Discuss the Gospel of John and what the significance of the Gospel of John is.

The Gospel of John is the fourth Gospel. It is said to
have been written between 50 and 84 A.D. It is self-identified as having been written by
the disciple John. He identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23)
and says, "This is the disciple which testifies of these things" (21:24). The Gospel of
John is significant because it begins with a Creation statement then establishes Jesus'
identity with the corroboration of a credible witness. It is further significant because
John chooses to relay events that further reveal Jesus’ identity and gives him titles.
It is yet further significant because the Gospel of John is the only Gospel of the four
that elaborates upon the spiritual relationship Jesus has with God through the Holy
Spirit (John 17), a relationship that Jesus extends to his followers, to whom love is
extolled as the highest value. The Gospel ends with details that occurred after Jesus'
resurrection from death when he communes with the disciples. This last is significant as
it establishes the doctrine of the followers of Christ and reveals the nature of the
resurrection Jesus offers his followers.

John opens with
the famous words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God" (1:1). John attributes the creation of all things to the Word. He then
equates the Word with both life and light: "In him was life; and the life was the light
of men" (1:4). Later, when John says "the Word became flesh" (1:14), it is logically
inferred that this person (this "flesh") was not only the Word and human but also "life"
and "light." After Jesus' baptism by water at the hand of Jesus’ witness, John the
Baptist, he is further equated with the "Son of God" (1:34) and "the Lamb of God"
(1:36), an allusion to the sacrificial lamb that bears Israel's sins at Passover. John
signifies the importance of the manifold identity of Jesus by saying that Jesus provides
the right to unity with God: "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to
become children of God" (1:12).

Throughout the Gospel, John
adds to the titles of Jesus as a way of proving "that whosoever believes may in him have
eternal life" (3:15). After various miracles, John relays the words Jesus chooses to
identify himself using the "I am" name for God given in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14).
This means of identification is emphasized when he says, "before Abraham was born, I am”
(John 8:58). One "I am" identity John records is, "I am the bread of life" (6:35).
Another is, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (14:6). Another is, "I am the good
shepherd" (10:11). These are metaphorical statements intended to provide understanding
of the nature of the Word’s/the Lamb’s/God’s intended and desired relationship with
humankind.

What literary devices are found in Chapter 21?

There are several examples of
foreshadowing found in Chapter 21 of To Kill a
Mockingbird. One comes when Reverend Sykes remarks to Scout
that

"I ain't
ever seen any jury decide in favor of a colored man over a white
man..."

Reverend Sykes will
soon be proven correct. Another occurs when Scout watches the jury walk in. She notes
that no jury ever looks a convicted man in the eyes,

readability="6">

... and when this jury came in, not one of them
looked at Tom Robinson.

A
personification occurs
when

• "the old courthouse clock suffered its
  preliminary
  strain..."

Similes
include

• "the courtroom was exactly the same as a
  cold February morning..."


• "it (the courtroom scene) was
  like watching Atticus walk into the street, raise a rifle to his shoulder and pull the
  trigger..."

According to Betrand Russell, what defect is inherent in a purely classical education?From essay "The Place of Science in a Liberal Education,"...

Bertrand Russell states
that.

One
defect, however, does seem inherent in a purely classical education--namely, a too
exclusive emphasis on the past (para.
5).

He goes on to explain
that looking only toward the past blinds us to the present and the possibilities of the
future.  What we see in the past is refined or perfected, but the present can be raw and
unattractive, and looking at the past does not necessarily help us to see what is around
us or to imagine what might be.  He points out that as we view the past, what we do not
see is that the beauty and richness came out of the same raw and unattractive state,
something that is often not addressed.  This leaves us with misperceptions about our own
times and a failure of imagination about the future.

What evidence does Atticus bring out that discredits Bob Ewell's story?

There are two pieces of evidence that discredit Bob Ewell
completely and they have to work together. First, Atticus shows that Bob Ewell is
left-handed, and Bob tries to show that he can use both hands, but it's too late. Then,
when he asks Tom to rise after Mayella pointed him out, the courtroom sees the other
necessary piece of evidence: Tom's left arm is 12 inches shorter than his
right.

This proves it would have been impossible to leave
the injuries on Mayella that were there. It also leaves the question on the table, if
not Tom who? The fact that Bob was left-handed proved that it was possible he beat his
daughter because the person who hurt her led exclusively with his
left.

What impact did the Vietnam war have on Vietnam and Cambodia?

Well, of course the Vietnam War was very devastating to
the country of Vietnam.  Both the North and South were hurt badly.  In the North, there
was a lot of bombing by American planes.  There were also lots and lots of soldiers who
were killed in combat.  Finally, the people had to make do with very little in the way
of food and other necessities during the war.

In the South,
the US sprayed Agent Orange to kill plants.  This hurt the people economically (killed
crops) and it led to major health problems for many people.  As in the North, many
people were killed by both sides.  Many people were moved from their homes and became
refugees.

So, as you would expect from a war that went on
for years, it really hurt the Vietnamese people a lot.

In The Great Gatsby, were Gatsby's out-of-state phone calls real, or were they a ruse to impress his guests?

Gatsby is sometimes called away to take these mysterious
phone calls. They are quite real, and his secrecy about them and about his business
dealings in general suggests that his income is derived from illegal sources. After
Gatsby's death, Nick answers the phone one day at Gatsby's mansion and gets a glimpse of
Gatsby's business dealings, as does the reader.

The call
comes from Chicago, and as soon as Nick answers, someone who calls himself "Slagle"
 begins speaking excitedly, assuming he is talking to Gatsby
himself:

Young
Parke's in trouble . . . They picked him up when he handed the bonds over the counter.
They got a circular from New York giving 'em the numbers just five minutes before. What
d'you know about that, hey? You never can tell in these hick
towns--

When Nick identifies
himself, Slagle hangs up.

The content of Slagle's message
reveals at least one of Gatsby's illegal business dealings. Someone named Parke
apparently had tried to cash stolen bonds at a New York bank. The bonds had been stolen
in some small town, but the numbers of the stolen bonds had been circulated to banks in
the cities where they might be cashed. The numbers of the stolen bonds had arrived just
minutes before Parke had tried to cash them in New York. Saying that Parke is "in
trouble" most likely suggests that he has been
arrested.

Gatsby does not fabricate long distance phone
calls to impress his guests. The only person he wants to impress is Daisy so that she
will return to him. The lavish parties he stages are intended to draw her to his mansion
from her home in East Egg. Frequently Gatsby did not attend his own parties, and when he
did, he kept a very low profile. In fact, the first time Nick meets Gatsby, Nick carries
on a conversation with him for a while before realizing who he
is.

When the members stand in magic circle: How does Propspero deal with each four principals in turn? How does each react? Which of the four says...

When Prospero creates the magic circle, he deals with
Alonso, Sebastian, Antonio, and Gonzalo in turn.  Prospero blames Alonso for being blind
and irrational to the crimes going on around him.  He says that Alonso allowed Antonio
to use Prospero and Miranda for his own political gain.  Prospero goes on to blame both
Sebastian and Antonio for consipiring to murder Alonso, and he also blames Antonio for
usurping him from his position as the Duke of Milan.  Prospero believes that Gonzalo is
the only honorable man in the bunch.  After the circle is lifted, Alonso is repentent,
yet Sebastian and Antonio remain quiet; in fact Antonio says nothing while Sebastian
claims that Prospero must have the "devil in him."