I'm the proud owner of a '21 Scout Bobber with very low miles and I guess it bugs me that there are so few places locally that claim to work on or customize Indians. I bought my bike from ProCaliber in Vancouver, WA and they're a good hour away from me with traffic and they rarely have things in stock nor do they often have openings/availability.
I've been able to do some upgrades (slip on exhaust, headlight, extended foot controls and an oil service) by myself but there will probably come a point where I'll want to defer to a pro shop that has more experience with certain customizations.

“Mad and Sad"
I have never been this sad, frustrated, and mad. You learn to be patient and hold it together, but no matter how strong you are, it gets to you.
It started in 2014 when I worked as a Bodyguard supervisor at the U.S. embassy in my country, providing close protection for the U.S. ambassador and all embassy employees outside of the embassy compound. That meant walking, carrying weapons, driving armored vehicles, wearing vests, and so on. I was in a position where I provided security details for Hillary Clinton and John McCain when they visited my country at some point.
In October 2014, I was abducted by an armed group because of my job. Since I was a local employee, I was considered a "Traitor." I got shot in both legs, broke my jaw and ribs, and suffered a severe concussion. They left me to die in the street. Luckily, someone found me and took me to the hospital where I spent four days in a coma. When I woke up, I had partial loss of memory which lasted for over a week.
Knowing it was no longer safe for me to stay, I contacted my U.S. supervisor, who was out of the country at that time because things had gotten bad. I was essentially told, "You're on your own."
In March 2015, I applied for a student visa. In April 2015, I landed in the U.S. with no plans other than to survive. I had no friends or family here. I gathered myself and started planning my new life, leaving everything behind in a short time. In December 2015, I applied for asylum. Fast forward to 2021, and there was still no progress on my case. No updates at all. I asked my attorney to submit an expedited interview request to USCIS, but nothing happened. In February 2021, we filed a lawsuit against USCIS, and that's when they scheduled my interview. I was told that the Field Office (FO) was closed due to COVID-19, and I had to fly to San Francisco for the interview since I was in Washington (WA) and SF was the regional asylum office. In June 2012, I went to SF for the interview. I was interviewed for eight hours straight, with only one 15-minute break. I thought my case was solid because of what happened to me and the evidence I had. But I was wrong. In September 2021, my asylum was denied and referred to the immigration court. The reason for the denial was something I couldn't believe. The notice said, "I was engaged or likely to be engaged in terrorist activity." Yes, that's exactly what you read. So, after passing a polygraph to carry a weapon around the U.S. ambassador and all the U.S. officials, I was now labeled as a terrorist.
In December 2021, I got married to the best person I've ever met in my life. We had known each other for years, but with all the uncertainty surrounding my situation, I felt it would be a bad idea to get married just so people would think I was doing it for papers. I had the chance to do it before, but I refused. In January 2022, I applied for I-130 while my case was still pending. In June 2022, my attorney filed an expedited request for my court hearing, and in September 2022, I had my hearing scheduled. In October 2022, I was granted asylum after waiting for seven years, during which I lost my father in June 2022, before I could see him. It's something I'm trying to live with but finding it difficult. In February 2023, my I-130 was approved. In March 2023, I submitted I-485. I couldn't do it before because my case was still pending, and I had to clear the "terrorism" bar before taking any action.
It has been a journey filled with so much stress, anxiety, and the fear of losing my mom before being able to see her. I hope this journey comes to an end for me and for all those who have suffered. Peace and love to all of you.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot)

Attorneys representing an activist arrested while protesting against the building of "Cop City" in Georgia have launched a legal challenge to the use of a state domestic terrorism statute against protests, claiming an "Act of free speech" is being unconstitutionally targeted, the Guardian can reveal.
The move comes amid the unprecedented arrests of organizers at a bail and legal defense fund that has helped some of the people arrested while protesting against the multimillion-dollar police and fire department training center planned for a forest south-east of Atlanta.
Exclusively obtained by the Guardian, the writ of habeas corpus filed in DeKalb county superior court on behalf of Ariel Ebaugh, arrested on 13 December, challenges the constitutionality of the 2017 domestic terrorism statute that has been used against activists and their supporters.
The petition argues that "Attempting by word or expressive action to alter, change, or coerce government policy is a quintessential act of free speech," and that Ebaugh's protest against Cop City was constitutionally protected.
Georgia's attorney general, Chris Carr, and governor, Brian Kemp, both trumpeted the arrests on social media, with Kemp calling the three "Criminals who facilitated and encouraged domestic terrorism".
The raid's timing was also only days before the 90-day window by which Victor Puertas and Luke Harper - who were arrested on 5 March and are the only protesters among the 42 charged with domestic terrorism still in jail - must be indicted or released on bail, according to Georgia law.

Summary Source FAQ Feedback Top keywords: Arrest^#1 fund^#2 protest^#3 state^#4 Atlanta^#5
Post found in /politics.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.

I don’t want to make this long, so I’m just going get to the point. If you have any questions/recommendations, please, DM me.
Housing. I know this is risky and some of you may know who I am. Please be kind to me. I have no way to support him or his actions and to tell you the truth I hate him. First, google “James Mattson Vancouver WA Voyeurism case.” That was my partner, and I am the one who found the things on his computer. My teenage daughter & I had just moved in with him in his great aunts house two weeks before. I had known him for years. That was in October. His family supported him yet refused to come help pack up his shit. Refused to help take care of his cat or anything else. Long story short, I need to get out of this house. My teenage daughter is struggling with depression and other things I won’t get into. This house is a disgusting reminder of everything. I am looking for house (house only) rental. I have a dog and two cats. I do not need to stay in the Vancouver area at this point. I just want away from here. Please let me know if you know any places. I will have the money to move very soon.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot)

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice has informed former Vice President Mike Pence's legal team that it will not pursue criminal charges related to the discovery of classified documents at his Indiana home.
Attorney General Merrick Garland had named a special counsel to oversee the Justice Department's investigation into the discovery of hundreds of documents with classified markings at Trump's Mar-a-Lago home just three days after the former president formally launched his 2024 campaign - an acknowledgment of the high political stakes.
A special counsel was also put in place to investigate classified documents found at President Joe Biden's home in Delaware and at an unsecured office in Washington dating from his time as vice president.
Beyond Pence, the two Justice Department special counsels are continuing to investigate the handling of classified documents by both Trump and Biden.
The Biden and Pence matters have always stood apart, factually and legally, from the Trump investigation because in both of those cases, aides proactively disclosed the discovery of classified documents to the Justice Department and facilitated their return.
After coming to suspect that more classified documents remained at the property, despite a subpoena and a visit by investigators, the FBI returned last August with a search warrant and recovered about 100 additional documents marked as classified, including at the top-secret level.

Summary Source FAQ Feedback Top keywords: document^#1 classified^#2 Trump^#3 Pence^#4 President^#5
Post found in /politics, /AutoNewspaper and /PBSauto.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.

I don’t want to make this long, so I’m just going get to the point. If you have any questions/recommendations, please, DM me.
Housing. I know this is risky and some of you may know who I am. Please be kind to me. I have no way to support him or his actions and to tell you the truth I hate him. First, google “James Mattson Vancouver WA Voyeurism case.” That was my partner, and I am the one who found the things on his computer. My teenage daughter & I had just moved in with him in his great aunts house two weeks before. I had known him for years. That was in October. His family supported him yet refused to come help pack up his shit. Refused to help take care of his cat or anything else. Long story short, I need to get out of this house. My teenage daughter is struggling with depression and other things I won’t get into. This house is a disgusting reminder of everything. I am looking for house (house only) rental. I have a dog and two cats. I do not need to stay in the Vancouver area at this point. I just want away from here. Please let me know if you know any places. I will have the money to move very soon.

Jury finds Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo liable in federal civil case, ordered to pay $63M

Jurors found he violated First Amendment rights of Little Havana businessmen
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – After a marathon civil trial, a federal jury in Fort Lauderdale found Miami City Commissioner Joe Carollo liable in a civil case brought by two businessmen who accused him of retaliation — and they delivered a massive monetary verdict.
The decision, in which jurors found Carollo violated their First Amendment rights, came down Thursday morning. He was ordered to pay more than $60 million in damages.
The plaintiffs, businessmen Bill Fuller and Martin Pinilla, claimed that Carollo infringed on their free speech rights, alleging he used his office to harass them and damage their reputations, all because they supported his political opponent, Alfonso “Alfie” Leon, in 2017.
Attorneys for Fuller, who owns Ball and Chain, and Pinilla painted a picture throughout the trial of a commissioner who bullied anyone else who went against him.
Jurors ordered Carollo, who represents Miami’s District 3, to pay $8.6 million in compensatory damages and $25.7 million in punitive damages. They ordered him to pay Pinilla $7.3 million in compensatory damages and $21.9 million in punitive damages. That totals roughly $63.5 million in damages.
Carollo, wearing a face mask, showed no visible reaction as the verdict was read around 10 a.m.
More at the link at the top of this post...
Hopefully, this will be a shot against the bow of anyone seeking retaliation of past investigations...you can't catch a criminal without investigating them first! And many knew our last POTUS is and was behaving like a criminal. But, knowing it and proving it are two different things, and this is why thorough investigations are necessary,

When you’re charged with a drunk driving offense, it can be difficult to know where to turn. A DUI lawyer is an invaluable resource at this time because they know the legal system in and out. And that means they can help you more effectively than anyone else might.
However, before hiring a DUI lawyer, it’s worth taking time to understand and learn more about what a DUI lawyer does for their clients. Essentially, this type of criminal defense attorney will offer consultation as well as representation if needed during trial proceedings.
Here are different ways a DUI lawyer can help you if are charged with drunk driving:

• Conduct a comprehensive, confidential assessment of your case

When you hire a DUI lawyer, they’ll assess your case from all angles. They’ll look at the evidence against you and decide how best to proceed from there. In addition, they’ll also determine whether or not there are any factors in your favor. A DUI lawyer will also ask about your previous history because any criminal history may have an impact on the current charge of drunk driving.

• Answer your questions and explain the next steps in the process

After a DUI lawyer has conducted a comprehensive assessment of your case, you’ll be able to fully understand what the state has against you and your next steps. Your DUI lawyer will help you understand your options and next steps in the process. Altogether, they will be able to give you a better and more realistic picture of your case. That will in turn give you more peace of mind.

• Investigate the case and review the arrest to ensure your rights were respected

Your DUI lawyer will conduct a comprehensive investigation. They’ll want to determine whether or not there is any evidence that the arrest was illegal in any way. A lawyer would want to know the circumstances around the arrest and may even examine whether your rights were protected during the arrest.

• Develop a defense strategy focused on helping you secure the best outcome

After an investigation and review of your case, your DUI lawyer will figure out the best possible defense strategy to use. This defense strategy will focus on what you are saying and trying to prove during your trial. At this point, your DUI lawyer will negotiate with the prosecutor to reach a fair outcome.

Substantive Pathology:
The contemporary problems of psychological pathology are rendered out of the precocious hubris of early social pattern, taken out of the early values. A person of the deciding where forking out of his reserves of values, as a personal preface to his own in that his valid values are, brings his esteem of the position himself in, the sui generis to his thought. It is an unconscious process that stake from which his posture relays adventure that of his objective, it has become a goal. The virtual problem and the binary effulgence of his decision in decision qualified validly has none to impart but the dividend its value may meet, but the answer of course has personalboundary and alterity for its claim, that effect ramified from, valued to the procedural error toleave valid. This gross domestic product freely uses the demure goal tenets of envy in object.
Comparatively objective virtue vies with goals in the procedural advance that it is a small adventure, mostly a comparison in objective qualification of a priori empirical domain going through a constant scale that can be considered faithful to a problem answer soluble of virtu of the concept of the relationship, the quality of the content that can faithfully derive at theprecocity of profference. It is useful to imagine though the cognitive path as a fragmentary,comparative reality of the nuance of comparison in change of decameral gross domesticproduct and to consider the trial and error of society for the most part relegated to a problem category of conscious pluralism: the base substance of the personal a priori apprehension that a systemic answer processes indicate, inferences the survival of product to itself. Vicariouslearning is an imprecative visibile sign of the envy of the absolute in itself that apprehension vies with, in its negative substance, in its solution of surety to the abrogation whereof abject.
Abject given absolutes attract the etiological path qua unconscious path in Jungian drive and Durkheim himself would be useful here, elementary religious beliefs are geophysical arena inletrist ratio to the population of voices in distinct drives, and their gross domestic inflation. A suicidalite spectrum has an automatic religious perspectival goal of the answer, liken to vitiationfrom a materialism of the undercurrent of dialectic behavior therapy when adverted to the boundary of material substance: Durkheim’s elementariness. “They are short lived, they reach their climaxes speedily”-Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire. Rather, short lived are the meanings and identifiers, in a fledged out familial piety reversal: apodeictic certainty on familiar business of the defining of the family. The unction of the avuncular cultural leader has its formidible caste in the espousal of the right at which age uses the apodeictic pastiche that has a serendipitous aegis, what we call the suicidality has its beginning in the capacity to render pain, that but the uncertainty is of a flare of unconconcious mneumotechnial birth and the birth itself of unconscious doing. The question if nature and nurture are, hyteres pato rapaultoqua malque pat, screwed in to the argoflaura of conceit to pathology in medicinal FT feedback can be reduced to area science of the nurturing in psychology, a field that can function in disease, but onethat purports to. If you imagine that a quarry of geobiletics, gene to paraphsychicphoney psychic qua phenotype as a nurture of ideogram it basically does not slide the proof out of evidentiality, that of use behavior. Dysregulation of use behavior qua behaves represents evidence, the graph of nature as a graphene has room and so the eidetic reduction is reversed, by conceit, that a quarry has even happened.
So if a person is condemned to suicidality in the spirit of r) by dint of grace he is graceless, or
To describe it is to describe a simple scenario where a person is transplanted by the mental health institution and given an outpatient service plan in the case of a residency that has all the seminar of the plan as a residency. “Maybe” the patient asks, “I am going to do (iii) from meds. Just because it renders a sensibility bias, a neurosurgical bias.”
The placebo positive relates to a person and he becomes the butterfly induced its program by the muttering of an inanimate developer, feedback from research-for-development projects, stakeholders of participatory impact pathway analysis transmogrify the literal network progenitor or founder’s myth in manageable language for analysis of the standard economy like a micro economy of Jungian distraction or proudhoun she is. R.P. (Viz. Kino) at the quantum rate of outflow integrability. Relating to my teeth or penetration is to be used.
I am right now acquiring a certification to perform social work in a mental health setting and by bringing to bear a bridge of credulity gap I want to intern in the field of prison education, reform, and discriminalization of penitency and usury of the ostensible code of penury in culture. I believe we are changing as a culture to approach a solution to popular rational time in crisis, to degrees unimaginable to political temerity of older decriminalable, untechnological hubris of the station of order to placeholders reached by the basic understandings of humanities and geophysical vocation.
I feel the arena of defense for the maladaptive choices which have been proclivity on cultural pegs is worth distributing unlaundered to a seat in possibility, health, and equipmental mentality via the sesine ad hoc of umbrella. I am in a position whereto receiving my degree, though invoked for incerative charges, and the decision of humanities it was to be a huge asset to total productivity geared technological meditations, facility to meditate as a world and release the hindrance of guilt for the peoples of my mental orbit. One day, not far away, demolitions will reach of poverty residencies to establish space pioneers that dwell there, whence TCM (tactical cost ministry or management) can enrich their replacement in wealth CAS. I know of fledgling solution within the spectrum of mental illness recovery as noise distribution FTF nanoscale engineering (binaural beats) — there may be encryption on Weyldlife Software where participation, revisional PDA thereof indice of education where the GDP is first world and first rate to educate (guilt is a feeling and like mental health service plans we decree the abstinence from feelings and why not abstain to abjection undressed to feel this certain way. Why not? Possibilites of crisis continue Origen to Dissolution in huge exuding exit strategies from a population using): This peopled expanse of time and the disease of third world abject and third party conflation of race manner grade in the stoke 10 percent exceeding hubris of thought about American Peer Services Inc. to options from fall population of voice human annuity and world order of familiar locomotive, this unthinking credulity gap to proffer a local waste and that of the crisis endemic to surviving vocation is the typical race matter in a divine physician-ship which showing wrong by that wrong with annuity, which of his persons standpoint redressed to take clinical action of his affordability of care on insistently and incipient: the universal camera looking into the speed thereof (actuated perceptive (Eng. IT) prehensile prosody in oscillator of tongue and tongue of race matters activities afforded. Faster than perception though stochastically printing our organum terrarum in a juxtaposition to the other strength whereas the taking of role to socially ambit a media of play, language defines experience, language is healing, connective, mean, and what is natal language or foreign birth language is a powerful version of the story of from, in positivistic murk, so we have a culture playing knowingly of the crisis of one another and brain drain of thinking, from SIM and intuiting extant the definition in a lexicon that ALL PEOPLE HAVE — and it is philosophical kintsugi or reason parameters to repress indice of repression ontology by self conscious as a philosophy of right quality of pyschology joisted into the hospice on we all share to whose key of reason, -What doe sit mean to overcome the world -How do we do it? -How does overcoming the world bless our lives his testimony of all people, Russel M. Nelson shares with the mental umbrella or mental appropriate internalization key, by internalizing institution=movitvation, internalizing emotion=powerful version of the SRI story, internalizes connectedness of experience. When we have an opportunity even as now to puncture the prison and espouse synthetic judgment to imprisonment in entrainment of property covenant with those thinking these problems outward, Binaural Wave Entrainment pegs a higher braket of injury-bridge intervention by interception, but what does remembrance that we do not have a native municipal burden of council within an peer group of illuminate detritus or debacle but a thriving direct market percentage of the dochyphric tool where parallel, systems, engage. The catalystic clarity of colonization in a world planets can be pushed out like huge Van Halen chord progressions kinetic oxyfrom a disc. Why not grab boldly hold probably its first question of criminology.
Precedent orientation Guilt is a feeling, like mental health concerns to every person regardless of disability, disease or background, coping work happens to presume the aesthetic of certain feelings while eliminating or empirically describing others out of range in the subtle that wants to feel a certain way; we all possess this right. Delta ~120–99 herz per osc.
Race is a determination of a categorical chain and a momentum the latter what genuinely and holist discrimination options take anthropomorphic of work and walk of life amid those chains to expose a bad vibration to the condition of mixed service of civic code quantifying the race where the psychology of circumstance circomlocution is race-crisis enabled about 70 to 75 percent of all race encounters. Alpha `12–40 herz per osc. The residual of meridian brackets are back log and as aesthetic of hubris the autonomous opposition in taking personal this ideological/repressive sensor. Theta ~30 herz per osc. In summary the feelings of guilt are cultural distinguished by racial matters that so as such race feels in meridian case, and adage of, and pressure to, entrance third world individuals. It is of note that in decompensated language and optimality and digitally members to observation would descent to third world country plasticity. The racial matters’ neurophysin ipsurti quantaquant licene binaural hallucinogen in Jungian drives out thereof calculus train of thought in POE vicarious to ei clique MRA, meridian responses resonate at socio humanitarian annuity. This is quite qualitative for feduciary market share, as a peer tool is a technological one, not indirectly but through happenstance to found education in incarceration as I describe my allegation of criminal charge for which to marker an understanding of technology in judgment of aesthetic appreciation to the ward.

Now before I begin, I had experiences with Nuzlockes for a long time, that I turned into a Masochist, playing Ori on Hard Mode, playing Mega Man X7 from start to finish, played all 3 Pathways of Fire Emblem Fates, and even playing through every King of Fighters game, now I’m not gonna beat around the bush, so it’s time to talk about my first time trying out my new Nuzlocke Rules, for a refresher, in this playthrough you can only catch the first Pokemon you run into in each area, you have to nickname all the Pokemon you catch, and if a Pokemon Faints it’s dead, in addition to these core rules, I’m adding in a new rule.
This needs some explaining so take a seat, there are 2 Boxes, the Death Box and the Graveyard Box, the Graveyard Box is where Pokemon that faint go into and they can be brought back from the dead only once, in order to do that you need a Death Token, the afterlife box is where Pokemon are dead permanently, how do you get a Death Token? You get them by defeating the Gym Leader of that town, and the Death Token can only do 1 thing if your Pokemon is in the Graveyard, you have to revive one of your dead Pokemon in exchange for 1 Pokemon in your party, but you have to use it as soon as the gym leader is defeated, but if you don’t have any Pokemon in your Graveyard, then you can save it for later or use that Token to catch any Pokemon you want in a previous route, but you have to put your 1st encounter in the Afterlife Box, or revive one of your Party Members when they faint, but one of your Pokemon in your Box must be sacrificed.
Once you lose a battle and still have Pokemon in your graveyard, you can continue, but you’ll be penalized for it, you’ll have to skip out on your next encounter, and you’ll have to put one of your Boxed Pokemon into the Afterlife Box, and if all your Pokemon are in the Afterlife Box, then you will lose the challenge, but once you reach the Elite 4 and Champion, you’ll have to use all of the Death Tokens that you didn’t use, and if you don’t have any Death Tokens, you only have 1 shot to defeat the Elite 4 and Champion, because if you don’t then it’s all over, I call it the Reincarnatelocke got it? Good!
Now I’m playing Pokemon Platinum because I was leaning heavily towards that game to try my Nuzlocke Rule, Platinum is hard, but is the definitive way to play the Sinnoh Games, Diamond and Pearl were criticized for being so slow, a limited Pokedex and teams that trainers don’t normally use, and BDSP were bashed for being the worst remakes in the franchise, it was way too faithful to the original and it was outsourced, at least we got faster gameplay, and removed HMs, but I don’t own any of them, and I still have my copy of Platinum, but when I used that new Nuzlocke Rule, I lost to Roark, and I can’t comprehend how many times I’ve lost every Platinum Nuzlocke I’ve attempted, even when I cheated in an EXP Share, but I remembered something that the legendary Alpharad said, long story short, Grinding is cringe, and Cheating is Based, so as you can tell I’m packing Rare Candies from my Homebrewed 3DS and no I’m not editing Pokemon to have illegal moves, I’m just packing Rare Candies because I took Jacob’s word for it, and now I’m not playing around anymore, now let’s go to the Sinnoh Region and see what happens.
I was dragged out of my home, Barry went out of his way to go into the Tall Grass until Rowan stopped us, and Rowan gave us a Pokemon, since I was having worse luck with Chimchar, and Budew is a pain in the ass to evolve, I decided to go with Turtwig, I named him Leonardo, and beat up Barry’s Chimchar, blew my money on Potions, and PokeBalls, caught a Starly named Skystar, in Lake Verity, Memelord the Bidoof in Route 201, and Spark the Shinx in Route 202, therefore I went north to find a Budew named Masque, so I have a substitute in case Leo Kicks the Bucket, however I was training up my Pokemon for some precious EVs, and I ran into Alucard the Zubat, and I trained up Leo for Roark, and I went ahead and easily took out Barry with Skystar, and caught a Magikarp named Ocean King, then when I arrived at Orburgh, I skipped my Orburgh Mines encounter because I wasn’t paying attention and these early Rock Types are worthless since you gain a better one later either Cranidos or Shieldon, therefore I went in to Roark’s gym and have Leo go all out, so once I withdrew 3x, the Geodude got 2 Crits, and Leo still lives since I used Absorb in between Withdraws, both Geodude and Onix were absorbed to death, and the reason why I kept withdrawing, it is because of his ace Cranidos.
Cranidos is the more offensive Pokemon and since earlier I taught Leo Razor Leaf, it ended up getting critted after tanking a Headbutt, and won me my 1st Death Token, and my 1st Gym Badge, since no Pokemon are in my graveyard, I decided to save the Death Token for a later time, and then finally Skystar evolved, and Spark evolved into Luxio, now when I fought a Bug Catcher, I was fighting a Kricketot when he used bide, he lived 2 bites from Alucard, he is gonna die if I used another Bite, but I have to resort to a Sacrifice, and use up my Death Token, so I sent in Ocean King and I think you know what happens next, but Memelord was willing to give up his life to save Ocean King so I used the Death Token, and Memelord took Ocean King’s place, I brought in Viola, and I went to the Valley Windworks to capture a Shellos named Muddy that’s just in case Ocean King joins Memelord when he kicks the bucket, and since Rare Candies misses out on some precious EVs and I’d be forced to resort to Vitamins.
So I brought Ocean King to a high enough level to evolve into Gyarados so I can be able to beat Mars with no problem, and at least he won’t be over Gardenia’s Level, oh and I didn’t mention that I can’t overlevel to beat the next Gym Leader’s Ace easily, then I fought Mars, Alucard took out her Zubat no problem, then when Purugly came out, I was ready to intimidate attack drop, until it’s attack is absurdly low, when I brought out Skystar, Ocean King, and Spark to be intimidate happy, Spark finished off her Purugly, we made it out with no casualties, then I was adamant to get a Ponyta, and…I ran into a Pachirisu, I depressingly caught the Pachirisu and named it Fail, when I got through Eterna Forest, Leo Evolved, and we went in Gardenia’s Gym, and I had a plan to take her team down, Stealth Rock to lower her health a bit, and have Alucard and Skystar to take down her team, Both Roserade and Alucard crit each other and Alucard hung in there, while Roserade was done for, Badge 2 and another Death token was ours.
When I entered the Galactic Building, I used the same pussy strat, but Stuntank killed Spark, so I tried to kill him with Leo, but he killed him too, I had to choose who to send to the graveyard until I get another Death Token, so I left Spark, and kept Leo, and sent Fail into the Afterlife, to revive Leo, I was so pissed, so I brought in Masque, as a substitute for Leo if he dies again, so I am not gonna sugarcoat it, Cynthia gave me an Egg to take care of, So I took it and it already hatched and I named her Ellie, so when I went to Wayward Cave, I was hoping to get a Gible but…I couldn’t pass on an encounter so I depressingly caught the Onix and named it Useless also showing my frustration over not getting a Garchomp, but when I went into Mt. Coronet, I found a Bronzor and named him Ring, I’ve decided to bring him on the team, then I finally got Alucard to evolve into Crobat, and Bebe the operator of the Sinnoh Storage System gave me an Eevee I named Robin after the character from Fire Emblem: Awakening. I then took both Ocean King and Alucard to go all out, but Ocean King fought Mismagius the Mismagius critted, and Ocean King perished to confusion.
I then took out Alucard to finish the job, but Ocean King will live on in memory, gone but not forgotten, Badge 3 was ours, but I gave up Viola to bring back Spark, and now it is time to fight Barry and Spark mopped the floor with his Buizel, and his Staravia, Skystar and Alucard together took out Monferno, I decided to send in Ring to fight the Roselia, because he didn’t have much time to shine, but he got Stun Spored, and Leech Seeded, so I sent in Alucard to kill the Roselia, when I went to the next route, it was my last chance to get a Ponyta, so I ran into a Geodude, and it self-destructed, and Ring tanked it like a champ, Ring lives another day.
When I went to the Solacion Ruins, I went over to find a Stone for Robin, I found a Water Stone, I gave it to her, and now Vaporeon is mine, I was not adamant for Maylene though, since her team is ridiculous, Meditite, Machoke, and Lucario, but I realized Vaporeon only learns Water Gun by Level up and it is past her own level, so I just decided not to use Robin until I get Surf, and then once fighting this father and daughter, the Daughter’s Ponyta took out Skystar, I was almost finished but Spark and Alucard managed to pull through, I was planning to get Seizure Bait, and called the Porygon Seizure, since I had that Upgrade in my bag, I gave it to Seizure and I called someone, Myself from another region, now we got my counter to Crasher Wake’s Gym, and backup in case Spark bites the dust, but I put Seizure in the box but I brought in Lola because since I was trying to play it smart, but then I developed a Gambling Addiction, got Ice Beam for Robin and Thunderbolt for Seizure, I moved on.
When I made it into Maylene’s Gym, she was a pushover, she had no counters against Alucard, Meditite, and Machoke took a bit to take out because of Rock Tomb, however Lucario was just not that challenging, the only move it had to damage Alucard was Metal Claw, I taught Alucard Roost so I had no problem defeating Maylene, she gave me the Death Token to give Lola the means to resurrect Skystar, then when I went to Valor Lakefront at route 214, another Graveler flat out Exploded, and Spark said “I’m not going to die here!”
When I reached Pastoria City, all my Pokemon are way too underleveled, so I went back to a previous area and robbed all the trainers blind, while training up my team, to get good EVs, and then when I went in the 7 Star Restaurant, Ring got killed by a Rhyhorn’s Horn Drill, come on that’s a low accuracy move, because of that Robin took it out, I was in a big fit of rage, but then I reached the Pastoria Gym, when fighting this tuber and his Bibarel…
A Hyper Fang killed Spark, once he died, I decided to go get Goro…It’s Time Goro, you’re the only one that can bring us to victory, so I leveled him up, called to borrow the Pidgey again, to evolve Goro again, now I brought in Daisy to sack, and thanks to Seizure and Leo, Crasher Wake was a complete pushover, and sacking Daisy to get back Ring, gave him drugs until he evolved, because I’m a shameless lunatic, and then Team Galactic set off a Bomb, and Cynthia asked me to give her Grandma her Charm in Celestic Town, when I arrived, I gave her the charm, and Cyrus goes on a tangent of everything is imperfect so he has to destroy the world and bullshit.
I then got Trick Room, which is incredibly useful for Ring, since he gets the benefit of going first, and when going to the Fuego Ironworks I went and caught a Magmar, and I finally got a Fire Type Pokemon, and my counter to Candice's Gym, now I need a Magmarizer, I named him Schomer, because a YouTuber by the name of Michael Schomer used Magmar in his commentary on a convicted criminal, on his worst Death Battles, and his commentary on Metal Blade’s response to RealmWarsll, but I’m going to say that none of that matters, Robin and Alucard managed to survive, and I’m adding him to the team, found the Magmarizer, traded, got Magmortar, moving on.
Then I made it to Canalave City and then Barry’s Infernape killed both Alucard and Ring, That was the last straw, I then gave a lot of Vitamins to my Pokemon, and went to find the Metal Coat so that Useless can evolve, at least I got 2 Counters to Candice’s Gym that being Schomer, and Goro, speaking of Schomer, Robin, Leo and Schomer mopped the floor with Byron because I had counters to most of his team, but since I had Skystar in my party and Alucard died, I had to give him up to bring Alucard back, Did I have a choice?
So Team Galactic set off another Bomb, and then I went to get the Metal Coat, and a Shiny Stone, I took out Useless, so I can give it to him, and she’ll be no longer useless, but while doing that, unfortunately Alucard died, so it was a waste and my day was ruined, thanks to that freaking Staraptor, therefore I had enough bullshit for one day, so I set the Trade up, and Useless Evolved, and I changed the name to Ironrock, then I managed to evolve Masque and Ellie and since I needed a Flying Type and Masque is going to be needed later, so I decided to shamelessly get Heart Scales, evolved Ellie again, and teach her Air Slash.
Well before you snarky people in the comments say “You Cheater, you got a lot of Rare Candies, and Heart Scales.” Well in my defense Jan of Pokemon Challenges said in his reaction to Jacob’s Perfect Nuzlocke saying that it doesn’t matter if you get infinite money, infinite Rare Candies, or Infinite Heart Scales, this is just a demonstration of how to do the Nuzlocke Rule I made up.
I easily mopped the floor with Saturn when investigating Lake Valor, I also took out Mars with a close match because Hypnosis was giving me problems, but luckily Robin froze the Purugly solid, after surviving a Slash, but it gave me a heart attack, because she almost died, on my way to Snowpoint City, I had Schomer warm me up and one of my favorite Pokemon’s pre evolution Sneasel went in front of my face, OK, let’s go Ardyn, well when I arrived at Snowpoint City, I went in the Gym, and unless you have a tolerance of this ear rape, This sound is pretty self explanitory.
Then when I reached Candice, I had Schomer burn most of her team to the ground, Sneasel, Froslass, and Abomasnow while Goro Cross Chopped her Piloswine, and you're asking why Cross Chop? Well Machamp has No Guard meaning all moves from him and targeting him, never miss so that meant Cross Chop's accuracy is guaranteed to hit, we walked out of the gym all swag, with the Death Token and the Badge, and I reached Lake Acuity and saw that Barry got his ass kicked, and Jupiter already went to Veilstone, when I went in the Galactic Warehouse I found a Dubious Disk, I gave it to Seizure and traded again, and I felt sorry for him for being cut from the anime completely, and Seizure kinda avenged Squoop when I mopped the floor with the Scientist that killed him, you’re welcome Jaiden, then when fighting Cyrus he spit bullshit again, it was a tough battle, Seizure got frozen so I switched to Schomer to take out the Sneasel.
However the problems were his Crobat, he used Poison Fang but luckily Robin didn’t get poisoned, because when he brought out his Honchkrow he almost killed Robin, luckily she hung in there and killed the Honchkrow, when I yanked his Master Ball off his hands, while my Pokemon took out Saturn’s team, I freed the lake guardians, when I arrived at Spear Pillar, Mars and Jupiter tried to stop me but Barry came out of nowhere and fought with me, I decided to target Mars first and then take out Jupiter, easy dubs, I studied Cyrus’ team and Cyrus has a Houndoom with Will-o-Wisp, and his Weavile is speedy, but frail, so I went back to get a Rawst Berry to get seizure to hold it, then I went into the Distortion World, when I made it to the bottom, Cyrus was there standing there, menacingly!
Then Seizure mopped the floor with most of his team when Weavile Ice Punched it, and it lived on a red health bar, so one last Signal Beam and that Weavile was finished, I max potioned Seizure when his Crobat came out, and Seizure one shotted him, Cyrus steps aside, and I came face to face with Giratina, Giratina asks for what I desire, I asked him for his help, the Master Ball fell out of my pocket, I grabbed it and threw it and it was over, now to go to Sunnyshore to get my final Gym Badge, but first I renamed Steelix into Ironrock, went to Sunnyshore City and Ironrock was fighting like a real Pokemon, I got my final gym badge and Death Token, so I got my Great Marsh encounter which was a Quagsire my HM Slave, and went to Victory Road, but since I got that Razor Claw earlier I gave it to Ardyn and when Night Fell, he became one of my favorite Pokemon, then I headed to the Underground to mine for treasure, taught Ardyn Ice Punch, and I gotta get Swords Dance even though I need enough coins to get it, but the Gambling Addiction in me never faded, so back to the slots for me.
I was able to get Swords Dance, but I went back to Wayward Cave, and did the dumb thing to save Ardyn from getting killed by Cynthia's Garchomp, or Flint's Team, by boxing him and caught a Gible I named Cloud after the character from Final Fantasy 7, however that meant I had to use my 7th Death Token to say farewell to Ironrock the Steelix I only had 1 left, Cloud needed some EV Training before he’s ready to fight the Elite 4 because they are merciless, Aaron has mostly Bug Types, and a Drapion, and if Ellie misses an Air Slash on Heracross, and that Heracross lands a Stone Edge, she’s dead, and Bertha has a Rhyperior that has Rock Wrecker and Megahorn, and if Masque doesn’t one hit kill that Rhyperior he is dead, then there is Flint, Robin has a decent chance against them but combining Solarbeam with Sunny Day from his Magmortar can pose a threat against Robin, but it can be able to tank it but if he gets a Crit, Robin is dead, then there is Lucian, he has a Gallade, and Ardyn has a weakness to Drain Punch, and Cynthia’s Garchomp is self explanitory.
So I ended up robbing trainers of their cash blind and using it on Vitamins, now I am at the Pokemon League, now let’s just go on in and kick…
Barry: Wait a minute, You and I have unfinished business.
“Sick Em Seizure!”
Barry: Not this time!
Then Infernape came out and killed Seizure.
That was the last straw, Cloud, murder him.
*Boom!*
Schomer killed his Roserade and Goro took out his Snorlax.
So Masque was willing to give up her life, the death token was his, and Seizure was brought back to life, so I ended up giving my entire team Sweet Drugs to level 60, Barry can finally rot in hell, my team was Cloud, Robin, Schomer, Goro, Seizure, and Leonardo, alright it’s time to end our journey.
So Schomer killed most of Aaron’s team, while Seizure took out his Heracross, and Cloud took out his Drapion, when I made it to Bertha, I had no trouble plowing through her, Leo and Robin took her out with ease, and then Cloud mopped the floor with Flint.
Then I went into Lucian’s Room, I wasn’t being very confident, so I taught Cloud Shadow Claw, to kill Lucian’s Entire Team, but Espeon Survived, so I sent him back, to bring in Seizure and he hit half health when his Bronzong calm minded a few times, and I Thunderbolted Him however I wasn’t feeling confident when fighting Cynthia, it’s time to end our journey.
So once she sent in Spiritomb, Leo managed to take him out, however, instead of sending out Garchomp, she sent out Togekiss, and Togekiss got paralyzed by Seizure, however when Lucario came out, he crit Aura Sphere, and Leo died, Cloud took it out out of vengeance, then her Garchomp came out…I kept in Cloud…I wasn’t feeling confident, they traded blow to blow, but Cloud immediately got taken out in 1 shot Dragon Rush, my plan didn’t work…all this effort was for naught, I sent in Robin, the Garchomp used Earthquake, it was all over…there was nothing I can do to beat her, if I sent in Seizure he might get outsped crit, and die, if I sent in Schomer, he might get outsped and die to Earthquake, if I send in Goro, then he might get outsped barely survive, land a Cross Chop and then die…but that’s what I would have said if Garchomp landed a critical hit on Robin, Robin actually survived, it felt like my fallen comrades from the Afterlife sent by Arceus came down to protect Robin as gratitude from Giratina, and I showed that Garchomp what it is like to get one shotted, then Ice Beam killed the Garchomp, everything went according to plan, we still had a chance, Schomer burned her Roserade to a crisp, then came out her final Pokemon, Milotic, Seizure went in for the Thunderbolt, but it lived, Seizure survived the surf, and landed one more Thunderbolt.
We did it, we won, Cynthia congratulated me and then I was really happy that I finally won a Pokemon Platinum Nuzlocke, even when my previous plans didn’t work, our partners died while thinking of a plan, even when one shotting Cynthia’s Garchomp with Cloud, Masque’s soul can now rest in peace, she left Seizure’s body and now Seizure can rest in peace.
That meant Robin, Goro, and Schomer were the survivors, therefore I went into the hall of Fame and sat on the Champion’s Throne, now an honorable effort but I had a blast trying out my new rule, if I’m not counting Seizure since he was reincarnated and can finally rest in peace, Robin the Vaporeon was my MVP because out of all my alive Pokemon, and not my Reincarnated Pokemon, Robin was the longest surviving Pokemon, and the one that saved us from a crushing defeat twice, but it wasn’t over it is time to promote this new rule, this may be intimidating for Hardcore Nuzlockes, but it can help you in regular nuzlockes.

Hi thank you for taking your time reading this. I live in Massachusetts and it’s a no fault state. I’ve done some research to get a firm understanding but I cannot fully get all the answers because I am uneducated in this.
I was in a accident where I T Boned a driver at an intersection.
Police officer gave us a police report crash report not sure if it is criminal but he said it is word versus word but he gave me a code 99 which was basically saying that he wasn’t able to determine if I was a distracted driver or not. Not sure if that is criminal. A month later I receive a letter from an attorney to forward to my insurance stating that he was injured. Three months later I received a surcharge letter code 8 failure to obey light and use caution etc. insurance said it would be 50/50 and that’s how they’re payout is still structured. They told me I was 50 at fault but the letter said I was over 50 but didn’t say what number by an RPA claims representative 13.
I have 40,000 in bodily injury from two policies 20k each and that’s about it.
I haven’t received a letter from the law firm. He has State Farm which is out of state from Alabama and they have minimum 25k bodily injury.
I understand that he can sue me just for pain and suffering and injuries.
With this being said, could anyone answer these Questions for me.

1. Can he take my 401k
2. Does he have to use all of his bodily injury then my bodily injury then to sue me.
3. If the insurance only gives 50% can he come after me or does the insurance pay 100% first then me. How does this payout work?
4. When should I file bankruptcy if needed to avoid paying his pain and suffering.

I have no assets just a normal income job bringing in 50k a year. Have a wife and little girl that depends on me. I am very stressed and worried. Am I going to jail am I going to be in debt 100k? He stated he has serious injuries to back spine neck inabilities to daily activities disruptive etc. thanks guys god bless for taking your time to answer

Company Name	Title	City
United States Secret Service	Criminal Investigator	Seattle
United States Secret Service	Criminal Investigator	Spokane
Smart Sheet	UX Analyst	Bellevue
Edward Jones	Associate Financial Advisor- Seattle, WA	Seattle
Vetco Clinics	Vetco Relief Veterinarian	Spokane
Petco	Hospital Veterinarian	Tacoma
Kaiser	Surgical Technologist - TPT	Allyn
Kaiser	Masters Level Therapist	Allyn
Kaiser	Pharmacy Technician	Allyn
BOEING	Aircraft Structures Mechanic- 30005 - Relocation Services Available	Arlington
Copart	Tow Truck Driver	Arlington
INSPYR Solutions	Merchandiser	Auburn
Kaiser	Pharmacist I (TPT)	Auburn
BOEING	Inspector Integral Fuel Cells A - 59007	Auburn
Bainbridge Vision	Patient Care Coordinator	Bainbridge Island
Best Buy	Microsoft Computer Sales Minimum Pay $19	Bellevue
The EyeCare Center, Bellevue	Optician	Bellevue
Best Buy	Exciting Sales Opportunity in Bellevue starting at $18+ per hour	Bellevue
Kaiser	Medical Assistant-Orthopedics-40 Hours-Bellevue	Bellevue
Confidential	Senior Geotechnical Engineer	Bellingham
Thriveworks	Child Psychotherapist	Bellingham
Thriveworks	Child Therapist	Bellingham
BOEING	Painter - 3705	Black Diamond
BOEING	Mechatronics Maintenance Technician - 87706	Black Diamond
BOEING	Maintenance Machinist A - 89709	Bonney Lake

Hey guys, here are some recent job openings , feel free to comment here if you have any questions, I'm at the community's disposal! If you encounter any problems with any of these job openings please let me know that I will modify the table accordingly. Thanks!

Galatians  

The Gospel of Paul  

Paul can be forgiven for equating the destruction of Israel with the end of the world. Everyone who loves Israel wants to save her, the controversy between the Judaizers and Paul was over how to do it.  
From The Interpreters’ Bible:  
"Introduction  
-1. Occasion and Purpose  
Conservative preachers were persuading the Galatians that faith was not enough to make sure of God’s kingdom. Besides believing that Jesus was the Messiah, one must join the Jewish nation, observe the laws and customs of Moses, and refuse to eat with the Gentiles (2:11-14, 4:10). One must have Christ and Moses, faith and law. Paul insisted that it must be either Moses or Christ. (5:2-6). [Mind you, the congregations were literally segregated at meals according to whether the male members’ foreskins were circumcised; compare with the trouble regarding the allocations between the two groups of widows reported in Acts.]  
Not content with raising doubts concerning the sufficiency of Christ, the Judaizers attacked Paul’s credentials. They said that he had not been one of the original apostles, and that he was distorting the gospel which Peter and John and James the Lord’s brother were preaching. They declared that his proposal to abandon the law of Moses was contrary to the teaching of Jesus, and they insinuated that he had taken this radical step to please men with the specious promise of cheap admission to God’s kingdom (1:10). If he were allowed to have his way, men would believe and be baptized but keep on sinning, deluding themselves that the Christian sacraments would save them. Claiming to rise above Moses and the prophets, they would debase faith into magic, liberty into license, making Christ the abettor of sin (2:17). The Judaizers were alarmed lest Paul bring down God’s wrath and delay the kingdom. They had not shared the emotion of a catastrophic conversion like Paul’s, and they found it hard to understand when he talked about a new power which overcame sin and brought righteousness better than the best that the law could produce.  
Another party attacked Paul from the opposite side. Influenced by the pagan notion that religion transcends ethics and is separable from morality, they wanted to abandon the Old Testament and its prophetic insights. They could not see how Paul’s demand to crucify one’s old sinful nature and produce the fruit of the Spirit could be anything but a new form of slavery to law (2:19-20, 5:14, 2-24). They accused him of rebuilding the old legalism, and some said that he was still preaching circumcision (2:18; 5:11). Whereas the Judaizers rejected Paul’s gospel because they believed it contrary to the teaching of the original apostles, these antilegalists felt that he was so subservient to the apostles as to endanger the freedom of the Christian Movement.  
Actually Paul had risen above both legalism and sacramentarianism ... his faith was qualitatively different from mere assent to a creed (5:6). He was living on the plateau of the Spirit, where life was so free that men needed no law to say ‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Thou shalt not’ (5:22-24). But this rarefied atmosphere was hard to breathe, and neither side could understand him. The conservatives were watching for moral lapses… and the radicals blamed him for slowing the progress of Christianity by refusing to cut it loose from Judaism and its nationalistic religious imperialism.” (Stamm, TIB 1953, vol. X pp. 430)  
Paul’s defense of his gospel and apostleship was the more difficult because he had to maintain his right to go directly to Christ without the mediation of Peter and the rest, but had to do it in such a way as not to split the church and break the continuity of his gospel with the Old Testament and the apostolic traditions about Jesus and his teaching. …  
To this end Paul gave an account of his relations with the Jerusalem church during the seventeen years that followed his conversion (1:11-2:14). Instead of going to Jerusalem he went to Arabia, presumably to preach (1:17). After a time he returned to Damascus, and only three years later did he go to see Peter. Even then he stayed only fifteen days and saw no other apostle except James the Lord’s brother (1:18-20). Then he left for Syria and Cilicia, and not until another fourteen years had passed did he visit Jerusalem again. This time it was in response to a revelation from his Lord, and not to a summons by the authorities in the Hoy City.  
Paul emphasizes that neither visit implied an admission that his gospel needed the apostolic stamp to make it valid. His purpose was to get the apostles to treat the uncircumcised Gentile Christians as their equals in the church (2:2). Making a test case of Titus, he won his point (2:3-5). The apostles agreed that a Gentile could join the church by faith without first becoming a member of the synagogue by circumcision. … They … recognize[d] that his mission to the Gentiles was on the same footing as theirs to the Jews – only he was to remember the poor (2:7-10). So far was Paul from being subordinated that when Peter came to Antioch and wavered on eating with the Gentile Christians, Paul did not hesitate to rebuke him in public (2:11-14). (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 430-431)  
Paul’s defense of his apostolic commission involved the question: What is the seat of authority in religion? A Jewish rabbi debating the application of the kosher laws would quote the authority of Moses and the fathers in support of his view. Jewish tradition declared that God delivered the law to Moses, and Moses to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the men of the Great Synagogue, and that they had handed it down through an unbroken rabbinical succession to the present. If Paul had been a Christian rabbi, he could have treated the Sermon on the Mount as a new law from a new Sinai, which God had delivered to Jesus, and Jesus to Peter, and Peter to Paul, and Paul to Timothy and Titus, and so on through an unbroken apostolic succession until the second coming of Christ. Instead of taking his problems directly to this Lord in prayer, he would ask, ‘What does Peter say that Jesus did and said about it?’ And if Peter or the other apostles happened not to have a pronouncement from Jesus on a given subject, they would need to apply some other saying to his by reasoning from analogy. This would turn the gospel into a system of legalism, with casuistry for its guide, making Jesus a second Moses – a prophet who lived and died in a dim and distant past and left only a written code to guide the future. Jesus would not have been the living Lord, personally present in his church in every age as the daily companion of his members. That is why Paul insisted that Christ must not be confused or combined with Moses, but must be all in all.  
The Judaizers assumed that God had revealed to Moses all of his will, and nothing but this will, for all time, changeless and unchangeable; and that death was the penalty for tampering with it. The rest of the scriptures and the oral tradition which developed and applied them were believed to be implicit in the Pentateuch as an oak in an acorn. The first duty of the teacher was to transmit the Torah exactly as he had received it from the men of old. Only then might he give his own opinion, which must never contradict but always be validated by the authority of the past. When authorities differed, the teacher must labor to reconcile them. Elaborate rules of interpretation were devised to help decide cases not covered by specific provision in the scripture. These rules made it possible to apply a changeless revelation to changing conditions, but they also presented a dilemma. The interpreter might modernize by reading into his Bible ideas that were not in the minds of its writers, or he might quench his own creative insights by fearing to go beyond what was written. Those who modernized the Old Testament were beset with the perils of incipient Gnosticism, while those who, like the Sadducees, accepted nothing but the written Torah could misuse it to obstruct social and religious progress. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 431-432)  
To submit to circumcision would have betrayed the truth of the gospel because it contradicted the principle that all is of grace and grace is for all (2:5). Perpetuated in the church of Christ, the kosher code and other Jewish customs would have destroyed the fellowship. Few things could have hurt the feelings and heaped more indignity upon the Gentiles than the spiritual snobbery of refusing to eat with them.  
The tragedy of division was proportional to the sincerity of men’s scruples. The Jews were brought up to believe that eating with Gentiles was a flagrant violation of God’s revealed will which would bring down his terrible wrath. How strongly both sides felt appears in Paul’s account of the stormy conference at Jerusalem and the angry dispute that followed it at Antioch (2:1-14). Paul claimed that refusal to eat with a Gentile brother would deny that the grace of Christ was sufficient to make him worthy of the kingdom. If all men were sons of God through Christ, there could be no classes of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (3:26-28). What mattered was neither circumcision not uncircumcision, but only faith and a new act of creation by the Spirit (5:6; 6”15). (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 433)  
Church unity was essential to the success of Christian missions. Friction between Aramaic and Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Palestine had to be eliminated (Acts 6:1). The death of Stephen and a special vision to Peter were required to convince the conservatives of the propriety of admitting the Gentiles on an equality with the Jews; and even Peter was amazed that God had given them the same gift of the Spirit (Act 11: 1-18). This hesitation was potentially fatal to the spread of Christianity beyond Palestine. Many Gentiles had been attracted by the pure monotheism and high morality of Judaism but were not willing to break with their native culture by submitting to the painful initiatory rite and social stigma of being a Jew…. Had the church kept circumcision as a requirement for membership, it could not have freed itself from Jewish nationalism.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 433)  
III. Some Characteristics of Paul’s Thinking  
… “the law” of which Paul is speaking does not coincide with “law” in a twentieth-century state with representative government. His Greek word was νομος [nomos], an inadequate translation of the Hebrew “Torah,” which included much more than “law” as we use the term. [When “תורה ThORaH” appears in the text I translate it as “Instruction” – its literal definition - capitalized.] Torah was teaching on any subject concerning the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Since the Jews did not divide life into two compartments labeled “religious” and “secular,” their law covered both their spiritual and their civil life. Nor did Paul and his fellow Jews think in terms of “nature” and the “natural law.” They believed that everything that happened was God’s doing, directly or by his permission. The messiah was expected to restore the ancient theocracy with its power over both civil and religious affairs.  
The Gentiles too were accustomed to state regulation of religion and priestly control of civil affairs. The Greek city-states had always managed the relations of their citizens with the gods, and Alexander the Great prepared the way for religious imperialism. When he invaded Asia, he consolidated his power by the ancient Oriental idea that the ruler was a god or a son of God. His successors, in their endless wars over the fragments of his empire, adopted the same device. Posing as “savior-gods,” they liberated their victims by enslaving them. The Romans did likewise, believing that the safety of their empire depended upon correct legal relations with the gods who had founded it. … Each city had its temple dedicated to the emperor, and its patriotic priests to see that everyone burned incense before his statue. Having done this, the worshiper was free under Roman ‘tolerance’ to adopt any other legal religion. … Whether salvation was offered in the name of the ancient gods of the Orient, or of Greece, or of the emperor of Rome, or of Yahweh the theocratic king of the Jews, the favor of the deity was thought to depend upon obedience to his law.  
One did not therefore have to be a Jew to be a legalist in religion. … Since Paul’s first converts were drawn from Gentiles who had been attending the synagogues, it is easy to see how Gentile Christians could be a zealous to add Moses to Christ as the most conservative Jew.  
This is what gave the Judaizers their hold in Galatia. The rivalry between the synagogue, which was engaged in winning men to worship the God of Moses, and the church, which was preaching the God who had revealed himself in Christ Jesus, was bound to raise the issue of legalism and stir up doubts about the sufficiency of Christ.  
Gentile and Jewish Christians alike would regard Paul’s preaching of salvation apart from the merit acquired by obedience to law as a violently revolutionary doctrine. Fidelity to his declaration of religious independence from all mediating rulers and priesthoods required a spiritual maturity of which most who heard his preaching were not yet capable. … Paul’s gospel has always been in danger of being stifled by those who would treat the teachings of Jesus as laws to be enforced by a hierarchy. (Stamm, TIB 1953, X pp. 434-435)  
V. Environment of Paul’s Churches in Galatia  
The conclusion concerning the destination of the epistle does not involve the essentials of its religious message, but it does affect our understanding of certain passages, such as 3:1 and 41:12, 20.  
From the earliest times that part of the world had been swept by the cross tides of migration and struggle for empire. The third millennium found the Hittites in possession. In the second millennium the Greeks and Phrygians came spilling over from Europe, and in the first millennium the remaining power of the Hittites was swept away by Babylon and Persia. Then came the turn of the Asiatic tide into Europe, only to be swept back again by Alexander the Great. But the Greek cities with which he and his successors dotted the map of Asia were like anthills destined to be leveled by Oriental reaction.  
About 278 B.C. new turmoil came with the Gauls, who were shunted from Greece and crossed into Asia to overrun Phrygia. Gradually the Greek kings succeeded in pushing them up into the central highlands, where they established themselves in the region of Ancyra. Thus located, they constituted a perpetually disturbing element, raiding the Greek cities and furnishing soldiers now to one, and now to another of the rival kings. Then in 121 B.C. came the Romans to 'set free' Galatia by making it a part of their own Empire. By 40 B.C. there were three kingdoms, with capitals at Ancyra, Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium. Four years later Lycaonia and Galatia were given to Amyntas the king of Pisidia. He added Pamphylia and part of Cilicia to his kingdom. But he was killed in 25 B.C., and the Romans made his dominion into the province of Galatia, which was thus much larger than the territory inhabited by the Gauls. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 437-438)  
War and slavery, poverty, disease, and famine made life hard and uncertain. In religion and philosophy men were confused by this meeting of East and West. But man’s extremity was Paul’s opportunity. The soil of the centuries had been plowed and harrowed for his new, revolutionary gospel of grace and freedom.  
Not all, however, were ready for this freedom. The old religions with prestige and authority seemed safer. Most Jews preferred Moses, and among the Gentiles the hold of the Great Mother Cybele of Phrygia was not easily shaken. Paul’s converts, bringing their former ideas and customs with them, were all too ready to reshape his gospel into a combination of Christ with their ancient laws and rituals. The old religions were especially tenacious in the small villages, whose inhabitants spoke the native languages and were inaccessible to the Greek-speaking Paul. To this gravitational attraction of the indigenous cults was added the more sophisticated syncretism of the city dwellers, pulling Paul’s churches away from his gospel when the moral demands of his faith and the responsibilities of his freedom became irksome. This was the root of the trouble in Galatia. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 438)  
VI. Date and Place of Writing  
Some consider it the earliest of Paul’s extant letters and place it in 49 … In support of this date it is said that Paul, who had come from Perga by boat, was met by messengers from Galatia, who had taken the shorter route by land. They reported the disturbance which had arisen in his churches soon after his departure. He could not go back immediately to straighten things out in person, because he saw that he would have to settle the matter first in Jerusalem, whence the troublemakers had come. So he wrote a letter.  
But … [w]e do not know that the trouble in Galatia was stirred up by emissaries from the church in Jerusalem … Moreover, this solution overlooks the crux of the issue between Paul and the legalists. His contention was that neither circumcision nor the observance of any other law was the basis of salvation, but only faith in God’s grace through Christ. … On the matter of kosher customs, as on every other question, he directed men to the mind and Spirit of Christ, and not to law, either Mosaic or apostolic. That mind was a Spirit of edification which abstained voluntarily from all that defiled or offended.  
We may say that the situation [in Galatia] was different – that in Macedonia it was persecution from outside by Jews who were trying to prevent Paul’s preaching, whereas in Galatia it was trouble inside the church created by legalistic Christians who were proposing to change his teaching; that in one case the issue was justification by faith, and in the other faithfulness while waiting for the day of the Lord.  
The letter to the Romans, written during the three months in Greece mentioned in Acts 20:2-3, is our earliest commentary on Galatians. In it the relation between the law and the gospel is set forth in the perspective of Paul’s further experience. The brevity and storminess of Galatians gives way to a more complete and calmly reasoned presentation of his gospel. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 438 - 439)  
At Corinth, as in Galatia, Paul had to defend his right to be an apostle against opponents heartless enough to turn against him the cruel belief that physical illness was a sign of God’s disfavor … and they charged him with being a crafty man-pleaser … He exhorts his converts to put away childish things and grow up in faith, hope and love…  
Most childish of all were the factions incipient in Galatia, and actual in Corinth … He abandoned the kosher customs and all other artificial distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and laid the emphasis where it belonged – upon the necessity for God’s people to establish and maintain a higher morality and spiritual life… He substituted a catholic spirit for partisan loyalties ... (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 440-441)  
VII. Authorship and Attestation  
If Paul wrote anything that goes under his name, it was Galatians, Romans, and the letters to Corinth. … F.C. Baur and his followers tried to show that the letters ascribed to Paul were the product of a second-century conflict between a Judaist party and the liberals in the church, and that they were written by Paulinists who used his name and authority to promote their own ideas.  
[But] the earliest mention of the epistle by name occurs in the canon of the Gnostic heretic Marcion (ca. [approximately] 144). He put it first in his list of ten letters of Paul. A generation later the orthodox Muratorian canon (ca. 185) listed it as the sixth of Paul’s letters. … While the first explicit reference to Galatians as a letter of Paul is as late as the middle of the second century … the authors of Ephesians and the Gospel of John knew it; and Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians quoted it. Revelation, I Peter, Hebrew, I Clement, and Ignatius show acquaintance with it; and there is evidence that the writer of the Epistle of James knew Galatians, as did the authors of II Peter and the Pastoral epistle, and Justin Martyr and Athenagoras. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 441-442)  
VIII. Text and Transmission  
Although the epistle was composed neither carelessly nor hastily, the anxiety and emotional stress under which Paul dictated his cascading thoughts have produced some involved and obscure sentences … and a number of abrupt transitions… These have been a standing invitation to scribal clarification. … Paul’s debate with his critics takes the form of a diatribe, which is characterized by quotations from past or anticipated objectors and rapid-fire answers to them. Paul did not use quotation marks, and this accounts for the difficulty in 2:14-15 of deciding where his speech to Peter ends. The numerous allusions to person and places, events and teachings, with which Paul assumed his readers to be acquainted, are another source of difficulty. All theses factors operated to produce the numerous variations in the text of Galatians." (Stamm, 1953, TIB p. 442)  
From Adam Clarke’s Commentaryⁱ :  
"The authenticity of this epistle is ably vindicated by Dr. Paley: the principal part of his arguments I shall here introduce …  
'Section I.  
As Judea was the scene of the Christian history; as the author and preachers of Christianity were Jews; as the religion itself acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewish religion, in contra distinction to every other religion, then professed among mankind: it was not to be wondered at, that some its teachers should carry it out in the world rather as a sect and modification of Judaism, than as a separate original revelation; or that they should invite their proselytes to those observances in which they lived themselves. ... I … think that those pretensions of Judaism were much more likely to be insisted upon, whilst the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and dispersion; while Jerusalem and the temple stood, than after the destruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the fatal cessation of the sacrifice and the priesthood, the humiliating loss of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and symbols of their institution. It should seem, therefore, from the nature of the subject and the situation of the parties, that this controversy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Christianity to the Gentiles, and the invasion of Titus: and that our present epistle ... must be referred to the same period.  
… the epistle supposes that certain designing adherents of the Jewish law had crept into the churches of Galatia; and had been endeavouring, and but too successfully, to persuade the Galatic converts, that they had been taught the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only an inferior and disputed commission, the seat of truth and authority being in the apostles and elders of Jerusalem; moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself, at other times and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. The epistle is unintelligible without supposing all this. (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 361)  
Section VII.  
This epistle goes farther than any of St. Paul’s epistles; for it avows in direct terms the supersession of the Jewish law, as an instrument of salvation, even to the Jews themselves. Not only were the Gentiles exempt from its authority, but even the Jews were no longer either to place any dependency upon it, or consider themselves as subject to it on a religious account. "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto faith which should afterward be revealed: wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but, after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Chap. [chapter] iii. 23-25) This was undoubtedly spoken of Jews, and to Jews. … What then should be the conduct of a Jew (for such St. Paul was) who preached this doctrine? To be consistent with himself, either he would no longer comply, in his own person, with the directions of the law; or, if he did comply, it would be some other reason than any confidence which he placed in its efficacy, as a religious institution. (Clarke, 1831, vol. II pp. 366-367)  
Preface  
The religion of the ancient Galatae was extremely corrupt and superstitious: and they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods, under the name of Agdistis; and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war.  
They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked; and used for arms only a sword and buckler. The impetuosity of their attack is stated to have been irresistible…’” (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 369)  
From The New Jerome Biblical Commentaryⁱⁱ  
"Introduction  
The Galatai, originally an Indo-Aryan tribe of Asia, were related to the Celts or Gauls (“who in their own language are called Keltae, but in ours Galli”) ... About 279 BC some of them invaded the lower Danube area and Macedonia, descending even into the Gk [Greek] peninsula. After they were stopped by the Aetolians in 278, a remnant fled across the Hellespont into Asia Minor …  
Occasion and Purpose  
… He … stoutly maintained that the gospel he had preached, without the observance of the Mosaic practices, was the only correct view of Christianity … Gal [Galatians] thus became the first expose` of Paul’s teaching about justification by grace through faith apart from deeds prescribed by the law; it is Paul’s manifesto about Christian freedom.  
... Who were the agitators in Galatia? … they are best identified as Jewish Christians of Palestine, of an even stricter Jewish background than Peter, Paul, or James, or even of the ‘false brethren' (2:4) of Jerusalem, whom Paul had encountered there. (The account in Acts 15:5 would identify the latter as ‘believers who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.’) … The agitators in Galatia were Judaizers, who insisted not on the observance of the whole Mosaic law, but at least on circumcision and the observance of some other Jewish practices. Paul for this reason warned the Gentile Christians of Galatia that their fascination with ‘circumcision’ would oblige them to keep ‘the whole law’ (5:3). The agitators may have been syncretists of some sort: Christians of Jewish perhaps Essene, background, affected by some Anatolian influences. … (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC pp. 780-781)   END NOTES
ⁱ The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present Authorized Version. Including the marginal readings and parallel texts. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Designed as a help to a better understanding of the sacred writings. By Adam Clarke, LL.D. F.S.A. M.R.I.A. With a complete alphabetical index. Royal Octavo Stereotype Edition. Vol. II. [Vol. VI together with the O.T.] New York, Published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the conference office, 13 Crosby-Street. J. Collord, Printer. 1831.  
ⁱⁱ The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Union Theological Seminary, New York; NY, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (emeritus) Catholic University of America, Washington, DC; Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. (emeritus) The Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, NC, with a foreword by His Eminence Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J.; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990  
  Chapter One  
…  

Tiding of [בשורת, BeSOoRahTh, Gospel] one
[verses 6-10]  

…  

…………………………………………  
How [כיצד, KaYTsahD] was [היה, HahYaH] Shah`OoL [“Lender”, Saul, Paul] to become a Sent Forth [Apostle]
[verses 11 to end of chapter]  

…  
Chapter Two  

Sending forth of Shah’OoL required upon hands of the Sent Forth
[verses 1-10]  

…  

…………………………………………  
The YeHOo-DeeYM [“YHVH-ites”, Judeans] and the nations, righteous from inside belief
[verses 11 to end of chapter]  

...
-16. And since [וכיון, VeKhayVahN] that know, we, that [כי, KeeY] the ’ahDahM [“man”, Adam] is not made righteous in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction [Torah, law],
rather in belief of the Anointed [המשיח, HahMahSheeY-ahH, the Messiah, the Christ] YayShOo`ah [“Savior”, Jesus],
believe, also we, in Anointed YayShOo`ah,
to sake we are made righteous from inside belief in Anointed,
and not in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction,
that yes, in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction is not made righteous any [כל, KahL] flesh.  

“As a Pharisee, Paul had been taught that works of law were deeds done in obedience to the Torah, contrasted with things done according to one’s own will. The object of this obedience was to render oneself acceptable to God – to ‘justify’ oneself. Having found this impossible, Paul reinforced the evidence from his own experience by Ps. [Psalm] 143:2, where the sinner prays God not to enter into judgment with him because in God’s sight no man living is righteous. Into this passage from the LXX [The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] Paul inserted ‘by works of law,’ and wrote σαρξ [sarx], ‘flesh,’ instead of ζων [zon], ‘one living.’ This quotation warns us against setting Paul’s salvation by grace over against Judaism in such a way as to obscure the fact that the Jews depended also upon God’s lovingkindness and tender mercies (I Kings 8:46; Job 10:14-15; 14:3-4; Prov. [Proverbs] 20:9; Eccl. [Ecclesiasticus] 7:20; Mal. [Malachi] 3:2; Dan. [Daniel] 9:18).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 483)  
“Justified is a metaphor from the law court. The Greek verb is δικαιοω [dikaioo], the noun δικαιοσουνη [dikaiosoune’], the adjective δικαιος [dikaios]. The common root is δικ [dik] as in δεικνυμι [deiknumi], ‘point out,’ ‘show.’ The words formed on this root point to a norm or standard to which persons and things must conform in order to be ‘right.’ The English ‘right’ expresses the same idea, being derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘richt,’ which means ‘straight,’ not crooked, ‘upright,’ not oblique. The verb δικαιοω means ‘I think it right.’ A man is δικαιος, ‘right’ when he conforms to the standard of acceptable character and conduct, and δικαιοσυνη, ‘righteousness,’ ‘justice,’ is the state or quality of this conformity. In the LXX these Greek words translate a group of Hebrew words formed on the root צדק [TsehDehQ], and in Latin the corresponding terms are justifico, justus, and justificatio. In all four languages the common idea is the norm by which persons and things are to be tested. Thus in Hebrew a wall is ‘righteous’ when it conforms to the plumb line, a man when he does God’s will.  
From earliest boyhood Paul had tried to be righteous. But there came a terrible day when he said ‘I will covet’ to the law’s ‘Thou shalt not,’ and in that defiance he had fallen out of right relation to God and into the ‘wrath,’ where he ‘died’ spiritually… Thenceforth all his efforts, however strenuous, to get ‘right’ with God were thwarted by the weakness of his sinful human nature, the ‘flesh’ (σαρξ) [sarx]. That experience of futility led him to say that a man is not justified by works ‘of law.’” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 483)  

[Actually Paul changed his point of view as a result of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, not as a result of intellectual contemplation. His many failures hitherto had not led him to this conclusion. The description of Paul in the preceding paragraph is a fiction.]  

“In the eyes of the psalmists and rabbis this was blasphemously revolutionary. Resting on God’s covenant with Abraham, they held it axiomatic that the ‘righteous’ man who had conscientiously done his part deserved to be vindicated before a wicked world; otherwise God could not be righteous. … In Judaism God was thought of as forgiving only repentant sinners who followed their repentance with right living …  
The theological expression for this conception of salvation is ‘justification by faith.’ Unfortunately this Latin word does not make plain Paul’s underlying religious experience, which was a change of status through faith from a wrong to a ‘right’ relationship with God… It conceals from the English reader the fact that the Greek word also means ‘righteousness.’ … (observe the ASV [American Standard Version] mg. [marginal note], ‘accounted righteous’).  
But ‘reckoned’ and ‘accounted’ expose Paul’s thought to misinterpretation by suggesting a legal fiction which God adopted to escape the contradiction between his acceptance of sinners and his own righteousness and justice.  
On the other hand, Paul’s term, in the passive, cannot be translated by ‘made righteous’ without misrepresenting him. In baptism he had ‘died with Christ’ to sin. By this definition the Christian is a person who does not sin! And yet Paul does not say that he is sinless, but that he must not sin. … This laid him open to a charge of self contradiction; sinless and yet not sinless, righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust at the same time. Some interpreters have labeled it ‘paradox,’ but such a superficial dismissal of the problem is religiously barren and worse than useless.  
The extreme difficulty of understanding Paul on this matter has led to a distinction between ‘justification’ and ‘sanctification,’ which obscures Paul’s urgency to be now, at this very moment, what God in accepting him says he is: a righteous man in Christ Jesus. Justification is reduced to a forensic declaration by which God acquits and accepts the guilty criminal, and sanctification is viewed as a leisurely process of becoming the kind of person posited by that declaration. This makes perfection seem far less urgent than Paul conceived it, and permits the spiritual inertia of human nature to continue its habit of separating religion from ethics. To prevent this misunderstanding it is necessary to keep in mind the root meaning of ‘righteousness’ in δικαιοω and its cognates.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 484-485)  

-19. I died according to [לגבי, LeGahBaY] the Instruction, because of [בגלל, BeeGLahL] the Instruction, in order [כדי, KeDaY] that I will live to God.  

“… The Pharisees taught that the Torah was the life element of the Jews; all who obeyed would live, those who did not would die (Deut. [Deuteronomy] 30:11-20).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 488-489)  

-20. With the Anointed I was crucified, and no more I live, rather the Anointed lives in me.
The life that I live now in flesh, I live them in the belief of Son [of] the Gods that loved me and delivered up [ומסר, OoMahÇahR] himself in my behalf [בעדי, Bah`ahDeeY].  

“The danger was that Paul’s Gentile converts might claim freedom in Christ but reject the cross-bearing that made it possible. Lacking the momentum of moral discipline under Moses, which prepared Paul to make right use of his freedom, they might imagine that his dying and rising with Christ was a magical way of immortalizing themselves by sacramental absorption of Christ’s divine substance in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The church has always been tempted to take Paul’s crucifixion with Christ in a symbolic sense only, or as an experience at baptism which is sacramentally automatic. It has also been tempted to reduce Paul’s ‘faith’ to bare belief and assent to his doctrine, and to equate his ‘righteousness’ with a fictitious imputation by a Judge made lenient by Christ’s death.  
Against these caricatures of ‘justification by faith,’ Paul’s whole life and all his letters are a standing protest. He never allows us to forget that to be crucified with Christ is to share the motives, the purposes, and the way of life that led Jesus to the Cross; to take up vicariously the burden of the sins of others, forgiving and loving instead of condemning them; to make oneself the slave of every man; to create unity and harmony by reconciling man to God and man to his fellow men; to pray without ceasing ‘Thy will be done’; to consign one’s life to God, walking by faith where one cannot see; and finally to leave this earth with the prayer ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’  
… When Christ the Spirit came to live in Paul … Paul was guided at each step, in each new circumstance, to answer for himself the question: What would Jesus have me do? And the answer was always this: Rely solely on God’s grace through Christ, count others better than yourself, and make yourself everybody’s slave after the manner of the Son of God who loved you and gave himself for you.  
… The phrase εν σαρκι [en sarki] … means, lit. [literally], in the flesh. Someday – Paul hoped it would be soon – this would be changed into a body like that of the risen Christ, which belonged to the realm of Spirit.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 490-493)  
“Christ lives in me: The perfection of Christian life is expressed here … it reshapes human beings anew, supplying them with a new principle of activity on the ontological¹ level of their very beings.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 785)  

-21. I do not nullify [מבטל, MeBahTayL] [את, ’ehTh (indicator of direct object; no English equivalent)] mercy [of] Gods;
is not if [it] is possible to become righteous upon hand of the Instruction, see, that the Anointed died to nothing [לשוא, LahShahVe’]?  

“It is not I, he says, who am nullifying the grace of God by abandoning the law which is his grace-gift to Israel, but those who insist on retaining that law in addition to the grace which he has now manifested in Christ.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 495)

  Footnotes   ¹ Ontological - relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being  
An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible

Galatians  

The Gospel of Paul  

Paul can be forgiven for equating the destruction of Israel with the end of the world. Everyone who loves Israel wants to save her, the controversy between the Judaizers and Paul was over how to do it.  
From The Interpreters’ Bible:  
"Introduction  
-1. Occasion and Purpose  
Conservative preachers were persuading the Galatians that faith was not enough to make sure of God’s kingdom. Besides believing that Jesus was the Messiah, one must join the Jewish nation, observe the laws and customs of Moses, and refuse to eat with the Gentiles (2:11-14, 4:10). One must have Christ and Moses, faith and law. Paul insisted that it must be either Moses or Christ. (5:2-6). [Mind you, the congregations were literally segregated at meals according to whether the male members’ foreskins were circumcised; compare with the trouble regarding the allocations between the two groups of widows reported in Acts.]  
Not content with raising doubts concerning the sufficiency of Christ, the Judaizers attacked Paul’s credentials. They said that he had not been one of the original apostles, and that he was distorting the gospel which Peter and John and James the Lord’s brother were preaching. They declared that his proposal to abandon the law of Moses was contrary to the teaching of Jesus, and they insinuated that he had taken this radical step to please men with the specious promise of cheap admission to God’s kingdom (1:10). If he were allowed to have his way, men would believe and be baptized but keep on sinning, deluding themselves that the Christian sacraments would save them. Claiming to rise above Moses and the prophets, they would debase faith into magic, liberty into license, making Christ the abettor of sin (2:17). The Judaizers were alarmed lest Paul bring down God’s wrath and delay the kingdom. They had not shared the emotion of a catastrophic conversion like Paul’s, and they found it hard to understand when he talked about a new power which overcame sin and brought righteousness better than the best that the law could produce.  
Another party attacked Paul from the opposite side. Influenced by the pagan notion that religion transcends ethics and is separable from morality, they wanted to abandon the Old Testament and its prophetic insights. They could not see how Paul’s demand to crucify one’s old sinful nature and produce the fruit of the Spirit could be anything but a new form of slavery to law (2:19-20, 5:14, 2-24). They accused him of rebuilding the old legalism, and some said that he was still preaching circumcision (2:18; 5:11). Whereas the Judaizers rejected Paul’s gospel because they believed it contrary to the teaching of the original apostles, these antilegalists felt that he was so subservient to the apostles as to endanger the freedom of the Christian Movement.  
Actually Paul had risen above both legalism and sacramentarianism ... his faith was qualitatively different from mere assent to a creed (5:6). He was living on the plateau of the Spirit, where life was so free that men needed no law to say ‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Thou shalt not’ (5:22-24). But this rarefied atmosphere was hard to breathe, and neither side could understand him. The conservatives were watching for moral lapses… and the radicals blamed him for slowing the progress of Christianity by refusing to cut it loose from Judaism and its nationalistic religious imperialism.” (Stamm, TIB 1953, vol. X pp. 430)  
Paul’s defense of his gospel and apostleship was the more difficult because he had to maintain his right to go directly to Christ without the mediation of Peter and the rest, but had to do it in such a way as not to split the church and break the continuity of his gospel with the Old Testament and the apostolic traditions about Jesus and his teaching. …  
To this end Paul gave an account of his relations with the Jerusalem church during the seventeen years that followed his conversion (1:11-2:14). Instead of going to Jerusalem he went to Arabia, presumably to preach (1:17). After a time he returned to Damascus, and only three years later did he go to see Peter. Even then he stayed only fifteen days and saw no other apostle except James the Lord’s brother (1:18-20). Then he left for Syria and Cilicia, and not until another fourteen years had passed did he visit Jerusalem again. This time it was in response to a revelation from his Lord, and not to a summons by the authorities in the Hoy City.  
Paul emphasizes that neither visit implied an admission that his gospel needed the apostolic stamp to make it valid. His purpose was to get the apostles to treat the uncircumcised Gentile Christians as their equals in the church (2:2). Making a test case of Titus, he won his point (2:3-5). The apostles agreed that a Gentile could join the church by faith without first becoming a member of the synagogue by circumcision. … They … recognize[d] that his mission to the Gentiles was on the same footing as theirs to the Jews – only he was to remember the poor (2:7-10). So far was Paul from being subordinated that when Peter came to Antioch and wavered on eating with the Gentile Christians, Paul did not hesitate to rebuke him in public (2:11-14). (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 430-431)  
Paul’s defense of his apostolic commission involved the question: What is the seat of authority in religion? A Jewish rabbi debating the application of the kosher laws would quote the authority of Moses and the fathers in support of his view. Jewish tradition declared that God delivered the law to Moses, and Moses to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the men of the Great Synagogue, and that they had handed it down through an unbroken rabbinical succession to the present. If Paul had been a Christian rabbi, he could have treated the Sermon on the Mount as a new law from a new Sinai, which God had delivered to Jesus, and Jesus to Peter, and Peter to Paul, and Paul to Timothy and Titus, and so on through an unbroken apostolic succession until the second coming of Christ. Instead of taking his problems directly to this Lord in prayer, he would ask, ‘What does Peter say that Jesus did and said about it?’ And if Peter or the other apostles happened not to have a pronouncement from Jesus on a given subject, they would need to apply some other saying to his by reasoning from analogy. This would turn the gospel into a system of legalism, with casuistry for its guide, making Jesus a second Moses – a prophet who lived and died in a dim and distant past and left only a written code to guide the future. Jesus would not have been the living Lord, personally present in his church in every age as the daily companion of his members. That is why Paul insisted that Christ must not be confused or combined with Moses, but must be all in all.  
The Judaizers assumed that God had revealed to Moses all of his will, and nothing but this will, for all time, changeless and unchangeable; and that death was the penalty for tampering with it. The rest of the scriptures and the oral tradition which developed and applied them were believed to be implicit in the Pentateuch as an oak in an acorn. The first duty of the teacher was to transmit the Torah exactly as he had received it from the men of old. Only then might he give his own opinion, which must never contradict but always be validated by the authority of the past. When authorities differed, the teacher must labor to reconcile them. Elaborate rules of interpretation were devised to help decide cases not covered by specific provision in the scripture. These rules made it possible to apply a changeless revelation to changing conditions, but they also presented a dilemma. The interpreter might modernize by reading into his Bible ideas that were not in the minds of its writers, or he might quench his own creative insights by fearing to go beyond what was written. Those who modernized the Old Testament were beset with the perils of incipient Gnosticism, while those who, like the Sadducees, accepted nothing but the written Torah could misuse it to obstruct social and religious progress. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 431-432)  
To submit to circumcision would have betrayed the truth of the gospel because it contradicted the principle that all is of grace and grace is for all (2:5). Perpetuated in the church of Christ, the kosher code and other Jewish customs would have destroyed the fellowship. Few things could have hurt the feelings and heaped more indignity upon the Gentiles than the spiritual snobbery of refusing to eat with them.  
The tragedy of division was proportional to the sincerity of men’s scruples. The Jews were brought up to believe that eating with Gentiles was a flagrant violation of God’s revealed will which would bring down his terrible wrath. How strongly both sides felt appears in Paul’s account of the stormy conference at Jerusalem and the angry dispute that followed it at Antioch (2:1-14). Paul claimed that refusal to eat with a Gentile brother would deny that the grace of Christ was sufficient to make him worthy of the kingdom. If all men were sons of God through Christ, there could be no classes of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (3:26-28). What mattered was neither circumcision not uncircumcision, but only faith and a new act of creation by the Spirit (5:6; 6”15). (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 433)  
Church unity was essential to the success of Christian missions. Friction between Aramaic and Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Palestine had to be eliminated (Acts 6:1). The death of Stephen and a special vision to Peter were required to convince the conservatives of the propriety of admitting the Gentiles on an equality with the Jews; and even Peter was amazed that God had given them the same gift of the Spirit (Act 11: 1-18). This hesitation was potentially fatal to the spread of Christianity beyond Palestine. Many Gentiles had been attracted by the pure monotheism and high morality of Judaism but were not willing to break with their native culture by submitting to the painful initiatory rite and social stigma of being a Jew…. Had the church kept circumcision as a requirement for membership, it could not have freed itself from Jewish nationalism.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 433)  
III. Some Characteristics of Paul’s Thinking  
… “the law” of which Paul is speaking does not coincide with “law” in a twentieth-century state with representative government. His Greek word was νομος [nomos], an inadequate translation of the Hebrew “Torah,” which included much more than “law” as we use the term. [When “תורה ThORaH” appears in the text I translate it as “Instruction” – its literal definition - capitalized.] Torah was teaching on any subject concerning the will of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Since the Jews did not divide life into two compartments labeled “religious” and “secular,” their law covered both their spiritual and their civil life. Nor did Paul and his fellow Jews think in terms of “nature” and the “natural law.” They believed that everything that happened was God’s doing, directly or by his permission. The messiah was expected to restore the ancient theocracy with its power over both civil and religious affairs.  
The Gentiles too were accustomed to state regulation of religion and priestly control of civil affairs. The Greek city-states had always managed the relations of their citizens with the gods, and Alexander the Great prepared the way for religious imperialism. When he invaded Asia, he consolidated his power by the ancient Oriental idea that the ruler was a god or a son of God. His successors, in their endless wars over the fragments of his empire, adopted the same device. Posing as “savior-gods,” they liberated their victims by enslaving them. The Romans did likewise, believing that the safety of their empire depended upon correct legal relations with the gods who had founded it. … Each city had its temple dedicated to the emperor, and its patriotic priests to see that everyone burned incense before his statue. Having done this, the worshiper was free under Roman ‘tolerance’ to adopt any other legal religion. … Whether salvation was offered in the name of the ancient gods of the Orient, or of Greece, or of the emperor of Rome, or of Yahweh the theocratic king of the Jews, the favor of the deity was thought to depend upon obedience to his law.  
One did not therefore have to be a Jew to be a legalist in religion. … Since Paul’s first converts were drawn from Gentiles who had been attending the synagogues, it is easy to see how Gentile Christians could be a zealous to add Moses to Christ as the most conservative Jew.  
This is what gave the Judaizers their hold in Galatia. The rivalry between the synagogue, which was engaged in winning men to worship the God of Moses, and the church, which was preaching the God who had revealed himself in Christ Jesus, was bound to raise the issue of legalism and stir up doubts about the sufficiency of Christ.  
Gentile and Jewish Christians alike would regard Paul’s preaching of salvation apart from the merit acquired by obedience to law as a violently revolutionary doctrine. Fidelity to his declaration of religious independence from all mediating rulers and priesthoods required a spiritual maturity of which most who heard his preaching were not yet capable. … Paul’s gospel has always been in danger of being stifled by those who would treat the teachings of Jesus as laws to be enforced by a hierarchy. (Stamm, TIB 1953, X pp. 434-435)  
V. Environment of Paul’s Churches in Galatia  
The conclusion concerning the destination of the epistle does not involve the essentials of its religious message, but it does affect our understanding of certain passages, such as 3:1 and 41:12, 20.  
From the earliest times that part of the world had been swept by the cross tides of migration and struggle for empire. The third millennium found the Hittites in possession. In the second millennium the Greeks and Phrygians came spilling over from Europe, and in the first millennium the remaining power of the Hittites was swept away by Babylon and Persia. Then came the turn of the Asiatic tide into Europe, only to be swept back again by Alexander the Great. But the Greek cities with which he and his successors dotted the map of Asia were like anthills destined to be leveled by Oriental reaction.  
About 278 B.C. new turmoil came with the Gauls, who were shunted from Greece and crossed into Asia to overrun Phrygia. Gradually the Greek kings succeeded in pushing them up into the central highlands, where they established themselves in the region of Ancyra. Thus located, they constituted a perpetually disturbing element, raiding the Greek cities and furnishing soldiers now to one, and now to another of the rival kings. Then in 121 B.C. came the Romans to 'set free' Galatia by making it a part of their own Empire. By 40 B.C. there were three kingdoms, with capitals at Ancyra, Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium. Four years later Lycaonia and Galatia were given to Amyntas the king of Pisidia. He added Pamphylia and part of Cilicia to his kingdom. But he was killed in 25 B.C., and the Romans made his dominion into the province of Galatia, which was thus much larger than the territory inhabited by the Gauls. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 437-438)  
War and slavery, poverty, disease, and famine made life hard and uncertain. In religion and philosophy men were confused by this meeting of East and West. But man’s extremity was Paul’s opportunity. The soil of the centuries had been plowed and harrowed for his new, revolutionary gospel of grace and freedom.  
Not all, however, were ready for this freedom. The old religions with prestige and authority seemed safer. Most Jews preferred Moses, and among the Gentiles the hold of the Great Mother Cybele of Phrygia was not easily shaken. Paul’s converts, bringing their former ideas and customs with them, were all too ready to reshape his gospel into a combination of Christ with their ancient laws and rituals. The old religions were especially tenacious in the small villages, whose inhabitants spoke the native languages and were inaccessible to the Greek-speaking Paul. To this gravitational attraction of the indigenous cults was added the more sophisticated syncretism of the city dwellers, pulling Paul’s churches away from his gospel when the moral demands of his faith and the responsibilities of his freedom became irksome. This was the root of the trouble in Galatia. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 438)  
VI. Date and Place of Writing  
Some consider it the earliest of Paul’s extant letters and place it in 49 … In support of this date it is said that Paul, who had come from Perga by boat, was met by messengers from Galatia, who had taken the shorter route by land. They reported the disturbance which had arisen in his churches soon after his departure. He could not go back immediately to straighten things out in person, because he saw that he would have to settle the matter first in Jerusalem, whence the troublemakers had come. So he wrote a letter.  
But … [w]e do not know that the trouble in Galatia was stirred up by emissaries from the church in Jerusalem … Moreover, this solution overlooks the crux of the issue between Paul and the legalists. His contention was that neither circumcision nor the observance of any other law was the basis of salvation, but only faith in God’s grace through Christ. … On the matter of kosher customs, as on every other question, he directed men to the mind and Spirit of Christ, and not to law, either Mosaic or apostolic. That mind was a Spirit of edification which abstained voluntarily from all that defiled or offended.  
We may say that the situation [in Galatia] was different – that in Macedonia it was persecution from outside by Jews who were trying to prevent Paul’s preaching, whereas in Galatia it was trouble inside the church created by legalistic Christians who were proposing to change his teaching; that in one case the issue was justification by faith, and in the other faithfulness while waiting for the day of the Lord.  
The letter to the Romans, written during the three months in Greece mentioned in Acts 20:2-3, is our earliest commentary on Galatians. In it the relation between the law and the gospel is set forth in the perspective of Paul’s further experience. The brevity and storminess of Galatians gives way to a more complete and calmly reasoned presentation of his gospel. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 438 - 439)  
At Corinth, as in Galatia, Paul had to defend his right to be an apostle against opponents heartless enough to turn against him the cruel belief that physical illness was a sign of God’s disfavor … and they charged him with being a crafty man-pleaser … He exhorts his converts to put away childish things and grow up in faith, hope and love…  
Most childish of all were the factions incipient in Galatia, and actual in Corinth … He abandoned the kosher customs and all other artificial distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and laid the emphasis where it belonged – upon the necessity for God’s people to establish and maintain a higher morality and spiritual life… He substituted a catholic spirit for partisan loyalties ... (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 440-441)  
VII. Authorship and Attestation  
If Paul wrote anything that goes under his name, it was Galatians, Romans, and the letters to Corinth. … F.C. Baur and his followers tried to show that the letters ascribed to Paul were the product of a second-century conflict between a Judaist party and the liberals in the church, and that they were written by Paulinists who used his name and authority to promote their own ideas.  
[But] the earliest mention of the epistle by name occurs in the canon of the Gnostic heretic Marcion (ca. [approximately] 144). He put it first in his list of ten letters of Paul. A generation later the orthodox Muratorian canon (ca. 185) listed it as the sixth of Paul’s letters. … While the first explicit reference to Galatians as a letter of Paul is as late as the middle of the second century … the authors of Ephesians and the Gospel of John knew it; and Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians quoted it. Revelation, I Peter, Hebrew, I Clement, and Ignatius show acquaintance with it; and there is evidence that the writer of the Epistle of James knew Galatians, as did the authors of II Peter and the Pastoral epistle, and Justin Martyr and Athenagoras. (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 441-442)  
VIII. Text and Transmission  
Although the epistle was composed neither carelessly nor hastily, the anxiety and emotional stress under which Paul dictated his cascading thoughts have produced some involved and obscure sentences … and a number of abrupt transitions… These have been a standing invitation to scribal clarification. … Paul’s debate with his critics takes the form of a diatribe, which is characterized by quotations from past or anticipated objectors and rapid-fire answers to them. Paul did not use quotation marks, and this accounts for the difficulty in 2:14-15 of deciding where his speech to Peter ends. The numerous allusions to person and places, events and teachings, with which Paul assumed his readers to be acquainted, are another source of difficulty. All theses factors operated to produce the numerous variations in the text of Galatians." (Stamm, 1953, TIB p. 442)  
From Adam Clarke’s Commentaryⁱ :  
"The authenticity of this epistle is ably vindicated by Dr. Paley: the principal part of his arguments I shall here introduce …  
'Section I.  
As Judea was the scene of the Christian history; as the author and preachers of Christianity were Jews; as the religion itself acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewish religion, in contra distinction to every other religion, then professed among mankind: it was not to be wondered at, that some its teachers should carry it out in the world rather as a sect and modification of Judaism, than as a separate original revelation; or that they should invite their proselytes to those observances in which they lived themselves. ... I … think that those pretensions of Judaism were much more likely to be insisted upon, whilst the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and dispersion; while Jerusalem and the temple stood, than after the destruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the fatal cessation of the sacrifice and the priesthood, the humiliating loss of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and symbols of their institution. It should seem, therefore, from the nature of the subject and the situation of the parties, that this controversy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Christianity to the Gentiles, and the invasion of Titus: and that our present epistle ... must be referred to the same period.  
… the epistle supposes that certain designing adherents of the Jewish law had crept into the churches of Galatia; and had been endeavouring, and but too successfully, to persuade the Galatic converts, that they had been taught the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only an inferior and disputed commission, the seat of truth and authority being in the apostles and elders of Jerusalem; moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself, at other times and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. The epistle is unintelligible without supposing all this. (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 361)  
Section VII.  
This epistle goes farther than any of St. Paul’s epistles; for it avows in direct terms the supersession of the Jewish law, as an instrument of salvation, even to the Jews themselves. Not only were the Gentiles exempt from its authority, but even the Jews were no longer either to place any dependency upon it, or consider themselves as subject to it on a religious account. "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto faith which should afterward be revealed: wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but, after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Chap. [chapter] iii. 23-25) This was undoubtedly spoken of Jews, and to Jews. … What then should be the conduct of a Jew (for such St. Paul was) who preached this doctrine? To be consistent with himself, either he would no longer comply, in his own person, with the directions of the law; or, if he did comply, it would be some other reason than any confidence which he placed in its efficacy, as a religious institution. (Clarke, 1831, vol. II pp. 366-367)  
Preface  
The religion of the ancient Galatae was extremely corrupt and superstitious: and they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods, under the name of Agdistis; and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war.  
They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked; and used for arms only a sword and buckler. The impetuosity of their attack is stated to have been irresistible…’” (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 369)  
From The New Jerome Biblical Commentaryⁱⁱ  
"Introduction  
The Galatai, originally an Indo-Aryan tribe of Asia, were related to the Celts or Gauls (“who in their own language are called Keltae, but in ours Galli”) ... About 279 BC some of them invaded the lower Danube area and Macedonia, descending even into the Gk [Greek] peninsula. After they were stopped by the Aetolians in 278, a remnant fled across the Hellespont into Asia Minor …  
Occasion and Purpose  
… He … stoutly maintained that the gospel he had preached, without the observance of the Mosaic practices, was the only correct view of Christianity … Gal [Galatians] thus became the first expose` of Paul’s teaching about justification by grace through faith apart from deeds prescribed by the law; it is Paul’s manifesto about Christian freedom.  
... Who were the agitators in Galatia? … they are best identified as Jewish Christians of Palestine, of an even stricter Jewish background than Peter, Paul, or James, or even of the ‘false brethren' (2:4) of Jerusalem, whom Paul had encountered there. (The account in Acts 15:5 would identify the latter as ‘believers who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.’) … The agitators in Galatia were Judaizers, who insisted not on the observance of the whole Mosaic law, but at least on circumcision and the observance of some other Jewish practices. Paul for this reason warned the Gentile Christians of Galatia that their fascination with ‘circumcision’ would oblige them to keep ‘the whole law’ (5:3). The agitators may have been syncretists of some sort: Christians of Jewish perhaps Essene, background, affected by some Anatolian influences. … (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC pp. 780-781)   END NOTES
ⁱ The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The text carefully printed from the most correct copies of the present Authorized Version. Including the marginal readings and parallel texts. With a Commentary and Critical Notes. Designed as a help to a better understanding of the sacred writings. By Adam Clarke, LL.D. F.S.A. M.R.I.A. With a complete alphabetical index. Royal Octavo Stereotype Edition. Vol. II. [Vol. VI together with the O.T.] New York, Published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the conference office, 13 Crosby-Street. J. Collord, Printer. 1831.  
ⁱⁱ The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Union Theological Seminary, New York; NY, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (emeritus) Catholic University of America, Washington, DC; Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm. (emeritus) The Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, NC, with a foreword by His Eminence Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J.; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990  
  Chapter One  
…  

Tiding of [בשורת, BeSOoRahTh, Gospel] one
[verses 6-10]  

…  

…………………………………………  
How [כיצד, KaYTsahD] was [היה, HahYaH] Shah`OoL [“Lender”, Saul, Paul] to become a Sent Forth [Apostle]
[verses 11 to end of chapter]  

…  
Chapter Two  

Sending forth of Shah’OoL required upon hands of the Sent Forth
[verses 1-10]  

…  

…………………………………………  
The YeHOo-DeeYM [“YHVH-ites”, Judeans] and the nations, righteous from inside belief
[verses 11 to end of chapter]  

...
-16. And since [וכיון, VeKhayVahN] that know, we, that [כי, KeeY] the ’ahDahM [“man”, Adam] is not made righteous in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction [Torah, law],
rather in belief of the Anointed [המשיח, HahMahSheeY-ahH, the Messiah, the Christ] YayShOo`ah [“Savior”, Jesus],
believe, also we, in Anointed YayShOo`ah,
to sake we are made righteous from inside belief in Anointed,
and not in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction,
that yes, in realizing commandments [of] the Instruction is not made righteous any [כל, KahL] flesh.  

“As a Pharisee, Paul had been taught that works of law were deeds done in obedience to the Torah, contrasted with things done according to one’s own will. The object of this obedience was to render oneself acceptable to God – to ‘justify’ oneself. Having found this impossible, Paul reinforced the evidence from his own experience by Ps. [Psalm] 143:2, where the sinner prays God not to enter into judgment with him because in God’s sight no man living is righteous. Into this passage from the LXX [The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] Paul inserted ‘by works of law,’ and wrote σαρξ [sarx], ‘flesh,’ instead of ζων [zon], ‘one living.’ This quotation warns us against setting Paul’s salvation by grace over against Judaism in such a way as to obscure the fact that the Jews depended also upon God’s lovingkindness and tender mercies (I Kings 8:46; Job 10:14-15; 14:3-4; Prov. [Proverbs] 20:9; Eccl. [Ecclesiasticus] 7:20; Mal. [Malachi] 3:2; Dan. [Daniel] 9:18).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 483)  
“Justified is a metaphor from the law court. The Greek verb is δικαιοω [dikaioo], the noun δικαιοσουνη [dikaiosoune’], the adjective δικαιος [dikaios]. The common root is δικ [dik] as in δεικνυμι [deiknumi], ‘point out,’ ‘show.’ The words formed on this root point to a norm or standard to which persons and things must conform in order to be ‘right.’ The English ‘right’ expresses the same idea, being derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘richt,’ which means ‘straight,’ not crooked, ‘upright,’ not oblique. The verb δικαιοω means ‘I think it right.’ A man is δικαιος, ‘right’ when he conforms to the standard of acceptable character and conduct, and δικαιοσυνη, ‘righteousness,’ ‘justice,’ is the state or quality of this conformity. In the LXX these Greek words translate a group of Hebrew words formed on the root צדק [TsehDehQ], and in Latin the corresponding terms are justifico, justus, and justificatio. In all four languages the common idea is the norm by which persons and things are to be tested. Thus in Hebrew a wall is ‘righteous’ when it conforms to the plumb line, a man when he does God’s will.  
From earliest boyhood Paul had tried to be righteous. But there came a terrible day when he said ‘I will covet’ to the law’s ‘Thou shalt not,’ and in that defiance he had fallen out of right relation to God and into the ‘wrath,’ where he ‘died’ spiritually… Thenceforth all his efforts, however strenuous, to get ‘right’ with God were thwarted by the weakness of his sinful human nature, the ‘flesh’ (σαρξ) [sarx]. That experience of futility led him to say that a man is not justified by works ‘of law.’” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 483)  

[Actually Paul changed his point of view as a result of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, not as a result of intellectual contemplation. His many failures hitherto had not led him to this conclusion. The description of Paul in the preceding paragraph is a fiction.]  

“In the eyes of the psalmists and rabbis this was blasphemously revolutionary. Resting on God’s covenant with Abraham, they held it axiomatic that the ‘righteous’ man who had conscientiously done his part deserved to be vindicated before a wicked world; otherwise God could not be righteous. … In Judaism God was thought of as forgiving only repentant sinners who followed their repentance with right living …  
The theological expression for this conception of salvation is ‘justification by faith.’ Unfortunately this Latin word does not make plain Paul’s underlying religious experience, which was a change of status through faith from a wrong to a ‘right’ relationship with God… It conceals from the English reader the fact that the Greek word also means ‘righteousness.’ … (observe the ASV [American Standard Version] mg. [marginal note], ‘accounted righteous’).  
But ‘reckoned’ and ‘accounted’ expose Paul’s thought to misinterpretation by suggesting a legal fiction which God adopted to escape the contradiction between his acceptance of sinners and his own righteousness and justice.  
On the other hand, Paul’s term, in the passive, cannot be translated by ‘made righteous’ without misrepresenting him. In baptism he had ‘died with Christ’ to sin. By this definition the Christian is a person who does not sin! And yet Paul does not say that he is sinless, but that he must not sin. … This laid him open to a charge of self contradiction; sinless and yet not sinless, righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust at the same time. Some interpreters have labeled it ‘paradox,’ but such a superficial dismissal of the problem is religiously barren and worse than useless.  
The extreme difficulty of understanding Paul on this matter has led to a distinction between ‘justification’ and ‘sanctification,’ which obscures Paul’s urgency to be now, at this very moment, what God in accepting him says he is: a righteous man in Christ Jesus. Justification is reduced to a forensic declaration by which God acquits and accepts the guilty criminal, and sanctification is viewed as a leisurely process of becoming the kind of person posited by that declaration. This makes perfection seem far less urgent than Paul conceived it, and permits the spiritual inertia of human nature to continue its habit of separating religion from ethics. To prevent this misunderstanding it is necessary to keep in mind the root meaning of ‘righteousness’ in δικαιοω and its cognates.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 484-485)  

-19. I died according to [לגבי, LeGahBaY] the Instruction, because of [בגלל, BeeGLahL] the Instruction, in order [כדי, KeDaY] that I will live to God.  

“… The Pharisees taught that the Torah was the life element of the Jews; all who obeyed would live, those who did not would die (Deut. [Deuteronomy] 30:11-20).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 488-489)  

-20. With the Anointed I was crucified, and no more I live, rather the Anointed lives in me.
The life that I live now in flesh, I live them in the belief of Son [of] the Gods that loved me and delivered up [ומסר, OoMahÇahR] himself in my behalf [בעדי, Bah`ahDeeY].  

“The danger was that Paul’s Gentile converts might claim freedom in Christ but reject the cross-bearing that made it possible. Lacking the momentum of moral discipline under Moses, which prepared Paul to make right use of his freedom, they might imagine that his dying and rising with Christ was a magical way of immortalizing themselves by sacramental absorption of Christ’s divine substance in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The church has always been tempted to take Paul’s crucifixion with Christ in a symbolic sense only, or as an experience at baptism which is sacramentally automatic. It has also been tempted to reduce Paul’s ‘faith’ to bare belief and assent to his doctrine, and to equate his ‘righteousness’ with a fictitious imputation by a Judge made lenient by Christ’s death.  
Against these caricatures of ‘justification by faith,’ Paul’s whole life and all his letters are a standing protest. He never allows us to forget that to be crucified with Christ is to share the motives, the purposes, and the way of life that led Jesus to the Cross; to take up vicariously the burden of the sins of others, forgiving and loving instead of condemning them; to make oneself the slave of every man; to create unity and harmony by reconciling man to God and man to his fellow men; to pray without ceasing ‘Thy will be done’; to consign one’s life to God, walking by faith where one cannot see; and finally to leave this earth with the prayer ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’  
… When Christ the Spirit came to live in Paul … Paul was guided at each step, in each new circumstance, to answer for himself the question: What would Jesus have me do? And the answer was always this: Rely solely on God’s grace through Christ, count others better than yourself, and make yourself everybody’s slave after the manner of the Son of God who loved you and gave himself for you.  
… The phrase εν σαρκι [en sarki] … means, lit. [literally], in the flesh. Someday – Paul hoped it would be soon – this would be changed into a body like that of the risen Christ, which belonged to the realm of Spirit.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X pp. 490-493)  
“Christ lives in me: The perfection of Christian life is expressed here … it reshapes human beings anew, supplying them with a new principle of activity on the ontological¹ level of their very beings.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 785)  

-21. I do not nullify [מבטל, MeBahTayL] [את, ’ehTh (indicator of direct object; no English equivalent)] mercy [of] Gods;
is not if [it] is possible to become righteous upon hand of the Instruction, see, that the Anointed died to nothing [לשוא, LahShahVe’]?  

“It is not I, he says, who am nullifying the grace of God by abandoning the law which is his grace-gift to Israel, but those who insist on retaining that law in addition to the grace which he has now manifested in Christ.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB X p. 495)

  Footnotes   ¹ Ontological - relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being  
An Amateur's Journey Through the Bible

So, we already discussed what DC was doing to match the tenor of the early years of the War on Terror: A grim, smarter-than-it-thinks miniseries full of gratuitous rape that was meant to take the shine off the Silver Age by showing the darker side of its greatest heroes. Marvel, on the other hand, was trying to find a way to capture the zeitgeist of a post-9/11 era of existential threats, constant government surveillance, and the idea that if you weren’t with America, you were against it. A Captain America storyline saw Cap wrestle with the very concept of Guantanamo Bay; like any story arc that involves Cap doubting whether America lives up to its ideals, this made certain conservatives pissy, to the point that bad movie cataloguer Michael Medved wrote an entire article asking if Cap was a traitor. Avengers Disassembled briefly saw the Avengers face down their demons, as the Scarlet Witch goes crazy (again) and starts killing team members, her reality manipulations causing fault lines to form among Marvel’s greatest superteam. But there hadn’t yet been a storyline that would tie the entire Marvel Universe together with the burning question, “Which side are you on?”
Yeah, it’s got nothing to do with the Sokovia Accords. We’d be a lot better off if it did.
Part 1: Mark Millar’s March to the C-Word
Content Warning: Sexual assault. None of this is germane to the topic of the drama, so feel free to skip ahead to Part 1.5 if you don’t want to deal with this. Tl;dr: Mark Millar, the writer of the event, has a near pathological need to be a 3edgy5u contrarian.
Every comics crossover is ultimately a chance for one creative in the stable to shine or falter. The editors pick a writer who has turned out dependable work and give them a chance to try to alter the status quo but good. And for Civil War, Marvel’s EiC Joe Quesada decided the best person to lead the charge was Ultimates writer Mark Millar.
But who is Millar? Well, we could say “edgelord” and leave it at that, but we’re trying to dig deeper. Millar came up in comics alongside fellow Scot Grant Morrison, long before Morrison said the only time they want to bump into Millar on the streets of Glasgow is while going at 100 miles per hour. This antipathy is alleged to have stemmed from Millar copping several ideas from Morrison that went into Superman: Red Son. But after getting a start on Superman Adventures and as a cowriter on parts of Morrison’s JLA run, Millar soon branched out to WildStorm, where he took over The Authority from departing creatowritesex pest Warren Ellis.
The reason I bring up Red Son (for those non-geeks, an alternative universe comic premised on “What if Superman’s rocket had landed in Soviet Russia?”) is to frame a constant refrain about Mark Millar. He has good high-concept ideas… which often get trammeled up in an almost Pavlovian urge to shock, disturb, and/or titillate the reader. For instance, in The Authority, Ellis had introduced Apollo and Midnighter, two close companions who just happened to share the rough power sets and demeanors of Superman and Batman, with a few tweaks. Then he revealed they were boyfriends, which was a pretty bold move for a late Nineties comic book full of widescreen action and lovingly-rendered eviscerations.
In Millar’s first arc on the title, centered on a villainous Jack Kirby clone sending out a team of baddies who totally aren’t the Avengers, Apollo is subdued and is strongly implied to have been raped by someone who’s not Captain America. Apollo gets revenge by destroying EvilCap’s spinal column with his laser vision, then leaving him to the tender mercies of Midnighter, who is strongly implied to have sodomized him with a jackhammer.
In case you can’t tell, Millar loved him some rape. And it kept showing up in his creator-owned titles as well, all of which were basically written as Hollywood pitch docs. Wanted asks the question, “What if the supervillains won and secretly ruled the world from behind the scenes?” Well, an Eminem clone would take the opportunity to step into his dead villainous dad’s shoes and commit a lot of rape (yeah, there’s a reason the movie version replaced this with basically the Euthanatos from Mage: the Ascension getting orders from a magic loom). Chosen asks the question, “What if Jesus were born today?” Well, in a blatantly obvious twist, it turns out he’s actually the Antichrist, and part of his journey into realizing his evil nature involves being raped by all the demons of Hell.
It’s not that Millar can’t write innocent or restrained; he got started on the Superman: the Animated Series comic spin-off, and some of his titles such as Huck and Starlight have been praised for being relatively wholesome (keep in mind Huck is basically “What if Superman was Forrest Gump?” when I say “relatively”). And, as mentioned above, his works are made for high-concept log lines. You might recognize some of his various pitch docs: Kick-Ass, The Secret Service (source for the Kingsman movies), and, as mentioned above, Wanted. It’s just there’s this unctuous contrarian streak to a lot of his titles, a tendency to focus on venality, grotesquerie, and sodomy, with an air of pop culture edge. This also leaked into his image outside of his writing, with comments like “Games are for pedos” and ventures like the creator-owned comics periodical CLiNT (yes, the kerning is intentional). This streak continues to this day, as The Magic Order, a title that emerged from his deal with Netflix, features a magical escapologist who, she feels it very important to tell the reader in a direct monologue, escaped her own abortion. Bottom line, Millar has a sense of vision, but it’s betrayed at times by this reflexive desire to prove he’s smarter than the reader, to rub your face in the contradictions and make you a party to the artifice of it all. Usually with a dash of rape.
But at Marvel, Millar was riding the lightning of the Ultimate Universe. His Ultimates title was drawing on the wide-screen action image of JLA and The Authority, creating the cinematic language that would come to define the MCU. The choice to fantasy cast Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is why we have Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. He also painted the Hulk as a cannibalistic monster, cemented Hank Pym’s reputation as a wifebeater, and gave us Captain America yelling “Surrender? Do you think this A on my head stands for France?”, so let’s just keep that in perspective.
But the Ultimate Universe was its own pocket universe. Millar was being tapped to write a story for Earth-616, the main Marvel Universe. And he had a vision:

“I opted instead for making the superhero dilemma something a little different. People thought they were dangerous, but they did not want a ban. What they wanted was superheroes paid by the federal government like cops and open to the same kind of scrutiny. It was the perfect solution and nobody, as far as I'm aware, has done this before.”

Yeah. About that.
Part 1.5: What Has Come Before
Ultimately, the crux of Civil War is something that has been explored lightly in the past at Marvel: The idea that, instead of being unlicensed vigilantes who decide the best solution of societal issues is to beat up assholes in spandex, superheroes become licensed government officers that register their true identities with Uncle Sam and solve societal issues by beating up assholes in spandex. In Marvel’s history, it hasn’t gone well. The reality of government liaisons to superhero bodies has ranged from Valerie Cooper, who worked with government mutant team X-Factor but still found herself backing the genocidal Sentinel program as a big “Yeah, but what if…?”, to Henry Peter Gyrich, an inflamed obstructionist asshole who had to be held back from flipping a switch that would depower every superhuman individual on Earth. The idea of heroes themselves bristling against a government they disagreed with had a long history, as there was a period where Steve Rogers quit being Captain America, and the government had to find a replacement while he rode around on a motorcycle in a surprisingly slutty costume. But the idea of registering with the government has usually ended up on the “No” side due to one big cohort at Marvel: Mutants.
Ever since the days of Chris Claremont, a general conceit of the Marvel Universe is that mutants are a stand-in for your minority group of choice. Hated and feared, born different and feeling alienated, painted as an existential menace and threat to the status quo. Of course, it’s long been pointed out that the metaphor breaks down on the general grounds that, say, gays can’t shoot laser beams out of their eyes. I have my thoughts on that which I might share in the comments if someone pokes me hard enough, but it’s been general editorial consensus that people with powers, especially those of persecuted minorities, being compelled to share their true names, addresses, and natures with the federal government is a “That train’s never late!” move. Not only that, it’s a slippery slope. The classic X-Men story “Days of Future Past” is entirely premised on the idea that a government program of genocidal robots built to wipe out mutants will eventually run out of mutants… and then start turning on humans who could give birth to mutants, and then it’s Skynet all over again.
Another running meme in the Marvel Universe is that the X-Men usually exist in a Schrodinger’s cat situation with the rest of the superhero universe, both coexisting and in their own worlds. Yes, mutants have served on the Avengers, and yes, Thor intervened when the Morlocks were nearly wiped out in the sewers under New York. But Captain America, for all his proud statements of living up to America’s ideals, has a habit of missing the plot whenever the US government (or Canada, seat of all the Marvel Universe’s governmental evils - no, really) decides it’s Genocide O’Clock. And when the mutant nation of Genosha was completely wiped out by said murder robots, the Avengers seemed to be all “New phone who dis?” But when the two do intersect, there’s usually support for the mutants. One story in Fantastic Four had Reed Richards - Mr. Fantastic, stretchy man, greatest genius in the Marvel Universe, guy who’s probably being cucked by a fish-man - get tapped by the US government to make a device that detects mutants and other people with powers. He does… and then uses it to show why the government probably doesn’t want it, as it pings several members of Congress as having just enough genetic variation to qualify as “mutants,” even if they don’t have powers.
All in all, while the argument has some merit, for years, Marvel has come down on the position that asking people with powers to reveal their identities to the federal government is something that could go really bad if somebody with a hate-on for superheroes ends up in power. Something that would never happen oh yeah it totally did. But before it all went to Hell, Civil War at least gave an opportunity to reexamine the concept and see if it had merit.
It might have. But not with this argument.
Part 1.75: What Else Has Happened Before?
And now, some things that will ultimately give context for what happens next:

• In the pages of Thor, all of Asgard eventually runs headlong into Ragnarok. Thor and the rest of the Asgardians give their lives to save the earth, taking Thor off the board… for now.
• As mentioned above, the Avengers experience a critical fault due to Wanda going batshit (a common lament). With Avengers Mansion destroyed and the team at odds, it is eventually reunited under Tony Stark, who put the Avengers up in a tower he built.
• Nick Fury has vanished due to doing some skullduggery in the pages of the miniseries Secret War (no, not Secret Wars, this is different). Acting head of SHIELD, the all-purpose super spy squad of Marvel, is Maria Hill, who can’t seem to draw her pistol without shooting herself in the foot.
• Due to Wanda continuing to go batshit, the House of M crossover event ends with her casting a spell: “No more mutants.” While the damage is staunched, Earth-616’s population of mutants (which was recently established to be somewhere around 16 million) is reduced to 200, the rest being depowered or dying as a result of being depowered. This was because, as Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada said, the idea of mutants being everywhere made them “boring.” The fact that mutants were starting to be written less as a minority stand-in and more as an actual minority group with fashion, culture, music, and neighborhoods might have had something to do with that. From the wake of this event emerges Sally Floyd, a journalist whose own mutant daughter died before the mass depowering due to having a power that was more curse than blessing. The series Generation M follows her as the viewpoint character as she investigates the stories of former mutants.

Part 2: Connecticut Can’t Catch a Break
The big kick-off for Civil War involves the New Warriors, a team of teen heroes who have, as of a recently canceled series, been trying to make it big as reality TV stars. They get in a fight with a bunch of villains in the small town of Stamford, CT, when exploding villain Nitro goes positively nuclear, resulting in a blast much bigger than any he’s generated. [1] Not only does this mostly wipe out the New Warriors (save for kinetic energy-absorbing goofball Speedball), but it also happens to hit a nearby school. In the end, 612 people are dead, many of them children, and the nation wants answers.
With public opinion turning against the New Warriors, former member Hindsight starts leaking secret identities to get the heat off his back. This only makes things worse. Secret identities have only recently stopped being a thing for some heroes: Captain America only came out a few years ago, it was only recently that Tony Stark stopped pretending Iron Man was his bodyguard, and Daredevil was almost outed in the pages of his book. But something needs to be done, so Tony helps work with Congress to pass the Super Human Registration Act, which requires that all people with powers or working as vigilantes register their identities with the government to receive training and oversight. If you don’t? Believe it or not, jail, right away.
Fault lines quickly develop in the superhero community. While Tony is leading the “pro” side, alongside Reed Richards (yeah, we’ll get to that), Captain America, usually painted as the embodiment of the dream of America despite its compromised history and many sins, is against it. He’s lived through Richard Nixon being a secret fascist and shooting himself in the head after being fingered as mastermind of a vast criminal conspiracy (yes, that happened ); he knows how badly this could go in the wrong hands. Needless to say, Maria Hill and SHIELD hear his concerns, understand his problems with it, and are willing to iron out the kinks through reasoned debate.
Just kidding. Before the law has even been signed, Maria sics SHIELD’s elite Cape-Killers squad on Cap with the intent of getting him behind bars. Cap swiftly goes underground and starts his own group of anti-registration superheroes.
The fight continues for the next few issues. Spider-Man, caught in the middle, reveals himself to be Peter Parker at a press conference, declaring his support for the SHRA. Doctor Strange is so powerful that he tells the government to fuck off, and somehow, Maria Hill doesn’t decide to go charging up his asshole. Ben Grimm, the ever-loving blue-eyed Thing, is so sick of all the conflict he goes to France. But things are still at a stalemate, and while SHIELD may be acting like a bunch of merry assholes, it seems like there’s a debate to be had that could still be resolved reasonably… except for one key factor.
Part 3: I Fought the Law, and the Law… Huh?
No one ever really defined what the Super Human Registration Act, the legislation that tore the Marvel Universe’s superhero community asunder, did. Every book that had an issue that touched on the event seemed to have a different understanding of its principles, as well as just how fascist it might be in the long run. In the pages of She-Hulk, attorney Jennifer Walters/She-Hulk argues the law is a net good, as it gives heroes the backing and resources they need to not have to go it alone, while also having some measure of government oversight. In the pages of Civil War Frontline (oh, and we’ll get back to Civil War Frontline, don’t you worry), Wonder Man is told by the government that he needs to do a job for them, and if he refuses, well, one thousand years dungeon.
Which then leads into the other issue behind the SHRA. Namely, that everyone in favor was either starting to swing towards fascism or embracing bootlicking as a lifestyle, not a kink. In the pages of Amazing Spider-Man, Peter asks Reed Richards, who has always bucked authority and once stopped the US government from doing something just like this with mutants, why he’s pro-registration. Reed then reveals that an uncle who has never been mentioned before was called before HUAC; he refused to name names, his career was ruined, and he killed himself. From this, Reed - the man who stole a rocketship because the government said “no” to his planned space voyage - has learned that the government is always right, especially when they could step on your neck (this was received so badly that a later comic revealed he’d actually borrowed the concept of psychohistory from Asimov’s Foundation, he’d made it work somehow, and his calculations showed that this was the only way to avoid a greater disaster). This comic also revealed that people who were in violation of the SHRA were sent to a literal extradimensional Gitmo, a prison in the Negative Zone that later comics would reveal was overseen by… Captain Marvel. No, not that one. No, not that one. The Kree superhero Captain Mar-Vell, who had famously died of cancer decades before. How did he come back from the dead? Fuck if we know.
This “the law says what you want it to say” approach spread across various books and miniseries meant to cross over into the event. In the pages of a crossover mini between the Runaways and the Young Avengers, this meant SHIELD Cape-Killer squads were using lethal force against teenagers. The second-to-last issue of the mini ends with several members of both teams in extradimensional Gitmo, about to be dissected by a guy who’s horny for torture. The fact that all the captive heroes were the queer members of both teams? Total coincidence. Honestly.
So, it quickly becomes clear that the editorial control on this event is less than cohesive. There are different ideas all over as to what the SHRA does, and some of those ideas are tacking pretty fashy. But if the law is being painted as that bad, then clearly, there must be some greater statement of freedom vs. security. Maybe Millar’s really painting a subversive picture of what happens when you trade liberty for control, right?
Part 4: Why Do You Hate the Good Thing?
After the publication of Civil War #3, Millar would say in an interview he was actually pro-registration. I can’t find that interview, but here’s a similar sentiment shared years later:

“Weirdly, some of the other writers would often make Tony the bad guy, which I thought was a strange choice because I was actually on Tony’s side... In the real world, if somebody had superpowers, I’d like them to be registered in the same way that somebody who has a gun has to carry a license. But a gun can kill several people while a superhero can kill several thousands of people, so on a pragmatic level I’m 100% on Tony’s side. Maybe on a romantic level, Cap’s position makes sense but I don’t think anybody in the real world would really want that."”

And again, here’s the thing: He’s not entirely wrong. As said above, the idea of civil liberties for all and “free to me you and me” falls down a little when one of your neighbors can blow up a city block by thinking real hard. But Millar is fighting against years of ideological inertia in the Marvel Universe, as well as painting Captain America, the guy who has always embodied the ideal of a righteous, just America, as in the wrong. He needs to make one hell of an argument.
So here’s what happens in the pages of Civil War #3 to sell the audience on the SHRA:

• Thor comes back from the dead… and he’s on Tony’s side! Well, not really. Tony and Reed both realized that having one of the most beloved gods of the Marvel Universe come out on their side would be a big win… if only he wasn’t dead. So, they cloned him. Or rather, they T-800’d him, putting cloned divine flesh on a robot skeleton. But I’m sure he’s perfectly under control, and - oh, he just killed Goliath. In the next issue, one of Marvel’s black male heroes, frozen at the size of a small townhouse in death, will be buried in a gigantic ditch, wrapped in a tarp and chains. You’d think Hank Pym could grow a large enough coffin, at least.
• With Cap and the anti-registration side escaping once again, Tony decides he needs a dedicated team that can track down fugitive superhumans. To do so, he creates a new version of the Thunderbolts, a concept long associated with “villains acting like heroes.” And who does he put on this team? Venom, the Spider-Man villain who eats people’s brains; Bullseye, the Daredevil villain who will kill anyone for the lulz; and Norman Osborn, a.k.a. The Green Goblin, who famously murdered Spider-Man’s girlfriend Gwen Stacy.

Again. Tony’s in the right. The SHRA is good.
Part 5: Yadda, Yadda, Yadda
The next few issues of Civil War might best be described as “They fight, and fight, and fight and fight and fight.” The anti-registration side picks up The Punisher, Marvel’s most avowed murderer of criminals - and Cap is somewhat shocked but not entirely surprised when two minor villains join the anti-registration side and Frank promptly kills them on sight. Spider-Man starts realizing things are weird on the pro-reg side and defects, after he has set his entire life on fire. The X-Men have continued to stay out of this whole mess. In the lead-up, Emma Frost called Tony out on the Avengers’ complete absence when Genosha got nuked. Later, Carol Danvers (then Ms. Marvel, now Captain Marvel) will show up at the Xavier School to pitch the SHRA just after a massive terrorist attack kills dozens of students. Emma responds by telepathically dogwalking her.
By the final issue of the miniseries, the SHRA has expanded out into the Fifty States Initiative, wherein each state gets its own superteam. There’s a big final battle, Hercules kills Robo-Thor, and Cap nearly takes out Tony, only to be stopped by… the heroes of 9/11. No shit, Captain America is subdued by cops, firefighters, and paramedics. And when that happens, Cap finally takes a look around, realizes their big ideological street brawl has resulted in collateral damage, and surrenders. The SHRA wins, though Tony feels a little bad about it. Cap is ready to stand trial and to argue that, while he may have done something wrong, he did it for the right reasons.
Once again: Yeah. About that.
Part 6: MySpace Tom Didn’t Die For This
Running alongside Civil War is Civil War Frontline, a street-level book written by Paul Jenkins that managed to capture this world-breaking conflict through the eyes of people on the street. Though it has side stories, its main leads are Ben Urich, Peter Parker’s journalist buddy at The Daily Bugle, and the aforementioned Sally Floyd. Throughout the series, they start to realize there’s a story underneath the SHRA, as if somebody is playing the angles.
Before we talk about that conclusion, let’s talk about a side story. Remember how we said part of the comics community saw Identity Crisis as a driven effort to make things less “wacky” and intentionally darken the DCU? Well, that same tonal approach led to one of the more laughable moments of a pretty laughable arc. See, despite the fact that, as established, it was Nitro who blew up Stamford, it’s Speedball, the only survivor of the New Warriors, that views himself as responsible and is held up as a scapegoat by the general public. In addition, the blast screwed up his powers. Now, he doesn’t absorb and reflect kinetic energy; rather, he generates energy based on pain. So, he builds himself a new, extreme outfit lined with 612 spikes, one for each person who died in Stamford. This will drive his crusade to make things right - not as Speedball… but as Penance.
It was so laughably DeviantArt “OC do not steal” that no one could take it seriously. Look what you did, you took a perfectly good goofball and gave him an emo streak. The turn is swiftly mocked in other Marvel books, and it’s eventually revealed that Speedball still had his original powerset and always intended to put Nitro in the Goofy Suit of Dark Inner Torment as punishment for his crimes. But this turn gives you a sense of the tone and heft Jenkins was bringing to the proceedings.
Anyway, back to the main plot. Ben and Sally follow the thread as Namor, as he is wont to do, declares war on the surface world after an Atlantean diplomat is shot. But it turns out the assassination was arranged by Norman Osborn, who decided it was better to beg forgiveness than ask permission and manipulated Atlantis into war so that Tony could have another piece of evidence for getting superhumans on a leash. And the two journalists deduce that, on some level, Tony had to know this would be an inevitable outcome of giving state backing to an unhinged mogul who dresses like a Power Rangers villain. Weighing what to do with this information, Ben and Sally, who are kind of sick of the collateral damage by this point, sit on it while they go in for an interview with Captain America, now in custody and willing to tell his side of the story.
And then. And then. The monologue. If you want a lesson in how to assassinate a character in 30 seconds or less, this monologue is a great example. Sally Floyd calls Captain America out as completely divorced from American values. Now, again, Captain America has long served as the beating liberal heart of the Marvel Universe. He has always represented an America that reckons with its legacy of things like internment camps, Manifest Destiny, and Jim Crow, in order to transcend these scars and embody the promise offered by Emma Lazarus’s New Colossus, carved on the side of the Statue of Liberty. Why is he out of touch with Americans at the dawn of the 21st century?
Well, he’s never heard of MySpace. [2] He doesn’t watch NASCAR. He doesn’t follow American Idol. There are pop culture moments that have aged like milk; this one had all the permanence of an ice cream cone in a blast furnace. But despite the inanity of Floyd’s argument - and trust me, there are fan edits dedicated to Cap pointing out how full of shit this argument is - it’s clear it represents something else. This is a post-9/11 world. Fuck civil liberties, we have a no-fly list and Gitmo, and if the American people really cared, they’d do something other than watch Simon Cowell read aspiring singers to filth. What does Captain America stand for in this moment of crisis?
Nothing. Because he just looks away from Sally Floyd. No doubt thinking, “Oh my God this bitch.” But to underline the argument in question, Sally storms out of the interview, Ben in tow. She still has that information on Norman Osborn’s false flag operation… and while she and Ben confront Tony on everything that went down, they decide the story should never see the light of day. Because they wouldn’t dare jeopardize the SHRA, because security is more important than the truth.
Oh. And then Cap gets shot. And dies. He totally dies (except he doesn’t but we’ll get to that). If ever there was an unintentional thesis statement for this event, running in the late stages of the Bush era, it would be this: “It’s better to trust that the powers that be who oversee the new America will keep you safe, even when they stage false flag operations, stick you in a gulag, and put their trust in monsters. All that civil liberty stuff was the old America. And the old America was hopeless. It wasn’t even on MySpace.”
Epilogue: Consequences Keep Consequencing
As you can tell from that last paragraph, a lot of the fan reception to Civil War likely had a lot to do with the period. This was the Bush era, a time where you were for America or against it. We were in the shadow of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and widespread wiretaps, paranoid about what civil liberty we’d be asked to put on the pyre next in the name of Freedom. A story all about the warm, clenching fist of government control that tells you to ignore the collateral damage… well, it wasn’t great for the cultural moment.
The ideas of Civil War aren’t necessarily bad ones. I frame Cap as the liberal dream of what America could be, but there are good arguments to be made that America has never been that and Cap is just copium for liberals. His most recent title, Sentinel of Liberty, opens with Steve saying he is out of touch with the average American - not because he doesn’t watch NASCAR, but because he’s a WWII veteran who looks maybe 30 years old at most and whose best friends are all superheroes or spies. A narrative that has him on the wrong side of the issue and detonates his beliefs isn’t impossible, but it probably shouldn’t be one where people who got powers due to a fluke of birth or a radiation accident are told by the government, “Join with us or we’ll send supervillains after you.” Hell, as the Civil War movie proves, there is a way to tell a story about a superhero community torn in half by the idea of mandatory registration as government-controlled actors, and just why people would think that could be a bad idea (“Hey, remember when a good chunk of our intelligence apparatus turned out to be Nazi stay behinds?”).
But in the context of the era, and coupled with the execution, Civil War felt like a hard sell, and you could feel the thumb pressing on the scale every second while reading it. The moral center of the Marvel Universe is wrong, the winning side employs sadistic murderers and has an extradimensional Gitmo, and the writer is telling you that any sane individual would be on Team Green Goblin Employer.
So how did that all work out? Well…

• With Cap seemingly dead, shot by his brainwashed love interest Sharon Carter as part of a plot by the Red Skull, Bucky Barnes/the Winter Soldier becomes the new Cap. Only it turns out Steve wasn’t killed, but shot with a time bullet that Billy Pilgrims his ass. He eventually comes back.
• Thor comes back, finds out what Tony did, and beats his ass all the way across post-Katrina New Orleans.
• The Secret Invasion event happens next, which leads to Skrull infiltrators hitting everything (this is also the explanation for Captain Mar-Vell’s miraculous resurrection: He was a Skrull all along). With Tony caught with his pants down and Norman Osborn seeming to save the day, Norman - who has been losing his shit for some time - takes over the Initiative and forms his own fascist cabal, HAMMER. To try and stop Norman from learning everything on every hero ever, Tony goes on the run and actually starts deleting his own brain, which he then reassembles with a backup from before anyone even thought of the SHRA. The fact that getting rid of Tony’s “Oops I did a fascism” period came out alongside Iron Man hitting theaters is a coincidence, I’m sure.

As for Spider-Man? It might not shock you, but having a hero without the resources of Tony Stark out himself to the world carries liabilities. An assassin who tries to kill Peter instead hits Aunt May, and it appears she’ll die of her injuries. All this leads to One More Day… and if you thought the fans hated Civil War? Oh, BABY.
[1] This is eventually explored in the pages of Wolverine, of all books, as Wolverine decides maybe somebody should track down the person who actually killed hundreds of children. It’s revealed that Nitro was given power-boosting drugs by the CEO of Damage Control, Marvel’s designated “clean up after the super-battle” corporation, as a way of generating business. In a sign of how little this matters, Wolverine tells Maria Hill to her face that the person responsible for a mass casualty event is the pawn of a powerful conspiracy, and she basically says, “Not my problem.” Cobie Smulders must thank the gods that her Maria Hill is written as somebody with basic human decency.
[2] Hilariously, when Sally Floyd was brought back during Nick Spencer’s Captain America run because no one had piled enough dung on her corpse, this line was retconned to her asking him about Twitter. Given everything Elon’s been doing lately, we’ll see if that ages just as poorly.

Phone Scams: It happened to us!
A person claiming to be Officer Robert Daniels from Customs and Border Protection contacted a staff member in the IPO office and informed her that she was facing criminal charges in Texas (drug trafficking and identity theft) and that she needed to confirm personal information to verify her identity. The person provided the following information to verify his identity as a CBP officer:
​

• Badge #15109
• Telephone #783-503-0955
• Case#

IPO immediately called the UMass Police Department to report the scam. They traced the number to a pay as you go burner phone. Staff also Googled the phone number of the Tuscon, AZ CBP office and confirmed that the phone number was different than the one given by the scammer. When we called the field office, we spoke to an officer who confirmed that they receive phone calls every day about "Officer Robert Daniels" and that it is a scam.
What is was remarkable about this scam is that, when we Googled "CBP 15109", the search results brought us to the Customs and Border Patrol page for Officer Robert Daniels. When we asked about this, the (real) CBP officer confirmed that these scammers are increasingly using sophisticated methods to scam their victims. This scammer was also using high pressure tactics to try to get the staff member's Social Security Number.
Tips to protect yourself from scams (from the UMPD website):
When you get a call from a telemarketer, ask yourself:

• Who’s calling…and why? The law says telemarketers must tell you it’s a sales call, the name of the seller and what they’re selling before they make their pitch. If you don’t hear this information, say “no thanks,” and get off the phone.
• What’s the hurry? Fast talkers who use high pressure tactics could be hiding something. Take your time. Most legitimate businesses will give you time and written information about an offer before asking you to commit to a purchase.
• If it’s free, why are they asking me to pay? Question fees you need to pay to redeem a prize or gift. Free is free. If you have to pay, it's a purchase — not a prize or a gift.
• Why am I “confirming” my account information — or giving it out? Some callers have your billing information before they call you. They’re trying to get you to say “okay” so they can claim you approved a charge.
• What time is it? The law allows telemarketers to call only between 8 am and 9 pm. A seller calling earlier or later is ignoring the law.
• Do I want more calls like this one? If you don’t want a business to call you again, say so and register your phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. If they call back, they’re breaking the law.

Some Additional Guidelines

• Resist pressure to make a decision immediately.
• Keep your credit card, checking account, or Social Security numbers to yourself. Don't tell them to callers you don't know — even if they ask you to “confirm” this information. That's a trick.
• Don’t pay for something just because you’ll get a “free gift.”
• Get all information in writing before you agree to buy.
• Check out a charity before you give. Ask how much of your donation actually goes to the charity. Ask the caller to send you written informa­tion so you can make an informed decision without being pressured, rushed, or guilted into it.
• If the offer is an investment, check with your state securities regulator to see if the offer — and the offeror — are properly registered.
• Don’t send cash by messenger, overnight mail, or money transfer. If you use cash or a money transfer — rather than a credit card — you may lose your right to dispute fraudulent charges. The money will be gone.
• Don’t agree to any offer for which you have to pay a “registration” or “shipping” fee to get a prize or a gift.
• Research offers with your consumer protection agency or state Attorney General’s office before you agree to send money.
• Beware of offers to “help” you recover money you have already lost. Callers that say they are law enforcement officers who will help you get your money back “for a fee” are scammers.
• Report any caller who is rude or abusive, even if you already sent them money. They'll want more. Call 1-877-FTC-HELP or visit ftc.gov/complaint.

This scam was sophisticated and used high pressure intimidation tactics! If you suspect you are being scammed, hang up! If you fall victim to a scam, contact the UMPD immediately.
Stay safe, UMass!

Intro: Well, I mean it makes sense doesn't it? Yharim is stated multiple times in the lore to have an army, there are even weapons with description specifically state they where used by Yharims footsoldiers.
Begining: The event would kinds be like the Metal Gear Excelcus battle before senator Armstronng, or the Pillars Before the Moon Lord, so it would happen before the proper fight against the Jungle Tyrant himself.
It would occur after the Exo-Mechs and Supreme Calamitas have been defeated. However if the player has also killed Yharon then an extra 1 wave shall occur during the event due to Yharim seeking revenge for the death of his only friend.
Event effects: Because the player is fighting an organied army with tactics and discipline specific types of enemies shall spawn more regulary to combat there specific playstyle. For example Centurions and Dissedents shall spawn more and get bufed if the player is using melee.
Enemies:
-Slave. Humaniod creatures who have been subjergated by Yharim after their city was destroyed, they serve as the bulk of the fighting force. They behave similary to zombies but with slower speed and a massive increase in damage if buffed by a Thrallmaster.
-Thrallmaster. Cruel tyrants weilding flaming whips who attack from afar, dealing fire damage. They gain the ability to summon more Slaves if the player is attacking using Rouge or Ranged. They can also grab Slaves to increase their defense as human shields if the Player is using Magic based attacks.
-Legionary. Armed with a Heavy Lazer Rifle but able to blow themselves up as an act of devotion to their tyrant when in close range, these ferocious warriors will try to dodge the players attacks and will paracute out of an Air Phalanx if it is at low health. Will gain a speed boost if the player is using Melee.
-Jetpack Legionary. Only spawn if the player is making heavy usage of wings to fly above the enemies projectiles. Behaves the same only they dont suicide bomb.
-Centurion. The sergeants and corporals of the Tyrants army, lso armed with a Heavy Lazer Rifle but will switch to Gattling Lazer if Player is using Ranged. They can summon and buff Legionaries as well as create temporary magical shields. Killing them debuffs all sorrounding enemies.
-Privateer. Pirates who serve Yharim as mercinaries after their previous home the Flying Dutchman and their Captain turned traitor, they behave exactly like Centurions only they use the Flak Kraken instead of the the Gattling Lazer and they lack the ability to create magic shields but gain a large damage buff if the player has the Pirate Captain in their base. They have a chance to leave the battle if the player has killed 300 of their allies.
-Dissedents. "Cowards" who turned traitor againt Yharim by rejecting to fight against Brealor and Strasis, seeing them as worthier leaders instead of Yharim. Their punishement was to have their faces and arms cut off and have highly explosive magical bombs tied to their backs which would detonate as they threw themselves at the enemy in an attempt to beg for help. They shall scream before they rush towards the player, dealing colossal damge to them and nearby blocks.
-Land Phalanx. Early prototypes of the Exo Mechs, resembling Metal Gear Rays and behaving like the Santa Tank from vanilla, only they can use the Surge Diver when low on health. However they will instead launch honing missles if the player is using Summoner. Destroying them will cause them to blow up dealing massive to all sorrounding enemies.
-Air Phanlanx. A very weak but fast flying machine resembling a blimp, they will move very slowly and will spawn Terror Drones and drop bombs onto the ground. They can summon Jetpack legionaries if the player is using Summoner and will only spawn in the final wave. Will take extra damage to fire weapons.
-Terror Drone. Automata created to bomb the civilian industrie of Yharims enemies as well as for a failed assasination attempt on Brealor and Statis, they resemble Exo Spheres crossed with Asura. They will fly around the player shooting energy beams at them. They have the chance to turn briefly invisible in the final wave if the player is using any class not Rouge.
-Lihizard Alchemist. Clad in Wulfrum armour, these war criminals where employed by Yhraim touse their ancient knowledge to create the Plaguebearer. When that failed he decided they would be used as terror troops who would gas enemy orphanages and hospitals. They are mini bosses will throw bombs at the player which will inflict the Plague debuff as well as summoning 1 Fleshwrought to fight alongside them. If the player is wearing gear associated Silva they shall reiceve extra damage, for reasons seemingly unknown. Can summon Plague Chargers on Death.
-Fleshwrought. Prototype Ravagers, these monsters resemble Metal Gear Rexes without guns and with a biomechanical asthetic. They will attempt to ram the player. Although usually summoned by the Lihizard Alechemists they can spawn regualry with an additional block-destroying lazer beam attack if the player is staying very clse to the ground/ has nor recieved a lot of damage.
What do you think? Would you want to see this is the game? Would you ask the Calamity devs to add this? What would you improve?