One horse 1guy

Hello, I’m the one who wrote the Journey Across the Planet of the Apes letter, and I just wanted to share a couple more predictions I’ve made since writing that letter. 1. I just recently watched the original ‘68 movie and I noticed when Charlton Heston is talking about what could’ve wiped out the humans, he says something like “Maybe a deadly plague, a meteor storm maybe, I don’t know.” We’ve already had most humans get killed by a plague, and this series is so dedicated to the most obscure of references that now I am almost certain that the leftover humans are gonna get killed by a meteor storm by the end of this trilogy. 2. No spoilers, but with the way things ended, I’m guessing the human girl is gonna go back and forth on being an antagonist in the future. Especially since they seem to be setting up the theme of “Can apes and humans ever live side by side?” 3. This one isn’t really based on anything, but just another title prediction. If we’re getting a trilogy of trilogies like they’ve said, then I’m predicting the 9th film will be Fall of the Planet of the Apes, making the perfect payoff to this series starting with Rise. (Maybe that will be the one where the horses rise up)

Hi everyone! Looking for this movie I watched a long time ago (was either Netflix or YouTube)
Brothers(or maybe friends?) who are close but get separated when one is taken away by their father. Both brothers fall in love with the same girl. The main character, who rides a white horse, becomes blind temporarily, and an old man in a city market agrees to help him by riding on his back to guide him. The old man hits him a lot and I think was getting paid to help. The other brother becomes an antagonist, riding a black horse.
I also remember at the market while the main character is blind he meets with the main love interest after he maybe solves a puzzle? I remember the old man saying it was just a wall but the protag is able to open it and the lady walks out of it and cures his blindness.
I also remember a lion and a swan? And a huge cathedral (?) that the final fight happens in.
This isn’t a lot to go off of so if anyone knows pleaseee let me know!
Edit: forgot to mention this was animated (maybe hand drawn?)

Hi folks, I do a bit of writing on the side but nobody fancied picking this up and it's going out of date fast. So I thought I'd share with the sub instead.
Why Unai Emery is the Manager of the Season. And it's not only for his results on the pitch.
On the opening day of the 2023/24 Premier League season, Aston Villa were battered 5-1 away to Newcastle in a match that saw defensive talisman Tyrone Mings suffer a similar season-ending injury to that of his teammate Emi Buendia, who had damaged his knee ligaments in training a few days earlier. Villa’s shiny new centre-back, Pau Torres, looked lightweight and twitchy as a replacement for Mings, with his dreamy blue eyes and expansive, continental passing range only serving to confirm pre-existing fears that he wasn’t cut out for the #PaceOfThePremierLeague. Buendia’s replacement, Philippe Coutinho, gave the least convincing cameo performance since Donald Trump turned up in Home Alone 2.
Sir Alex Ferguson praised the Villa performance regardless, saying they’d played fantastic football and had simply lost bad goals. The natural assumption was that he’d indulged in one too many complimentary sherries, perhaps having gotten lost in the excitement of a new Premier League season after a summer of watching steroid-ridden horses running around and around in a circle. I scoffed. Hell, we all did.
But it turns out there is life in the big red-nosed dog yet - because nine months and 38 matches later, Pau Torres is well en-route to becoming an Aston Villa cult hero and Lil’ Phil Coutinho has been all but forgotten, having spent the season out on loan to… some club, somewhere, presumably in the Middle East.
Back on English soil, Aston Villa have qualified for the Champions League - and we all owe Alex Ferguson an apology. Game, as the kids might still say, do indeed recognise game.
And nobody plays the game like Unai Emery. Not in this past season, at least.
Who else could remain so stoic in the face of not two, but three first-team ACL injuries and a seemingly endless succession of unshakeable niggles to the likes of Jacob Ramsey, Alex Moreno and Youri Tielemans? Not Mauricio Pochettino, who cried it was not fair to judge his Chelsea team in the midst of an injury crisis; nor even Erik Ten Hag, who likened his attempts to improve an injury-stricken team to swimming with your hands behind your back - not easily done, by the looks of things, despite being blessed with a natural, ready-made swimming cap.
Excuses are not my mentality, said Emery back in March. I am usually not speaking about ‘if’. We just have to play. We have to accept each result and enjoy each moment. My objective is to send the same message to players and supporters — enjoy.
And us supporters certainly did enjoy it. We enjoyed reducing Manchester City to just two shots across ninety minutes, enjoyed doing the double over Arsenal without conceding a goal, enjoyed the curing of Ollie Watkins’ goalscoring yips and the long overdue presence of Ezri Konsa in the England squad, the rapid ascension of a team that Steven Gerrard had ambling towards the relegation zone, onwards and upwards not only into the Champions League, but also into our first European semi-final in a generation.
So what if it was only the Conference League? And if a 6-2 defeat on aggregate against Olympiakos was a little embarrassing? If the player who scored a hat-trick in the first leg had only recently returned from a stint in Qatar?
Emery’s squad were running on fumes by then. They’d just seen their goalkeeper receive two yellow cards and not get sent off - they were hallucinating, exhausted. In the words of their captain John McGinn, they were half men. And somehow that’s not even a reference to the ever-changing array of regens, schoolboys and teenagers who filled out the matchday squads towards the season’s end, stinking out the Aston Villa bench like they were passing around a joint at the bus stop.
Of the ten players to have played the most matches across elite European football this season, five of them wore claret and blue (and not a single one of them played for Burnley, although Jarrod Bowen did put in a shift for West Ham). Even the players who were fit were often unavailable through suspension: John McGinn got himself sent off for a shoulder barge against Spurs, only to be outdone a few matches later by the ever-competitive Douglas Luiz, who successfully tallied up ten progressively avoidable yellow cards in time to miss a crucial match against Arsenal at The Emirates.
Of course, supporters of every club will feel that they have attracted the worst luck, endured the most adversity. But I want to highlight Villa’s woes here because neither the likes of Sky Sports or even Emery himself can be relied upon to do so. Out of context, his achievements at Aston Villa are commendable. In context, they become almost astonishing.
It is the sensible decision that he will be named as the Premier League’s Manager of the Season. Arteta’s Arsenal have improved, put up a good fight; Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City have managed to turn the record-breaking into the mundane. And yes, Gary O’Neil is English. But nobody has upset the odds as comprehensively, with as much class, as much commitment as Emery has. He has developed a “no excuse” culture amongst the squad at Aston Villa and in return they have delivered a season for which no excuses are necessary.
I’d hope that he’d sit back now and enjoy the surely-inevitable plaudits. For those of us who’ve been watching closely though, we know that’s not quite his style.
If you enjoyed my writing there's a whole book of it available here! Winner Stays On: England with The FA Cup for a Compass
Cheers.

This is for people building Gizmek and will not be updated. The list is sorted by newest to oldest and I will maybe post an alphabetized one. Corrections are welcome.
Drytron Meteonis Alpha Draconids Gimmick Puppet Cattle Scream Gimmick Puppet Little Soldiers Division Ancient Gear Tanker Ancient Gear Dark Golem T.G. Glaive Blaster Storagepod Rescue-ACE Preventer Superheavy Samurai Soulgaia Booster Infinitrack Road Roller Labyrinth Heavy Tank Yaguramaru The Armor Ninja Meteor Rush - Monochroid Kashtira Arise-Heart Rescue-ACE Turbulence Rescue-ACE Hydrant Rescue-ACE Fire Engine Rescue-ACE Fire Attacker Surgical Striker - H.A.M.P. Aileron Vaylantz Voltage Viscount Vaylantz Mad Marquess Vaylantz Genesis Grand Duke Vaylantz Dominator Duke Vaylantz Buster Baron Morphtronic Telefon Gadget Gamer Symphonic Warrior DJJ D.D. Assault Carrier Speedroid Ultra Hound Speedroid Fuki-Modoshi Piper Master's Diploman Gizmek Taniguku, the Immobile Intellect Gizmek Naganaki, the Sunrise Signaler Gizmek Inaba, the Hopping Hare of Hakuto Gizmek Arakami, the Hailbringer Hog Drytron Meteonis Quadrantids Drytron Meteonis Draconids Gizmek Makami, the Ferocious Fanged Fortress Divine Arsenal AA-ZEUS - Sky Thunder Meklord Nucleus Infinity Core Meklord Emperor Wisel - Synchro Absorption Gizmek Okami, the Dreaded Deluge Dragon Appliancer Socketroll Appliancer Copybokkle Appliancer Breakerbuncle Gizmek Uka, the Festive Fox of Fecundity Malefic Paradox Gear Time Thief Chronocorder Gizmek Kaku, the Supreme Shining Sky Stag World Legacy - "World Key" Gizmek Yata, the Gleaming Vanguard Gimmick Puppet Bisque Doll Boot-Up Admiral - Destroyer Dynamo Gizmek Orochi, the Serpentron Sky Slasher T.G. Halberd Cannon/Assault Mode Cyber Dragon Nachster Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Juggernaut Liebe World Legacy - "World Crown" Cyber Dragon Herz Ancient Gear Megaton Golem Inspector Boarder F.A. Auto Navigator World Legacy - "World Armor" Mech Phantom Beast Raiten Fantastic Striborg Chimeratech Megafleet Dragon Cyberdarkness Dragon World Legacy - "World Chalice" Ancient Gear - Ultimate Pound Superheavy Samurai Helper Superheavy Samurai Fist Speedroid Maliciousmagnet SPYRAL GEAR - Last Resort Ancient Gear Reactor Dragon Speedroid Horse Stilts Heavy Armored Train Ironwolf Crystron Quariongandrax Ancient Gear Hunting Hound Duza The Meteor Cubic Vessel Crystron Rion D Cubed Torque Tune Gear Superheavy Samurai Soulpeacemaker Crystron Thystvern Crystron Quan Crystron Citree Heavy Mech Support Armor SPYRAL GEAR - Drone Speedroid Den-Den Daiko Duke Kozmo Dark Planet Deskbot 009 Kozmo Delta Shuttle Deskbot 008 Deskbot 007 Superheavy Samurai Thief Superheavy Samurai Soulclaw Superheavy Samurai Drum Deskbot Jet Deskbot 006 Speedroid Red-Eyed Dice Speedroid Double Yoyo Deskbot 005 Toon Ancient Gear Golem Deskbot 004 Superheavy Samurai Soulbeads Morphtronic Smartfon Deskbot 003 Superheavy Samurai Soulshield Wall Superheavy Samurai Soulbang Cannon Mono Synchron Geargiauger Geargiano Mk-III Superheavy Samurai Soulfire Suit Deskbot 002 Deskbot 001 Night Express Knight Number C6: Chronomaly Chaos Atlandis Gimmick Puppet Shadow Feeler Gimmick Puppet Magnet Doll Gimmick Puppet Dreary Doll Deep-Space Cruiser IX Mech Phantom Beast Warbluran Gimmick Puppet Gear Changer Box of Friends Photon Satellite Photon Pirate Gearspring Spirit Planet Pathfinder Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Gustav Max Vylon Tetra Vylon Sphere Wind-Up Carrier Zenmaity Barbaroid, the Ultimate Battle Machine Meklord Emperor Wisel Vylon Cube Unkown Synchron T.G. Halberd Cannon Morphtronic Lantron Meklord Emperor Skiel Meklord Astro Dragon Asterisk Buster Blaster Meklord Emperor Granel Meklord Astro Mekanikle Malefic Parallel Gear Symphonic Warrior Drumss Synchro Soldier Swift Scarecrow Scrap Mind Reader Neelde Soldier Karakuri Ninja mdl 339 "Sazank" Karakuri Barrel mdl 96 "Shinhuro" R-Genex Crusher Ally of Justice Decisive Armor Ally of Justice Cycle Reader Ally of Justice Reverse Break Ally of Justice Enemy Catcher Morphtronic Vacuumen Changer Synchron Cyber Eltanin Unicycular Tricular Oilman Bicular Genex Worker Turbo Rocket Turbo Cannon Minefieldriller Darksea Rescue Morphtronic Videon Scanner Chimeratech Fortress Dragon Metal Shooter Morphtronic Celefon Gadget Driver Turbo Booster Quillbolt Hedgehog DUCKER Mobile Cannon Cyber Valley Blast Sphere Card Trooper Yellow Gadget Ancient Gear Engineer Cyberdark Keel Cyberdark Horn Cyberdark Edge Cyberdark Dragon Satellite Cannon Chimeratech Overdragon Searchlightman Ancient Gear Cannon Adhesive Explosive UFOroid Fighter UFOroid Steamroid Patroid Gyroid Drillroid Ancient Gear Soldier Ancient Gear Golem Ancient Gear Beast Mecha-Dog Marron Heavy Mech Support Platform Bokoichi the Freightening Car KA-2 Des Scissors Union Rider Dimension Jar Gradius' Option Labyrinth Tank

My horses have been boarded at a friends barn for three years. My husband and I are finally able to bring our horses home and there have been a lot of comments.
My friend/barn owner called me months ago to tell my mare with a cataract has had some changes to that eye. I wanted a vet there immediately and she said she would coordinate it. I called her the next day to find out about the appointment and she said she decided my mare didn’t need a vet (I live 1,000 miles away so I could not do it myself). I had a dental vet coming out a few weeks later who looked at the eye and said she likely had glaucoma and needed care immediately. I was frustrated at the delay in care but got an ophthalmologist vet out the next week. Since then barn owner has told everyone who will listen “I told her (as in me -horses owner) that horse needed vet care”. I don’t correct her because my horses are leaving soon but it really is exhausting to hear this over and over again when that’s not at all what happened. For context I have been in town for three weeks (since my mares enucleation) prepping for my horses move.
Barn owner also argued with me a bunch over the amount of equine senior my mare gets saying I’m feeding her too much. My mare lost a lot of weight which the vet says is from the pain caused by the glaucoma. Barn owner wants to feed her 3lbs a day. I feed her 10lbs a day per the recommendation on the back of the equine senior bag. I pay for the feed so I’m confused why this is an issue other than she thinks she knows more than me. She repeatedly tells me my mare is going through 50lbs every five days and wants her feed bin full at all times but then complains about it molding.
Barn owner has also told me she feels badly for my horses because they won’t have enough room at my place. We have a huge barn, an arena they have full time access to run around, and a pasture track system through beautiful oak and pine forest they will be on 24/7. They have plenty of room and I have been so excited to bring them home.
There have been demands for me to leave extra shavings and grain there when I leave since my one horse ate/used so much and I’ve just said okay. I’d like to stay friends but this is a lot. Is this typical when people leave barns?
Also for context: barn owner barely manages anything at the barn. The dry lot is so piled up with urine and feces that the main gate no longer opens, water troughs have larvae swimming in them, she’s determined her horses are “too old” for vaccines, etc. I have a degree in animal science so I do things a lot more hands on so I assume this is an issue as well?

Why Islam is going to lose against Dustin:
1) he’s been fighting shallow competition (for him) the past few fights. Let’s look at his last 5 fights:
Dan Hooker Bobby Green Olivera Volk Volk
Like Bobby ain’t even ranked, Dan Hooker is hella over rated and will never be top 5, Olivera is hittable and always struggled against wrestlers anyways as seen with Armen, and Volk is at the end of his career & the weight class below.
Compared to Dustin who last fought: McGregor McGregor Chandler Justin BSD
On paper, those are 5 tougher opponents and even tho he lost to Dustin, he defeated BSD (I’ll ignore the staph and give him credit) who was a dark horse and deffo top 5 in the future, finished McGregor faster than Khabib could and was beating Justin until the fluke kick. It’s just one of those things where I feel like Islam may underestimate him or waste his gas tank
2: 12 win streak curse
No one in light weight has ever broken 12 wins. Tony lost & Khabib retired before he could lose. Islam is currently on his 12th win streak. Will he get 13? No. I think in a re match he will beat Dustin but as of now, he’s not breaking this curse
3: Paulo Costa Curse
Enough said. Everyone fighting with Paulo on the undercard has lost their belt. Yikes
4: Inbred
Islam is an inbred and has no fight IQ. He uses his mutant autism powers to hump people until he can choke them out
5: Southpaw
The one time Islam lost was to a southpaw and has always struggled against those who are (eg armen who he only won against by one round).
6: Dustin
Dustin gonna knock this guy out easy work

So I had a fomo of getting into this game for a while and since I saw that the numbers were consistant I got it.
I watched a youtube video where a person recommended to do online story missions first since they award a decent amount of gold and wait for the timer to run out which I am not gonna do since I want to play the game and not just afk.
The problem is it's not enjoyable for me to ride around on a horseback on insanely long journeys from A to B. As for exploration I am so spoiled by fallout and skyrim that I don't find it fun here (I did more in the rdr2 single player, it's my top 5 game).
So I just started doing the missions which were closer to my location but it's insanely repetetive and I cannot handle it anymore. The story mission thing gave me a purpose that I would unlock the roles and have fun with diverse content but it's daunting to ride around especially trying to control the stamina with the early game horse even with full cores at all times.
I have like 800 hours in gta online and I like the rockstar's mission design but there at least driving is fun, challenging to not crash and so on.
As for fast travel, it's still usually super far. I tried quiting the game and spawning closer to the place but that method is super ineficient since the game takes super long to load even with a superfast ssd.
Do you think this game is just not for me ? I really want to find a better way to play it if there is one, I even turned on my favorite youtube content in the bg but I just can't with this horse.

Hi there, just wanted to give some quick and easy to digest feedback and what I think of Volume 7.
Pros: New Rims that are actually rims. Like new Rotiforms.

• LED and Projection Music Beat Match Vanity Items are awesome.
  
• The Drift Pro tires make drifting so much more fun.
  
• Drag Racing almost identical to how it works in Underground 1 and 2, hell, we even have cars, attendees, and trash cans on fire at the intros, where is that in the regular races? Come on Criterion!
  
• The Dark Horse (I'm a bit biased on this one, especially since I first got to see it when it was unveiled first hand, at least we got the Dark Horse unlike Forza Horizon 5)
  
• The Underground League adds some great Endgame Content, also RACER X?! Nice callback to the original title for The Fast and the Furious.
  
• FLAME TIRE SMOKE ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THANK YOU, I WAS ASKING FOR THIS WHEN WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE EFFECTS BEFORE LAUNCH!!!!
  
• Ode to Neville.
  
• You can play as Waru.
  

Cons:

• The Dark Horse is behind the Premium Speed Pass.
  
• Even though drag racing works with the A.I. when you go to face them 1 on 1, DRAG RACING ISN'T IN SINGLE PLAYER!!!!
  

Overall, 9 out of 10.

Now, hold your horses, put the pitchforks down and lemme explain my reasoning for this opinion.
Sigma flat out lost to X, not only did he lose to X, he lost a 2v1 (his dog counts). Vile on the other hand, outright beat X *and* Zero in his Ride Armor, and it took a joint effort, with a self-sacrificial explosion to remove Vile's greatest weapon from the equation. Taking this into account, if Vile were to have confronted Sigma, for any reason in X1, with his Ride Armor, he'd have washed him. Without the Ride Armor? Definitely not. Maybe he could have if he got lucky with his stun cannon, but Sigma knows all about Vile and his capabilities.
Vile still would have lost the long-term war, even if he did defeat Sigma, however. He's not charismatic, like Sigma was. Many many Reploids willingly went Maverick, either out of loyalty, or sheer charisma. Vile has none of that charm, if anything, he'd actually probably band the world together in a united effort to kill him.
So, that begs the question for later down the series; If Vile was so strong, why was he and his Ride Armor so weak in X3 by comparison?
Well, beyond the general theme of "potential vs power" the X series was trying to convey, I've got a few theories.
Of course, the most natural answer is that X simply got stronger. How he did that, is ultimately up to you. The X1-X5 takes place within roughly 6 months, I think? I don't really think X got any upgrades in that timeframe, barring his armor, which is why personally speaking, I like to think that X has been integrating his armors into his natural form as much as his systems will allow for. I mean, after all, we've seen this happen with the dash boots. Zero obviously got an upgrade, by Dr. Wily--- I mean, Serges, but by how much is debatable.
Another theory of mine is that Doppler actually intentionally made Vile weaker to keep him in check. Given that he's the one who brought Vile back, it's only reasonable to assume that he'd have access to his data and specs, and knowing full well that he couldn't control a "war machine", like Vile, he opted to down-grade him a little to ensure that his Nightmare Police enforcers could keep him in line if he ever went rogue. It'd explain why his new personal Ride Armor isn't seemingly all that durable by comparison to his personal Ride Armor in X1. Either that, or in conjunction with X becoming more powerful, he can actually destroy big bulky armors like that now.
What do you think? Do you disagree? And if so, why?

"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.]

There are 5 areals inside of which 5 elements reside. The five areals are: ● Mirage(hollow, reflective, refractive, instantanious, where psyche meets spirit). ● Woman (love, where spirit meets fire), ● Digitage( non-corporeal, energy storage where water meets fire) . ● Foilage(birthing, absorbing, growing, where animal meets water), ● Man(strife, where animal meets psyche)
(The elements between each areal are respectfully spirit, fire, water. animalia and psyche)
Inside animalia there are 6 distinct animals from which genesis occurs. Pachyderm (elephants, whales etc) Reptilian (lizards, snakes etc) Cephalapod (the sentient on the planet) Equine (horse, zebra etc) Canine (dog, wolf, jackal etc) Feline (cat, lion, cheetah etc)
Time is an illusion carried by humans (an amalgamation through time defying reproduction of the entirety of the cephalapods work in genesis on the planet earth.) The earliest intelligent animal on the earth was the vampyrapod. A ten tentacled species that landed here somehow flung from some rock or ejaculated by some larger animal. The vampyropods were fed upon by the local life here (trilobytes, bacteria etc) eating two of the tentacles (the mating tentacles (man(woman)) that began the genesis. The ten commandments themselfs biblically are the fossilized representation of one male and one female vampyropods. The ten tentacles arranged in their death explaining a meaning forever.
The 5 areals are where time is encased it is the job of humans to bear the weight of time while cephs continue the genesis.
If you imagine a star shape in which each point is an areal, and between each point is an element, than in the very center you will find salt, sugar, and vinegar (dry). With these base powders water, Nitrogen, And carbon can be formed. The basis of life on earth.
All the genesis of animalia as well as man made items were the creation of the cephs with intention. Mixing of animalia through time and genesis they have destroyed the dinosaurs and shifted them to aviaries. They did this through the tapeworm, an invention that not only makes up the organs of humans, (the intestines, the gallbladder etc) but was weaponized to destroy the dinosaurs en masse in preperation for the genesis plans of the cephs.
Modern octopus only live about 4.5 years and they have mastered the ability to transcend into the next through cannabalism as well as telepathy. They created the first language of enochian (the angels language) through tentacle and eye movements. Through many generations and reincarnations they developed telepathy as well as the ability to travel through time.
On genesis. An actuality has to occur from the cephs in time to create the genesis. Such as a ceph dying, killing. Being eaten. Eating. The laying of hands (tentacles in this case) or the travel through time to accomplish these. For example. A ceph intentionally was eaten by a komodo dragon, while conscious and being digested it telepathically sent the makeup from inside to another ceph. This ceph used that information to create the genesis of the tapeworm that would destroy the dinosaurs. After most reptilians were shifted to aviaries. There were remnants such as thr chameleon who is very fragile, has 2 penises that constnlantly prolapse and the female can hold sperm for years without self inseminating to create birth. If you take a pachyderm like an elephant an ld have it eat of a chameleon, perhaps with some other complicated genesis of elements and areals you will find you have a gnarwal. The main point is that once they mastered tome travel, they have had unlimited time to make use of their ability to create genesis on the planet. Every animal thay is alive today has been manipulated by the cephs to be exactly where it is in time to accommodate for a larger agenda.
Its my belief that there are only 3 unique cephs that survived the early devastation of trilobytes and other life feeding from these aliens. I call them Seth, Jack, and Claire. Seth is known for being cruel. Jack is more logical, Claire is more empathetic. Because they didnt have the gene popl to create offapring effectively they created this ability to utilize genesis to ensure their survival. This is why they are cannabls its because they must be in order to continue. The modern female octopus always feeds of the make after mating. The males always eat of the young ones after birth.
On 'man made' inventions Cephs proliferated through genesis all the tools to create the written word. From sea anemone to sea urchin to porcupine to bird feather, to quill. And you already know where the ink came from. These topls were provided to a banana pig infested with mutated tapeworms in order to solidify the structures of governance over time. Every iteration of every technology was also developed intentionally by the cephs in order to eatablish a relationahip with the digitage that is just now in our perception coming to power.
As a human, i am essentially just a warm blooded version of a ceph. (Make a bird with your hands, where are the beaks?) We exist inside this cage of time and bear its burden. Look at a shark it may sleep but it just keeps swimming. Humans cannot. We have to sleep. Which is close to the realm of death. We as humans are split and carry the weight of strife and love. This is gender and its roles. (This is not a politcal view of genders but a simplification for the idea that governs. Im positive that in infinite time, other genders maybe an option)
We are as a human race looking forward to scientific breakthroughs that happen when cephs accomplish the physical actuations in time that develop to possible situations we experience from that genesis. Such as. By 2027 scientists anticipate returning the wooly mammoth from extinction. It is my belief that we need an actualization of the 6th digit in the mammaths feet in order for a cephs agenda unknown.
Bird eating spiders are example of post genesis cannabalism that triggers another line of genesis to occur such as a poison tree frog or something. I beleive that venomous snakes were made that way because the egg is the fruit that the snake is tempted by. And if it ate of its own eggs it was cursed through genesis to bear the venom. A bovine has 4 stomachs. And udders that resemble somehwhat the tenacles of a ceph. Its my belief that a whale(pachyderm) that has 9 stomachs (the 9 circles of hell) consumed a ceph and in its 4th stomach met the remains of an equine and genesis occured. Resulting in a cud chewing cow. Precious ambergris is essential to perfumes and stimulated the olfactories in way unlike anything else in the world. It cannot be valued it unvaluable. Whales also sing ans produce music. The moder ceph has empirical hearing as well as oldlfactory experiences. Cephs love blueberries. Foe the antioxidants (ita okay its a joke you can laugh ) but really. They do. Modern octopus can be found in the pacific notherwest climbing trees. They dont eat and make their way up the rocky cliffs to the coniferous foilage in order to establish some genesis. That is a real human experience that is documented. They have cralwed in any form across every inch and again and again of this planet. A suction cup on the plastic window of a bill in the mail may have inadvertantly created the floppy disc.
On the macro and the myopic: We live in time where everything occurs simultaniously only on a different scale in a set of repeating patterns that run forwards or backwards in fractalization. Or so to say, the coast goes on forever. With innumurable bits of sand that outnumber the stars in the sky.
Youll find that rapa nui , or easter island is the end of time itself. A graveyard of sorts and a resting ground for the tired cephs who have labored throughout existence to provide the genesis for us to continue in this gestalt of a universe. Its not an end but also a beginning.

This is a tough one for me cause I was just a kid when I saw it and I only remember flashes of it. It was a movie set somewhere in the middle East and non-english (I think at least, I was a kid with no geographical skills or skills in recognising languages yet)
A general plot line I think it was about: Multiple men getting out from prison for a short while before having to return to the prison. It shows all their separate experiences going home.
Three scenes I distinctly remember:

1. One of these men, taking his wife trough some icy tundra to go to a hospital, she's losing consciousness because of hypothermia and he makes his son beat her with a belt to try and keep her awake. When they get to the hospital she has died.
   
2. This other man, going to a brothel and being very adamant about not wanting to go with one of the prostitutes because she is the number of his cell prison.
   
3. A horse dying in the snow.
   

How someone can help me find it. It's one of those movies that keeps going through my mind even after all these years and I would really like to see it again to kinda understand what I experienced as a kid seeing it.

Name: Hersheal D. Shabba Age: 20 Height: 6’0 Weight : 189 lbs Devil fruit: Saru- Saru no mi (Ape-Ape Fruit) Model: Stone Monkey Affiliation: Straw hats pirates, (True Mono Disciples) Positions: Lookout Epithets: Monochrome Gangsta Personality: Likes to talk to himself, sing to himself, Dance when he thinks he’s alone, Easily distracted by something obscure or minor (ADHD), ADD Neutral: street smart, hard headed, spiritual, artistic Positive: Humble, loyal, generous, passionate Negative: Short Fuse, awkward Appearance: half Lunerian white and black hair Afro Twists, slits in eyebrows, Red eyes, yellow camouflage zip up , Gold dripped headbands, Asterisks like scar on left cheek, Mini Black wings Height: pre-time skip 5’11 post time skip: 6’0 Build: pre time skip: Skinny lean and toned out with some muscle Post time skip: Hero built like BaKi Hanma Dream: To be The world’s strongest man, finding out the secrets of the celestial dragons and taking down the celestial dragons powers and techniques : Immense Strength Enhanced Speed Enhance Senses (especially sight) Enhanced Acrobatics Healing Factor Invulnerability Shape-shifting Cloning Cloud Manifestation Ape-like Practices Primate Communication Wizard form (Black Fur) Lunarian form(White Fur) True Monkey King (Golden Fur) Victorious Fighting Monkey King Conqueror’s Haki (Advanced) Observation haki (Advanced) Armament Haki (Advanced) Monkey King style Roast Session Hawk Arrow Eagle Kick Atom Smasher Twin Atom Smasher Divine Breaker(Atom Smasher + Advanced Conqueror + Advanced armament haki) Buster Cannon (Combined Atom Smasher) Great Sage Devastation (Combined Divine Breaker) Able to Travel Dimensions 72 earthly transformations Laser Eye beam Musical Attacks Spirit Geyser Heavenly Ragnarok Big Steppa One inch Punch Fourth wall awareness Immortal elixir Immortal peach Protagonist Summons Weakness: standard Devil fruit weaknesses Traveling to dimensions gives him splitting headaches till he passes out Magical Golden headband
Ruyi Jingu Bang: Divine Hawk Arrow Strike raid Supra Twister Great Sage Festival Longinus slash Calamity Falls Mega Flare Lethal Flame Raging Storm Holy rain White Horse Dragon Flame Great Sage Meteor Zettaflare Exoflare Terraflare
Clones: •Triple Power Bomb •GSDD (Great Sage Death Drop) •Gravesite Finisher •Replicamikaze •5 k Shabba Barrage •Roly Poly Slam •Poetry in Motion
Universal Transponder Snail

I put up a image of Maharana Pratap slaying a Bahlol Khan and his horse in one strike on my WhatsApp status during Maharan Paratap jayanti in May , after that some people of other community got offended and now threating me. What should I do now ? How do I handle this situation ?

Spoilers alert, obviously!
The theory: Zbyshek was helping Henry on Toth's orders
As someone interested in the game from the release day, I am so surprised I came across this theory just now, 6 years later.
Zbyshek is an infamous lazy c*nt from the Skalitz mill of Theresa's father. Our first encounter is during poop-house business in Skalitz when he joins Hans, Deutsch's son, in a brawl against Henry and friends. However, he plays 2 more significant roles after the burning of Skalitz.
Firstly, he survives the attack and figures out he can freely rob the corpses of his neighbors like the butcher. Henry catches him during the act but Zbyshek runs away and meets a bandit group led by Runt. Seeing Henry's got a very nice sword, Zbyshek points Runt in Henry's direction, almost leading to Henry's death in the process.
While the following is closer to speculation, we can see Zbyshek's face in the Pribyslavitz bandit camp if we infiltrate the camp as a newly recruited bandit. He appears in bandit armor in the cutscene where Runt is trying to solve a little bandits-versus-Cumans feud. Considering he doesn't appear in his typical clothes, it just might be a case of the same faces being different characters.
Anyway back to the theory.
His grand finale in the game is his attempt at rescuing Henry in Vranik (btw. you can actually see him in the camp before the capture). Zbyshek helps Henry stating he's fed up with bandit life and wants to flee himself with a reward for helping Henry. For a player, it's a story that makes sense. Bandit life isn't really the safest profession and additionally, Zbyshek states he's bullied.
After the rescue, Henry has a few choices what to do with Zbyshek. Quite popular one is to "betray" him and tell Radzig that Zbyshek is a traitor deserving to be hanged.
This is where Zbyshek says, in his futile anger, something very curious.
"My lord will kill you all!"
This sentence reveals his true allegiance and intentions. Even facing the prospect of gallows, he seems to believe Istvan Toth is still his lord.
In other words, it's quite likely he was ordered by Toth to rescue Henry and possibly spy on lords of Sasau region, in order for Toth's masterplan to work.
Arguments in favor of the theory:

• Zbyshek cooks it with bandits since the end of Skalitz. He was in cahoots with Runt (most likely even present in Pribyslavitz camp) and is in Vranik, even though, it seems like Toth/Erik mostly try to recruit veteran bandits.
• He's placed to guard Henry at night in Vranik, making it a perfect opportunity to escape.
  • He seems to be a lowly bandit. Why place faith guarding such a valuable asset for Toth to a peasant-bandit?
• Vranik camp looks abandoned by Toth/Erik on the night of the escape, suggesting they were already on the move.
• Zbyshek forgets to prepare some horses, ensuring the trip to Rattay takes some time, so Toth can execute his plan.
• He seems to have an easy escape himself
• So what was Toth's plan?
  • To divert the attention of Radzig/Hanush/Divish to Vranik while capturing barely guarded Talmberg via a ruse.
  • What if Henry wasn't involved?
    • Without Henry, Toth likely wanted to alarm our lords by attacking Sasau. This would lure them out far from Talmberg, making it an easy target.
    • Bandits all over Vranik camp talk about some attack in the very near future. As evidenced by Talmberg siege and Toth's cunningness, it's doubtful Toth wanted to storm the castle by force.
  • Henry was a godsent for Toth.
    • He could be easily used to spring a trap on our lords because if he returns to Rattay after being captured spying on Vranik, our lords will go on an offensive in a controlled way, meaning Toth can control when our lords react.
  • Zbyshek then plays the role of a useful idiot. And Toth realized Henry would trust only Zbyshek with his sob story considering they know each other from Skalitz.
    • Toth doesn't really care about Zbyshek's fate. The important part is what is triggered when Henry is back to Radzig - Henry tells our lords Toth is in Vranik and that they need to go full speed against Vranik asap because the mustered bandit-army is almost as big as armed forces of the region.
    • Zbyshek might be ordered to spy on our lords to gain extra info but it doesn't make much of a difference. He could just as well flee with Radzig's reward, or be killed in the process.
  • The plan involving Henry's escape was cooked after the capture. Possible ransom wasn't really useful for Toth's overall plan.

Arguments against the theory:

• Zbyshek might be actually honest with what he says. Lucky stars aligning for Henry there that Zbyshek is in Vranik and is fed up with bandit life while being bullied for his low (fighting) status.
• Guarding Henry at night wouldn't be popular activity for your average bandit. Thus, putting Zbyshek as the weakest member of the camp as Henry's guard.
• Zbyshek has no practical access to horses
  • Though, he admits he didn't thought of them. Which, unfortunately, might suggest both - he either has no access to horses or he is acting at Toth's orders delaying our lords' actions.
• His easy escape could be explained on a meta-level
  • How would the devs implement Zbyshek physically escaping with you without issues?
• This plan seems to be too complicated
  • Toth should have just done what he initially planned and then used Henry as a bargaining chip later.

Overall, I find this theory quite fascinating. It makes some sense but you can also argue against it without actual consequences to the plot of the late-game. Maybe if a player believes it to be true, then they might be less inclined to help Zbyshek in future playthroughs.

Is there any way to get horses with higher potential in the trailer, all off the ones I'm seeing recently are like +- 650 and my trailer is maxed?

I think gun control is a good example if we have this then we should have government and military control. No weapons for government officials is a good idea. If the point of gun rights is to disable an oppressive government and yes that's what the second amendment says the idea of gun control is a thing that I think yeah when you start doing that we need government control. The government has proven to be oppressive and getting rid of gun rights is a problem. It clearly says shall not be infringed. So we should think swords and horses. Gun rights being infringed is where it does become a serious problem. So I'm all for just saying no one should have guns and that includes government officials including police and military.

I am pretty sure that Mongols are the best when it comes to using bow while riding horses. So why no one runs after me after I intimidate them. I know that's not the samurai way to run away.
But I would love some chase action.