I will give the crown 5 stars and a thank you if answered how it says to pls help thanks Write an essay describing Paul's attitude toward his personal afflictions and those who persecuted him. Include the Bible verses that you use to support your answer.

When soldiers face the uncertainties of war, their minds often turn toward thoughts of death. They look for ways to find comfort for themselves and to comfort loved ones back home. Often, they write letters of thanks and advice, encouraging their loved ones to carry on bravely, and to live in ways that will bring them honor.

Well, in many ways, Paul's epistle to the Philippians is like a letter to home from a soldier anticipating that he may soon die. Paul wrote Philippians at a time when he was suffering greatly, at a time when he wondered if he might soon be killed. And he wrote to people he loved. And so, his words to the Christians in Philippi were heavy but caring; sad yet consoling; appreciative but bittersweet. From Paul's perspective, they could well be his final words of advice and heartfelt thanks to his faithful friends.

This is the fifth lesson in our series Paul's Prison Epistles. And we have entitled this lesson "Paul and the Philippians" because we will be examining Paul's letter to the church in Philippi. In this letter, Paul wrote to encourage the Philippians, who were worried about the sufferings he was enduring. As he anticipated the possibility that he might soon die, Paul wrote a letter of hope and encouragement for the times of persecution and distress he and the Philippians faced.

We will divide our study of Paul and the Philippians into three parts. First, we will survey the background of Paul's letter to the Philippians. Second, we'll look closely at the structure and content of Philippians. And third, we will explore the modern application of this letter. Let's begin by looking at the background to Paul's letter to the Philippians.

Explanation:

this all i can do  

hope that helps

don't forget to thank and Brainliest

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is