Alan Forey wrote and intriguing journal article that questions the authentication of a letter supposedly written by St. Bernard in which he mentions Pedro Henriques the purported brother of King Alfonso. Because of mentioning of Pedro, Forey establishes the theory, that St. Bernard did not author the letter. Forey questions if St. Bernard provided any prior knowledge to King Afonso of Portugal regarding the crusaders siege of Lisbon in 1147. Forey states, the letter known simply as letter 308 is cryptic at best and does not provide any specific details of an invasion by crusaders or of the original author’s intent for writing the letter. Stating, letter 308 first appeared in Brito’s Chronica de Cister in 1602, in which Forey claims that articles printed in that particular chronical are often not genuine.
The journal article “The Siege of Lisbon and the Second Crusade” written by Alan Forey questions the validity of St. Bernard’s letter 308 and the significance of the “Lisbon letter.” Some historical analyses of the letters imply that St. Bernard provided prior knowledge to Portugal’s King Afonso Henriques regarding the northern fleet’s siege of Lisbon in 1147. Forey opens his essay by questioning the authenticity of letter 308 by writing “This letter first appears in Brito’s Chronica de Cister, published in 1602: and it is generally accepted that this work is based partly on documents which are not genuine.” St. Bernard was a key figure in promoting, recruiting Christian warriors, and fulling the papacy’s desires regarding the Second Crusade. Many individuals believe that based upon the letters content Bernard was directly involved in planning the expedition to the Iberian Peninsula. To dispute their claims Forey cites numerous historical sources that insinuate St. Bernard was not the author of letter 308. It is Forey’s contention that the letter is unambiguous and simply does not stand up to scrutiny to analysis.
Father further argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold Mother in contempt for violating the circuit court’s order with regard to father’s visitation of the minor children. Further, Father alleges that the circuit court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to satisfy his child support obligation. For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred in failing to find mother in contempt. Further, we hold the circuit court did not err in finding Father to be in contempt. A.
The first writer is John Van Seter who wrote the book “Abraham in History and Tradition”, disagreeing that no conclusive proof existed to support the historical being of Abraham and the other Biblical Patriarchs or the ancient consistency of their origins in Mesopotamia and their achievements and travels as depicted in the book of book of Genesis. Another writer found his work to have been falsified materials to support his work, thus leaving evidence to prove Pentateuch. The second writer: Frank Cross, believes the Pentateuch were rewriting of poetic epic. He support this belief by giving example of Russian and Spanish moving in same direction from epic to prose chronicles. The third author; William Dever, argues that the occurrence in Israel history never occurred and that data do not support the existence of state Israel.
According to Johnston, Bradford became a governor after John Carver passed away. “Bradford began writing Of Plymouth Plantation in 1630 ...” (Johnston). This statement showed that Bradford started to write his book in 1630. The book included stories of their voyage to America and many hardships the colony faced. “These chapters present a story of great difficulties and great determination, demonstrating the strength of character that later generations of Americans have wished to claim as their own.” (Johnston).
This journal, “Of Plymouth Plantation”, which was from Norton Anthology of American Literature, Vol. 1, written by William Bradford between 1630 and 1651, and edited by Samuel Eliot Morison in 1953, describes the story of the pilgrims who sailed from Southampton, England, on the Mayflower and settled in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620. Those pilgrims were English Christians in the 16th and 17th centuries and religious separatists who saw no hope of reforming the Church of England from within; therefore, they hoped to separate from the Church of England and form independent local churches in another place. In order to , those pilgrims overcame many obstacles. The author had used the power of rhetoric, especially in the use of the three rhetorical
In order to confirm this Judge Danforth calls Elizabeth Proctor to testify in court, in which she lies, as a result Danforth says “She spoke nothing of lechery, and this man has lied” (Miller 114). In this situation, Reverend Hale voices his concern by saying that it is a natural for her to lie in order to save her husband’s name (Miller 114). Here, Judge Danforth refuses to listen to Reverend Hale and inconsiderately dismisses his logical argument that given the circumstances a wife would lie to save their husband’s
Abercrombie never asked if her headscarf was to practice her religion, but neither did Elauf mention it was for religious reasons. Abercrombie denied hiring her thinking she was muslim and that’s why she wore a hijab. One of reasons that this case was taken to court was to see if Abercrombie discriminated Samantha for wearing a headscarf, which violates the 14th amendmendment. Another big conflict that made this case be taken to court was that Abercrombie did not hire her because they thought she was muslim and that is why she wore a hijab, which violates the Title VII of the Civil Right Act Of 1964. What the Court wanted out of this case was to make sure that Abercrombie was not violating these rights from employees.
However, this did not seem to shift the views of the local authority and they could not promise that no advice would be given. As a result, Mrs Gillick petitioned across the country and took her case to the High Court. Mr Justice Woolf held that she was not entitled to the declaration she sought because “in order to obtain the relief the plaintiff had to establish… that lack of parental consent would render the doctor’s conduct unlawful” however Woolf decided that the plaintiff did not establish this and a doctor would make an effort to ensure that nothing happened
However, Tom claims, “[Daisy] is a Catholic and they don’t believe in divorce” (Fitzgerald 33). The truth is that Daisy is not Catholic, and Tom is using this as an excuse to not marry Myrtle. Like Gatsby, Myrtle will never be accepted into the upper class even by those who love