Geraldo Rivera Is Not a Roman Catholic

Meanwhile, at least I know what I'm going to here on the podcast now. Anyway, being born to a Roman or other (e.g., Byzantine) Catholic does not make one a Catholic. Geraldo is a Reform Jew, although his dad (the late Cruz Rivera) was a Puerto Rican Roman Catholic. Geraldo himself has stated that he was raised "mostly Jewish". His mom, Lillian Rivera nee Lillie Friedman, is an Ethnic and Religious Jew; and (as Geraldo stated) she wanted Cruz to convert to Judaism if and when she married him, but "he never got around to" it or stopped being a Catholic layman.

Catholicism is not an ethnic grouping, whereas Jewishness is. Besides, I have a claim to Catholicism more than Geraldo does, but I myself am not a Catholic. Like Geraldo, though, I was born in an interfaith home--which eventually became a broken, divorced-parent, single-mom home. I, specifically, was born to an Anusi Ashkenazi dad and a mostly-Irish Roman-turned-English Catholic (Episcopalian) home (Mom, though, is of Jewish descent--at least through the Siedenburg-Mueller Pundts. They eventually became Anusi Protestants as well, since they had their daughter Betha Mueller baptized; and Great-Great-Granddad Pundt became Roman Catholic when he married the Irish-American Mary Ellen Green. So, Mom's mom is Jewish; but given that Mom is only 1/32 Jewish--so far as we know--she's of Jewish descent, but not Jewish.

(Mom could be Jewish, however, if--for example--Pop-Pop "McCoy" [Mom's paternal grandma's maternal granddad] was a Sephardic Jew--regardless of that he [assuming that he was Jewish] an Anusi Catholic.).

I'm, therefore, descended on both sides from Catholics--regardless of that they were a mix of Anusi and genuine, Jewish and gentile, Roman and Non-Roman Catholics. Geraldo does not have this claim. Let's also assume, just for hypotheticality's sake, that his granddad Juan Rivera--who was an Ethnic Spaniard--was actually a Sephardic Jew and Anusi Catholic. The claim that Geraldo claims to have on being Catholic would be even less; especially since Anusim really don't count as Catholic (unless, of course, they're truly Catholics who are just hiding their Ethnic Jewishness; but that is another discussion)--and I say the same of my Anusi relatives (including living relatives): unless they truly believed (or believe) Catholicism and were (or are) just hiding their Ethnic Jewishness, they were not (or are not) truly Catholic.

I was also baptized as a Roman Catholic and raised as an English Catholic, and became saved in the graveyard of Christ Episcopalian Church on Easter Day 1996 or 1997 (I still have that memory of Mom and the then-pastor Jen talking in the parking lot while I, in a blue dress and white shirt under the dress, was praying by Miriam Thomann's grave--not to or through Miriam, in case anyone is wondering; but Miriam's legacy did affect me to become saved. Incidentally, her dad--Ron--has long since been deceased, but I'm not sure whether he's buried next to her. Also, I don't know whether Miriam's mom--Alma--is still alive.).

In conclusion, Geraldo Rivera is less Catholic than I am--and I'm not religiously Catholic; though I descended from both Jewish (including Anusi) and gentile Catholics, and was baptized and raised as a Catholic.

geraldo rivera a practicing catholic

1

geraldo rivera i'm a catholic

1

Yeah....No....

There is no proof that we're related to the Romanovs. Russian, yes. Polish, yes. Jewish by ethnicity, and the former two (as well as Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, among other types of citizens in Eastern Europe) by citizenship, yes and yes. Romanovs? No...and there's no proof that Stefan Czarniecki (to whom we can't even trace our family tree back) was related to the Romanovs.

czarniecki family romanov family	1
czarniecki family romanov family related	1

PS When you find proof that the Czarnieckis or Czerneckis, Uszinskys, Gajdoszes, etc. were related to the Romanovs, please, let me know. By the way, I did see my mispacha from Switzerland. Shalom alecheim, and I'm sorry that I didn't acknowledge you before. By the way, as a PolishForums guy stated, "Andrius is lithuanian equivalent of russian Andrei which comes from greek. Andriulis in lithuanian means 'little Andrius' or 'dear Andrius'. Andriulis + evičius= Andriulevičius. I checked my LIthuanian surnames dictionary and there are a lot of different surnames with root Andr-, and Andrulevičius(without "i") almost exclusively comes from this little town STAKLISKES. Hope it helps."

So, we're Litvaks. Does this help? Incidentally, I'm very Litvake--more intellectual than emotional. 

   

Sirnach, Thurgau arrived from google.ch on "The Nicole Factor: To Begin, Pop-Pop's A Murderer As Well as A Self-Dreading Jew Who Is Ungrateful To His Philosemitic gentile Mother" by searching for andrulewicz.

18:36:08 -- 4 days 1 hour ago

Are "Palestinians" Really Refugees? Actually...

Since a refugee is an internally- or externally-displaced person who is unable to reside in his or her country of nationality or citizenship, because the country persecutes him or her based on his or her "race" (ethnicity, nationality, ethnos), religion, "nationality" (citizenship), social-group affiliation, or political opinion; Jews in Gaza and the West Bank are internally-displaced refugees. The Arab ("Palestinian") governments are persecuting them within Israel--specifically, the parts which are misnominally called "The Occupied Territories". The Jews (Israelis, Israelites) are persecuted based on citizenship (Israeli), ethnicity (Israelite), religion (particularly Jewish and Messianic Jewish [Jewish Christian]), political opinion (Zionist), and social-group affiliation (with other "settlers", reclaimants).

In conclusion, therefore, the Israelis--not the "Palestinians"--are refugees; and the "Palestinians" are the occupiers of Israeli land. 

Keeping Mitzvot Is Causing Others To Stumble? Since When?

Truth may absolutely hurt, but.... For example, a friend asked why some consider him or her to be part of the Hebrew Roots and/or Sacred Movement cults. I replied, "To be fair, I think that they're just being honest. To want to keep all 613 mitzvot (some of which are in contradistinction to the New Covenant) is one thing, but to tell others to keep Torah lest they be pagan or not living for Yehovah is another." Now, do I--for example--keep at least some of the 613 mitzvot? Yes. For example, I do try to wear my tallit every day, and I looked up (for a lack of better wordage) tallit etiquette and answers to questions that I had about wearing a tallit (Remember that my family were and are Anusim.). But am I going to tell others to wear a tallit? No.

In fact, someone bluntly told me the followi

ng after I answered his question about whether I'm Messianic, and asked if he wanted a Messianic to further support his business: "It sounds like you are asking me in good faith, with pure intentions and not just trying to pick a fight, so I will be straight with you. I have struggled with that question for a while, and have not achieved crystal clarity. To be honest, I would prefer not to sell a tallit with tzitzit. I don't see why a Christian, regardless of their enthusiasm for biblical practices, needs kosher tzitzit. However, if a Christian is really serious, really wants to keep the mitzvah of tzitzit, is willing to take the trouble to learn to tie the tzitzit and spend an hour doing it, then I don't really have any grounds to object."

So, trying to keep all 613 mitzvot, including the mitzvah l'tzitziyot, may actually even cause Non-Messianic Jews to stumble. In other words, if you're going to keep the mitzvot that are still valid under the New Covenant, don't be legalistic lest cause anyone to stumble with them.

Why Hanukkah?

"Hanukkah" literally means "dedication". In the Books of Maccabees (which refers to the Kohenic dynasty of the Maccabees), the story of how the Maccabee Family took the Temple back from the Syrians and Greeks who had desecrated it is told. Originally meant to belatedly celebrate Sukkot, Hanukkah became the remembrance and celebration of the retaking of the Temple.

The Pharisees set up the traditions for how Hanukkah is to be celebrated. They relate that one of the Maccabees could not find enough oil for the menorah to be lit continually, but only for a night. The oil instead let the menorah be lit for eight days, according to those same Pharisees.

Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. So, Hanukkah as a historic event really did happen, but the Books of Maccabees are not part of Tanakh.

"So what percentage of Jews actually reject the Talmud?"

That's a good question. An exact percentage can't be taken down or ascertained. This is because of three things:

• Even some Karaites and quite a few Messianic Jews will take parts of the Talmud that are not in contradistinction from Scripture and follow them or implement them--e.g., Hanukkah; the names of the months. By the way, the Pharisee name "Nisan" and Hanukkah both appear in Scripture.
• There are Humanistic and other Jews (e.g., Yaron Yadan) who reject Tanakh altogether because they intertwine it with the Talmud. Yaron Yadan tellingly states, for example, "The prophet Ezekiel contradicts the words of the Torah...Know that this contradiction is found even within the Torah itself, for in Deuteronomy (24:16) it is written, "Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime." The Gemara in Sanhedrin 27b reconciles the contradiction: "'visit[s] the guilt of the parents upon the children'! On those who continue their fathers' deeds." That is, the children are punished (for their parents' guilt?) when they continue to sin. See Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:4, who went on at length about the reconciliation of contradictions." Yaron Yadan himself has the trouble of both separating the Torah from the Talmud, and separating--for instance--individual punishments and curses on the family line as a punishment to the family's partriarch or matriarch--viz. direct and indirect consequences.
• The percentage of Karaite, Messianic, and other--both Patrilineal, Matrilineal, and both-parent--Jews who reject the Talmud entirely can't be ascertained. Om an incidental-but-perhaps-related note, we can't even account for how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust--usually only Matrilineal Jews who are more than a 1/16th or so Jewish are counted (though Scripture--e.g., Galatians 4:22-24 and 1 Chronicles 7:14--accounts that Isaac was the first Jew, and that Manasseh children were 1/16th Jewish and still Jewish).

I've Covered This Before, But...

After updating my Facebook statuses and tweeting (and after a nasty, Anti-Semitic comment that was made by a Facebook friend's friend), I have to re-cover why Jews killed but did not murder Jesus. The distinction involves mens rea--that is, I have to show how Jews killed Jesus (no mens rea) & how gentiles murdered Jesus (mens rea).

The distinction is important because we Jews honestly thought that we were righteously administering the death penalty. Gentiles, on the other hand, knew that Jesus was innocent, riled up misguided Jews, murdered Him, and then blamed the Jews for murder.In other words, we had to kill our Passover sacrifice whereas gentiles knowingly participated in the murder of a Just Man.The problem for Jews is when we knowingly & blatantly flout our Passover sacrifice. Most--e.g., Paul--did and do not intentionally do this. In fact, Paul writes down that he did what he did in ignorance (cf. 1 Timothy 1:12-17), whereas Pilate even washed his hands of the Blood.

To begin, I quote the Anti-Semitic comment:

Nicolaas Prinsloo · Friends with [a friend]

I believe the jews our actually jews but I'm also reminded that it is the jews who crucified our Lord and for years these jews have been making up propaganda (beliar)... 
I believe in the tribes of Israel... History repeats itself!

What Nicholas meant by "crucified" is "murdered"--and Nicholas is absolutely wrong. "Kill" is different from "murder". I don't mind saying that Yeshua had to die for my sin because: 1) Not that He actually had to, but He chose to. 2) Who else could die for me sin but me or G-d? 3) The Lamb had to be killed--you just don't have a Passover sacrifice to partake of without a Lamb being killed. What the Romans meant by "kill", though, as you pointed out, was murder--which, as you also pointed out, we didn't do. The Romans murdered Jesus and deliberately perverted "murder" into "kill". 

The Romans were just as sneaky as Pilate--they knew that Jesus was innocent. "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”" (Matthew 27:24) Pilate deliberately riled up a misguided crowd then blamed them for murder.


Even the Talmud, meanwhile, admits that we killed Jesus, that we saw to Jesus' death--it does not say that we murdered him. Why? Because we thought that we were fulfilling the mitzvot to kill a bad guy--e.g., Deuteronomy 13. Actually, the Talmud states, "Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'" (Sanhedrin 43a) We were blinded by the Veil of Moses (which was supposed to take effect like that) and the Talmud. So, we had no mens rea.

But we do have His blood on our hands, but in a way to cover us--not to hold us guilty for murder. "And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”" (Matthew 27:25) We were misguidedly saying, "Look; we don't mind that we killed a guy for apostasy"--we honestly thought that we were doing righteousness and earning merit with G-d. So, that's why the Scriptures say: " eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:7-11). So, we're in trouble if we flout our Passover sacrifice if and once we know better; the gentiles are in trouble for murder--and how'd you like to have answer for murder if you didn't admit that you're guilty of it? By the same token, what benefit do you get out of flouting your Passover sacrifice?

Paul even writes down that, like many fellow Jews, he didn't know better and honestly thought that he was doing right (cf., as aforementioned, 1 Timothy 1:12-17) It's a paradox--we aren't guilty of murder, but we're guilty of being ignorant if we've heard that Yeshua was our Passover sacrifice and we flout that, anyway (cf., e.g., Romans 10:2:3-4, 14-21).

In conclusion, when gentiles (and even fellow Jews) state that "The Jews killed [viz. "murdered"] Jesus!", we need to say that, "Of course, we killed our Passover sacrifice--how absurd is that the Romans blame us for murder when sacrificing a lamb is not murdering it?" After all, Yeshua stated, "“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”" (Luke 23:24)

By the way, this puts Pilate in a different light, doesn't it? Think about why Pilate really wanted to release Yeshua to the Jews:

¹³ Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, ¹⁴ said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; ¹⁵ no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him;^[c] and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. ¹⁶ I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” ¹⁷ (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).^[d]

¹⁸ And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— ¹⁹ who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

²⁰ Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. ²¹ But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”

²² Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”

²³ But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed.^[e] 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. ²⁵ And he released to them^[f] the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

He wanted them to eventually murder Yeshua and be blamed for murder--he wanted to look innocent and not release Yeshua right away. He had even been warned. Also by the way, the envy of the Jews was an inadvertent sin--and what does one do for inadvertent sin? He or she offers a sacrifice and/or flees to a city of refuge.

Flee to the Passover Sacrifice and High Priest who is Yeshua, and into the fold of the New Jerusalem. 

My Law of Return For Medinat Yisra'el

"17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

"“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”" (From Genesis 15:17-22)

Also--for example--. if Ethnic Syrians can have Syria (per the 1947 refounding of Syria), why can't all Ethnic Jews have Israel first?

Therefore, if only Medinat Yisra'el elected someone who could affect the Law of Return to allow Patrilineal Jews (including Messianic Jews, who are allowed but not under the Law of Return) and Matrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews--and all other Ethnic Jews. In other words, the Law of Return should give all Ethnic Jews priority, then gerim tzdukim (since gerim tzdukim are equal to Ethnic Jews, but Israel is first supposed to be for the Jew), then the gentiles.

By the way, the 2009 [Correction: 2008] case came down to this: The Levy Supreme Court allowed Patrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews to make aliyah, but not under the Law of Return. In other words, they sneakily got around it. They said, "You can return, but you can't become citizens under the Law of Return"--which the Talmudists at Wikipedia reveled in, and they hate Messianics there.

My Family Last Names, Or...

Those which I'm sure of and listed, anyway ("Laczinsky" is tricky and in the air at this point--though why else would Great-Great-Granddad have used "Laczinsky" were that not his mom's name?):

1. "Chernetski" referred to us settling in near the Czarnia River and being dark skinned. 
2. "Trudniak", "difficult"--maybe they didn't like Jews or we wouldn't fit with the goyischer status quo? 
3. "Foczko", form of "Focko"?--"foresail", imposed--as we are Levites. 
4. "Ushinsky"--no idea. 
5. "Gajdosz", "awkward legs" or "fat" or "drunk"--perhaps a schicker?
6.  "Novak", "new"--maybe for "New Christian"? 
7. "Rusznak"--imposed, maybe because we lived near Ruthenia at a point. 
8. "Monka", "Miller"--Ashkenazic Jewish from "maka". "
9. Andrulewicz", "ben-Andrea". 
10. "Danilowicz"--either because we're of Dan or had a patriarch by that name. 
11. "Morgiewicz", corrupted to "Margiewicz"--may be from "Margolis" or "Perl". 
12. "Homa", "Thomas" or maybe from "homiyah" or just "homa"--e.g., "Har Homa".

I've Made My Decision In Terms Of Naming A Pet...

If I ever get a pet, I may name the said pet after a deceased love one. After all, based on the answers that I've received (one of them quite inappropriate, as I made clear), I see no contradiction against or contradistinction from Judaism or Jewishness in naming a pet after--for example--my beloved and late Great-Granduncle Bernie. The answers (not in chronological order) that I received are as follows, and I break down the answers as to why they affected me to decide that naming a pet after Great-Granduncle Bernie would be okay:

Firstly (and I made quite clear that I didn't appreciate being yelled at or having to ask a follow-up question):

Reform Judaism/Answered Question

Expert:	Rabbi Sue Levy
Subject:	Naming Pets In Judaism
Question:	QUESTION: Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do? ANSWER: Dear Nicole, No, it is absolutely NOT appropriate to name a pet after someone who died. Chag Sameach, Rabbi Sue ---------- FOLLOW-UP ---------- QUESTION: Why is it inappropriate to do so?
Answer:	A pet is not a person who will carry on the honored legacy of the individual being remembered. You cannot teach a put about the person for whom it is named. A pet cannot emulate that person or behave in its honor. A pet cannot feel a sense of connection with that individual. It is degrading to the memory of the deceased to consider an animal worthy of such an honor.

Secondly (and I give David kavod for not yelling at me, and I asked him partly because he didn't list himself as a "rabbi" or an Anti-Messianic ["Anti-Missionary"] type):

Orthodox Judaism/Answered Question

Expert:	David Rosenblum
Subject:	Naming Pets In Judaism
Question:	Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do?
Answer:	Hi Nicole, Please know that I am not a Rabbi. I never heard of a provision for naming a pet after a person.  It is most certainly not encouraged.  I would avoid it for the following reason (this is my own judgement and subject to critical debate): The purpose of naming someone after they passed away is so that their memory should continue.  Since we remember the dead fondly, we remember their good deeds and will strive to emulate their ways which benefits ourselves for obvious reasons but also benefits the deceased since we improved ourselves in their merit.  This is stimulated by attaching the name to another person and continually calling that person who has equal standing in the hierarchy of creatures, by that same name.  If the name is attached to a lesser creature I can see the possibility of the memory being degraded and the effect being nullified and perhaps even reversed.  In other words, since we degraded the memory, we will not end up emulating the good ways and perhaps incur a negative trait due to the degradation. About the naming in general: many families attach great importance to this and sometimes quarrel about which name to give to newborns.  I always hear Rabbis say that the loss of peace is a much greater issue than can be gained by naming after their loved one.  Intelligent and learned Jews always are very easy with giving up the right to such honors in favor of keeping peaceful relations.  To me it always seemed that the naming after a deceased is a nice to have but not very important. I hope this helps. David

Thirdly:

Nicole Maratovah CzarneckiNehemia Gordon

8 hours ago near Baltimore · 

• Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do?

  Like · 

  • 

    Nehemia Gordon No, not according to Jewish tradition.

    about an hour ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki What about according to Karaite Judaism, or would the same principle apply?

    about an hour ago · Like

Fourthly (and this connects to this):

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki

3 hours ago near Baltimore

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomClose FriendsPeople That I Follow On TwitterSee all lists...FamilyFamily FriendsNotre Dame Classmates andCreative Kids Camp and Greater GreenbeltRelatives? and RelativesFriends and AcquaintancesChurch and CCACollege FriendsFriends of Friends and AcChapelgate Christian AcademyHomeCollege of Notre Dame of MarylandUMBCHoward Community CollegeHoward CCBaltimore AreaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyAcquaintancesGo Back

: Wait a minute: if you give a pet a Jewish name, isn't that possibly naming that pet after a deceased loved one--e.g., "Rivkah", 'imenu?

Like ·  · Share

• 

  David Marshall Would that be bad, if a pet were named after a deceased loved one?

  3 hours ago · Like
• 

  Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki From what I've gathered, a name is connected to the deceased one's soul. So, if it causes one to stumble, then yeah.

  about an hour ago · Like
• 

  Tareq Ayoub i think it is abad

  about an hour ago · Like

Fifthly:

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki

Friday near Baltimore

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomClose FriendsPeople That I Follow On TwitterSee all lists...FamilyFamily FriendsNotre Dame Classmates andCreative Kids Camp and Greater GreenbeltRelatives? and RelativesFriends and AcquaintancesChurch and CCACollege FriendsFriends of Friends and AcChapelgate Christian AcademyHomeCollege of Notre Dame of MarylandUMBCHoward Community CollegeHoward CCBaltimore AreaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyAcquaintancesGo Back

: Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one Jewish or Jewishly appropriate?

Like ·  · Share

• 

  Michelle Ravens Czarnecki I don't think so!

  Friday at 3:19pm · Like
• 

  Amy Chai I'm just thinking...no. I think you could use a Jewish or yiddish term though, such as the equivalent of "sweetie" or "cute" but not a proper name of someone passed.

By way of these answers, I'm getting  impression that one's naming of a pet after a deceased loved one would be okay provided that doing so would not cause someone else to stumble--after all, if one can't die for another person, why should he or she have to live for the same--especially if living is or was incumbent on the other person (After all, that Yeshua died for someone else is often an objection to Yeshua per a perversion of. for example, Deuteronomy 24:16, and Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:20.)? . Also, as a ChaCha expert stated, what the deceased one would have wanted or not wanted is what matters.

So, maybe I shouldn't have stopped for a minute and worried when a Golden Retriever named "Bernie" affected me to, G-d willing, someday name a pet after Great-Granduncle Bernie--after all, especially if I don't have children, can't one of my "fur children" have a family name? By the way, the above-cited verses meant only that a sinful human couldn't die for another sinful human--if anyone died for someone else, G-d would have to (See, for example, Psalm 112 and Isaiah 43:10-13--where G-d even states, "And My servant whom I have chosen,[t]hat you may know and believe Me, [a]nd understand that I am He."--and 53.). 

Also by the way, the answers from Amy, David Marshall, and Tareq (as far as I know) came from gentiles; Michelle is my twin and (as much as I love my twin) not--as far as I know--a mevinah (though she was our community college's JSU President until an Anti-Messianic type came in and took it over); and I'm a little surprised that Nehemia, for a Karaite, cited Jewish tradition as opposed to giving an answer from a purely-Karaite (even if a Non-Messianic Karaite) perspective. 

Furthermore by the way, since--in the case of a grieving cat owner--"[i]t might be wise to purchase another cat, similar in breed to the previous one, and even name it the same name as the previous one.  [since t]his will somewhat alleviate the pain.", why can't a grieving person name his or her fur child after a deceased loved one?