When you sign up, your account is credited with a free $1.25 credit, which can be worth up to 500MB of data (for example in Europe).
When you sign up, you get a free $1.25 credit on your account. Then you get another $5 bonus credit when you top up your account with $20 for your first purchase.
So if you sign up with the code and top up your account with $20 20$ + 1.25$ (when you sign up) + 3$ (referral code: GFNX2) 5$ (for your first top-up of 20$ or more) = $29.25 credit.
Best Features: No Data Expiration: Your data will not expire and the eSIM only needs to be installed once. In-app Call: In-app calling is available. Simple to Use: Top up your account and use it for roaming in all covered countries. No need for new eSIMs every time. Reasonable Rates: Data rates of $2.45 per GB in Europe and $3.25 per GB in the US are ideal for low-volume travel.
Some Cons: Limited Country Coverage: Coverage is still limited, especially in Asia. There is currently no coverage in Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Hong Kong. High Roaming Charges in Some Countries: Watch out for higher fees in some countries, such as Qatar, where data costs $15.71 per GB. Always check the fees for the countries you plan to visit.
https://roamless.com/

Their are different types of hosting, including shared hosting which has the least price and the one I prefer for medium size websites plus can be bought on per year plan and per month plan, secondly virtual private server(VPS) hosting and this is used for big websites better than shared hosting but a little expensive , dedicated hosting offers high level of security and performance of your website, cloud hosting offers flexibility and scalability, managed WordPress hosting is best for the performance of website, colocation hosting provides secure data center housing, reseller hosting allows you to resell hosting services ,free hosting is available for small projects, lastly cluster hosting and grid hosting offers high availability for demanding applications. As the technology is increasing more hosting are introduced but these are the main one and mostly used.

JP Morgan Challenge Battersea Park
My company has signed up to JP Morgan Challenge for the first time this year. I want to understand how the food and social works afterwards.
They offer a picnic package which is weirdly expensive which we cannot afford.

• Are we allowed to bring in our own food and drink?
• is there space to hang out afterwards if you have not paid and booked a picnic bench?
• are we allowed to bring our own chairs/blankets to sit down? (for after and for the observers not racing)
• how long is it open to hang out after?
• is it normal to go to the lcoal pub after? I will do this if we cannot bring our own food but also don't want to miss out on social
• can we mingle with the other companies or each one has a set locked area?

This year's race is in Battersea Park which I don't know well so I'm starting to look at pubs around and I want to book a table in advance if we cannot bring our own food in.
The JPM Challenge organisers are unsurprisingly unhelpful answering all of this because they want me to pay for the huge picnic package.
Thanks for sharing this info!!

My company has signed up to JP Morgan Challenge for the first time this year. I want to understand how the food and social works afterwards.
They offer a picnic package which is weirdly expensive which we cannot afford.

• Are we allowed to bring in our own food and drink?
• is there space to hang out afterwards if you have not paid and booked a picnic bench?
• are we allowed to bring our own chairs/blankets to sit down? (for after and for the observers not racing)
• how long is it open to hang out after?
• is it normal to go to the lcoal pub after? I will do this if we cannot bring our own food but also don't want to miss out on social
• can we mingle with the other companies or each one has a set locked area?

This year's race is in Battersea Park which I don't know well so I'm starting to look at pubs around and I want to book a table in advance if we cannot bring our own food in.
The JPM Challenge organisers are unsurprisingly unhelpful answering all of this because they want me to pay for the huge picnic package.
Thanks for sharing this info!!

Trying to find an internship in Business Operations, Finance, Supply Chain and Operations Management

I have already made short post that I finished series finale. I stiil feel sad, depressed and that feeling when tv show ended.... unbelievable how "The Shield" is stuck with me. Can't believe this journey is over.
I wanted to say so many things. Firstly, how can I miss this? I was too young when it came out, but I hear about "The Wire" everywhere even now. "The shield" feels like out of the radar all the time. WE MUST DO SOMETHING WITH IT! Please, just watch "The Shield"!
My friend told me to watch it and he stumbled upon this Tv show in one cool review that was left by some user (girl , actually) on my native language site about movies/tvshows.
When I look at some photos and pictures of "The Shield" I have thoughts that it is like CSI or some other typical cop show with nothing more. How wrong was I with such first impression.
What I really like that "The shield" has blu-ray release. So cool tv show is reinnovate for high quality format and has a lot of bonus features on blu-ray.
My friend also told me that I need to watch especially until Season 5 where it will be so high level quality writing that I gonna really appreaciate "The Shield".
As for myself, I fond of cinema. I just not go easy on any movies/tvshows. I am very nit-picking because I like to learn about cinematography, screenwriting, directing and so on. For me movies like the greatest art and I study movies as an art. That's why I feel bored about modern movies and TV shows. Screenplays are not bold, not so complex, characters feel flat and creators afraid to insult other races, woman right and so on. Many movies and TV shows of modern era feel convinient. I am tired of that. And I started to watch "The Shield" six months ago.
"The Shield" was aired in the right time! Year 2002 like "The Wire". From the pilot episode "The Shield" don't try to be convinient, it shows you what Vic and his team doing, what "The barn" doing everyday. Everything around characters feels not-convinient: drug-addicted, child trafficking, other awful staff around. Characters not just saint and clean, they do what they have to do like it or not as a viewer. That's what I wished for a long time. "The Shield" just clicked with me. I can't even imagine TVshow about cops can be on such level with great cast, great characters, really good screenwriting, directing and editing.
Before "The Shield" I can't tolerate semi-documentary cinematography and "hand-held" effect of camera in movies. In "The Shield" I fall in love with such camerawork and editing. That's really what I can't imagine I would love in cinemas. In this Tv show every take is so close, editiing beetwen close-mid plan camera panning and it feels so great in terms of "The Shield" storytellling. You are always near characters, you like breathing just around their shoulders and see every bad side of Farmington so close that you feel how disgusting this district is. Incredible work from cinematographers and editors.
Dynamic feeling of everything that happens on the screen. The greatest part of "The Shield" it is never trying to dragging some melodrama to extend seasons or try to be sentimental in the scenes. Modern TVshows really like that and i don't. Don't need to play with the viewer. In "The Shield" everything happenes so fast, so realistic that sometimes you can't even catch a breath. Not a single dull episode. In every episode something cool will definetely happens and it keeps you attached to the screen. And I don't mean that "The Shield" hasn't some melancholic or not-fast pacing moment. On the opposite, "The Shield" has everything what makes cinema alive and fascinating.
Let me explain what I really like about "The Shield" and I have never experience such different emotions just in one piece of the cinema:
In "The Shield" you can feel like a kid again and rooting for cool-masculine guys who breaks door and shout: "Police! On the ground!". After some episodes I really wanna just play in cops and criminals on my yard with friends. That's how action feels in this Tv show. I wanna buy merch with "Strike Team" on it and snake eating rat logo. Incredible.
In "The Shield" as an adult you can feel totally devastated by events that just happened on the screen. You can feel pure emotions from character actions. And what most important you don't want to judge character right away you want to put yourself in his shoes because what character did feels so realistic. Characters here not some fancy cards, you can feel them like real human beings.
In "The Shield" you can laugh as an adult. Humor in some scenes and from some characters really spot on and not stupid. It is full drama but some episodes has great humor parts. And again it feels so real and natural like human beings in real life would joke about something. Bilings sutuations and lines from later seasons are just pure gold.
In "The Shield" you want to discuss some parts of the story. It feels like after reading a good complex books with interesting characters you start to think about their actions and how you can think about your actions in the real life. What it is like to be a coward? To be hypocrite? What about loayalty and friendship? Trust me not so many movies/TVshows can be so full-thinking. It's a miracle that such depth can be in cop TV show. I stiil can't imagine how believable characters are and situations in "The Shield". Script and story of all seasons and how characters arcs redeemed is golden!
So I trying to say "The Shield" can feel like popcorn-blockbuster cop show in some parts with overacting but sometimes it's pure complex drama with silence scenes and great acting and very realistic characters. It's the best mixture of movie formula that I have seen in my life! I stiil can't imagine that I saying such words in terms of cop TV show.
"The Shield" was ahead of its time. It is a real piece of art. In modern days I want to see Tv show with overacting (when it need to be done), cool action and the same time it can provide me with great drama sequences and believable characters.
[SPOILER] section below. Please read only if you watched the series.
What I also like about "The Shield" it has great leading character. Michael Chiklis was born for this role. Maybe in first seasons you can think he overacting sometimes and can't be so dramatic but in the late seasons Michael have shown one of the best acting scenes in cinema. Pure mastery. This 42 second silence in front of Olivia was something unique and incredible. Then final eyes scene with Cloudette and finale running eyes scene in the ending of season 7 when he sits alone.
Vic is so well written in every season. He is the anchor of the show. So charismatic, strategy wise, musculine and cool and what I like the most this character feels real. When Vic came alone in gang territory and didn't fear anything you believe in that. You understand as a viewer that not anybody in "the barn" have balls for things that Mackey can do. He uses "shortcuts" in police work that only he can manage. He has really metal backbone. Even when he mentally broke at the end of the 1st season he needs just a couple of minutes to grab his shit together and go further. Character has a great amount of willpower and dedication to do anything that he wanted to.
Vic is the greatest anti hero in cinema history. Many side characters hate him but when there is a problem that no one can resolve Mackey step up. Farmington is so dirty that it needs people dirty as Vic to clean it.
I actually always rooted for Vic as a viewer because nobody in "The Shield" is black and white. Even Claudette free Kleavon from death penalty to keep her warm place. And I like that "The Shield" shows every character is corrupt somehow.
But I can't believe that Vic betrayed Ronnie. It hits hard. After that I as a viewer understood Cloudette words: "Vic is trying to be someone he wants you to see him". We viewers see Vic true nature in the final episode and it hits hard too. He always was like that and we didn't want to accept. And some part of me like him but other part can't forgive him for what he did to others. Such a great character downfall through all seasons. And this shot when he smiled to his gun and go somewhere. Where did he go? He can't sit tight he always need to be "living on the edge" this his type of character.
I wanna write about other characters. Shane for sure. But Post is too big. I leave it for later.
10/10. I am empty and depressed that "The Shield" journey ended for me. Can't believe that many people don't know about this masterpiece. I am glad I stumbled upon it. It touched my strings for cinema love that not any movie or tv show touching in years.
So many emotions and thoughts. Thanks to Shawn Ryan, Michael Chiklis, Walton Goggins and every other member of "The Shield" crew and FX. I wish I had a chance to tell it to them personally. I am grown man but I feel emotions like a kid again. Pure emotions from "The Shield" story.
To sum up my words. I like this ending montage of Season 2. It has great editing and you feel emotions. I literally cried when I rewatched it after the final. Clodette touches Dutch and thanked him. Aceveda moving forward. Coriine in thoughts. Dutch investigate a murder again. And Pile of money scene... Vic the only one who is laughing but others feel mix emotions. Gives shivers to my spine.
The Shield - Overcome Season 2 Ending (youtube.com)

Hello all!
The Tuesday Weekly Meetup is happening again this (and every) Tuesday, May 21st, at Erika & Hilde in Neukolln from 7pm-closing. It's a lovely bar just down the street from our old location. It has separate smoking/non-smoking areas, comfy chairs, and a cozy vibe perfect for our meetup.
This is a social meetup without any particular topic, so feel free to join a table and find a conversation or people you vibe with. We try and be friendly towards newcomers, so feel free to introduce yourself! Whether you're new to the city or have been here a while, it's a good way to meet a different set of people, make new friends, and discover new interests!
We're trying to keep the bar a safer space, so racism, sexism (plus a bunch of other -isms) and homo-/queer- and transphobia are definitely not welcome! Respect boundaries (physical and psychological) and diversity. This is not a place to hit on people or to find a date.
Please don't hesitate to talk to Tom (me) or James if you ever feel harassed or unsafe. We'll take it seriously and find a solution together.
I hope to see you all Tuesday!
Cheers,
Tom
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cnNTLhqPmVwC1Eyy7

Hi, i was analyzing these three great consumer defensive companies and i did up the data sheet in case anyone is interested.
All three are in a google sheet, you can get it here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16J-iyYcPQ6ae-XRvMXGslB1w3RdiE6aJGFSqLjtFPmc/edit?usp=sharing
some caveat on using the file:

• i removed all formulas, all valuation process and only included my conclusion
• also there is a table called "plan b", in which i try to work backwards on the expected earnings growth from to the current share price. for example, using the table, i find that the market is expected a 9% earnings growth from P&G.
• note that for UL, it is a ADR, but the financial nos are in EUR, but the Shareprice is in USD. I had to exclude several analyst estimates because they were clear as no currency was specified.

Questions i wanted to find out:

1. Which company is selling volume ontop of price increases?
2. Which company is the most expensive, valuation-wise ?
3. Which company has the better efficiency metrics, ROE decomposition, etc ?
4. Which has the highest growth in Revenue and Earnings in the past 10 years?
5. Which has the potential for highest earnings growth going forward?

In general among the 3, PG is has the highest market cap, and is almost four times larger than its next competitor Unilever, even though its sales is only 42% more than the Unilever. MDLZ is more similar to Unilever, however although Unilever has 63% more revenue than MDLZ, its market cap is only 12% larger than MDLZ. I believe MDLZ and PG have a developed country premium, or you could view it as a difference in where PG has a highest market share among developed countries, and Unilever the least.
( this premium can be argued both ways, noted investor Terry Smith says that Unilever’s 60% in emerging market is the future because when these countries reach middle-income they will buy more of UL’s products. I say “not really leh”, UL greater exposure to emerging markets means that they tend to bolt at price increases more than PG or MDLZ, which is exactly what is happening to UL. Their earnings call is a painful justification on how they intend to sell more volume versus price increase, analysts don’t see this as problem with PG and MDLZ even though their latest quarter had negative volume growth and more price increases)
In terms of margins, PG has the most beautiful margins that justifies the higher valuation, UL has higher gross margin but still loses out to MDLZ. In terms of ROE and the rockers, PG is the highest, followed by UL and in a distant, MDLZ. MDLZ’s ROIC is above the cost of capital, but it is pale in comparison to the other two.
If i want to be critical, i will say it MDLZ is bobbing up and down between the 9% line. This is not good if WACC is at 9% (most website puts it at 7-8% but I use 9% to be consistent )
In terms of growth rates,
Mdlz is supposed to have the highest sales but the reality is that they are probably all the same.
Argus Research puts 8/9/10% cagr for PG/MDLZ/UL but CS puts all three at 7%-ish EPS growth.
In terms of valuation, i used 5% for UL/MLDZ instead, except for PG at 7%, and Plan-B is sizing PG at 9% based on the current share price.

"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.]

Our 2 oldest are 19 and 18 and live at home. Our oldest is in college but is dropping out for at least a yr as she doesn't know what she wants to major in so she wants to take a break to figure it out and she is hoping to move states with her bf in the next yr or so. My 18 yr old was doing online HS but in the last mo th or so kinda fell behind and just came to us saying she isn't going to complete her HS diploma requirements in time to graduate. She does have 2 part time jobs and has been looking into GED programs. Now their Dad and I have brought up the subject of rent and while they didn't seem to mind at he cost seemed to be out of left field for them. We live in WA state and have a pretty high min wage. Once summer starts they will both be working full time. Rent will include everything with 1 meal a day (dinner). Any special foods/snacks will be covered by them along with personal items but we will cover normal household items like toilet paper, shampoo/conditioner, toothpaste etc. If rent is paid we will not expect them to do chores except the normal pick up after yourself, do your dishes and laundry etc. Now for the cost...we were thinking of charging 500 a month everything included. When my 19 yr old was in college we didn't charge her rent at all, and if she would have stayed enrolled we would have let her stay rent free but not now that she is dropping out. Our 18 yr old isn't paying until summer when school is technically over as she isn't going to college right away anyway and was planning a gap yr even before she decided not to get her HSD. They are both mad at us and think that 500 is too much. If we broke down everything not including food into 5ths it would be a little over 600 so I think 500 with dinners included is a great deal but they don't as it almost pays our mortgage. Am I expecting them to pay an unreasonable amount?

Hello My friend and I purchased few things under tax free. Under my passport, my friend bought a shirt and a console, total worth not past 15,000 yen and I bought 3 knives worth 30,000 yen. Now the issue is, my friend is going to another country and I was planning to send 2 of the knives with him and I won’t have the console and shirt with me to be declared in customs. What should I do? And where should I be carrying the knife with me? Should it be in the carry on or the checked in luggage?
Thank you in advance.