How were Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas similar? Check all that apply.

Question: How were Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas similar? Check all that apply. Both believed that people have intrinsic value. Both focused on worship of one god. Both followed the Ten Commandments. Both emphasized principles similar to the Golden Rule. Both supported the rule of law.

Both the Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas are similar in the first half of the Christian Bible. So the correct answer to this is:

Both said that people have intrinsic value.

Both supported the rule of law.

Explanation:

Both the Greco-Roman and Jewish ideas are similar in the first half of the Christian Bible. So the correct answer to this is:

1. Both said that people have intrinsic value: They both believe that deep inside of us, we are already born with our own innate values

2. Both supported the rule of law:  The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation which is both supported by the 2 ideas. 

The Bible and Christianity belief have also strongly motivated Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the principal causes for modern concepts of Human Rights and the welfare standards generally granted by governments in the West.

where are the options?

explanation:

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