Pauls Letter To The Galatians Essays - , Term Papers

Paul's Letter To The Galatians A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As A Historical Document PAUL'S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS: When Paul attended the Jerusalem Conference in 48 or 49, a decision was made that gentiles would be allowed to become Christians without becoming Jews first (ie. have a circumcision, and follow the Jewish Laws). Paul, being the one that defended the gentile's right to be Christians, became the apostle to the gentiles. Why would Paul, a Jew, want to be an apostle to gentiles? According to him, Jesus appeared to him in AD 32 or 36, and told him to preach the good news to the gentiles (Gal 1:16). Paul uses scripture to explain why gentiles should not be required to be circumcised, or obey Jewish Law; however, there are no direct quotes in scripture that say this. One would wonder why Paul, someone who grew-up in a "good" Jewish family, would not follow in the footsteps of Jewish Christian Missionaries, and require Christian converts to become Jews first. He certainly had to fight to have his belief accepted! In my opinion, Paul tried to follow the example of the original apostles (who knew Jesus) by "converting the multitudes." I think Paul understood human nature better than the other apostles preaching circumcision to the gentiles. Perhaps he thought that gentiles would accept Christianity more easily if it was natural to their lifestyle --I'm sure that the thought of circumcision, and strict dietary laws scared gentiles from Christianity! It seems that the "Judaziers" preached a God that was hard to please. Paul's major problem confronted in his letter to the Galatians is the preachings of the Judaziers. Apparently, men who preach circumcision and the Law had been trying to "pervert" the Galatians, and change their beliefs away from Paul's preachings (Gal 1:7). Paul is so angered that the Galatians are so easily convinced (Gal 1:6), that he actually wishes the Judaziers to mutilate themselves (Gal 5:12)! So, the letter to Galatians uses 4 specific tactics to make Galatians come back to the teachings according to Paul. Paul begins by defending his credibility as an apostle. He writes a brief autobiographical history, stressing that he once persecuted Christians, and then converted when Jesus appeared to him. Also, he tells the outcome of the Jerusalem Conference, probably to convince them that other apostles have accepted his theology. This part of the letter is a bit like a resume of qualifications. I could imagine that the Judiazers who came to Galatia after Paul, denounced him as an apostle: that he never met Jesus, and was not truly educated to be an apostle. Next, Paul writes that "obedience to the Law could not earn approval by God; approval is possible only through faith in Christ" (Perrin, pg. 184). Faith in the crucified Christ will bring righteousness, not the Law (Gal 2:21). Having circumcision will do nothing to make one better in the eyes of God. Then, Paul uses an allegory of The Two Covenants: Abraham's child of a slave woman represents Jerusalem living under the Law, and the child of the free woman represents Jerusalem being free! This tactic, along with Paul's use of familiar Jewish argument style, quoting scripture after scripture to prove a point (Gal 3), are common preaching styles; probably taught to him during whatever rabbinic training he got (perhaps when he spent time with Peter). Paul also tries to appeal to the Helenistic enthusiasm in Christianity in Gal 3:1-5. Although Paul makes some very convincing arguments in favor of his beliefs, I cannot agree with his interpretation of Christ Jesus Christianity. Compare these two quotes from New Testament Scripture (The first is by Paul in Galations. The second is a quote of Jesus in the Book of Matthew.): "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal 2:16) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.

Recall the President - Why You Cant Recall a President

Recall the President - Why You Can't Recall a President Having regrets  about your vote for president? Sorry. Theres no mulligan. The U.S. Constitution does not allow for the recall of a president outside of the impeachment process or removal of a commander-in-chief who is deemed to be unfit for office under the 25th Amendment. In fact, there are no political recall mechanisms available to voters at the federal level at all; voters cant recall members of Congress, either.  In at least 19 states they can, however, recall elected officials serving in state and local positions. Those states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. That is not to say there has never been support for a recall process at the federal level. In fact, a U.S. senator from New Jersey proposed a constitutional amendment in 1951 that would have allowed voters to recall a president by holding a second election to undo the first. Congress never approved the measure, but the idea lives on. After the 2016 presidential election, some voters who may have had second thoughts or who were disappointed that Donald Trump lost the popular vote but still defeated Hillary Clinton tried to launch a petition to recall the billionaire real-estate developer. There is no way for voters to orchestrate a political recall of the president, not even Trump, who generated lots of controversy and had numerous conflicts of interest. There is no mechanism set forth in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the removal of a failing president save for impeachment, which is limited for instances of high crimes and misdemeanors and not simply the whims of voters or members of Congress.   Support For Recall of a President To give you some idea of how prevalent buyers remorse is in American politics, consider the case of President Barack Obama. Though he easily won a second term in the White House, many of those who helped elect him again in 2012 told pollsters a short time later they would support an effort to recall him if such a move were permitted. The survey, conducted by the  Harvard University Institute of Politics in late 2013, found a majority of young Americans (52 percent) would have voted to recall Obama at the time the poll was taken. Roughly the same portion of respondents also would have voted to recall every single member of Congress, including all 435 members of the House of Representatives. There are, of course, numerous online petitions that pop up from time to time calling on the removal of the president by means other than impeachment.  On the website Petition2Congress, for example, voters were asked to sign a petition to recall Obama before the end of his second term. One such petition to Congress states: If you do not act on impeachment proceedings on our current president and his administration, then we the people, respectfully demand a recall on President Barack Hussein Obama. We are dissatisfied with the anti-freedom, anti-constitutional, and the acts of treason implemented by this administration and also demand a full criminal investigation into Operation Fast Furious, Benghazi, the 900 excutive orders, the presidents own sequestration, and the sixteen trillion dollar national debt. On the site Change.org, there were efforts to recall Trump even before he was sworn into office.   The petition stated: Trump was right about one thing; this election  was  rigged, but  hes  the one who rigged it, much as fellow Republican Scott Walker did to win  his  five terms in office.  Ã‚  Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  Trumps backing by Russia, Saudi Arabia, criminal hackers, and American terrorist groups compromise the very safety of the United States of America, and that of the citizens. We have the precedent, and whatever the outcome, we will  NEVER  recognize Donald J. Trump as our Commander-In-Chief. How theRecall of a President Would Work There have been several ideas floated for recalling a president; one would originate with the electorate and another would start with Congress and flow back to voters for approval.   In a document he calls the 21st Century Constitution, recall advocate Barry Krusch lays out plans for a National Recall, which would allow for the question  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Should the President be recalled?† to be placed on the general election ballot if enough Americans get fed up with their president. If a majority of voters decide to recall the president under his plan, the vice president would take over. In the essay  When Presidents Become Weak, published in the 2010 book  Profiles in Leadership: Historians on the Elusive Quality of Greatness edited by  Walter Isaacson, historian  Robert Dallek suggests a recall process that begins in the House and Senate. Writes  Dallek: â€Å"The country needs to consider a constitutional amendment that would give voters the power to recall a failing president. Because political opponents would always be tempted to invoke the provisions of a recall procedure, it would need to be both difficult to exercise and a clear expression of the popular will.  The process should begin in Congress, where a recall procedure would need a 60 percent vote in both houses. This could be followed by a national referendum on whether all voters in the previous presidential election wished to remove the president and vice president and replace them with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and a vice president of that person’s choosing.† Such an amendment, in fact, was proposed in 1951 by Republican U.S. Sen. Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey. The lawmaker sought approval for such an amendment after President Harry Truman fired  General Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War. Wrote  Hendrickson: â€Å"This nation is faced in these times with such rapidly changing conditions and such critical decisions that we cannot afford to depend upon an Administration which had lost the confidence of the American people†¦Ã‚  We have had ample evidence over the years that elected representatives, especially those with great power, can easily fall into the pitfall of believing that their will is more important than the will of the people.†Ã‚   Hendrickson concluded that â€Å"impeachment has proved neither suitable nor desirable.†Ã‚  His solution would have allowed for a recall vote when two-thirds of the states felt the president had lost the support of citizens.