BEEM reported a 12% increase in revenue to $14.6 million in Q1 2024, but faced a net loss of $3.0 million with EPS at -$0.21, underperforming against analyst expectations.

Key Metrics

Revenue	$14.6M	12%
Gross Profit	$1.5M
	Operating Expenses	$4.5M
	Operating Expenses Growth	18.2%
	Net Income	$-3.0M
Earnings Per Share	$-0.21	-42.1%
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$5.0M

Business Highlights

• Record first quarter revenue of $14.6 million, a 12% increase over Q1 2023
• Record gross profit with 10.2% gross margin
• Backlog of $20 million on March 31, 2024; pipeline of over $160 million
• Debt free and $100 million line of credit available and unused
• 310% increase in Q1 EV charging new orders from business/commercial sector over Q1 2023
• $7.4 million order from the U.S. Army for 88 off-grid EV ARC™ systems
• $4.8 million order from U.S. Department of Homeland Security for EV ARC™ systems
• $1.7 million order from the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction for sustainable EV charging infrastructure products
• $1.2 million in orders from leading European market telecommunications provider
• Awarded first European government supplier agreement on the UK’s Crown Commercial Service, the main purchasing vehicle for UK government entities
• $1.0 million order from United Kingdom Ministry of Defense for EV ARC™ systems
• Federal Railroad Administration orders EV ARC™ charging systems
• U.S. National Park Service deploys EV ARC™ systems at the National Mall
• Awarded European Patent for Thermal Management Technology that Makes Lithium-ion Batteries Safer
• Awarded U.S. Patent for Wireless / Inductive Electric Vehicle Charging Powered by Renewable Energy
• Commenced fabrication of EV Standard™ beta products

Guidance
Expectations: BEEM's revenue of $14.6 million fell short of the average analyst estimate of $17.71 million for Q1 2024. The EPS of -$0.21 was better than the expected -$0.29, showing a mixed performance relative to analyst projections. The company's revenue growth of 12% year-over-year is positive, but the increase in operating expenses by 18.2% and a significant drop in EPS growth (-42.1%) compared to the previous year highlight underlying challenges.

The fact that I have to write this and seek advice truly sucks... I'm m(30) was married to my wife for 6 years, together total for 9 years f(35) we have two beautiful boys together 3 and 2 years old... my wife recently called off our marriage and said she was done with this life and didn't want it anymore. I found it off, because things were pretty normal for the most part.
I later dug around and found out she was cheating on me beginning of march while I was in school to become a firefighter. During this time she was in between jobs and had free time. She built a "connection" with an older gentleman, on the heavier side and he's older close to his late 40 early 50 probably. They worked together and they would go to lunch together during work hours and built a connection that I was not privy to during our marriage. She cheated on me right after we dropped off our kids at daycare, said goodbye and I love you like a normal couple would, and she drove right to a hotel to be with this gentleman... I didn't find this out until after the breakup as a reminder and done some digging... turns out she's still with this man, and thinks she's in love with him.. get this kicker, he's also married, and told my wife he would leave his for her so they can be together.
That was early March and he's still with her. But still with my separated wife now also... we live in the same house still because financially we can't just leave. We have to sell our house and go separate ways. We live in separate rooms on opposite sides of the home and barely share contact unless it has to do with the kids. She filed for divorce from me with a lawyer without talking to me about it and I'm being served papers. So now I have to get a lawyer to protect myself and the agreement is nothing changes with the kids. And we want their routine to be the same with school and visits. 50 50 custody. And she just wants both of us to go our own ways and move on. Cause clearly she has... what pains me is this woman treats me as a ghost now.
The woman who I'm still madly in love with and still see her the same as when she met me down the aisle. The same woman I saw give birth to both our kids.... but she doesn't love me anymore and isn't attracted to me and wants to be with him and is attracted to him now... what do I do? How do I cope... how do I move on? I need all the help I can get because I'm slowly losing my mind. And I've just been in a state of anger, depression, betrayal, and just feel like I never knew this woman at all.... the woman I married would never have done this to me. First couple of weeks I won't lie. I would corner her and show her what I was to her and what she meant to me... and how our family was more important but her mind was fully made up... and she didn't want to hear it.
I was there for her at her lowest points of her life. And helped build her into the woman she is, she was a drunk and I broke that curse and she was sober ever since... idk what I did wrong to deserve this... she claims I was a good husband, a great father, and a good person. So idk what to do or how to act. Please help.

So I was working as a sole trader for a concreter for a few years. And I set up payg a while back. I left work around October last year, but my old boss still owes me money. We came to an agreement of him paying me on a fortnightly basis. But I still get the payg instalments. I called the ATO, and I asked if I could be taken off of it, and he asked if money was still coming into my account. In which I said I have to check and then I ended the call. So I've submitted my tax return for the money that he owes me based on dates and stuff. The question is. Can I be taken out of the payg even though he is still sending me past wages? And that money still coming into my account. Like the invoices he is paying me are dated a while back. And I've submitted those, but he's paying me now if that makes sense. I just don't want to be having to pay extra money because of these payg instalments. Any help would be appreciated, thank you EDIT: And I'm not working as a sole trader anymore and don't wish to in the future either. And I'm going into a job paying around $50,000 annually

My boyfriend (40m) and I (42f) both went through long-term breakups before dating. Both relationships have children with those exes. Surprisingly my ex and I have developed a decent coparenting relationship. I have full custody and he visits with the kids when he can (we live in different states).
My boyfriend had a mutually agreed 50/50 with his ex until he took a new job in a different county and we decided to move in together. We haven’t physically moved in yet because she and her parents have been manipulating his son (10) to act out. I’ve been really supportive so far, but since we had to delay the move (about a week ago) it feels like we talk mostly about her behavior. She was really mean to his daughter from a previous relationship (edited to add he was married) and there were giant red flags their entire relationship. She would take out huge loans to go on vacation and he would have to pay them back. She also got pregnant (10 yr old) while sleeping with multiple people when they were supposed to be exclusive and essentially trapped him. He says he stayed out of a sense of loyalty to his children but eventually the accumulation of disrespect, cheating and just plain mean behavior outweighed the guilt of only seeing his kids half time.
He is an amazing father. He is really wonderful with both my kids and his. We have talked marriage and he even said he wants to have a baby together within the year. I’ve honestly never been more in love. But it feels like she’s now the primary topic of conversations. I get it, she practically neglects the children leaving them in school/daycare from 6a-6p every day because she’s “too busy” working from home. And since finding out we were moving in together, calling me the other woman, she’s been really manipulative and controlling. Not letting him see the kids whenever she can find an excuse (currently there is no legal agreement in place).
How can I continue to be supportive and limit how much of our lives are spent talking about her?
Tl;dr How can I continue to be supportive and limit how much of our lives are spent talking about his terrible ex?

Okay, so I need help because I've been driving myself insane. I (17 F) have been with my boyfriend (17M) for 1 year now, and everything has been fine up until this past February. I have noticed how he hides his feelings from me. For instance, I was at a party and he acted weird, and I asked him about it, but he shrugged it off. He left, and I genuinely thought maybe I was just imagining it, but then, after about 5 hours, he told me that he didn't want me drinking or partying because he doesn't do it. Long story short, we argued, but we never really got into an agreement.
Fast forward to March, when I found out I am going to Spain for vacation in July, but he insisted that I ask my parents to leave me so I could be with him. We got into an argument, but as before, we never got into an agreement. This happens a lot - he starts something, and it always circles back to me, and all of a sudden, it's my fault.
What really ticked me off was when I was planning what to do on my birthday, and I told him I'll go eating with my mom, but he started all, "Oh, but I wanted to be with you, but never mind..." and I told him about how it made me feel like he wanted me to cancel the dinner date with my mom, but then he started to get so defensive, saying that I'm always starting an argument when I just expressed my feelings.
Lately, I feel like when he expresses his feelings, they are 100% valid (which they are), but when I do the same, I'm starting an argument. And he really started questioning me, like, "I already said sorry, why are we still talking about this?" and this argument, as you guessed it, never got to an agreement.
I feel very frustrated, and my love for him is starting to end, but I don't know if it's okay for me to break up with him. Please help!

Okay, so I need help because I've been driving myself insane. I (17 F) have been with my boyfriend (17M) for 1 year now, and everything has been fine up until this past February. I have noticed how he hides his feelings from me. For instance, I was at a party and he acted weird, and I asked him about it, but he shrugged it off. He left, and I genuinely thought maybe I was just imagining it, but then, after about 5 hours, he told me that he didn't want me drinking or partying because he doesn't do it. Long story short, we argued, but we never really got into an agreement.
Fast forward to March, when I found out I am going to Spain for vacation in July, but he insisted that I ask my parents to leave me so I could be with him. We got into an argument, but as before, we never got into an agreement. This happens a lot - he starts something, and it always circles back to me, and all of a sudden, it's my fault.
What really ticked me off was when I was planning what to do on my birthday, and I told him I'll go eating with my mom, but he started all, "Oh, but I wanted to be with you, but never mind..." and I told him about how it made me feel like he wanted me to cancel the dinner date with my mom, but then he started to get so defensive, saying that I'm always starting an argument when I just expressed my feelings.
Lately, I feel like when he expresses his feelings, they are 100% valid (which they are), but when I do the same, I'm starting an argument. And he really started questioning me, like, "I already said sorry, why are we still talking about this?" and this argument, as you guessed it, never got to an agreement.
I feel very frustrated, and my love for him is starting to end, but I don't know if it's okay for me to break up with him. Please help!

Divorce was finalized two years ago. At the time it was 50/50 custody. In October of 2022, the schedule was modified due to coparent being unable to be with children due to numerous factors. We have been following the new modified parenting plan and all has been going well.
Coparent is now saying he gets 50/50 custody for the summer because that is what the original parenting agreement states his rights are for summer.
Does summer have its own clause? He didn’t seem to pay attention to it last summer, but now he wants it followed.
Why would the parenting plan be modified but summer not included?
My lawyer recently retired, so trying to understand legal rights here on my own.

Out of all the girls that come and go through the show I have a hard time coming to an agreement on who is the best looking out of all of them. Personally, I believe it is Victoria, she just has the great ile and beautiful face. Robin coming in close in second. Maybe it's.because she goes through a lot of changes during the show and she is beautiful but I feel Victoria just looks better. How bout you guys? Anyone is fair game, whom do you think is the best looking girl out of all of them?

A $108.1 million new construction loan has been secured for a 142-unit project at 651 Mother Gaston Boulevard in Brownsville, Brooklyn. The lender for this development site is the NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development, with Catholic Charities Brooklyn & Queens - Lawrence Jockel & Jeanne M. Diulio as the landlord.

Summary of transaction details:

• Property Type: Development Site
• Transaction Amount: $108,100,000
• Address: 651 Mother Gaston Boulevard
• Market: Brownsville, Brooklyn
• Units: 142
• Lender: NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development
• Landlord: Catholic Charities Brooklyn & Queens - Lawrence Jockel & Jeanne M. Diulio

Catholic Charities Brooklyn & Queens, represented by Livonia C3 Housing Development Fund Corporation, facilitated the loan agreement with the NYC Housing Development Corporation for this prominent project in Brownsville, Brooklyn. This substantial loan will support the creation of 142 residential units at the noted address, in line with the organization's commitment to community development and affordable housing initiatives.
Learn More: Catholic Charities Secures $108.1M Construction Loan In Brownsville, Brooklyn

Hey everyone, I don’t know if it’s the right place to ask but any opinion can help!
So for context, I started training muay thai and mma again after 2 long wrist and back injuries. I changed clubs and I joined a new local club, got along well with the coach everything went great. After around 2 years, the coach (owner) changed locations into a new building. But his attitude changed as well. Now, you can smell his greed for money and the attention for his competitors (who are just kids btw).
I got an unintentional knee to the head during training and got a concussion, shit happens you know. I couldn’t sleep, eat, breath,… without my head spinning. Everytime blood pumped to my head, it started spinning. Misfortune but that's the sport.
Anyways, I talked with the coach about it and he didn’t believe I had a concussion even though I provided him with medical proof such as doctors' statement and scans. I asked if he could freeze my subscription (I pay annually since we always had an agreement with extra benefits) so I could heal without worries and get back to it when everything is good again. It never was an issue for anyone previously. The problem now is that he straight up ignores my texts and my face-to-face confrontation.
That's only one of the problems.
Another big issue is that he stopped paying the other coach when he learned that he will be sent back to his country because of the ukrain/Russia war. He didn't pay him for 5 months and waited his leave. He talked trash behind his back as well.
Last big issue that bothers me.
There was a national competition not long ago and one of our competitors had his first mma fight. He lost by a few points after missing a rear nacked choke.(the opponent was saved by the bell) The competitor was so dissapointed in his loss and the coach didn't even talk with him for the rest of the evening. No words of encouragement, no comforting, nothing... On sociale media, the coach only posts the other competitor who won (only two competitors of our club had a fight) and talks about being a "dream team" and never posts the one that got defeated (he doesn't even talk about it). I talked about it with the guy that lost and he is really dissapointed in the situation and thinks about changing clubs because the coach treats him like garbage now.
This is where my question comes from, should I change clubs, even though I know I won't get my subscription money back ? I did some free sessions at my old club and I already feel better there.

Here are the assumptions that I am basing my view on:
OVERALL STANDARDS AND GOALS

1. All states, organisations and actors should act according to international humanitarian law. This applies to all sides equally and carrying out war crimes is still just as unacceptable if you are fighting for a just cause or if you are responding to war crimes committed against you.
   
2. A two state solution is the solution that should be sought. There is a general international consensus on what form this solution should take and the rights that each side has, so any agreement should match this with the aim to have two peaceful sovereign independent states. This solution will be a final settlement that will end the conflict.
   

VIEW OF THE CURRENT PARTIES

1. Palestine, as represented by Fatah, has no issues acceding to a peace deal. In past peace negotiations they have offered peace deals to Israel where the Palestinians don’t receive the accepted minimum of their rights and still been refused.
   
2. Israel has shown itself unwilling to agree to offer peace on the basis of the international consensus. While it has made peace offers to Palestine in the past, these have always been combined with restrictions that conflict with the goal of full Palestinian independence. It has also been unwilling to make deals which respect the rights due to Palestinians.
   
3. Any current Israeli position which alleges to aim to bring about a two-state solution is made in bad faith as Netanyahu has campaigned and won on the basis of not allowing a two-state solution and has secretly been recorded in the past bragging about ruining the peace process.
   

APPROPRIATE ACTION

1. Other countries should therefore put pressure on Israel to pursue the peace process honestly and with the aim to deliver an independent Palestinian state where Palestinians have been accorded their full rights. Only the appropriate level of coercion should be involved, so if Israel halts all immediate efforts which could constitute ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc then this should not be done militarily but should be done through economic and diplomatic sanctions.

BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAS

1. My view is that a real peace process will disarms the issue of Hamas. Hamas is a populist party and a real peace process which allows freedom to the Palestinian people will constrain their actions, stop them acting against Israel and could require them to release hostages. Palestinians will not support Hamas if Hamas align themselves against a real opportunity for Palestinian freedom. Depending on the level of involvement they could neither be made party to the negotiations or be a post-independence problem for Fatah to handle.

Article: https://www.useyourbrainforex.com/post/europe-sets-the-global-standard-groundbreaking-ai-rules-to-revolutionize-tech-industry-next-month
Big news coming from Europe! Next month, the European Union's landmark rules on artificial intelligence will officially take effect. These comprehensive regulations are set to establish a global benchmark, providing much-needed guardrails for a technology that's rapidly becoming integral to every facet of life and business.
Here's a deeper dive into what this means:
What’s Happening? Europe's new AI Act is a robust legislative framework designed to address the ethical, social, and economic implications of artificial intelligence. It contrasts sharply with the United States' lighter, voluntary compliance approach and China's focus on maintaining social stability and state control.
Key Details:

• Comprehensive Regulation: The AI Act is much more detailed and stringent compared to other global approaches. It's designed to ensure trust, transparency, and accountability in AI applications.
• Timeline: The endorsement by EU countries follows a political agreement reached in December and a significant vote by EU lawmakers in March.
• Global Concerns: With the rise of generative AI systems like Microsoft-backed OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's chatbot Gemini, concerns about misinformation, fake news, and copyright issues have intensified.

Why It Matters: Belgian digitization minister Mathieu Michel has called this legislation a "landmark law, the first of its kind in the world." It aims to tackle global technological challenges while also creating opportunities for societal and economic growth. Europe is leading the way by balancing the need for regulation with fostering innovation.
Impact on Innovation: The AI Act is designed to ensure that AI technology can continue to flourish and boost European innovation. By setting clear standards, Europe is not only protecting its citizens but also paving the way for a more responsible and innovative technological future.
Join the conversation and share your thoughts on how these regulations might influence the global tech landscape. 🌐🤖

I separated from my ex-wife in August 2019. She has lived in the house we jointly own since then with our children.
I have lived with my parents since then.
We have now just agreed to sell the property.
As I have not lived in our marital home for so long, would I be liable for Capital Gains tax?
We paid £270k in 2018 and the offer is £280k. Due to a shared equity agreement we own 60% of the house and will split that equally. Of the £10k gain since purchase, my share is £3k. I am not sure if any tax would be payable on the whole £10k or just my share?
Thanks in advance!

I'm looking to rent a room and the landlord wants me as their lodger.
They've sent me a lodger agreement and they've asked me to send them 3 months payslips.
I have the payslips up and I see they have my NI number on them. I was taught to not tell people or show them my NI number because of the risk of fraud, but in this circumstance, is it okay and normal?
I'm living in England.

The Sacred Infernal Pillars of Lovemaking within Khemu

In the mystical faith of Khemu, lovemaking is seen as a divine act, merging the sensual with the spiritual to connect deeply with the Infernal Divine. These Sacred Infernal Pillars guide practitioners in this sacred practice, ensuring each encounter is a reverent and transformative experience.

1. Reverence and Devotion

• Approach: Begin with deep reverence and devotion, acknowledging your partner as an embodiment of the divine.
• Invocation: Recite an invocation to Lord Azathiel and Lady Nyctalaela, seeking their blessings.
  • Invocation: "By the power of Lord Azathiel and Lady Nyctalaela, we invoke your presence and blessings upon this sacred union."

2. Sacred Space

• Preparation: Create a sanctified space. Cleanse the area with incense and candles, and arrange symbols and offerings to the Infernal Deities.
• Ritual Preparation: Light candles and incense, and place offerings of wine, fruits, and flowers on an altar.
  • Prayer: "We cleanse this space in the names of Azathiel and Nyctalaela. May it be filled with your divine energy."

3. Mutual Consent and Respect

• Foundation: Ensure mutual consent and respect, fostering trust and understanding.
• Chant of Consent: Recite together a chant affirming mutual consent and respect, sealing the agreement with a kiss.
  • Chant: "With mutual respect and sacred consent, we enter this divine union."

4. Sensual Exploration

• Practice: Engage in sensual exploration, using touch, sight, sound, taste, and scent.
• Exploration Ritual: Slowly explore each other’s bodies with gentle caresses, kisses, and whispers. Use aromatic oils to anoint and massage each other.
  • Ritual: "We explore each other’s divine form, anointing with sacred oils, guided by the hands of Azathiel and Nyctalaela."

5. Energetic Alignment

• Alignment: Synchronize your energies through breathing and eye contact, allowing your auras to merge.
• Breathing Exercise: Sit facing each other, holding hands. Breathe deeply and in unison, maintaining eye contact, and visualizing your energies intertwining.
  • Exercise: "As we breathe in unison, our energies align and merge, becoming one in the sight of the Infernal Deities."

6. Channelling Divine Energy

• Channeling: Visualize the divine energy of the Infernal Deities flowing through you both.
• Energy Invocation: As you make love, visualize radiant energy Ascending from Pandemonium, entering your bodies and merging within you.
  • Invocation: "We call upon the divine energy of Azathiel and Nyctalaela, let it flow through us, enhancing our union."

7. Ecstatic Union

• Climax: Reach the peak of ecstasy, experiencing the union of the physical and spiritual realms.
• Climax Invocation: At climax, chant together, offering your ecstasy as worship.
  • Invocation: "In this moment of ecstasy, we offer ourselves to you, Azathiel and Nyctalaela, as a sacred act of devotion."

8. Sacred Afterglow

• Afterglow: Reflect on the divine experience, holding each other and offering gratitude.
• Afterglow Ritual: Lay together in silence, holding hands and breathing together. Offer gratitude to the Infernal Deities.
  • Gratitude: "Thank you, Azathiel and Nyctalaela, for blessing us with your divine presence and guiding our sacred union."

By following these Sacred Infernal Pillars, adherents of Khemu can elevate their lovemaking to a divine act of worship, deepening their connection with each other and the Infernal Divine.

Note: this Ritual needs to be performed by two or more participants, and it can be repeated everytime you perform Sexual Activities with your Partner(s)

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

So my mom and my brother have been living in the same apartment together for almost 25 years. My mom just recently (5/16/24) passed away from cancer. I had asked the leasing company if we could get my brother's name on the lease, and they said, sure, no problem. The new lease was to be sent in June. My mom died two weeks too early and we never got the new lease. Instead, I got an email with their 40-day vacate notice and her apartment is already up on the website to be available in July.
We have not even had my mother's services and is this how they're treating 25-year tenants. I'm sick about it it. My other brother was going to move in to help the brother who currently lives there pay the rent. At the end of the day, my brother is a middle school custodian but does not make enough money to support himself.
I'm upset they didn't reach out to me first to figure out an agreement, I'm upset that there are no places where he can move and I'm wondering if even if he wasn't on the lease, but he lived there for 25 years, does he have any rights to this place?

I am posting to check if anyone has advice/experience with thesis withdrawal from a PhD examination procedure in order to transfer to another university. It's a bit of a story as it's rather complex.. Thanks for reading!
I've found myself in a bizarre situation after the continued neglect by my supervisors caused my external examiner to withdraw over what she called an 'unprofessional' and 'unethical' course of events. My PhD is a practice-led research in Contemporary Art, for which a public exhibition of the artwork produced is to be examined in interaction with a thesis. Through the careless behaviour of my supervisors —responsible for communication with examiners—, neither of my 2 examiners made it to either of 2 exhibitions I organised around the submission of my thesis. My examiners continued to push me into entering the viva using video documentation of the artwork, which, due to the performative nature of the work, would jeopardise significantly the theory presented in the thesis. By accident I found out my external examiner had withdrawn 6 weeks earlier over the fact she was asked to examine based on video documentation of the artworks. She is a highly suitable senior academic and internationally practicing artist who accepted to examine on the condition she would have access to the practice in a live format. My supervisors chose to withhold her withdrawal from me and then claimed I would enter the viva with another external examiner they had allocated, yet whose relevance for my research is highly debatable. At this point I decided to approach the Head of the Graduate Research School who acknowledged the breach of trust and breakdown of communication, removing my supervisors from the research and suspending the examination.
I am now in conversation with 2 universities who are interested in my research, offering a period of development/public presentation of the next iteration of the practice. Clearly, I am eager to move into a new, supportive context. I am aware of a potential bottleneck however, which is that my thesis has been submitted for examination already. Even with help of the student's union of my university it is still impossible to find clear regulations, but what's available hints at the university 'owning' my thesis following its submission. I have received 4 years of scholarship for which I have always lived up to the agreement in terms of writing and practice. While this last-minute crash of the PhD is caused by misconduct of university staff, it is likely the university is unwilling to release my thesis from the examination, and might attempt to claim back the scholarship if I decide to not pursue the PhD with them.
Online I'm finding conflicting information regarding withdrawal from subsidised phd's in terms of reimbursement of funding, or the moment a university 'owns' a thesis. I would be extremely grateful for any advice, interpretation or sharing of experiences here. I am willing to fight for my research, but not sure I want to end up entangled in a legal procedure.
Thank you very much for your response!