood tall since the early 1800s, withstanding the might of the War of 1812 and continues to be open to the public.
The fort was initially built to create a better defence around the St. Lawrence River. Without the fort's barricade, the war would've probably ended very differently.
After the War of 1812, the fort was abandoned until 1838 when Canadian rebels and American sympathizers threatened peace. Fast forward to today, Fort Wellington stands as a historical facility, open to the public for tours and re-enactments.
However, something is roaming the halls of Fort Wellington, slamming doors, startling staff members and even making dark appearances.
Some say it's a colour sergeant from the war named Terrence Anderson, others believe that it could be something more sinister.
The following accounts are real encounters from stories taken online.
According to the three different sources, a "weird event" occurred in the fort's blockhouse, an old soldier appeared to a visiting re-enactor/interpreter. The story goes that the unknown soldier came out of a dark corner and introduced himself as Terrence Anderson and announced his rank, regiment and that he was from the conflict of 1812. What happened after the ghostly encounter is unknown.
Terrence is a well known presence at the fort but it's not certain whether he is only specter haunting the grounds. Terrence, according to staff, is known to make loud banging noises in empty rooms, slam doors during fife sessions in the blockhouse and some staff are even too scared to go near the dark corners in the evening.
Another story from 2002 comes from an individual named Kyle Upton who recalled an incident where motion sensor alarms detected that the blockhouse had been broken into. Three people were sent to investigate the area and try to catch the intruder in the act.
The three, watched as the alarm panel showed that someone was indeed intruding on the upper floor of the blockhouse and raced to catch the person in the act. They moved carefully up the stairs and one of the three remained in the middle of the blockhouse while the remaining two circled the perimeter hoping to trap whoever broke in.
Think about that one scene where Mel Gibson and Joaquin Pheonix ran around the house to catch the alien in Signs.
While the one in the middle was keeping tabs on all three footsteps in the room, he suddenly heard other footsteps close to the exit of the catwalk. He was ready to pounce on the intruder when suddenly he was met with no person, but just the sound of footsteps.
In our final encounter, one unnamed individual worked at Fort Wellington during the '80s and stated that they have encountered a number of strange occurrences.
In one of these occurrences, along with two other staff members, they noticed someone walk through the gate and around the far side of the blockhouse despite the gate being closed and locked.
They assumed it was another staff member coming to unlock the gate, so two of them walked around to the blockhouse door and found that no one was there. When they returned, the one who stayed behind confirmed that he saw no one leave the area.
In another account, the same individual was tasked with rewinding some 16 mm films in the blockhouse's modern theatre on the second floor. According to the story, a white cat would constantly hang around the projection room and during this one instance, the cat went stiff and suddenly ran off as fast as it could.
This made them uncomfortable and they decided to inspect the blockhouse for intruders with a couple other staff members. When they entered the barrack room, they found the cat with its fur standing on end and hissing at the southwest corner of the room.
While approaching the feline, they noticed something in the corner of their eyes moving quickly in the direction that the cat was hissing at. This resulted in them running out of the room as quickly as possible.
If you visit Fort Wellington, you can participate in a walking tour of the grounds and watch one of the famous war re-enactments. But just remember, if you encounter your own supernatural event, you're probably just the latest victim.
Check back each week of October to read another harrowing haunted tale from eastern Ontario and check off your list by visiting each site this month, if you dare.
PreviousStrapping on the "Peter Pan getaway boots," South Dundas votes for change
NextPin Tales from Chesterville Bowling Lanes – The Week of October 15, 2018


text:
126 young people begin their careers in the Lufthansa Technik Group
Lufthansa Technik is starting a new year of training the future's skilled workers: 126 young people will begin their training in 2021 in an aviation-technology, industrial or logistics-oriented profession. Even in these difficult times, Lufthansa Technik plans to meet its future needs for highly trained specialists itself.
Despite the aviation crisis and structural changes in the company, Lufthansa Technik AG continues to rely on the training of highly qualified workers, even in challenging times – and has done so for more than six decades. Especially now, the company wants to attract young employees who want to work in a fascinating and demanding industry.
"We see training as a long-term instrument, one that needs continuity," says Barbara Körner, Head of Training and Dual-study Students at Lufthansa Technik. "Only then can all the interfaces involved, such as trainers, specialized departments, operational deployment areas and vocational schools, provide optimal training quality. Against this background, Lufthansa Technik made a conscious decision to maintain its training activities. Only the number of places has been adjusted in response to the crisis."
This month 109 young people will start their apprenticeships in Hamburg, 16 in Frankfurt and one at the Munich location. 109 of the new apprenticeships are directly attributable to Lufthansa Technik AG, the rest to Lufthansa Technik Logistik Services and LEOS (see list below). This means that there is now a total of about 650 young people in training or in a dual course of study at the Lufthansa Technik Group in Germany.
As in the previous year, the proportion of women is a good fourteen percent. Lufthansa Technik will continue to expand its activities in order to inform female students in a targeted manner about the many possibilities in pursuing technical professions. Originally, a higher number of new trainees was planned for this year. However, the massive downturn in global aviation caused by COVID-19 and the reduced workload in many parts of the company made it necessary to adjust requirements accordingly.
Lufthansa Technik AG, Hamburg (training starts August 2), total of 101:
23 electronics technicians for devices and systems
24 aircraft mechanics with specialties in repair technology
17 tool mechanics
14 aircraft mechanics with a specialty in engine technology
12 aircraft mechanics with specialties in manufacturing technology
6 aircraft electronics specialists
5 surface coating technicians
Lufthansa Technik AG, Frankfurt (training starts August 16), total of 8:
8 aircraft mechanic with a specialty in engine technology
Lufthansa Technik Logistik Services, Hamburg (training starts August 2), total of 8:
6 trainees in warehouse logistics
2 specialists for forwarding and logistics services
Lufthansa Technik Logistik Services, Frankfurt (training starts August 16), total of 7:
1 specialist for forwarding and logistics services
LEOS (Lufthansa Engineering and Operational Services), Frankfurt (training starts August 16):
1 specialist in mechatronics engineering
LEOS (Lufthansa Engineering and Operational Services), Munich (training starts August 16):
Michael Lagemann
michael.lagemann@lht.dlh.de


End terraced house offered to let in Holytown, Motherwell. Ideally situated for access to motorway links.
Accommodation: entrance hall, lounge, kitchen diner, conservatory, two double bedrooms & bathroom.
Features include gas central heating, double glazing, private gardens, driveway parking & double garage. EPC rating: F. Landlord Registration Number: 423045/230/19171.


We understand how trying it can be to create your own home style - and there's so much to choose from.
Our experienced staff can help with all aspects of your project. Our interior design consultants offer you the chance to create your perfect home. Let our instore consultants help create your homes individual style with our wide range of fabrics, furniture, floor coverings and tiles.
We offer an initial free one hour onsite consultation. After this, we charge at $60 per hour and upon confirmation of, and project completion, charges are credited. A 30% deposit is required on confirmation of all work.
Contact us for your free one hour consultation.


text:
Richard M. Snyder
Richard M. Snyder, 91, of Allentown, passed away January 12, 2022 in the Phoebe Home, Allentown. He was the loving husband of the late Virginia M. (Meneghin) Snyder, who passed away May 16, 2021. After retirement, Richard was a lifeguard and taught aquatic classes at Rodale, Muhlenberg College and the Boys and Girls Club. He was the oldest working lifeguard at the age of 80. He was a corporate officer/administrator at Industrial Development Corporation of Lehigh County until retiring. Prior to that, he was the executive director for Allentown Center City Association, was the director of fitness at the Allentown/Bethlehem West End Racquet and Fitness Club, director of community relations at the former Allentown Osteopathic Medical Center and was president of Snyders, Inc., Allentown. Born in Allentown, he was the son of the late Robert N. and Florence M. (Muxworthy) Snyder. He was a graduate of Springfield College in Springfield, MA obtaining his Bachelor of Science in Physical Education and Health Biology. Richard was a First Lieutenant-Intelligence Officer-Platoon Leader in United States Marine Corps serving during the Korean War. He was a commander for the Honorary First Defenders. He was a 32nd Degree Mason Greenleaf Lodge, Jordan Royal Arch Chapter #203, Lehigh Consistory, Valley of Allentown and Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. Richard served many community service boards such as the Rotary Foundation (where he was a 50 plus year member with perfect attendance), the Good Shepherd Home, YMCA, Salvation Army, Allentown Osteopathic Hospital, Lehigh Valley Swim Officials, Allentown Public Library, AVTS and LCCC, Allentown Recreation Commission and the United Presbyterian Church of the USA. He was a member of the First Presbyterian Church of Allentown. At the church, he served as a Deacon/Elder, served the Lay Missionary Ministry, with his wife Virginia, he started the youth club program and was a mentor of the youth communicant classes. Richard helped start the Barn of the Lehigh Valley.org and was he very well known for giving out Werther's original candies. Survivors: Daughters: Nan L. wife of Michael Emery of Allentown and Amy R. Gerregano of Allentown, Grandchildren: Erik Emery of Allentown, Peter Gerregano of Allentown and Sara Gerregano of Cordova, TN, Great-Granddaughter: Alexandra, Nieces and Nephews, Honorary Grandkids and the Kids that called him Pop Pop. He was preceded in death by a Sister: Barbara A. Yeager. Services will be at the convenience of the family. In lieu of flowers contributions may be made in his memory to the Youth Program at First Presbyterian Church of Allentown 3231 W. Tilghman St. Allentown, PA 18104.
Richard M. Snyder, 91, of Allentown, passed away January 12, 2022 in the Phoebe Home, Allentown. He was the loving husband of the late Virginia M. (Meneghin) Snyder, who passed away May 16, 2021. After retirement, Richard was a lifeguard and... View Obituary & Service Information
The family of Richard M. Snyder created this Life Tributes page to make it easy to share your memories.
Richard M. Snyder, 91, of Allentown, passed away January 12,...
Send flowers to the Snyder family.
© 2022 J S Burkholder Funeral Home Inc. All Rights Reserved - Made with love by funeralOne.


Having a baby forces you to confront the good, the bad, and the ugly about yourself. For me, that meant facing the ever-present cloud of anxiety hanging over everything I did and every decision I made. I had ways of managing the anxiety through medication and therapy, but pregnancy set me back and things I once counted on for relief no longer worked. Everything changed, except the overwhelming nature of my anxiety, and that spawned even more anxiety, perpetuating the cycle. So I think there are things only new moms with anxiety really understand, and I can confidently say I know from experience.
My anxiety and I have been together for as long as I can remember. Through the years there have been a few different things that helped drive a wedge between us so I can breath, but for the most part I've learned to live with it. I didn't think about how it might affect my parenting, though, until my daughter was born. So I was somewhat taken aback when I didn't want to leave the house, or let other people hold her. I was afraid to put her in her crib to sleep, almost convinced she'd stop breathing. And before I knew it, anything triggered the anxiety. A knock on the door. My partner coming home late from work. My crying baby. It consumed me, and fed off the fact that I didn't know how to be a mother.
Those new mom jitters really set in once you lay your little on down to sleep. With all the worries over Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), I had a difficult time leaving my daughter in another room alone. Even with the monitor, it felt like the only solution was for me to sleep alongside her, or stay up all night staring at her face or checking on her every five minutes. My partner didn't carry the same fear, either, so I was alone in my anxiety over something that shouldn't be such an issue.
First of all, leaving the house is, in its own right, a terrifying experience. You never know what could happen when you get behind the wheel of a car or walk around a mall or even drop your kid off at school. You don't know what's in store when you're out in public.
So, yes, when my anxiety told me that leaving my home with my baby was dangerous, I believed it.
You'd think I'd have wanted someone to take the baby off my hands, but that just wasn't the case. While I did long for breaks, and maybe a little time to myself, whenever someone asked if they could hold my baby I just cringed. I couldn't help but think of someone dropping her or tripping and falling with her in their arms or giving her some incurable disease.
As a new mom, my biggest fear was failure. In fact, it still is. I just don't want to let my kids down.
But when I was brand new at this whole mom thing, I didn't know how to be a parent, and my own parents weren't the best examples. All that fear eventually manifested into my Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) because it allowed me to feel like I had everything under control, even if I didn't. I could make sure the bottle was the right temperature by checking it often. I could ensure my baby didn't get a diaper rash by changing her as many times as my mind told me I had to.
I so appreciated anyone who came over with a hot meal, or an offer to do the dishes, or anything else I wouldn't have to think about. But my anxiety didn't always love other people injecting themselves into routines I was trying to establish, no matter how helpful it would've been to me in the long run. Maybe they'd put the groceries away wrong, or fold the laundry in the wrong shapes. Whatever it was, my anxiety didn't want the help. If anything, it forced me to do everything myself.
It's one thing to leave the house and get in a car alone. I hated it. But preparing the baby to join me, along with all the things she needed, took me solid hour (or more). By the time we hit the road, I was already so over it. Not just because she was probably crying, but my anxiety didn't want to drive with her crying and in traffic. For what — a quick visit to the store? No, thank you.
The milestones always tripped me up. My baby was always long and thin, and had jaundice for awhile after birth. When she didn't eat enough or sleep well, I worried. When she wasn't growing the way I thought she should, I worried. When she did, or didn't do, basically anything, I worried. I was, as you could have probably guessed by now, constantly worried.
Nothing — and I repeat, nothing — triggered my anxiety more than hearing my baby cry. One moment in particular still haunts me. My partner and I had tried everything — feeding, swaddling, burping, changing, pleading with the sky— and our daughter just continued to wail. The sound of her screams made my heart race. Like, why couldn't I fix it for her? Something must be wrong with me, right? I mean, this means I'm a bad mom. I've failed.
All that frustration, and all that self-doubt, reminded me of how powerful my anxiety was, and that, regardless of how hard I tried to be a good mom, there'd always be times when I wouldn't be able to fix everything. And that, my friends, is a lesson I am still trying to learn.


text:
Independent Submission
M. Mohali
Mapping and Interworking of Diversion Information between Diversion and
History-Info Headers in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Although the SIP History-Info header is the solution adopted in IETF, the non-standard Diversion header is nevertheless widely implemented and used for conveying call-diversion-related information in SIP signaling.
This document describes a recommended interworking guideline between the Diversion header and the History-Info header to handle call diversion information. In addition, an interworking policy is proposed to manage the headers' coexistence. The History-Info header is described in RFC 4244 and the non-standard Diversion header is described, as Historic, in RFC 5806.
Since the Diversion header is used in many existing network implementations for the transport of call diversion information, its interworking with the SIP History-Info standardized solution is needed. This work is intended to enable the migration from non- standard implementations and deployment toward IETF specification- based implementations and deployment.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
1.1. Overview ...................................................3
1.2. Background .................................................3
2. Problem Statement ...............................................4
2.1. Interworking Requirements and Scope ........................4
2.2. Interworking Recommendations ...............................6
2.2.1. SIP Network/Terminal Using Diversion to SIP
Network/Terminal Using History-Info Header ..........6
2.2.2. SIP Network/Terminal Using History-Info
Header to SIP Network/terminal Using Diversion
Header ..............................................8
3. Headers Syntaxes Reminder .......................................9
3.1. History-Info Header Syntax .................................9
3.2. Diversion Header Syntax ...................................11
4. Headers in SIP Method ..........................................11
5. Diversion Header to History-Info Header ........................12
6. History-Info Header to Diversion Header ........................15
7. Examples .......................................................17
7.1. Example with Diversion Header Changed into
History-Info Header .......................................17
7.2. Example with History-Info Header Changed into
Diversion Header ..........................................17
7.3. Example with Two SIP Networks Using History-Info Header ...17
7.4. Additional Interworking Cases .............................19
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................21
Appendix A.  Interworking between Diversion Header and
Voicemail URI ........................................23
For some VoIP-based (Voice over IP) services (e.g., voicemail, Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) or automatic call distribution), it is helpful for the called SIP user agent to identify from whom and why the session was diverted. For this information to be used by various service providers or by applications, it needs to pass through the network. This is possible with two different SIP headers: the History-Info header defined in [RFC4244] and the historic Diversion header defined in [RFC5806], which are both able to transport diversion information in SIP signaling.
Although the Diversion header is not standardized, it is widely used. Therefore, it is useful to have guidelines to make this header interwork with the standard History-Info header.
Note that the new implementation and deployment of the Diversion header is strongly discouraged.
This document provides a mechanism for header-content translation between the Diversion header and the History-Info header.
1.2. Background
The History-Info header [RFC4244] and its extension for forming SIP service URIs (including Voicemail URI) [RFC4458] are recommended by the IETF to convey redirection information. They are also recommended in the "Communication Diversion (CDIV) service" Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specification [TS_24.604].
Originally, the Diversion header was described in a document that was submitted to the SIP Working Group. It has been published now as [RFC5806] for the historical record and to provide a reference for this RFC.
This header contains a list of diverting URIs and associated information providing specific information as the reason for the call diversion. Most existing SIP-based implementations have implemented the Diversion header when no standard solution was ready to deploy. The IETF has finally standardized the History-Info header, partly because it can transport general history information. This allows the receiving part to determine how and why the session is received. As the History-Info header may contain further information than call diversion information, it is critical to avoid losing information and be able to extract the relevant data using the retargeting cause URI parameter described in [RFC4458] for the transport of the diversion reason.
The Diversion header and the History-Info header have different syntaxes, described below. Note that the main difference is that the History-Info header is a chronological writing header whereas the Diversion header applies a reverse chronology (i.e., the first diversion entry read corresponds to the last diverting user).
Appendix A provides an interworking guideline between the Diversion header and the Voicemail URI, which is another way to convey diversion information. The Voicemail URI is defined in [RFC4458].
2. Problem Statement
2.1. Interworking Requirements and Scope
This section provides the baseline terminology used in the rest of the document and defines the scope of interworking between the Diversion header and the History-Info header.
There are many ways in which SIP signaling can be used to modify a session destination before it is established, and there are many reasons for doing so. The behavior of the SIP entities that will have to further process the session downstream will sometimes vary depending on the reasons that lead to changing the destination. For example, whether it is for a simple proxy to route the session or for an application server to provide a supplementary service. The Diversion header and the History-Info header differ in the approach and scope of addressing this problem.
For clarity, the following vocabulary is used in this document:
o  Retargeting/redirecting: retargeting/redirecting refers to the
process of a Proxy Server/User Agent Client (UAC) changing a
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) in a request and thus changing
the target of the request.  These terms are defined in [RFC4244].
The History-Info header is used to capture retargeting
o  Call forwarding/call diversion/communication diversion: these
terms are equivalent and refer to the Communications Diversion
(CDIV) supplementary services, based on the Integrated Services
Digital Network (ISDN) Communication diversion supplementary
services and defined in 3GPP [TS_24.604]. They are applicable to entities that are intended to modify the original destination of an IP multimedia session during or prior to the session establishment.
This document does not intend to describe when or how History-Info or Diversion headers should be used. Hereafter is provided clarification on the context in which the interworking is required.
The Diversion header has exactly the same scope as the call diversion service and each header entry reflects a call diversion invocation. The Diversion header is used for recording call forwarding information, which could be useful to network entities downstream. Today, this SIP header is implemented by several manufacturers and deployed in networks.
The History-Info header is used to store all retargeting information including call diversion information. In practice, the History-Info header [RFC4244] is used to convey call-diversion-related information by using a cause URI parameter [RFC4458] in the relevant entry. Note, however, that the use of cause URI parameter [RFC4458] in a History-Info entry for a call diversion is specific to the 3GPP specification [TS_24.604]. [RFC4458] focuses on retargeting toward a voicemail server and does not specify whether the cause URI parameter should be added in a URI for other cases. As a consequence, implementations that do not use the cause URI parameter for call forwarding information are not considered for the mapping described in this document. Nevertheless, some recommendations are given in the next sections on how to avoid the loss of non-mapped information at the boundary between a network region using History-Info header and one using the Diversion header.
Since both headers address call forwarding needs, diverting information could be mixed up or be inconsistent if both are present in an uncoordinated fashion in the INVITE request. So, Diversion and History-Info headers must not independently coexist in the same session signaling. This document addresses how to convert information between the Diversion header and the History-Info header, and when and how to preserve both headers to cover additional cases.
For the transportation of consistent diversion information downstream, it is necessary to make the two headers interwork. Interworking between the Diversion header and the History-Info header is introduced in sections 5 and 6. Since the coexistence scenario may vary from one use case to another one, guidelines regarding headers interaction are proposed.
2.2. Interworking Recommendations
Interworking function:
In a normal case, the network topology assumption is that the interworking described in this document should be performed by a specific SIP border device that is aware, by configuration, that it is at the border between two regions, one using History-Info header and one using Diversion header.
As History-Info header is a standard solution, a network using the Diversion header must be able to provide information to a network using the History-Info header. In this case, to avoid header coexistence, it is required to replace, as often as possible, the Diversion header with the History-Info header in the INVITE request during the interworking.
Since, the History-Info header has a wider scope than the Diversion header, it may be used for other needs and services than call diversion. In addition to trace call diversion information, the History-Info header also acts as a session history and can store all successive R-URI values. Consequently, even if it should be better to remove the History-Info header after the creation of the Diversion header to avoid confusion, the History-Info header must remain unmodified in the SIP signaling if it contains supplementary (non- diversion) information. It is possible to have History-Info headers that do not have values that can be mapped into the Diversion header. In this case, no interworking with Diversion header should be performed, and it must be defined per implementation what to do in this case. This point is left out of the scope of this document.
As a conclusion, it is recommended to have local policies minimizing the loss of information and find the best way to keep it up to the terminating user agent.
The following sections describe the basic common use case. Additional interworking cases are described in section 7.5.
2.2.1. SIP Network/Terminal Using Diversion to SIP Network/Terminal
Using History-Info Header
When the Diversion header is used to create a History-Info header, the Diversion header must be removed in the outgoing INVITE. It is considered that all of the information present in the Diversion header is transferred in the History-Info header.
If a History-Info header is present in the incoming INVITE (in addition to Diversion header), the Diversion header and History-Info header present must be mixed and only the diversion information not yet present in the History-Info header must be inserted as a last entry (more recent) in the existing History-Info header, as recommended in [RFC4244].
As an example, this could be the case of an INVITE coming from network_2 using the Diversion header but previously passed through network_1 using the History-Info header (or the network_2 uses History-Info header to transport successive URI information) and going to network_3 using the History-Info header.
IWF*                                  IWF*
network1           |                network_2            |network_3
History-Info        |                 Diversion           |using
|                                     |Hist-Info
|                                     |
UA A    P1     AS B     |       P2     AS C    UA C   AS D    |     UA E
|       |       |       |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|INVITE |       |       |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|------>|       |       |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |INVITE |       |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |------>|       |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |Supported: histinfo    |       |       |     |       |        |
|       | History-Info:         |       |       |     |       |        |
|       | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,       |       |     |       |        |
|       | <sip:userB >; index=1.1       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |INVITE |       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |------>|       |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |History-Info:  |       |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:proxyP1>; index=1,|       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userB>; index=1.1 |       |     |       |        |
|       |       |<sip:userC>; cause=302; index=1.1.1  |       |        |
In this case, the incoming INVITE contains a Diversion header and a History-Info header. Therefore, as recommended in this document, it is necessary to create, for network_3, a single History-Info header gathering existing information from both the History-Info and the Diversion headers received. Anyway, it is required from network_2 (i.e., IWF) to remove the Diversion header when the message is going to a network not using the Diversion header. Then, network_3 could use call forwarding information that is present in a single header and add its own diversion information if necessary.
If a network is not able either to use only one header each time or to maintain both headers up to date, the chronological order cannot be certified.
It is not possible to have only a Diversion header when the History-Info header contains more than call diversion information. If previous policy recommendations are applied, the chronological order is respected as Diversion entries are inserted at the end of the History-Info header taking into account the Diversion internal chronology.
2.2.2. SIP Network/Terminal Using History-Info Header to SIP
Network/Terminal Using Diversion Header
When the History-Info header is interpreted to create a Diversion header, some precautions must be taken.
If the History-Info header contains only call forwarding information, then it must be deleted after the interworking.
If the History-Info header contains other information, then only the information of concern to the diverting user must be used to create entries in the Diversion header and the History-Info header must be kept as received in the INVITE and forwarded downstream.
Note: The History-Info header could be used for other reasons than call diversion services, for example, by a service that needs to know if a specific Application Server (AS) had yet been invoked in the signaling path. If the call is later forwarded to a network using the History-Info header, it would be better not to lose history information due to passing though the network that only supports Diversion headers. A recommended solution must not disrupt the standard behavior and networks that do not implement the History-Info header must be transparent to a received History-Info header.
If a Diversion header is present in the incoming INVITE (in addition to History-Info header), only diversion information present in the History-Info header but not in the Diversion header must be inserted from the last entry (more recent) into the existing Diversion header, as recommended in [RFC5806].
Note that the chronological order could not be certified. If previous policy recommendations are respected, this case should not happen.
Forking case:
The History-Info header enables the recording of sequential forking for the same served user. During an interworking, from the History-Info header to Diversion header, the History-Info entries containing a forking situation (with an incremented "index" parameter) could possibly be mapped if it contains a call forwarding "cause" parameter. The interworking entity could choose to create only a Diversion entry or not apply the interworking. The choice could be done according a local policy.
The same logic is applied for an interworking with Voicemail URI (see the Appendix).
3. Headers Syntaxes Reminder
3.1. History-Info Header Syntax
History-Info = "History-Info" HCOLON hi-entry *(COMMA hi-entry)
hi-entry           = hi-targeted-to-uri *( SEMI hi-param )
hi-targeted-to-uri = name-addr
hi-param           = hi-index / hi-extension
hi-index           = "index" EQUAL 1*DIGIT *(DOT 1*DIGIT)
hi-extension       = generic-param
The History-Info header is specified in [RFC4244]. The top-most History-Info entry (first in the list) corresponds to the oldest history information.
A hi-entry may contain a cause URI parameter expressing the diversion reason. This optional cause URI parameter is defined in [RFC4458] with the following syntax:
cause-param = "cause" EQUAL Status-Code
This parameter is also named cause-param and should be inserted in the History-Info entry (URI) of the diverted-to user in case of call diversion as recommended in the 3GPP CDIV specification [TS_24.604]. The cause values used in the cause-param for the diverting reason are listed in the RFC 4458, and because it is a parameter dedicated to call forwarding service, its presence is used to determine that a hi- entry is a diverting user. More precisely, each diverting user is located in the hi-entry before the one containing a cause-param with a cause value as listed in RFC 4458.
Moreover, the Reason header defined in [RFC3326] should be escaped in the hi-entry of the diverting user when the call diversion is due to a received SIP response. The Reason header contains a cause parameter set to the true SIP response code received (Status-Code). Therefore, in case of call diversion due to a SIP response, both cause parameters should be used. The complexity is that these parameters could be used at the same time in the History-Info header but not in the same hi-entry and not with the same meaning. Only the cause-param is dedicated to call diversion service. The 'cause' Reason header parameter is not taken into account in the mapping with a Diversion header.
[RFC4458] also defines the 'target' URI parameter, which could be inserted in a R-URI and consequently in the hi-targeted-to-uri. This parameter is used to keep the diverting user address in the downstream INVITE request in Voicemail URI implementation. As this information is already present in the hi-entries, the 'target' URI parameter is not taken into account regarding the interworking with the Diversion header. From the Diversion header, it could be possible to create the 'target' URI parameter in the hi-entries and/or in the R-URI, but this possibility is based on local policies not described in this document.
A Privacy header, as defined in [RFC3323], could also be included in hi-entries with the 'history' value defined in the [RFC4244].
The index parameter is a string of digits, separated by dots, to indicate the number of forward hops and retargets.
Note: A history entry could contain the "gr" parameter. Regardless of the rules concerning the "gr" parameter defined in [TS_24.604], which must be applied, this parameter has no impact on the mapping and must only be copied with the served user address.
History-Info:
<sip: diverting_user1_addr?Privacy=none?Reason=SIP%3Bcause%
3D302>;index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_addr;cause=480?Privacy=history>;index=1.1,
<sip:last_diversion_target;cause=486>; index=1.1.1
Policy concerning "histinfo" option tag in Supported header: According to [RFC4244], a proxy that receives a Request with the "histinfo" option tag in the Supported header should return captured History-Info in subsequent, provisional and final responses to the Request. The behavior depends upon whether or not the local policy supports the capture of History-Info.
3.2. Diversion Header Syntax
The following text is restating the exact syntax that the production rules in [RFC5806] define, but using [RFC5234] ABNF:
Diversion = "Diversion" HCOLON diversion-params
*(COMMA diversion-params)
diversion-params    = name-addr *(SEMI (diversion-reason /
diversion-counter / diversion-limit /
diversion-privacy / diversion-screen /
diversion-extension))
diversion-reason    = "reason" EQUAL ("unknown" / "user-busy" /
"no-answer" / "unavailable" / "unconditional"
/ "time-of-day" / "do-not-disturb" /
"deflection" / "follow-me" / "out-of-service"
/ "away" / token / quoted-string)
diversion-counter   = "counter" EQUAL 1*2DIGIT
diversion-limit     = "limit" EQUAL 1*2DIGIT
diversion-privacy   = "privacy" EQUAL ("full" / "name" / "uri" /
"off" / token / quoted-string)
diversion-screen    = "screen" EQUAL ("yes" / "no" / token /
quoted-string)
diversion-extension = token [EQUAL (token / quoted-string)]
Note: The Diversion header could be used in the comma-separated format, as described below, and in a header-separated format. Both formats could be combined a received INVITE as recommended in [RFC3261].
Diversion:
diverting_user2_addr; reason="user-busy"; counter=1; privacy=full,
diverting_user1_addr; reason="unconditional"; counter=1; privacy=off
4. Headers in SIP Method
The recommended interworking presented in this document should apply only for INVITE requests.
In 3xx responses, both headers could be present.
When a proxy wants to interwork with a network supporting the other header field, it should apply the interworking between Diversion header and History-Info header in the 3xx response.
When a recursing proxy redirects an initial INVITE after receiving a 3xx response, it should add as a last entry either a Diversion header or a History-Info header (according to its capabilities) in the forwarded INVITE. Local policies could apply to send the received header in the next INVITE.
Other messages where History-Info could be present are not used for the call forwarding service and should not be changed into Diversion header. The destination network must be transparent to the received History-Info header.
Note: the following mapping is inspired from the ISDN User Part (ISUP) to the SIP interworking described in [TS_29.163].
5. Diversion Header to History-Info Header
The following text is valid only if no History-Info is present in the INVITE request. If at least one History-Info header is present, the interworking function must adapt its behavior to respect the chronological order. See section 2.2.
For N Diversion entries, N+1 History-Info entries must be created. To create the History-Info entries in the same order than during a session establishment, the Diversion entries must be mapped from the bottom-most until the top-most. Each Diversion entry shall be mapped into a History-Info entry. An additional History-Info entry (the last one) must be created with the diverted-to party address present in the R-URI of the received INVITE. The mapping is described below.
The first entry created in the History-Info header contains:
- a hi-targeted-to-uri with the name-addr parameter of the bottom-
most Diversion header.
if a privacy parameter is present in the bottom-most Diversion entry, then a Privacy header could be escaped in the History-Info header as described below.
an index set to 1.
For each following Diversion entry (from bottom to top), the History- info entries are created as following (from top to bottom):
Source                                   Destination
Diversion header component:              History-Info header component:
name-addr                                hi-targeted-to-uri
Reason of the previous                   cause-param (not present in
Diversion entry                          the first created hi-entry)
"unknown"---------------------------------404 (default 'cause' value)
"unconditional"---------------------------302
"user-busy"-------------------------------486
"no-answer"-------------------------------408
"deflection "-----------------------------480 or 487
"unavailable"-----------------------------404
"time-of-day"-----------------------------404 (default)
"do-not-disturb"--------------------------404 (default)
"follow-me"-------------------------------404 (default)
"out-of-service"--------------------------404 (default)
"away"------------------------------------404 (default)
Counter                                   hi-index
"1" or parameter -------------------------The previous created index
not present                               is incremented with ".1"
Superior to "1" --------------------------Create N-1 placeholder History
(i.e., N)                                 entry with the previous index
incremented with ".1"
Then the History-Info header
created with the Diversion
entry with the previous index
Privacy                                   Privacy header escaped in the
hi-targeted-to-uri
"full"------------------------------------"history"
"Off"-------------------------------------Privacy header field
absent or "none"
"name"------------------------------------"history"
"uri"-------------------------------------"history"
A last History-Info entry is created and contains:
a hi-targeted-to-uri with the Request-URI of the INVITE request.
a cause-param from the top-most Diversion entry, mapped from the diversion-reason as described above.
if a privacy parameter is present in the top-most Diversion entry, then a Privacy header could be escaped in the History-Info header as described above.
an index set to the previous created index and incremented with ".1"
For other optional Diversion parameters, there is no recommendation as History-Info header does not provide equivalent parameters.
For values of the diversion-reason values that are mapped with a recommended default value, it could also be possible to choose another value. The cause-param URI parameter offers less possible values than the diversion-reason parameter. However, it has been considered that cause-param values list was sufficient to implement CDIV service as defined in 3GPP [TS_24.604] as it covers a large portion of cases.
The Diversion header could contain a Tel:URI in the name-addr parameter, but it seems not possible to have a Tel:URI in the History-Info header. [RFC3261] gives an indication as to the mapping between sip: and Tel:URIs, but in this particular case, it is difficult to assign a valid hostport as the diversion has occurred in a previous network and a valid hostport is difficult to determine. So, it is suggested that in case of Tel:URI in the Diversion header, the History-Info header should be created with a SIP URI with user=phone.
The Diversion header allows the carrying of a counter that retains the information about the number of successive redirections. The History-Info header does not have an equivalent because to trace and count the number of diversion it is necessary to count cause parameter containing a value associated to a call diversion. Read the index value is not enough. With the use of the "placeholder" entry, the History-Info header entries could reflect the real number of diversion occurred.
Example of placeholder entry in the History-Info header:
<sip:unknown@unknown.invalid;cause=xxx>;index=1.1
<sip:bob_addr;cause=404>;index=1.1.1
"cause=xxx" reflects the diverting reason of a previous diverting user. For a placeholder hi-entry, the value "404" must be taken for the cause-param and so, located in the next hi-entry.
Concerning local policies recommendations about headers coexistence in the INVITE request, see sections 2.2 and 7.5.
6. History-Info Header to Diversion Header
To create the Diversion entries in the same order than during a session establishment, the History-Info entries must be mapped from the top-most until the bottom-most. The first History-Info header entry selected will be mapped into the last Diversion header entry and so on. One Diversion header entry must be created for each History-Info entry, with a cause-param reflecting a diverting reason as listed in the [RFC4458].
In this case, the History-Info header must be mapped into the Diversion header as following:
Source                                    Destination
History-Info header component:            Diversion header component:
hi-targeted-to-uri of the                   name-addr
History-Info that precedes the one
containing a diverting cause-param.
cause-param                               Reason
404---------------------------------------"unknown" (default value)
302---------------------------------------"unconditional"
486---------------------------------------"user-busy"
408---------------------------------------"no-answer"
480 or 487--------------------------------"deflection "
503---------------------------------------"unavailable"
hi-index                                   Counter
Mandatory parameter for--------------------The counter is set to "1".
History-Info reflecting
the chronological order
of the information.
Privacy header [RFC3323] escaped in the    Privacy
hi-targeted-to-uri of the
History-Info, which precedes the one
Optional parameter for History-Info,
this Privacy indicates that this
specific History-Info header should
not be forwarded.
"history"----------------------------------"full"
Privacy header field ----------------------"Off"
Note: For other optional History-Info parameters, there is no recommendation as Diversion header does not provide equivalent parameters.
Concerning local policies recommendations about headers coexistence in the INVITE request, see section 2.2.
7. Examples
7.1. Example with Diversion Header Changed into History-Info Header
INVITE last_diverting_target
diverting_user3_address;reason=unconditional;counter=1;privacy=off,
diverting_user2_address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full,
diverting_user1_address;reason=no-answer;counter=1;privacy=off
Mapped into:
<sip: diverting_user1_address; privacy=none >; index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_address; cause=408?privacy=history>;index=1.1,
<sip: diverting_user3_address; cause=486?privacy=none>;index=1.1.1,
<sip: last_diverting_target; cause=302>;index=1.1.1.1
7.2. Example with History-Info Header Changed into Diversion Header
<sip: diverting_user1_address?privacy=history >; index=1,
<sip: diverting_user2_address; cause=302? privacy=none>;index=1.1,
<sip: last_diverting_target; cause=486>;index=1.1.1
diverting_user2_address; reason=user-busy; counter=1; privacy=off,
diverting_user1_address; reason=unconditional; counter=1;
privacy=full
7.3. Example with Two SIP Networks Using History-Info Header
Interworking with a SIP Network Using Diversion Header
A -> P1 -> B -> C -> P2 -> D-> E
A, B, C, D and E are users.
B, C and D have Call Forwarding service invoked.
P1 and P2 are proxies.
Only relevant information is shown on the following call flow.
IWF*                                IWF*
SIP network using     |           SIP network using       |SIP net.
History-Info        |                Diversion          |using
|                                   Hist-Info
|                                   |
UA A    P1     AS B     |      P2     AS C    UA C   AS D   |    UA E
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|INV B  |       |       |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|------>|       |       |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |INV B  |       |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |------>|       |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |Supported: histinfo   |       |       |     |      |       |
|       | History-Info:        |       |       |     |      |       |
|       | <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,      |       |     |      |       |
|       | <sip:userB >; index=1.1      |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |INV C  |      |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |------>|      |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |History-Info: |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |       <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,|       |     |      |       |
|       |       <sip:userB>; index=1.1 |       |     |      |       |
|       |       <sip:userC; cause=302>; index=1.1.1  |      |       |
|       |       |       |INV C |       |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |----->|       |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |Diversion:    |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |B reason= unconditional counter=1  |       |
|       |       |       |History-Info: |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,|     |      |       |
|       |       |       <sip:userB>; index=1.1 |     |      |       |
|       |       |       <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1       |
|       |       |       |      |INV C  |       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |      |------>|       |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |     No modification of Diversion due to P2|
|       |       |       |      |       |INV C  |     |      |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |------>|     |      |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |<--180-|     |      |       |
|       |       |       |      |  No response timer expire  |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |---INV D --->|      |       |
|       |       |Diversion:                          |      |       |
|       |       |userC; reason=no-answer; counter=1; privacy=full,  |
|       |       |userB; reason=unconditional; counter=1; privacy=off,
|       |       |    History-Info:                   |      |       |
|       |       |    <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,         |      |       |
|       |       |    <sip:userB>; index=1.1          |      |       |
|       |       |    <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1  |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |INV E |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |----->|       |
|       |       |Diversion:                                 |       |
|       |       |userD; reason=time-of-day; counter=1; privacy=off  |
|       |       |     History-Info:                         |       |
|       |       |     <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,               |       |
|       |       |     <sip:userB>; index=1.1                |       |
|       |       |     <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1 |       |
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |      | INV E |
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |      |------>|
|       |       | History-Info:                                     |
|       |       |  <sip:proxyP1>; index=1,                          |
|       |       |  <sip:userB ?privacy=none>; index=1.1,            |
|       |       |  <sip:proxyP2; cause=302>; index=1.1.1,           |
|       |       |  <sip:userC ?privacy=history>; index=1.1.1.1,     |
|       |      <sip:userD; cause=408 ?privacy=none>; index=1.1.1.1.1,
|       |       |  <sip:userE; cause=404>; index=1.1.1.1.1.1        |
|       |       |       |      |       |       |     |       |      |
* Note: The IWF is an interworking function that could be a stand- alone equipment not defined in this document (it could be a proxy).
7.4. Additional Interworking Cases
Even if for particular cases in which both headers could coexist, it should be the network local policy responsibility to make it work together. Here are described some situations and some recommendations on the behavior to follow.
In the case where there is one network that includes different nodes, some of them supporting the Diversion header and other ones supporting the History-Info header, there is a problem when any node handling a message does not know the next node that will handle the message. This case can occur when the network has new and old nodes, the older ones using Diversion header and the more recent History- Info header.
While a network replacement may be occurring, there will be a time when both nodes coexist in the network. If the different nodes are being used to support different subscriber types due to different node capabilities then the problem is more important. In this case, there is a need to pass both History-Info header and Diversion header within the core network.
These headers need to be equivalent to ensure that, whatever the node receiving the message, the correct diversion information is received. This requires that whatever the received header, there is a requirement to be able to compare the headers and to convert the headers. Depending upon the node capability, it may be possible to make assumptions as to how this is handled.
If it is known that the older Diversion header supporting nodes do not pass on any received History-Info header, then the interworking becomes easier. If a message is received with only Diversion headers, then it has originated from an 'old' node. The equivalent History-Info entries can be created and these can then be passed as well as the Diversion header.
If the node creates a new History-Info header for a call diversion, then an additional Diversion header must be created.
If the next node is an 'old' node, then the Diversion header will be used by that node and the History-Info entries will be removed from the message when it is passed on.
If the next node is a new node then the presence of both Diversion header and History-Info header means that interworking has already occurred and the Diversion and History-Info entries must be considered equivalent.
If both nodes pass on both History-Info header and Diversion header, but only actively use one, then both types of nodes need to perform the interworking and must maintain equivalence between the headers. This will eventually result in the use of Diversion header being deprecated when all nodes in the network support History-Info header.
The security considerations in [RFC4244] and [RFC5806] apply.
The use of the Diversion header or the History-Info header require the application of the requested privacy and integrity asked by each diverting user or entity. Without integrity, the requested privacy functions could be downgraded or eliminated, potentially exposing identity information. Without confidentiality, eavesdroppers on the network (or any intermediaries between the user and the privacy service) could see the very personal information that the user has asked the privacy service to obscure. Unauthorized insertion, deletion of modification of those headers, can provide misleading information to users and applications. A SIP entity that can provide a redirection reason in a History-Info header or a Diversion header should be able to suppress this in accordance with privacy requirements of the user concerned.
The editor would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback and support provided by Steve Norreys, Jan Van Geel, Martin Dolly, Francisco Silva, Guiseppe Sciortino, Cinza Amenta, Christer Holmberg, Ian Elz, Jean-Francois Mule, Mary Barnes, Francois Audet, Erick Sasaki, Shida Schubert, Joel M. Halpern, Bob Braden, and Robert Sparks. Merci a Lionel Morand, Xavier Marjou, and Philippe Fouquart.
[RFC3261]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
[RFC3323]   Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[RFC3326]   Schulzrinne, H., Oran, D., and G. Camarillo, "The Reason
Header Field for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3326, December 2002.
[RFC4244]   Barnes, M., Ed., "An Extension to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) for Request History Information", RFC
4244, November 2005.
[RFC5806]   Levy, S. and M. Mohali, Ed., "Diversion Indication in
SIP", RFC 5806, March 2010.
[RFC4458]   Jennings, C., Audet, F., and J. Elwell, "Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs for Applications such as
Voicemail and Interactive Voice Response (IVR)", RFC
4458, April 2006.
[RFC5234]   Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
[TS_24.604] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals ;
Communication Diversion (CDIV) using IP Multimedia
(IM)Core Network (CN) subsystem ; Protocol specification
(Release 8), 3GPP TS 24.604", December 2008.
Interworking between the IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network
(CN) Subsystem and Circuit Switched (CS) networks
(Release 8)", December 2008.
Appendix A. Interworking between Diversion Header and Voicemail URI
Voicemail URI is a mechanism described in RFC 4458 to provide a simple way to transport only one redirecting user address and the reason why the diversion occurred in the R-URI of the INVITE request. This mechanism is mainly used for call diversion to a voicemail.
Diversion header to Voicemail URI:
Diversion: userA-address;reason=user-busy;counter=1;privacy=full
Sent (Voicemail URI created in the R-URI line of the INVITE):
sip: voicemail@example.com;target=userA-address;cause=486 SIP/2.0
Mapping of the Redirection Reason is the same as for History-Info header with a default value set to 404.
If the Diversion header contains more than one Diversion entry, the choice of the redirecting user information inserted in the URI is in charge of the network local policy. For example, the choice criterion of the redirecting information inserted in the URI could be the destination of forwarded INVITE request (whether or not the voicemail serves this user).
Note: This interworking could be done in addition to the interworking of the Diversion header into the History-Info header.
Voicemail URI to Diversion header:
In case of real voicemail, this way of interworking should not happen. However, if for any reason it occurs, it is recommended to do it as following:
INVITE sip: voicemail@example.com;\
target=sip:+33145454500%40example.com;user=phone;\
cause=302 SIP/2.0
Sent in the forwarded INVITE:
Diversion: sip:+
33145454500%40example.com;user=phone;reason=unconditional;counter=1
Marianne Mohali
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy-Les-Moulineaux Cedex 9  92794
EMail: marianne.mohali@orange-ftgroup.com
Obsoleted by


text:
"Sola Scriptura", Does This Really Work?
David Lazarus » "Sola Scriptura", Does This Really Work?
To begin let us look at two verses from the Gospels concerning the father of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus and the husband of the Virgin Mary.
"And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Matthew 1:15-16
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph," Luke 3:23
In these verses, we see what appears to be a distinct confliction. According to Matthew, Jacob was the father of Joseph, as opposed to Luke who claims Joseph's father was Heli.
From there we see a distinctive difference in the family line until we reach David where we find the family line mentioned in Matthew came down from David's son Solomon the King, as opposed to Luke's family line, which came down from one of David's other sons being Nathan.
Another interesting fact is that Matthew's genealogy extends only as far back as Abraham, whereas Luke's extends all the way back to Adam. The main reason I have heard to explain this is it is representing that through Matthew's gospel, the family line descending from Solomon shows Jesus as the true heir as King, whereas in Luke's we see Jesus as a descendent of Adam, proving His human nature that He inherited from His mother the Virgin Mary.
Yet both of these speak of Joseph, who was Christ's step-father, not His biological father and thereby speaking of no blood connection to Jesus, whatsoever, other than that between the Lord and His mother, the virgin Mary of whom no genealogy is mentioned.
The most obvious possibility is that Mary was also of the tribe of Judah and a descendent of David. The problem then is, how did Jesus offer Himself as our sacrificial Lamb on the cross as it was solely of the sons of Aaron of the tribe of Levi who were permitted to make sacrifices.
Simply put, if Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah, as is suggested in both Matthew's and Luke's genealogies and as the Levitical priesthood and the Law of Moses was still in practice at the time, then for Christ to make such a sacrifice, He would have been in sin, and as such, no longer eligible to be our sacrificial lamb.
The most obvious answer to this is that Abraham had made offerings to Mechizedek, priest of God and King of Salem, prior to the Levitical priesthood or the Mosaic Law ever being established and as such, the priesthood of Melchizedek of which Christ is High Priest held a higher position to the Jewish priesthood that came later.
However, although this seems quite a logical conclusion, it still conflicts with the scriptures that state it is for the sons of Aaron to offer sacrifices as the Levitical priesthood and Mosaic Law were still active until after Christ died on the cross. Yet in the Word of God, we have no direct information to suggest Jesus was in fact a descendent of Aaron.
We do however read of something that gives us a hint to the answer to this quandary,
"There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth." Luke 1:5
"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." Luke 1:36
In these verses, we read that Elisabeth was a daughter of Aaron, but also a cousin of Mary, suggesting Mary must also be of the same tribe as Elisabeth, being the tribe of Levi and not Judah as was earlier suggested.
Now we have a number of problems, firstly the scriptures appear to conflict as to who was Joseph's father. Then the scriptures appear to conflict as to what tribe Mary was actually a member of.
If it is Levi, then Jesus was a son of Aaron, rather than a descendent of David through any blood relationship, and therefore not eligible as the heir of the throne of Israel.
Alternatively, if it is Judah, then Christ was the heir to the throne of David, but not eligible to offer Himself as a sacrifice.
One possible solution seems to be that Joseph was in fact a member of the tribe of Judah and Mary was of Levi, but through her betrothal to Joseph, she also became a member of Judah. Thus, Jesus was child of both the tribes of Judah and Levi through the bloodline of His mother
However, both Joseph and Mary were bound under the Mosaic Law at that time, which meant they were not permitted to marry outside of their own tribe. If then they had done this thing they would both have been guilty of a great sin before they Lord and such a marriage would be of no effect until after the union was consummated, which if it had been, then Mary could not have been a virgin when Christ was conceived.
The Old Testament however testified to the fact that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin so for Jesus to be recognized as the Christ, we must acknowledge Mary's virginity even after she fell pregnant, thus she could not have consummated her marriage to her betrothed husband Joseph.
Let us now consider the following scriptures,
"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." Acts 17:10-12
From this, we know that from the scriptures, the Berians were able to confirm the testimonies of Paul and Silas concerning Jesus Christ, however at that time they Berians were dependent solely on the Old Testament.
Bearing this in mind, the claims of Jesus performing miracles such as healing of the sick, casting out of demons, raising the dead and numerous others confirmed that God worked through Jesus as He did with the prophets, but they did not prove by themselves that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for.
There were also other facts that suggest that Jesus was the Messiah, such as He was born in Bethlehem, He was also called a Nazarene and he spent time in Egypt and returned which could be considered fulfilling the following prophetic words spoken of by Matthew,
"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Matthew 2:15
However, none of these conclusively proved that Jesus had been born of a virgin, which was one sign the Jews knew was the absolute evidence of the identity of the Christ. So we are left with the question as to how did the Berians establish Mary was a Virgin after she fell pregnant.
The scriptures as we know them verify that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin and that she would be of the family of David, but they do not disclose the identity of the mother. So where did the Berians find conclusive evidence to "find out whether these things were so" in specific reference personally to Mary's virginity.
This of cause can go on and on and we will still be left with more questions for every theory we speculate. So if we are to follow the "Sola Scriptura" principle that scripture alone is authoritative and requires no aid from apostolic tradition and the corporative faith and teachings of the Church, then we must find within the Word of God conclusive scriptural evidence to answer these and any other questions that may arise.
This may seem that I am trying to create doubts concerning the authenticity of the Word of God, however this could not be further from the truth. The fact is that the "Sola Scriptura" principle simply doesn't work.
It leaves unanswered questions, creates contradictions in scripture and opens the way for each to interpret the Word according to their personal opinions creating disunity between believers. It has been indirectly responsible for the introduction of so many false teachings that it would be nearly impossible to count them along with as many denominations, sects, cults or whatever name we wish to call the multitude of gatherings all preaching their own version of Christianity.
No doubt many will disagree and say the examples I have given have no specific bearing on salvation and we must rely on faith alone which is true, however if that faith is based on scriptural interpretations founded on an inefficient system such as "Sola Scriptura", then the faith is potentially as incomplete as the system itself.
To those that disagree and claim "Sola Scriptura" is a dependable method of interpreting scripture I ask would you please correct me by pointing out the Old Testament scriptural evidence the Berians might have used to confirm the following,
What scriptures conclusively prove that Mary, and as such Jesus, was a descendent of David and the tribe of Judah?
What scriptures conclusively identify Mary as the specific Virgin prophetically foretold as the mother of the Messiah and how did they prove she was still a virgin?
What scriptures conclusively prove that someone other than the sons of Aaron were permitted to offer sacrifices after the implementation of the Mosaic law?
As there are too many possible questions to ask here, I will limit my request to only 2 more as I would also greatly appreciate if those who support the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine could also point out which scriptures explain the following,
Who was the biological Father of Joseph and why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke conflict?
If no scriptures can verify Mary was of the tribe of Judah, then by whose bloodline was Jesus a descendent of David?
Of cause, the early Church was fully aware of the answers to these questions and in fact, these things and many others were quite common knowledge amongst the early Christians.
However if the "Sola Scriptura" principle is credible, then the modern gatherings should also have no problem discovering the same using nothing but the Word alone.
holyscriptures
Nexus Wiki
Spambot Death Wall
Fighting Spammers for Fun and Profit!
Schools - Teachers - Parents
Issues in Schooling
FreeSMUG
Free Open Source Software Mac User Group