Rating Our Presidents

I see that there was a recent news release by The Times, a British publication, which reported a ratings list of U.S. Presidents by a panel of eight historians as follows:

10 Best Presidents 10 Worst Presidents
Lincoln Eisenhower Buchanan G. Bush, Jr.
Washington Truman Pierce Hoover
F. Roosevelt Reagan Van Buren Harding
Jefferson Polk Harrison Garfield
T. Roosevelt Wilson Nixon Filmore

Rating Presidents is strictly an academic exercise. Historians generally differ based on the time they lived and the eventual course of history, which is usually a reliable indicator. The public, however, uses a different standard based more on popularity and likeability. Thus, note the absence of Kennedy and Clinton from this list, although Kennedy did finish at number 11 on the best list, Jimmy Carter barely managed to escape the bottom 10.

I know that Clinton is still very popular, but the historians said that although Clinton left office with a high approval rating they considered him mediocre. They added that he passed progressive legislation (welfare reform) but saddled himself with the Lewinsky scandal and landed at number 23. One panelist, Ben Macintyre said, "Clinton promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone". Isn't that what they call a con man?

As an avid student of presidential history, I would remove F. Roosevelt from the top 10, based on his dismal performance during the Great Depression. He probably gets good grades for his charisma, communication skills, and leadership qualities, particularly during WWII. I also would tend to raise Polk even higher in the standings; he was a man with great executive and management skills who presided over our "manifest destiny" period as a nation. I also would drop Wilson out of the top 10, since most of his term was served by his wife, not him. Maybe we should give her the 10 spot.

Also, I feel sorry for Harrison and Garfield. Harrison died after 23 days in office, when he got sick because he didn't wear a coat while giving his inaugural address in freezing weather; and poor Garfield got shot and died after 4 months in office. So why are they on the worst 10 list? Maybe we should consider them "No shows".

Who can dispute Lincoln and Washington our greatest Presidents. Although the challenges are different today, do you really think they would have pushed that stimulus package?

best tactical knife

1941 Harding High School Yearbook, St. Paul MN

1941 Harding High School Yearbook, St. Paul MN Review

1941 Harding High School Yearbook, St. Paul MN Feature

• Hardcover cloth cover with 112 pages

1941 Harding High School Yearbook, St. Paul MN Overview

1941 Yearbook for Harding High School in St. Paul, Minnesota entitled "The Saga"

Available at Amazon Check Price Now!

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Jun 24, 2010 05:00:13

guitar straps

Laserlong - Departure (Corwood Manual Remix) #2

Music video for Laserlong to promote the free Remix album download. To download goto www.ftruk.info Video Dir: Robjn.com Filmed by: Paul Harding Stewart www.youtube.com Post production by: Robjn.com www.robjn.com

pinwheels best tactical knife

The Disputed Authorship of Ephesians

INTRODUCTION

The authenticity of Ephesians as a genuinely Pauline epistle has been doubted especially since the time of the Dutch Humanist Erasmus in the sixteenth century. Several schools of thoughts exist today in connection with the authorship in Ephesians. Barth (1974) identifies four such options. Some scholars accept Paul as the author. Others see him as responsible for an original manuscript that has been augmented by an editor. A third set - Moffatt, Goodspeed, Dibelius etc. - rejects Pauline authorship and the fourth thinks there is not enough evidence to decide. Gabel, Wheeler and York observe in their discussion on the canon of letters that Ephesians is categorized as a disputed letter that is "almost certainly not by Paul" (1996, 237). Scholars "have tried to explain this letter as the writing of a student and admirer of Paul's, bringing the apostle's gospel to his own later generation" (Turner 1984, 1222). Some conclude that it is most reasonable to consider it as deuteron-Pauline, that is, in the tradition of Paul but not written by him. While I recognize the strength of the other views, I accept (with supportive evidence) the traditional view that classifies Ephesians as an authentic Pauline letter.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PAULINE AUTHORSHIP

Rhein (1974) asserts that "Ephesians is thought to be spurious by many" (264). His argument is that the purpose and impersonal tone are difficult to explain if it is attributed to Paul.

Dating

Some see the Ephesians as an early Catholic writing and that there is an un-Pauline interest in various orders of ministry. Rhein (1974) also rejects Paul's authorship on the basis of dating. He observes that "the subject matter indicates a later date than its companions. Christ is no longer the lone foundation of the Church" (268). He asserts that the apostles have taken his place (2:20-22), heretical sects have had time to make their appearance (4:14), and the church itself is now regarded as a means of revelation.

Language

Some doubt Pauline authorship since a number of words in Ephesians cannot be found in other Pauline writings (Drane 1986). Examples include aswtia (wantonness) and politeia (citizenship/commonwealth). Others include some prominent features such as the references to 'the heavenly world' (Eph. 1:3; 1:20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). Guthrie (1965) admits that "the style (in Ephesians) is certainly different from the other nine undisputed Pauline epistles and this has seemed to some to weigh against Pauline authorship" (483).

Style

Drane (1986) observes that "the way Ephesians is put together is also distinctive. Instead of the unplanned - and largely unrestrained- language of the other letters, Ephesians moves from one theme to another in more sedate fashion" (346).

Relationship with Colossians

Drane (1986) observes that some scholars view Colossians as the original letter which was subsequently copied and adapted by the later author of Ephesians who cannot be Paul. Colossians is usually considered to be a genuine Pauline letter, and Ephesians is thought to be the work of an imitator who used Colossians for some of his ideas.

Doctrine and theology

Drane (1986) also comments on the fact the Ephesians seems to reflect concerns that were especially typical of church life later than the time of Paul. Examples cited include the use of the term 'church', apparent absence of any reference to the parousia of Jesus, and to the theme 'justification of faith'. Furthermore, it is observed that believers are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (2:20), whereas Paul sees Christ as the one foundation (I Cor. 3:11). Some believe that these are really in contradiction, for "in 2:20, Christ is 'the chief cornerstone', which surely accords with the passage in I Corinthians. Others note that in Ephesians ekklhsia always refers to the universal church, while Paul normally uses the word for the local congregation" (Carson, Moo and Morris 1992, 307). It is noted that "further differences are claimed to appear in Paul's Christology in this Epistle" (Guthrie 1965, 489). Acts attributed to God in the other epistles are attributed to Christ in Ephesians. Ephesians 2:16 (where reconciliation is described as the work of Christ) is compared with Colossians 1:20 and 2:13-14. Another example is Ephesians 4:11, where Christ is paid to appoint officials in the Church as compared with I Corinthians 7:28.

Possible authors

Barnett (1946) proposed that Onesimus prospered so well in Christian service that he later became Bishop of Ephesus and believed that he wrote Ephesians. Miller and Miller (1973) comments on Goodspeed and Mitten's submission that the likely authors are Onesimus (Col. 4:9) and Tychicus (Col. 4:7); Eph. 6:21) respectively. If Paul was in prison, Holding (2003) argued, then he was probably in no condition or had no ability to do significant cross-checking, and would give his scribe considerable latitude in composition, indicating only major points to be developed - if indeed it was someone he trusted. On this account, he further argues, and given other factors, Timothy is a likely candidate. The issue is that "there has been a question whether Paul himself wrote it or one of his disciples after his death" (Chamberlin and Feldman 1950, 1111).

ARGUMENTS FOR PAULINE AUTHORSHIP

My conviction of Pauline authorship is in consonance with the following supportive evidence.

Doctrine and theology

Drane (1986) observes that "whatever we conclude about the person who actually wrote the words down, we should certainly not miss the weakness of the other arguments put forward against Paul's authorship" (346). He dismisses the close relationship as proving nothing since a modern author writing about theology will quite base on book on something that has been written - and Paul had certainly done this before. Furthermore, nothing in Ephesians actually contradicts previous statements by Paul, and much is a logical development of things he had said elsewhere. The parousia is not mentioned in Ephesians, but it is not mentioned in Romans either. According to Wallace (2003), "the case is quite similar to the relation of Galatians to Romans: the first, an occasional letter, is less developed theologically; the second, a more reflective letter, is more developed" (3). Both the time when written and the reason for writing shape Paul's style and theological statements.

Dating

Gundry (1981) firmly believes that Paul must have written Ephesians and Colossians at approximately the same time because the subject matter in the two epistles is quite similar. He asserts that "Tychirus must therefore have carried both letters at once. (Colossae was about one hundred miles east of Ephesus)" (294). Commenting on the view that the reference to "the holy apostles and prophets" (Eph. 3:5; cf. 2:20; 4:11) indicates that the writer belonged to the second generation, Thiessen (1955) argues that "this cannot be, for the writer includes himself among the 'holy ones (saints) (3:8)'" (241).

Language

Commenting on the argument that synonyms are used instead of Paul's usual words and that more words are used in a new sense, Thiessen (1955) argues that the criticism is strange and doubtful. He continues, "besides, is a man always obliged to use a word in the same sense unless he does not care about losing his identity?" (241). He attributes the absence of personal greetings in the last chapter due to the encyclical character of the epistle and observes that the reference to the Church, rather than to some local church or churches, is likewise in harmony with the destination of the letter. Responding to the objection that there are forty-two words in Ephesians not found in other Pauline writings, McCain (1996) observes that "this is about the same percentage of unique words found in other Pauline writings" (249). Carson, Moo and Moris (1992) quote Cadbury's forceful and convincing argument: "which is more likely - that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul's style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?" (306). Even if the style may be different from Paul's usual manner of writing, Guthrie (1965) argues that "it may, in fact, be regarded as evidence of Paul's versatility" (493).

Relationship with Colossians

Scholars have argued that the same writer could not have produced Colossians and Ephesians and that the latter is the work of an imitator. Carson, Moo and Morris (1992) dismiss this argument as unconvincing for they seem to support the view that "the same man wrote Colossians and Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running through his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed" (308).

Relationship with I Peter

Thiessen (1955) argues that the similarities in the Epistle to the Ephesians and in I Peter do not disprove the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. He notes that "if there is any dependence between the two writers, it is more likely that Peter borrowed from Paul than that Paul borrowed from Peter" (241).

Internal evidence

Among other things, "the writer twice calls himself Paul" (Eph. 1:1; 3:1). The epistle is written after the Pauline pattern, beginning with greetings and thanksgiving, leading on to a doctrinal discussion, and concluding with practical exhortations and personal matters" (Theissen 1955, 240).

External evidence

Ephesians had been in wide circulation from the early days and its authenticity does not seem to be questioned. From all indications "it was accepted by Marcion (as the letter to the Laodiceans); it is the Marcion (as the letter to the Laodiceans); it is in the Muratorian Canon and was used by heretics as well as the orthodox. No one seems to have queried Pauline authorship" (Carson, Moo and Morris 1992, 306).

CONCLUSION
To echo my thesis statement in the introduction, I endorse the argument that "from all this, we conclude that there are no insurmountable obstacles to the traditional view of the Pauline authorship of this Epistle" (Theissen 1955, 241). In other words, "when all the objections are carefully considered it will be seen that the weight of evidence is inadequate to overthrow the overwhelming attestation to Pauline authorship, and the Epistle's own claims" (Guthrie 1965, 507). Bruce (1961) logically defends Pauline authorship in an indirect but forceful argument:

If Epistle of the Ephesians was not written directly by Paul, but by one of his disciples in the Apostle's name, then its author was the greatest Paulinist of all time - a disciple who assimilated
his master's thought more thoroughly than anyone else ever did. The man who could write
Ephesians must have been the Apostle's equal, if not his superior, in mental stature and spiritual insight (11).

In spite of the fact that pseudonymity is regarded in modern scholarship to have been an established practice among the early Christians, the advocates of the traditional view (the researcher included) are entitled to emphasize the self-testimony of the Epistle as supportive evidence for their position "until some satisfactory explanation is found which accounts for the universal acceptance of the Epistle at its face value" (Guthrie 1965, 507).

CONCLUSION:

Barnett, A.E. 1946. The New Testament: Its Making and Meaning.

New York: Abington-Cokesbury Press.

Barth, M. 1974. Ephesians.

New York: Doubleday.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. 1992. An Introduction to the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Chamberlain, R.B. and H. Feldman. 1950. The Dartmouth Bible.

Boston: Hougton Mifflin Co.

Gabel, J.B., C.B. Wheeler and A.D. York. 1996. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. 3rd ed.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Gundry, R.H. 1981. A Survey of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Guthrie, Donald. 1965. New Testament Introduction.

Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press.

Holding, J.P. 2003. Wrote Wrote Ephesians?" Available [Online]:

[http://www.tektonics.org/ephauth.html]. 20th August 2003.

McCain, D. 1996. Notes on New Testament Introduction.

Jos: African Textbooks.

Miller, M.S. and J.L. Miller. 1973. Harper's Bible Dictionary.

New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Rhein, F.B. 1974. Understanding to the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing House.

Turner, M. 1984. Ephesians. In New Bible Commentary. 21st century ed., 1222-12244.

Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.

Wallace, D.B. 2003. Ephesians:Introduction, Argument and Outline.

Available [Online]: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/ephotl.htm. 19th August 2003.

pet barriers dead to the world

What Makes A Great President?

The same traits that make any good leader should be present in a good president. For example:

1. Strong-willed. A president must impose his will against the opposition of his most trusted advisers when his gut feeling says he is right. Eisenhower sent troops to the South to impose the new federal law regarding the end of segregation in public schools.

2. Willing to take risks. John F. Kennedy ordered the blockade of Cuba to prevent access by Soviet ships. This incident could have degenerated into a major confrontation between the two countries.

3. Ethical. Ethics must guide his every decision. William Jefferson Clinton showed his lack of ethics in both the Monica Lewinsky incident and his last minute pardon of a man facing criminal charges, Marc Rich. The presidency cannot be sullied by actions that betray the trust of the American people in this noble institution.

4. Charismatic. Though not a must quality, charisma has helped some presidents gain support among the American people for their key decisions. FDR galvanized male citizens into joining the Armed Forces when he gave his famous speech "Day of Infamy". John F. Kennedy persuaded the Soviet leadership that we would never back down as a nation when confronted during the missile crisis. He also gave a huge boost to the space program which culminated with our landing on the moon.

5. Skilled Negotiator. George W. Bush and his cabinet placed aggression before negotiations, resulting in a totally useless war, a very poor image on the international scene and a tottering economy. Nixon on the other hand, while lacking ethical values, proved his negotiating abilities in ending the Vietnam War and in establishing relations with China. Whether the merit rests with his Secretary of State Kissinger is another matter for discussion.

Jimmy Carter convinced Menachem Begin, the Israel leader, and Anwar el Sadat, President of Egypt, to agree to peace talks at Camp David. After negotiating with France, Jefferson persuaded Congress to acquire the then Louisiana Territory, increasing the size of the country immensely. Reagan successfully negotiated a reduction in nuclear missiles with Gorbachev, the head of the Soviet government.

These are examples of what diplomacy can accomplish whenever our leaders understand that force must be a last resort.

6. Role-Model in Their Personal Life. True enough, modern political campaigns tend to air dirty laundry and prevent scandal-laden candidates from reaching the presidency (exception: Bill Clinton, of course). Who can dispute the exemplary life of Eisenhower, George Washington and Harry Truman! We forgive peccadilloes; we understand human frailty. We admire frankness and public confessions, as was the case for the new governor of New York who had no compunction in venting his affairs during his first press conference.

However, would we elect Nixon nowadays, the master manipulator, or Lyndon Johnson, the sad-looking legislator from Texas? Would we elect Woodrow Wilson, the Baptist preacher, who nevertheless pushed through Congress valuable legislation such as the creation of the Federal Reserve? He unfortunately failed to convince the rest of the world to create the League of Nations.

Probably not, generating the question again: What makes a great president?

7. Honest Astuteness. We don't want a gullible president (Jimmy Carter?), and we don't want a malicious president who lies to the American people. We need a smart person who knows when not to reveal the truth - thus protecting innocent lives or significant and confidential negotiations - and when to come clean. Lying to Congress, Nixon and, again, Clinton, leads to impeachment. Lying to the American citizens results in a tarnished legacy and presidency. History has a way to put every President into the proper perspective.

8. Reflexive. The dictionary definition says:" Turned back on itself". We want a person who is able to analyze his/her own motives, emotions, traits, impulses, habits both good and bad, motivation and passions. A reflective president will avoid precipitous decisions which can harm the country, his own presidency and/or future generations. FDR could easily be a poster for reflection; he became famous for fireside chats on the radio ( Who nowadays listens to the current President's Saturday's radio address, a futile exercise from days past, when in modern times everybody pays attention to their Blackberry, computer or wi-fi cell phone?).

The opposite would be 'impulsive'. Again Nixon showed a total lack of control when he ordered the Watergate affair. Clinton could not keep his pants buttoned up when he met a pretty girl in the White House inner sanctum. The resulting scandal caused untold damage to our image worldwide.

9. Conscious of History. A President who has no historic vision, who has not learned from past lessons and mistakes, will repeat tragedies. Our present President got us involved in the Iraq mess, conveniently forgetting the Vietnam debacle. This president also failed to protect us adequately against terrorist attacks, i.e. 911, though his National Security Adviser had ample time to take the necessary measures after receiving warnings from FBI agents. We were the victims of several attacks before 9-11, one of them on the World Trade Center itself. Isn't there a think tank in Washington that analyzes all possible methods of attacks, including the kidnapping of commercial jets? Of course, there is; whether they advised the President or not of their conclusions is immaterial. "The buck stops here" isn't just a quaint expression; it is the true reflection of an immense responsibility. How many heads rolled after 9-11?

10. Good Judge of Character. The winning candidate should select his cabinet with only one purpose in mind: the best person for the job. Unfortunately, political debts are paid with powerful positions, thus resulting at times in the worst person for the job. Should we mention the deposed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld probably chosen by Bush Sr. to push his agenda against Sadam Hussein?

How about Alphonso Jackson, the disgraced Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under George W. Bush. Or Warren G. Harding, who is famous for the corruption among his cronies.

If the cabinet positions are filled with incompetent and/or dishonest functionaries, the results can be catastrophic for the nation. Should we blame the federal government for the housing meltdown? Probably. Should we blame the government, i.e. the President for our disastrous foreign policy, a policy led by a very smart lady who hasn't shown the needed competence? Why get rid of Gen. Colin Powell? Was it because he disagreed with the President (gasp)?

pet barriers starcraft how to

Stars and Stripes: Patriotic Motifs in American Folk Art

Stars and Stripes: Patriotic Motifs in American Folk Art Review

Stars and Stripes: Patriotic Motifs in American Folk Art Overview

As a burgeoning nation that had fought hard for its indepedence, late eighteenth-century America was quick to develop visual symbols to represent the newfound freedom and unity of its citizens--the flag representing the thirteen colonies, the American eagle, Lady Liberty. In Stars and Stripes: Patriotic Motifs in American Folk Art, author Deborah Harding finds these and other patriotic images decorating quilts and coverlets, whirligigs and weather vanes, game boards and fire buckets--almost no object that could be painted, stitched, or carved was spared embellishment with our country's colors or symbols. Harding examines these objects, from the minute to the monumental, the whimsical to the more sober, with an eye to both the artistic and historical significance of each piece. Among the items that her extensive research and archival work have unearthed include the flag, hand painted with the figure of Liberty, which was in Lincoln's booth the night he was assassinated and the coverlet crocheted by Grace Coolidge who wished to begin a tradition of First Ladies leaving a memento in the White House. This groundbreaking volume, the first to examine such a wide range of these early patriotic images, makes visual to the twenty-first-century reader our nation's earliest displays of pride and patriotism.

Available at Amazon Check Price Now!

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Jun 15, 2010 17:46:20

guitar straps

Living in Sidney

Living in Sidney Review

Living in Sidney Overview

A large, beautiful book about architectural and interior design in Sydney in Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese.

Available at Amazon Check Price Now!

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Jun 11, 2010 21:34:38

playground flooring starcraft how to dead to the world