I will be starting lions mane soon, and will be take panex ginseng with ginkgo bilba with it.
Any of y’all seen any success with mitigating hair loss side effects while on lions mane?

I will be starting lions mane soon, and will be take panex ginseng with ginkgo bilba with it.
Any of y’all seen any success with mitigating hair loss side effects while on lions mane?

"Atta boy, Kim. I knew you were different from your coworkers. They are always cramping my style. You have the potential to be a Superstar."

Description

Elysium (O-01-216) is a humanoid abnormality that wears a green suede blazer, golden brown, flare-cut trousers, white satin shirt, and a necktie with a garish pattern. He sports a greasy, unkempt mullet and mutton chops. His nose is red and bulbous, and has a dimple on his chin. There are four beams of light coming out of his head, each having a different color - red, blue, purple and yellow.

Overview

Subject Classification: O-01-216
Name: Elysium
E-Box Output: 18
Damage Type: Pale (2-5)
Risk Level: HE
Qliphoth Counter: X

Mood Range:	E-Boxes:
Good	13-18
Normal	7-12
Bad	0-6

​

• This Abnormality is Capable of Employee Alteration
• This Abnormality can Benefit the Facility

Ability

Elysium's ability triggers when an employee finishes a work with him. At the end of the work, no matter the work result, the employee will get a buff from Elysium. Depending on what work order was done, the employee will receive one of four unique buffs from that category, at random. The categories are:

• Instinct:

1. Half Light - Increases the employee's Fortitude by 1 Level but decreases their Prudence by 1 Level. If the employee's Fortitude was Level 5, before getting this buff, they'll get a unique benefit - the employee will take 25% less Red Damage. If the employee's Prudence was Level 1, before getting this buff, they'll get a debuff - the employee's SP will decrease by 25%.
2. Pain Threshold - Increases Fortitude by 1 Level but decreases Temperance by 1 Level. If Fortitude was already Level 5 - increases HP by 25%. If Temperance was already Level 1 - decreases Success Speed and Work Speed by 15%.
3. Shivers - Increases Fortitude by 1 Level but decreases Justice by 1 Level. If Fortitude was already Level 5 - employee heals 10-15 HP every 10 seconds. If Justice was already Leve 1 - decreases Attack Speed and Movement Speed by 15%.
4. Physical Instrument - Increases Fortitude by 1 Level. If Fortitude was already Level 5 - employee deals 25% extra Red Damage.

• Insight:

1. Rhetoric - Increases Prudence by 1 Level but decreases Fortitude by 1 Level. If Prudence was already Level 5 - increases SP by 25%. If Fortitude was already Level 1 - decreases HP by 25%.
2. Logic - Increases Prudence by 1 Level but decreases Temperance by 1 Level. If Prudence was already Level 5 - employee will take 25% less White Damage. If Temperance was already Level 1 - decreases Success Speed and Work Speed by 15%.
3. Conceptualization - Increases Prudence by 1 Level but decreases Justice by 1 Level. If Prudence was already Level 5 - employee heals 10-15 SP every 10 seconds. If Justice was already Leve 1 - decreases Attack Speed and Movement Speed by 15%.
4. Encyclopedia - Increases Prudence by 1 Level. If Prudence was already Level 5 - employee deals 25% extra White Damage.

• Attachment:

1. Volition - Increases Temperance by 1 Level but decreases Fortitude by 1 Level. If Temperance was already Level 5 - increases Work Speed by 25%. If Fortitude was already Level 1 - decreases HP by 25%.
2. Empathy - Increases Temperance by 1 Level but decreases Prudence by 1 Level. If Temperance was already Level 5 - increases Success Speed by 25%. If Prudence was already Level 1 - decreases SP by 25%.
3. Authority - Increases Temperance by 1 Level but decreases Justice by 1 Level. If Temperance was already Level 5 - employee will take 25% less Black Damage. If Justice was already Level 1 - decreases Attack Speed and Movement Speed by 15%.
4. Inland Empire - Increases Temperance by 1. If Temperance was already Level 5 - employee deals 25% extra Black Damage.

• Repression:

1. Savoir Faire - Increases Justice by 1 Level but decreases Fortitude by 1 Level. If Justice was already Level 5 - increases Movement Speed by 25%. If Fortitude was already Level 1 - decreases HP by 25%.
2. Reaction Speed - Increases Justice by 1 Level but decreases Prudence by 1 Level. If Justice was already Level 5 - increases Attack Speed by 25%. If Prudence was already Level 1 - decreases SP by 25%.
3. Composure - Increases Justice by 1 Level but decreases Temperance by 1 Level. If Justice was already Level 5 - employee will take 25% less Pale Damage. If Temperance was already Level 1 - decreases Success Speed and Work Speed by 15%.
4. Hand/Eye Coordination - Increases Justice by 1 Level. If Justice was already Level 5 - employee deals 25% extra Pale Damage.

An employee can have multiple buffs from different categories but can't have duplicates. When an employee has all 4 buffs from a category, that work becomes 'Unavailable' to them (If an employee has all 4 Instinct buffs, that employee can't do Instinct work on Elysium, etc.). The buffs last until the end of the day.

Origin

The true origin of Elysium is currently unknown.
Where Elysium was found and how he arrived at the facility is still unknown.

Details

Forever Wandering Tourist responds to the four works equally, with the success being 'Common.'.
Like all Abnormalities, its energy output is determined by the number of PE Boxes (Positive Enkephalin boxes) at the end of the interaction.
Forever Wandering Tourist's emotional state is divided into 3 sections: Bad, Normal, and Good. Completing 0-6 E Boxes will cause it to feel Distressed, completing 7-12 will cause it to feel Normal, and 13-18 will make it's mood result Happy. Its usual waiting time after a task is around 15 seconds.

Unlockable Information/Upgrades

Basic Information (Costs: 16 PE-boxes)
Unlocks and shows the name of the Abnormality, subject classification, Risk Level (HE), portrait, Damage Type (Pale 2-5), the amount of E-boxes (18) and their emotional state.
Instinct/Insight/Attachment/Repression Work Favor (Cost: 4 PE Boxes)
Unlocks the percentage level list to the respective work.
Managerial Tips 1/2/3/4/5/6 (Cost: 4 PE-boxes):

• "Managerial Tip 1"
  • "When an employee finishes an Instinct work, they become more courages but become dumber, less social or less righteous."
• "Managerial Tip 2"
  • "When an employee finishes an Insight work, they become smarter but become cowardly, less social or less righteous."
• "Managerial Tip 3"
  • "When an employee finishes an Attachment work, they become more social but become cowardly, dumber or less righteous."
• "Managerial Tip 4"
  • "When an employee finishes a Repression work, they become more righteous but become cowardly, dumber or less social."
• "Managerial Tip 5"
  • "When our most experienced employees received a buff, they got an extra benefit."
• "Managerial Tip 6"
  • "When our least experienced employees received a buff, they got an extra debuff."

Escape Information (Cost: 16 PE-boxes):
Information if the Abnormality can escape or not. "Non Escaped Object"

Work:	Level 1 Chance:	Level 2 Chance:	Level 3 Chance:	Level 4 Chance:	Level 5 Chance:
Instinct	Common	Common	Common	Common	Common
Insight	Common	Common	Common	Common	Common
Attachment	Common	Common	Common	Common	Common
Repression	Common	Common	Common	Common	Common

Observation Levels

Level 1 (1 Section unlocked): Speed Rate +4
Level 2 (2 Sections unlocked): Success Rate +4%
Level 3 (3 Sections unlocked): Speed Rate +4
Unlocks the E.G.O. Gift 'Disco'.
Level 4 (All details unlocked): Success Rate +4%
Unlocks the E.G.O. Weapon and Suit 'Disco'.

E.G.O. Equipment

E.G.O. Gift: Disco (Hand 1)
Description: A yellow plastic bag.
Effects: After every work, produces 1 extra Energy.
Drop Chance: 4%
E.G.O. Weapon: Disco
Description: A three-shot revolving barrel pepperbox revolver.
Details: "Wielded by the most awesome detective in the world.....and a crazy old lady, that's obsessed with cops."
Special Ability: Depending on which Elysium buffs the wielder has, the weapon will deal that type of damage.

• Instinct buff - the weapon will deal 8-10 Red Damage.
• Insight buff - the weapon will deal 6-9 White Damage.
• Attachment buff - the weapon will deal 6-8 Black Damage.
• Repression buff - the weapon will deal 2-3 Pale Damage.

If the wielder has multiple Elysium buffs from different categories, the weapon will also deal that type of damage (If the employee has an Instinct and Insight buff - the weapon will deal both Red and White Damage, etc.). If the wielder has multiple Elysium buffs from the same category, it'll increase the weapon's damage by 25% for each buff from the same category (Instinct buffs increase the Red Damage, Insight buffs increase the White Damage and etc.).
If the wielder doesn't have any of Elysium's buffs, the weapon won't deal any damage.
Requirements: Agent Level 3, Fortitude Level 3, Prudence Level 3, Temperance Level 3, Justice Level 3

Grade:	Cost:	Max Amount:	Damage:	Attack Speed:	Range:
ALEPH	237	1	???	Medium	Long

E.G.O. Suit: Disco
Description: A green suede blazer, golden brown, flare-cut trousers and white satin shirt.
Details: "Looks like someone skinned this blazer off some long extinct disco-animal."
Special Ability: For each Elysium buff that the wearer has, it'll increase the respective Damage Resistance by 0.4 (Instinct buffs increase Red Resistance, Insight buffs increase White Resistance and etc.).
Requirements: Agent Level 3, Fortitude Level 3, Prudence Level 3, Temperance Level 3, Justice Level 3

Grade:	Cost:	Max Amount:
ALEPH	150	1

Resistances:
Red: Vulnerable (2.0) - White: Vulnerable (2.0) - Black: Vulnerable (2.0) - Pale: Vulnerable (2.0)

Story

Employee Kim: So, you're saying that you are a "Detective God"?
O-01-216: The one and only.
Employee Kim: You're also a Superstar Cop, an Apocalypse Cop, a Sorry Cop, a Boring Cop, a Honour Cop, an Art Cop and a Hobocop.
O-01-216: Also a great singer and dancer.
Employee Kim: And humble, I see.
O-01-216: One one my best qualities. But enough about me, tell me more about yourself Kimball.
Employee Kim: What would you like to know?
O-01-216: Your backstory. How'd end up here?
Employee Kim: Nothing out of the ordinary. Lived in the backstreets with my parents, they got killed, I worked as a fixer for a while until I got an offer to work here.
O-01-216: Nice, Kimothy. Now that we are on friendly terms, could you do me a favour?
Employee Kim: It depends.
O-01-216: Could you get me some of that Enke-
Empoyee Kim: No.
O-01-216: Oh come on, Kimmo! At least get me some beer. I'm dying of thirst over here!
Employee Kim: Hmmm.....if you keep this between us, I could sneak a few cans in.
O-01-216: Atta boy, Kim. I knew you were different from your coworkers. They are always cramping my style. You have the potential to be a Superstar.
Employee Kim: If you say so.
O-01-216: Now, before you leave, let me tell you about "THE UNSOLVABLE CASE".

Flavour Text

• "Elysium's breath reeks of alcohol."
• "A few cans of beer could be seen scattered around."
• "Elysium is retelling one of his stories to ."
• "Elysium is wobbling around."
• "Elysium was deep in his thoughts, that he didn't notice enter his containment unit."

When an employee receives Half Light:

• "Let the body take control. Threaten people."

When an employee receives Pain Threshold:

• "Shrug off the pain. They’ll have to hurt you more."

When an employee receives Shivers:

• "Raise the hair on your neck. Tune in to the city."

When an employee receives Physical Instrument:

• "Flex powerful muscles. Enjoy healthy organs."

When an employee receives Rhetoric:

• "Practice the art of persuasion. Enjoy rigorous intellectual discourse."

When an employee receives Logic:

• "Wield raw intellectual power. Deduce the world."

When an employee receives Conceptualization:

• "Understand creativity. See Art in the world."

When an employee receives Encyclopedia:

• "Call upon all your knowledge. Produce fascinating trivia."

When an employee receives Volition:

• "Hold yourself together. Keep your Morale up."

When an employee receives Empathy:

• "Understand others. Work your mirror neurons."

When an employee receives Authority:

• "Intimidate the public. Assert yourself."

When an employee receives Inland Empire:

• "Hunches and gut feelings. Dreams in waking life."

When an employee receives Savoir Faire:

• "Sneak under their noses. Stun with immense panache."

When an employee receives Reaction Speed:

• "The quickest to react. An untouchable man."

When an employee receives Composure:

• "Straighten your back. Keep your poker face."

When an employee receives Hand/Eye Coordination:

• "Ready? Aim and fire."

Trivia

• Employees that are named Harry, Kim or Lena will get Physical Instrument, Encyclopedia, Inland Empire and Hand/Eye Coordination as their first Elysium buff from each category.
• Employees that are named Dora, Jean or Raul will only get the negative parts of Elysium's buffs, won't get Physical Instrument, Encyclopedia, Inland Empire and Hand/Eye Coordination, and won't get Elysium's E.G.O. Gift. After getting all of the "buffs" from each category, Elysium's works will be 'Unavailable' to them, even though they don't have Physical Instrument, Encyclopedia, Inland Empire and Hand/Eye Coordination.
• When an employee that has an Elysium Attachment buff works on Crumbling Armor, at the end of the work, Crumbling Armor will decapitate them.
• When an employee receives an Elysium buff, his containment unit will flash in a different color depending of the buff - red for Instinct, blue for Insight, purple for Attachment and yellow for Repression.
• The player can see which Elysium buff an employee has by opening their E.G.O. Gift menu.

Table of Contents

I will be starting lions mane soon, and will be take panex ginseng with ginkgo bilba with it.
Any of y’all seen any success with mitigating hair loss side effects while on lions mane?

I will be starting lions mane soon, and will be take panex ginseng with ginkgo bilba with it.
Any of y’all seen any success with mitigating hair loss side effects while on lions mane?

I will be starting lions mane soon, and will be take panex ginseng with ginkgo bilba with it.
Any of y’all seen any success with mitigating hair loss side effects while on lions mane?

Narcissus
As you float through town, The light catches and reflects upon your gown.
Your beautiful hair, to which they fornicate, Their desire for you, they could never satiate.
You are not among, but above. Your fairness was reflected in their love.
Whether through ignorance and bliss, Or through some hidden strength, you knew to resist.
But still, they would cling to you, On and on, they would sing for you.
It must be difficult to be made a God. It must be impossible to comprehend, when your every move is met by someone willing to applaud.
An icon of love and lust. The masses, to you, were always just.
Their affection allowed you to sink away from reality. You began to see your own perfection with totality.
What a shame that the only crack in your resplended armour, Was when you became your own truest amour.
Perhaps it was inevitable that you would catch your own eye, In a moment of innocence where you realized why.
All those hands always reached for you, Everything they said was true.
Don't look away, stay awhile. Stare at your own flawless smile.
You should have kept running from your own reflection. Heaven knows it would have helped you to avoid that point of inflection.
What folley, that for all the parts of you that you could view. The shallowness is the one thing that you mever knew.
Blame those who opened your eyes, Blame those who always listened to your pathological lies.
Who put you on a pedestal, brick by brick. All of them ignoring that you were becoming sick.
You were a victim of your own ascent. In your own eyes is the only place where you can be content.
You should have never walked up to that pool. It's curse turned you into a fool.
Look away from the depth of that water. You have led yourself to the slaughter.
It is in your own eyes that you will drown. It is your own perfection that will bring you down.
A pity greater than the vanishing of the small, Is the loss of one who could have ruled them all.
To his own self-righteous hand. Could this really be what you had planned?
Your darkest hour, Marked by when you realized you were the most beautiful flower.
Your own lack of shame laid you to rest. Perhaps the Gods do have a sense of jest.
Feedback
https://www.reddit.com/OCPoetry/comments/13y0tsm/i_wanted_to_write_you_a_novel/jmmo806?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/OCPoetry/comments/13yg78o/so_shall_we_again_be_strangers_now/jmmouwi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

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

First time poster, apologies in advance for any faux pas in my post. I am hoping to receive some advice/guidance before scheduling a vet visit for a haiskin related issue with my dog. Thanks in advance for any help (details below).
Link to image: https://imgur.com/a/4KaW99T
Species: Dog Age: 6 Sex/Neuter status: Female (spayed) Breed: Great Pyr Body weight: 95 lbs. History: Generally healthy, besides some ACL issues. She takes an oral flea and tick preventer monthly that I feel is very effective ( if I do ever find a tick that managed to attach to her skin, they are dead, has only happened 3 or 4 times throughout her lifespan). Clinical signs: I recently noticed a small area where her coat is gone near her left eye. It is strange because this hair loss seems to have occured very rapidly, she went to bed on Wednesday night, and her face was completely normal, and then on Thursday afternoon, I noticed she had lost hair in this area. I could have missed it on Tuesday/Wednesday, but we spend a lot of time together so not likeley. There are no cuts or scratch marks on her skin where the hair is missing however, it does look mildly irritated (the skin feels a bit scratchy/rough and looks a bit reddish). She does not seem even to notice this area of her face having an issue and is acting completely normal. Duration: Noticed issue approx. 24-36 hours prior to posting here. General location: Upper midwest, summer heat/humidity just hit. Other Info: Lots of neighbors have been applying pesticides recenlt, I try to keep her off treated areas when walking but she like to sometimes walk through tall grass with her head down so her nose/face contacts the grass as she walks, perhaps she was exposed to a fertilizer or pesticide?

I’m confused if I missed something or what but the flashback where you see Kokushibo sitting with what I thought was tanjiros dad and him holding baby tanjiro. I know there were a couple flashbacks. Some where tanjiros dad has long hair and a scar. But also I assume majority of us who have not read the manga are being led to believe Kokushibo is Tanjiros Dad somehow.
Also thinking that if Muzan was the one who killed tanjiros family, Muzan may have knew Koku was there and wanted to kill that family knowing he helped them in some way. He also didn’t kill Nezuko when he easily could have. Did he make her a demon on purpose but not expect her to not turn bad? Maybe he went there hoping to find and kill tanjiro cuz he’s special from what Koku did.
My main theory is that and maybe tanjiros mom was sick or something and Koku gave her demon blood to heal her and tanjiro is like half demon?
Idno I feel like I just missed something with that flashback thinking that was tanjiros dad holding baby tanjiro
I’m just thinking with words on a platform with other watchers cuz none of my friends watch anime. Don’t spoil please

My (26F) mom (54F) passed away in March from liver failure. I have a lot of people who care about me in my life, and I'm so grateful for that. They have been there to support me in this loss, and I know a lot of people don't have that. But I still feel so lonely.
My friends offer their "I'm so sorry"s when I'm having a down day, but it falls so flat compared to how devastated I'm feeling. It also feels like people are forgetting that she only passed away 2.5 months ago. One of my best friends showed me these mother's day cards she designed; I told her I'm trying to avoid mother's day things, and she acted like she had completely forgotten my mom is dead. Another very close friend has a parent who is dealing with cancer, and while it's comforting to have someone who understands part of this process of watching a parent die, she's in a very different place than me. She's anxious, and worried about her sick parent; not in a place to really support me with my mom who is already gone. My husband is exceptional at taking care of me when I'm down, but I feel that he just doesn't *get* it.
I'm realizing most of all though, no one will ever love me like my mom did. She was so incredibly empathetic in general, but she felt my pain so closely when my kitty of 16 years passed last year. She cried for me for weeks just to see me so devastated from that loss. No one will ever cry for me again. No mother is going to let me lay in their lap as they stroke my hair again. Despite our differences, we understood each other at such a deep level. We had so many of the same quirks and silly personalities that I won't ever find in a motherly figure again. I don't think anyone will ever care about me that much again. I want my mommy.

Hello everyone!
I am 20 (M) and I have been dealing with hair loss for two years.
I used to have thick and strong hair. It was so strong that I had to get it buzzed every two weeks, so it would not look like a nest.
However, after I implemented a harsh diet in which I lost approximately 20kg (44lbs) in less than a year. ( I was close to being an anorexic) During the process my hair thinned over a night! My hair texture has changed. It is now breakable and weak, it feels like a hay and my scalp is noticeably visible and my hair grows slower than before. Even though I have gained 10kg (22lbs) since then and I was taking vitamins for a few months, also trying to eat healthy as much as possible, my hair is still thinning. I have checked my vitamins levels and everything turned out to be okay, expect vitamin D deficiency and vitamin B12 surplus. I have been using minoxidil 2% for quite some time and honestly it has not shown special results (or the situation would have been worse had I not started using it idk anymore)
I also must mention that my genetics are ok although I have always had hair temples but that is from my paternal side and everyone there has hair.
Did someone have similar experience?
Is it possible that hair takes longer time ( in term of years) to regrow because of the shock that body went through?
I still don’t understand how my hair changed so much in such a short period.
Please let me know if you know something useful. I would highly appreciate it!
Thank you if you managed to read this. Sorry if it was written unclear, but English is not my first language and I suck at explaining things!

I am 17 years old and turn 18 in a month. Been experiencing hair loss for around a year and 2 months but I can’t tell if it’s getting worse or staying the same. The sides and back of my hair have thinned slightly and so has the top but I had very thick hair to begin with and still appear to do now, although it’s thinning. What treatments would u recommend?

First of all, I know I shouldn’t have. It was an impulsive decision. Everything was going fine until they were 17 days old, then the runts got sick and the mother started eating them. I separated the babies at 19 days old due to this. By 21 days old, they were all showing signs of hair loss and slowly started dying off. Watching your adorable baby hamsters eating their siblings is not fun. They are three weeks old now and I only have 6 out of 15. It has been traumatic for myself and probably them to. I have only been able to get a vet appointment for Monday. I feel awful.

Background: I was prescribed it for ADHD, and I take it alongside Buspar for my anxiety. I have chronic anxiety and I take 40mg of Buspar throughout the day, and Wellbutrin XL in the morning.
What is different this week/lately?

• Increase hair fallout
  
• I’m worried about my emotional blunting. I’m not sad or anxious. But I don’t feel invested in things or excited. For example I don’t feel emotionally invested/enjoy shows or books like I used to. I don’t get excited or look forward to typical things like going out with my friends, date night. It’s just something that we do. I feel like I used to feel excitement, anticipation, etc. but now I feel just good. Is this common? Or is it a season of life I’m in? Perhaps it’s the Wegovy I’m taking, because I heard it helps with anxiety.
  

ADHD: I feel like I’m struggling again. My mind is having a tough time staying focused. I’m having a bit of brain fog :(
Anxiety: Not a good time to fairly asses because I have PMDD and a couple of health screenings I have to do soon. So I’m feeling anxious.
Depression: Not depressed
Now I am so very okay. I wouldn’t say I’m euphoric or ecstatic, but I’m okay. I’m happy, I know my worth in this world and in my family’s life. I feel sad sometimes, but again, I am able to navigate those feelings. Still sad about certain things but it doesn’t control my day, month, life. PMDD is the only exception, but since I track my cycle I can give myself Grace.
Sex Drive: Normal/low - again could be because of where I’m at in my cycle
Appetite: Normal but on a new weight loss medication that brings it down.
I am hoping this isn’t a thing. I want to feel like I did the first few weeks :(

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

Hey, I'm Lucy.
I ended a month-long vacation about six months ago, starting in Alberta, Canada and ending in Mexico City, Mexico. It's been an amazing experience, but it sure is better when you have someone to enjoy it with! So that's why I'm here, and I hope to find that special someone for future adventures.
About me: I am a 34 year old mixed race female who came to Tucson. I am 5'5" tall, oversized, with short hair and piercings. I am well-educated, well-traveled and well read. I am passionate about friendly and enthusiastic debate, enjoy short and long road trips, shows, movies and Kush plants. Forever a fan of accents, dad jokes and generally funny guys.
While I am open to chatting with men (30-39 years old) from all over the world, I am particularly interested in interacting with people who speak English or French as a first or second language. It would be great to get to know each other and improve my language skills at the same time. I would love to learn more about Spanish and French.)

I am 32 year old female who is BRCa1 positive but otherwise active healthy, very active non smoker, very light drinker.
I had a preventive mastectomy with direct reconstruction exactly 6 weeks ago. Healing has gone super well. No complications and i feel really lucky.
But at around 4 weeks and continuing until today at 6 weeks I’ve noticed random things going on with my body and was wondering if its some like “post surgical” pendulum swing or “comedown” from whatever hormones or processes were going on in the initial healing phase.
Some symptoms I’ve noticed over the past two weeks

• sleep disturbances (mostly trouble falling and staying asleep)
• light headedness on standing (I’ve always had issues with low BP and low iron but more so of late)
• flaky skin which has mostly resolved but still flaky /itchy scalp
• along with scalp, probably have had some hair loss
• really hard stools—probably going once every other day and stools are really hard. I had the initial constipation with the narcotics for the first couple days but after day 3 was just on Tylenol and in combo with coláce seemed to resolve the problem. But last two weeks have just been hard dry stools—I eat lots of veggies and fruits, drink tons of water and after week one of recovery was walking long distances (5-6 miles) and have recently started reincorporating running

Is this kind of thing common? I know hair loss is common but other symptoms?

Like, seriously, I've seen so many people get into relationships with people that just generally either don't care or just straight-up seem to enjoy treating them poorly, and they like it! Why? Wouldn't you want someone that is actually kind and cares about you as a person and ISN'T an asshole?
In any case, I'm not one of those people. When you're someone special in my life, I'll care about you sometimes more than I'll care about myself. What I want is a relationship where we become each other's #1 and we both give everything we have to it. I've always went above and beyond for everyone I've dated in the past and I plan to keep that up
Physically, I'm in decent shape, but I'll be in amazing shape soon enough, since I'd like to be beach-ready by the time I go on my cruise later this year with my family. I'm 5'8" and decently attractive to begin with, so that'll be a sight to see (I hope). I've got brown hair and dark brown eyes with a chiseled-ish jaw already
I'm a tech guy at heart, so staple hobbies for me are playing video games, watch anime, and playing board games, although I practically make it a hobby to collect more hobbies and research stuff, so I do basically everything. Recently, I really have wanted to go out of my comfort zone and do stuff that I normally don't do on my own, but I'd like to have someone there that actively wants to push me along toward those things and have fun doing it.
As a career, I'm an upcoming software engineer, with a goals of passive income streams. I'm a family guy too, so I definitely want kids in the future. I guess I might be okay with just a couple, but I'd really like 4 at least, but time will tell how that unfolds
I'm a laid-back, go-with-the-flow, chill guy overall, but I'm serious when I have to be. When I don't have to be, I love to goof around and be silly. I REALLY like when people are just their genuine, true, quirky and goofy self around me
There's so much more I could say, but I think I'll just leave it at that. So, if you're somewhere around my age or younger and interested, send me a message. Ideally, I'd like to find the person for me long-term, but I'd entertain other sorts of relationships too

Like, seriously, I've seen so many people get into relationships with people that just generally either don't care or just straight-up seem to enjoy treating them poorly, and they like it! Why? Wouldn't you want someone that is actually kind and cares about you as a person and ISN'T an asshole?
In any case, I'm not one of those people. When you're someone special in my life, I'll care about you sometimes more than I'll care about myself. What I want is a relationship where we become each other's #1 and we both give everything we have to it. I've always went above and beyond for everyone I've dated in the past and I plan to keep that up
Physically, I'm in decent shape, but I'll be in amazing shape soon enough, since I'd like to be beach-ready by the time I go on my cruise later this year with my family. I'm 5'8" and decently attractive to begin with, so that'll be a sight to see (I hope). I've got brown hair and dark brown eyes with a chiseled-ish jaw already
I'm a tech guy at heart, so staple hobbies for me are playing video games, watch anime, and playing board games, although I practically make it a hobby to collect more hobbies and research stuff, so I do basically everything. Recently, I really have wanted to go out of my comfort zone and do stuff that I normally don't do on my own, but I'd like to have someone there that actively wants to push me along toward those things and have fun doing it.
As a career, I'm an upcoming software engineer, with a goals of passive income streams. I'm a family guy too, so I definitely want kids in the future. I guess I might be okay with just a couple, but I'd really like 4 at least, but time will tell how that unfolds
I'm a laid-back, go-with-the-flow, chill guy overall, but I'm serious when I have to be. When I don't have to be, I love to goof around and be silly. I REALLY like when people are just their genuine, true, quirky and goofy self around me
There's so much more I could say, but I think I'll just leave it at that. So, if you're somewhere around my age or younger and interested, send me a message. Ideally, I'd like to find the person for me long-term, but I'd entertain other sorts of relationships too

I am 32 year old female who is BRCa1 positive but otherwise active healthy, very active non smoker, very light drinker.
I had a preventive mastectomy with direct reconstruction exactly 6 weeks ago. Healing has gone super well. No complications and i feel really lucky.
But at around 4 weeks and continuing until today at 6 weeks I’ve noticed random things going on with my body and was wondering if its some like “post surgical” pendulum swing or “comedown” from whatever hormones or processes were going on in the initial healing phase.
Some symptoms I’ve noticed over the past two weeks - sleep disturbances (mostly trouble falling and staying asleep) - light headedness on standing (I’ve always had issues with low BP and low iron but more so of late) - flaky skin which has mostly resolved but still flaky /itchy scalp - along with scalp, probably have had some hair loss - really hard stools—probably going once every other day and stools are really hard. I had the initial constipation with the narcotics for the first couple days but after day 3 was just on Tylenol and in combo with coláce seemed to resolve the problem. But last two weeks have just been hard dry stools—I eat lots of veggies and fruits, drink tons of water and after week one of recovery was walking long distances (5-6 miles) and have recently started reincorporating running
Is this kind of thing common? I knowhair loss is common but other symptoms?