Thought a little too hard and would appreciate some insight from those more knowledgeable than me. Please correct me on anything I’ve said in error.
Eternal: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning
Immortal: living forever; never dying or decaying.
I’d like to start by saying I’m a novice when it comes to the hypostatic union and the role it may play in this topic.
Ignatius of Antioch said this in his letter to the Ephesians (Chapter 7):
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Going off of that and scripture, his flesh has a beginning which goes against the definition of eternity. So could you say Jesus’ divinity is eternal but his flesh is immortal? That he’s eternal and immortal but not immortal and eternal. How does the hypostatic union play into this if at all?
Next question would be then is it eternal life or immortal life that we receive as only God has no beginning. I’m definitely missing something and need help. And if anyone feels like writing a 101 on the hypostatic union I would appreciate that very much.

My sister ordered something from Vinted and it got marked as delivered just a couple hours after the seller sent it to post, which is very weird. The seller also doesn't know what happened. Meanwhile my sister contacted Vinted and they told her to write a handwritten letter with some info which I'm guessing is to write the info they ask for in a piece of paper , take a picture and send them? but we just don't understand how this is necessary. We are doing it anyways to try solve this issue but we would like to understand why they ask you to do this

Many thanks to this sub. The WIKI was incredibly helpful for navigating the transfer process.
Full disclosure - I’m a parent, not a student. Got permission to share my kid’s results, and wanted to share my thoughts on the process overall.
Stats: 4.0 College GPA, 4.45 High School GPA (weighted) with 10 APs. Applied test optional/32 ACT score.
Current college: small regional LAC located in the Northwest. Majored in creative writing.
ECs: (going to be a little vague here) In high school started 2 organizations dedicated to women’s rights issues. Active in high school student government and advocating on behalf of marginalized communities on campus. Also did mock trial. In college, continued working for women’s rights organization in college both on campus and with a state-wide lobbying group.
Rec Letters: 2, both from professors. Class sizes were very small and kid was a frequent visitor of office hours. Didn’t read letters but assume they were pretty positive.
Intended Major: gender studies, possibly history or sociology
Hired someone to help edit essays, otherwise I was kid’s transfer advisor. (Hired a college advisor for freshman admissions and did not get our money’s worth).
Applied: BU, NEU, Tufts, Wellesley, Barnard, Wesleyan, Brown, Harvard
Results:
Accepted - BU, Barnard, Wesleyan, Tufts, Brown
WL - Harvard
Rejected - Wellesley
(Withdrew from NEU)
Observations:
Not gonna lie, was very surprised by the results this time around. Tbh kid’s stats and ECs were essentially the same from high school to college, but the success rate this time around was much higher (was rejected/waitlisted from most of these schools for freshman admission)
Tips from a Parent:
Do the Math: look at the common data sets from a few years back to get a sense of how easy (or not easy) it really is to transfer in. My kid wanted to transfer out no matter what, so we chose specific non T25 schools to increase the odds of success.
Dig into the Details: my kid’s reason for transferring was pretty straightforward - wanted to study a major (gender studies) that wasn’t offered at the LAC she attended. But that’s just the beginning. Essays really focused on the opportunities kid would have at (insert new school) including classes and professors, research opportunities, clubs and organizations, etc. Essays also talked about career aspirations and how transferring would help her achieve those goals. Compared to freshman applications, I’d say the narrative throughout her transfer application as a whole was way more cohesive and compelling this time around.
Be Real: Let’s face it, if you’re on this sub there’s a good chance you didn’t get the results you wanted the first time around. If you’re happy to stay at your current school but hoping to move up the T25 ladder, shoot your shot and hope for the best. But if you really want/need to transfer for whatever reason, make sure there’s some non T25 schools on your list so you (hopefully) have choices come May/June.
Hope this helps - very grateful to TTC25 for all your help!

Would anyone be able to provide any insight as to why my Capital One Venture X application was denied? I am having difficulties understanding the outlined reasons below:
Thank you for applying for a credit card issued by Capital One®. Unfortunately, after reviewing your application and information obtained from your consumer credit reports) from the consumer reporting agencies detailed on the back of this letter - we cannot approve your request at this time.
The reason(s) for our decision are:

• Based on your credit report from one or more of the agencies on the back of this letter, there is insufficient credit card history
• Based on your credit report from one or more of the agencies on the back of this letter, time since opening a credit card is too short
• Based on your credit report from one or more of the agencies on the back of this letter, number of closed accounts
• Based on your credit report from one or more of the agencies on the back of this letter, length of revolving credit history

If you feel we missed something or misread your information, then please write to us at P.O. Box 31290 Salt Lake City, UT 84131-0290 and include your Application ID number referenced above. (Please note: we recommend you contact the consumer reporting agencies first to ensure they have accurately reported your information to us. Contact information for the consumer reporting agencies is provided on the back of this letter.)
We know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but we hope there is an opportunity to provide you new products and services in the future.
Sincerely, Capital One Customer Care Team
Here is some additional info for context:
Employed Total annual income: $168,341 Monthly rent/mortgage: $0 How often do you carry a balance on personal credit cards? (left it blank) Checking or savings accounts with Capital One: zero Payment history: never missed a payment Credit card usage: excellent Almost never carry a balance when payment is due 2 closed accounts 2 cards are with Capital One (one from 12yrs ago is an authorized user account that was created to establish credit) Credit age: 4 years and 11 months Derogatory marks: zero Hard inquiries: 0 before applying (now 1) Last credit card that I was approved for was in Dec 2023 Equifax 822 (after hard inquiry) Experian 794 (after hard inquiry) TransUnion 821 (after hard inquiry) $128,000 available credit across all cards 13 active accounts:
Capital One - 12yrs, 9mo PayPal - 10yrs, 11mo Capital One - 6yrs, 7mo Chase - 5yrs, 3mo Amex - 5yrs, 1mo Chase - 5yrs Chase - 4yrs, 9mo Chase - 4yrs, 4mo Chase - 3yrs, 3mo Chase - 3yrs Chase - 2yrs, 3mo Citi - 1yr, 4mo Amex - 5mo

(Originally meant for UnsentLetters but they wouldn’t let me post for some reason.)
Dear F,
Hey. I’ve written a few letters to you before. Under other aliases— even sent some dumb shit out into other places for venting ‘n some meant for advice ‘n junk.
I think with this one, I’m gonna try really hard to force myself to write one of these letters whenever I get the urge to message you— I know you don’t want me to, and that’s alright. It makes sense. I know you don’t care about working through or unpacking things anymore, and that you just want to move on with your life.
I fucked up. If I was better to you, everything in my life would be better— not just because you’d still be with me, but I’d be… better. I don’t think I would’ve gotten into acting as much as I have, but I would’ve kept up with my art more. I would’ve had all of our friends, creative and talented people I loved building things with. That’s a selfish point of view, though.
At the end of the day, there’s no reality where I could want you in my life for unselfish reasons. I was bad to you. You deserve better and always have, and begging to be a part of your life again would be… well, yeah. I already said it. Selfish.
I see you in every person I meet. Every time I feel even the slightest bit of fondness for someone I always unpack it to being because part of them reminds me of you. I think about how you saw art and life and— Augh. You make me want to cry— Wait, no. That’s not fair.
I’m the one who put myself in this position. You aren’t the one doing that to me. I love you. I’ve always loved you. I’ll never stop loving you. I’m sorry I ever thought that I did.
Part of me likes to imagine you’ll see this and realize I really am still worth talking to. I know there’s basically no shot you check out a place like this, though. I’m also doing a piss poor job of writing a letter that conveys any reason for you to think that, but still.
That reminds me. A while back, when everything was fully falling apart, you asked me— “Why did it take hurting me for you to become a good person?” That reverberates in my head all the time. I’m not sure I was a good person then, and I’m even less sure if I am one now. There’s definitely some truth to that’s though, even if it’s not so cut and dry. I’m not sure why I’m… better now, more mature? I get the feeling it was a bit of a coincidence in timing— hitting my mid 20’s and losing most of my immediate family probably just sent a shock to my system. I think that’s also part of why I didn’t fully grasp the gravity of how badly I was ruining our relationship.
Some choice phrases, specific moments where I could’ve guaranteed everything would work out and we’d all be happy— the pop into my brain like a knife. It always hurts.
My only comfort is imagining that even if I had done everything right— You’d still be happier with whatever your life is like now than you would have been with me. I can only hope as much. You deserve that.
—The Boy Who Was Once Your Doofling

Original Post: https://www.reddit.com/AmITheJerk/comments/1csum48/aitj_for_cutting_my_sil_out_of_my_life_even_if_it/
Update 1: https://www.reddit.com/AmITheJerk/comments/1cu5yfv/update_1_aitj_for_cutting_my_sil_out_of_my_life/
So as ya'll know, Myself, Fern and Tom had planned some Mother's Day gifts for MIL. I gotta admit, I was worried that Margaret would show up and ruin the whole thing, but it was actually a surprisingly good day- mostly because she wasn't there, which was the OBVIOUS elephant in the room the whole time. Tom worked the grill for a while and we had MIL open the gifts I had planned - it was a small pirate chest filled with letters from Myself, Fern, and Tom telling her how wonderful of a mother she was (I had aged them and weathered them to look waterlogged and like they'd been around for a long time). I made her a boondoggle that said "number one mom" that had our names dangling from it. She opened the collage...the whole thing left her in happy tears, which was nice but also sad at the same time. She said "OP, you're such a shit for making me cry" then gave me a big hug. MIL started to talk about it all ("It's been really rough and I've been having a really hard time"), but it was cut off by the men fussing over the grill. I made the rest of lunch and we had a really, really good time for the most part.
I clocked FIL's behavior in Margaret's absence. He wandered off into the yard and stood by himself for extended periods of time, staring at the ground in silence. I registered it as pain- I'm not gonna lie, it was PALPABLE how much easier and fun and quiet the afternoon was with Margaret being intentionally excluded. I could tell that MIL really needed to talk about what was going on, especially since she was being absolutely flooded with love (in stark contrast to what she's been receiving from Margaret). I approached her towards the end of the evening- she revealed to me what she had put in the letter. Essentially, it reads something like this.
"dear Margaret- I am sorry that we are having such a hard time seeing eye to eye. I have had my conflicts with Fern and Tom in the past that we have been able to resolve; Since you do not wish to speak to me directly, I am hoping that we can communicate this way to see each other more clearly. I think youre upset with me because I married your dad- but I am not sure because you will not tell me what is wrong. I want to make peace with you, but I cannot do that with you so blatantly disrespecting me. I feel like I deserve an apology- I feel used by you, especially since I signed your lease for you when you asked right before this happened. Please write me back so we can resolve this, I love you."
Apparently, MIL had FIL read it before she sent it- this looks like a last ditch effort to rectify the tension, but I'm not sure what the outcome will be because we ALL know that Margaret is going to freak the fuck out the second she reads it. Margaret can't handle any blame and has no sense of accountability. We can all see it coming- so definitely expect an update on that.
On the ride home I absolutely fell apart. It made me so sad that she has had to go to these lengths to remedy a situation that she didn't cause in the first place. I was also very, very angry at FIL and basically the whole family for letting this go on for as long as it has.. I ended up confronting Tom about this again. I told him that there are 600 strangers on reddit calling him and his whole family spineless, and that I have found myself defending them because I know otherwise, but that in this situation those 600 strangers are absolutely right. I said that I know his dad is human, but that they are all a bunch of cowards for the "fend for yourself, just let it go" attitude they have when it comes to each of them being so wildly abused and disrespected AS A FAMILY. Fern deserves better than to have a sister that has told ME that "the reason Fern got SA'd as a kid is because h"e put himself out there like that" (excuse me?). Cory deserves better than a wife who threatens to call the cops on him for not making her dinner (huh?) . Tom deserves a better sister than one who has called me to tell me "He's a creep and I bet he's done things to little girls before" (no idea where that one came from). MIL deserves better than someone who asks her for money and favors only to turn around and rip her to shreds (the entitlement?). And FIL deserves better than to have such little self esteem that he'd rather watch his family disintegrate rather than cut out the cancer.
Yeah, I was heated. Margaret makes shit up, takes things out of context, and regularly demonstrates that she genuinely feels the world is out to get her and that everyone else is the problem. I did not let up.
Tom listened very patiently- we exchanged a lot of words and the conversation took over an hour, the end result being "My dad is nearing approachable about this subject. Today showed him the kind of life we can have without her; you definitely launched a psychological bomb at him with how well you planned the day and how much you showed MIL that she's worth something. He's struggling, but I promise that I'll talk to him about it soon. We talk 3 times a week, he knows its coming."
The last statement I made was "I am not an 'on the fence' person. I'm the only one who has outright picked a side- and it's not Margaret's because I refuse to enable this insanity anymore. It's wrong, and you guys are wrong for coddling a grown woman's hurt ego knowing that its harming literally EVERYONE else in the family. Pick a side, and be done with it. I refuse to let MIL go this alone."
We will see how much longer the circus goes on. I anticipate the events that happened this weekend leading to the biggest blow up that Margaret has had yet- the shady online posts have already started (per Tom, who has found it amusing and low of her). It's about to get a lot crazier when this letter hits, and even worse when she eventually visits FIL and sees a giant collage with all the kids except for her.
There's SO many of you that have said that you are emotionally invested in my story- I'll continue to update so we all get the closure we need. Thanks for all the support (and trash talking, I've gotten quite a few LOLs out of the comments).
Stay tuned I guess!

I don’t hate you. How could I? I don’t think I ever could, to be honest. With all our history and with all of our memories, I’m incapable of hating you. With all of our words spoken, our letters written, and our million “I love you’s” that we screamed, I couldn’t and wouldn’t ever hate you.

I just hate that I still love you.

It’s hard to even feel my fingers type this. It’s like the bones in my body still don’t want to accept it either. It’s been so many days, yet, I still think of who we used to be. Of who you once were when you were with me. I still dream of you. And when I do, I spend the whole rest of the day wondering where you are and what you’re doing now.
I bet you are telling someone else you love them. And I bet you mean it. That’s the saddest part. Is that you really truly mean it.

But, you meant it when you said it to me too.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to try to win you back. Or try to smash thoughts of me into your head. I’m not going to come up with some devious plan to fly to where you are. I’m done with pretending there will ever be a “you and me” because I know there never will be again.
I just hate that you are still wired in my brain. I hate that I write about you all the time. I hate that when you tell me about her, I get jealous. I hate that I have to walk by the place we had our first kiss almost everyday. And I hate that I hate it.
I wish I could feel like a normal human being. Don’t normal people move on faster? Do they move on for good? Do they forget the past? I bet they don’t dream about their past lover. But maybe, that’s because they didn’t have a normal love.

What we had wasn’t normal. It was crazy. It was an addictive, over the top, I can’t live without you, type of love.

I try to convince myself sometimes that I don’t love you. I guess it’s true in some way. I’m not in love with you anymore. I don’t love who you are now, because I barely know you.

But, I do know that I still love the you who loved me.

And I love the you who treated me like gold. And I love the you who cried when you left me.
I don’t hate you for leaving. I don’t hold a grudge on you. I don’t hate that you’re with someone else. I just know that I’ll always carry love for the person you once were. And the person who never would’ve let me go.
Thank you for making me always feel safe. Thank you for loving me through so many years. And thank you for letting me love you so hard, that I could never ever hate you. And thank you for loving me so damn hard, so I could always love the guy you used to be.

There is a old worn trope about today being a gift, and that is why it is called "the present".
I post many stories. Many have a basis in fact. Details may change to enhance the narrative but the cores tend to be true.
Past: i used to get paid to write for an old defunct porn magazine. My friend was one the Editor and she would solicit me when content was needed. Letters to the editor? Me. Short stories. ME. The authors names? Made up. The checks?? My name on them. Old school for sure.
Future: We say forever. How long is that really? Older saying. Man plans. God laughs.
Today i choose to laugh with God.

Mussie Ezaz, who is married and has three children, was arrested in September 2007 for his work as a youth minister with the Kale Hiwot (Word of Life) Church. He had worked as an evangelist for 14 years and served with Youth for Christ for a number of years before establishing a youth ministry at the Kale Hiwot Church.
After his arrest, Mussie was taken to a small village prison staffed by young soldiers. He managed to escape with the help of fellow Christians and, after calling his family to say goodbye, he headed for the border. Upon reaching a border town about 60 miles from the village, he called his family to let them know he had made it. But shortly afterward, Eritrean authorities arrested him before he could cross into a neighboring country.
WRITE TO MUSSIE TODAY
For a long time after his arrest, Mussie’s family had no knowledge of his whereabouts and no information about his health. Eritrean believers feared he had been killed or left alone in a remote prison cell in the desert. However, more recent reports indicate that Mussie is in Asmara, Eritrea’s capital, in a maximum-security crime investigation unit where many other church leaders have been imprisoned, some for more than 10 years. As with other Christians imprisoned in Eritrea, Mussie has been held without charge or trial. His family does not know if he will ever be released.
You can pray for Mussie and his family, and write an encouraging letter to him and other imprisoned Christians by visiting prisoneralert.com.
We also invite you to stand with imprisoned Christians and their families by offering spiritual encouragement and practical assistance, while being a voice for them among other members of the body of Christ. To learn how, click below.
“Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.” —HEBREWS 13:3
The Voice of the Martyrs
STAND WITH THEM

Vivian Wakes up the next day and immediately gets dressed to go to Lucius’s house
Vivian: Oh crap I need to get up I promised I wasn’t gonna be late!
A few hours later and Vivian gets to his house
Vivian: I-I’m HERE”
Lucius walks in
Lucius: Hello my young padawan”
Vivian: I’m ready to learn sir!
Lucius: Did you pack your bags?
Vivian: b-bags? No why?”
Lucius: We’re heading to the land of Nazareth darling and I swear I told you to pack!”
Vivian: I’m so sorry sir my apologies
Vivian bows for forgiveness
Lucius: hey hey don’t do that kid it’s a bit embarrassing
Vivian stands up straight
Vivian: YES SIR”
Lucius: well since you haven’t packed I guess we’re gonna have to wait until tomorrow…anyways go pack up and say goodbye to your friends because we’ll probably be gone for 3 years or so”
Vivian: th-THREE YEARS?!”
Lucius: If you wish to get better then it is something we must do”
Vivian: o-ok…”
Vivian leaves the mansion
Vivian: I don’t wanna leave that long…
Suddenly a Giant explosion occurs and Vivian sees Angel and Hercule chasing down Techneo the Cyber Outlaw
Vivian runs over to them
Vivian: H-HEY what’s going on team?
Angel: This Guy is what’s going on. He just stole $500 worth of money”
Vivian: W-well lets chase him down and after the r we capture him I gotta tell you something…”
They all start chasing Techneo
Hercule: You will not escape villain
Hercule grabs the ground and hurls it at him
Techneo: Aren’t you an a strong fellow”
Techneo jumps extremely high onto a building
Angel chases him from the skies
Angel: Your not getting away this time
Angel dives down from the sky and punches him in the face
Techneo: C-crap your strong”
He pulls out a lasso and ties her up
Angel: h-hey! You won’t get away!”
Vivian floats into the building and casts a stun beam at Techneo
Techneo is hit and he ends up dropping the money bag
Techneo: oh crap I feel drunk~
Techneo falls off the building
Angel: great job Vivi! Now what did you wanna tell us?
Vivian: uhhh uhhh ITS NOTHING”
Angel: come on you know you wanna”
Vivian: uhhhhh fine…. I’m going to Nazareth to learn how to control my magic….”
Vivian starts crying
Angel pats her head and hugs her
Angel: it’s ok I mean even if your gonna be gone it won’t be that long…”
Vivian cries
Vivian: th-three years 😭”
Angel: oh crap… Well don’t worry we can write letters to each other it’s not like we will stay apart
Vivian: I-I guess so”
After taking Techneo to jail the 3 head to the station to tell there boss Sheriff Sleuth the news
Sleuth: Your going away?
Vivian: Y-yes
Sleuth: well then you’re gonna have to give me your badge…”
Vivian: I know….”
She holds her badge thinking of all the memories she made
Vivian: I’ll be back someday…”
She gives sleuth the badge
Vivian: Th-thank you all for being with me”
They all hug her except for sleuth
Hercule: it is ok magic girl”
Angel: she has a name you know…and she’s perfect no matter what…”
Vivian: I’ll be back in 3 years and by then I want you all to get stronger too”
Angel: we will don’t worry about us”
The next day Vivian enters The mansion with her bags
Vivian: I’m ready!
Lucius: looks like you prepared?
Vivian: Y-yeah it took a while
Lucius: well then let’s get going
Lucius creates a portal and they both go through it

Alrighty, I’ve made a post similar when I first enlisted back in October. Basic Training, what to expect? I know there’s phases in which towards the end it’s easy running. My main questions consist of: What’s the chonies situation? Do you bring your own underwear? What’s the general rundown of reception? How’s the peanut butter shot. How does PG work in basic? How frequently do you have to recite the general orders or the soldiers creed out loud? Shoes? Can you bring your own? I’ve heard you get a small amount of cash when you get there to get some shitty ones. Phone usage? What’s that like. Letter writing? Hows that work. Downtime? I’m assuming there’s little to none and the downtime you do get you’d wanna use to sleep right? And finally, I’ve seen my peers in RSP drill who are in between BCT and AIT and I’ve noticed that hey, if they’ve gotten through it, I sure as hell can. So, is the difficulty sourced from how much effort you put? Like outdoing your platoon? Running farther than the rest? Speaking louder? Yelling louder? I’ve heard of trophies at the end. How can I get those

I'm trying to improve my handwriting (Bengali and English) and trying to learn how to write fast but I have a couple of problems.

1. Letters do not match, for example, my e's look different each time, making it look unclean
   
2. Letters in a word aren't always in a straight line
   

Could someone give me some tips on how to fix these problems? Thanks!

I'm in the process of emailing potential PIs and was looking for tips online to refine my email structure when I came across a lengthy post on a certain academic subreddit. Essentially, professors are whining about receiving generic cold emails, but what truly sets me off is the blatant racism and lack of empathy. These comments are from a discussion among professors: "I just ignore them; they are just trying to escape their countries." "You're so kind to bother replying; I just block and delete." There are lots of other rude comments about international students, some mentioning specific countries and even making fun of the "broken English." I'm sorry but who exactly do you think you are, and how long ago were you graduate students that you are so incredibly out of touch?
I understand that spamming professors with generic emails is disrespectful, annoying, and appears desperate; But a good number of us are taking the time to read your papers and write individual emails, because we do not have unlimited resources to apply to a million different PhD programs worldwide. We need to find out if our particular skillset is useful in your lab and if there is space for us. I cannot request a trillion letters of recommendation from my professors. I do not have $100k lying around that I can freely spend on grad program fees either. And What gives you the right to comment on an applicant's home country? TF you mean "they're just trying to get out?" I am incredibly frustrated and angry with this system that has placed my career at the mercy of such egomaniac douchebags. I'm going to take a break from emailing for now. Anyways, thank you for reading, this is my favorite subreddit.

Hellooo any seniors ?
can i ask for some advise on how to write up my appeals for UXGD ? :((
I do know that I need to write how passionate / interested for thise course . My poly course is somewhat related (game design & Art ) no programming background. My current job is 3D n UiUx design ( not on the art industry side more towards manufacturing) :(. should i ask my colleagues to write up a recommendation letter for me ?

"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.]

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.

We were baking recently and listening to HCE and I casually said to my kid "this song is really sad." She asked me what it was about, so I told her, in roughly this way; "it's about a woman, who writes a letter to her brother who she hasn't spoken to in a very long time. But when she's almost finished, she gets tired and decides she'll finish it in the morning. But then she dies, so she never sends the letter."
My kid: "That's pretty much the saddest story I've ever heard".
We then talked about other sad songs. I told her about The Raven. Then she decided that was the saddest story actually. She's far too young for the concept of Routine so I won't be explaining that one to her. Anyone else here listening to SW or PT with their kids? How do you go with the themes in the music?

Hi has anybody's doctor charged you to write a letter for your disability claim and if so how much did they charge. Thanks in advance.