Chapter 23 The New Deal: Fill & Download for Free

"I'll structure any kind of deal you want - license the software, sell you the company, whatever." - Steve Jobs, pitching the NeXTSTEP OS to to Apple (company) CEO Gil Amelio (business person) and CTO Helen Hancock.It was all and only about the software. Apple was desperate for a new OS that met their needs and NeXT was desperate for survival. NeXT was competing against Microsoft's Windows NT, which was initially favored by Amelio, and a product called Be, which was owned by Jean-Louis Gassée who Steve Jobs really despised. This was personal for him.Chapter 23 of Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs is an absolute gold mine of entertaining details about this, and it was written by someone who had direct personal conversations with so many of the participants, including Amelio.

Why is God different in the New Testament than He is in the Old Testament? On the surface, God in the Old Testament appears to be radically different than in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, He appears powerful, holy, punishing, angry, and jealous. In the New, in the form of Jesus, He appears kind, loving, meek, and forgiving. How do we reconcile the powerful Deity that ordered the destruction of countless cities with the kneeling Jesus who defended the adulterous woman?The key is to realize the context. In the Old Testament, the context was God's relationship with the nation He had chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. In the New Testament, and now in the church age, the context is God's relationship with the individuals and the church He has chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. There are several areas in which His actions in the Old Testament are comparable to His work in the New, and in our lives today.Personal standards: Despite the fact that, in the Old Testament, God generally dealt with the Israelites as a nation, He still had expectations for individual behavior. The most famous are those given in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). In the New Testament, Matthew 5 gives several expectations for individuals for the church age, including the admonishment to do whatever is necessary to keep oneself from sin (vs. 29-30).Corporate standards: Leviticus and Deuteronomy are filled with God's expectations for the Israelites as a whole: worship Him only (Exodus 34:14), observe the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29) and the feasts (Exodus 11 and 12; Deuteronomy 16:16; Leviticus 23:27-28), and follow His instructions without hesitation (Numbers 14). The New Testament also contains instructions for the new corporate body—the church. The church is not to harbor unrepentant hearts (1 Corinthians 5:1-2), but follow a detailed set of instructions to purge itself of sin (Matthew 18:15-20).Personal consequences: God meted out consequences to those who disobeyed Him in both the Old and New Testaments. He had Achan killed in Joshua 7. He took David's son in response to David's adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:15-23). And He kept Moses and Aaron from entering the Holy Land after their disobedience (Numbers 20:24; Deuteronomy 34:4). Similarly, in the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira were struck down after lying about their offering (Acts 5:1-11), and Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter denied Jesus' purpose (Mark 8:31-33). In 1 John 5:16, we learn that there are cases where an individual's sin is so grievous that, for the protection of the church and the honor of God's name, God allows that person to die.Corporate consequences: This is perhaps the main area in which God seems to differ from the Old Testament to the New. How can the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites be reconciled with anything that occurs in the New Testament? The answer, again, is context. Israel and Israel's land were to be holy, set apart, and free from the influence of false gods. In order for Israel to be a holy nation, the incredibly evil nations in residence had to be destroyed. These were not countries with a few sinners here and there. They were nations overrun with evil. Genesis 18:22-33 says there were not even ten righteous people in Sodom. In fact, the most righteous man in Sodom was Lot—the man who offered his daughters to be gang-raped. God dealt with people primarily on a national level. In the New Testament, God deals with individuals and with local bodies of believers—churches. Revelation 2 and 3 give lists of the faults and fortes of several churches, and the book of 1 Corinthians is filled with Paul's guidance of—and sometimes frustration with—the church in Corinth.Governing authority: This is another area where the presumed difference between God in the Old Testament and the New seems blatant. In the Old Testament, God charged the corporate authority, Israel, to execute witches (Leviticus 20:27), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), and disrespectful children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The New Testament says that unrepentant sinners should be excommunicated (Matthew 18:15-20). Why the difference? Because civil law is given to civil authorities. In the Israel of the Old Testament, the priests and judges were the civil law. In the church age, civil authority is given to national and regional governments, not the church. The church does not have the right to implement punishment on society at large.The role of the Holy Spirit: This is another example of the changes in context between the Old and New Testaments, and it's directly related to the previous five points. With the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the spread of the gospel beyond the nation of Israel, the role of the Holy Spirit changed to accommodate the new situation. Instead of limiting His direct involvement to a few prophets, priests, and kings, He now indwells and counsels every believer. Instead of occupying the centralized worship center of a chosen nation (Exodus 40:34), He now occupies every believer's heart (1 Corinthians 6:19). This more personal relationship means that God no longer primarily confronts us through the authority of the spiritual and civic rulers, but directly (Philippians 2:13), which also means we are even more responsible for our own behavior (2 Timothy 2:15).Loving-kindness: Genesis 4:15 is one of the first examples of God's loving-kindness to an individual who didn't deserve it. Cain killed his brother, and the punishment for murder was death. God not only delayed that punishment, He put a mark on Cain to protect him from those seeking reprisal. In Genesis 17:20, God showed loving-kindness when He promised to make Ishmael the father of a great nation. And in 1 Kings 19:1-21, He provided rest, food, and a successor for His exhausted prophet Elijah. The compassion of Jesus in the New Testament is very prominent. He was kind to the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11), giving to the Gentile woman (Matthew 15:21-28), and patient with His clueless disciples (Matthew 8:26). But the God who comforted Hagar and the God who healed the Syrophoenician woman's daughter are the same.Forgiveness and patience: The book of Hosea is the story of a man whose life was a metaphor for God's relationship with Israel. God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. He did, but she never could manage to remain faithful. She strayed again and again, but Hosea continually received her back. Similarly, God was incredibly forgiving and patient with Israel. God put up with over two hundred years of rebellion and rejection before He allowed Assyria to wipe the northern kingdom off the map. Judah lasted over one hundred years longer. But, really, the record of God's patience goes back much further, to the day Moses stepped onto the mountain of God and the people built a golden calf. For over one thousand years, God sent prophets and leaders and righteous men to lead His chosen people, and His people ignored them—or worse (1 Kings 19:10). Second Peter 3:9 explains why God is so patient: "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." The patience God showed the Israelites and Peter (John 18:27) is the same patience He shows us.Friendship: It is easy to envision Jesus walking a dirt trail, cracking jokes with Peter, or sitting at Mary and Martha's table, thanking Martha for the meal. He was so open and kind that John could name himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved." This is the same friendship that God showed in the Old Testament. Exodus 33:11 says, "The LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." David was so close to God, so willing to follow and trust Him, that he was called "a man after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22).Purpose: The purpose of God in the Old and New Testaments is the same: choose people who don't deserve His attention, allow them to display His glory and righteousness, and commission them teach the world about Him. Abraham and the Israelites did nothing to earn God's attention (Deuteronomy 7:7-9), and neither do we (Ephesians 2:8-9). God chose Israel to obey Him and be holy (Exodus 19:5-6), as He does with us (Romans 12:1). And He charged both Israel (Genesis 22:18) and the church-age believers (Matthew 28:19-20) to present God's gift of salvation to the world.God hasn't changed; the context has changed. He no longer primarily relates to the world through a sovereign nation, but through individuals and the church. This affects how we see the scale of His work. Where, in the Old Testament, an entire nation may have been destroyed, we see today one serial killer caught and prosecuted. Where, before, the nation of Israel may have gone into exile for their disobedience, now a sinful pastor is removed from ministry. And, by the same measure, where, before, God showed longsuffering toward His chosen people as they rebelled against Him, He now shows that same mercy to us when we choose the things of the world over His Word. God’s holiness, passion, restraint, and fury are all exactly the same; we just see it on a personal level instead of a national one. And that means we can experience His love and forgiveness on a personal level, as well.Why is God different in the New Testament than He is in the Old Testament? http://www.compellingtruth.org/God-different-OT-NT.htmlAt the very heart of this question lies a fundamental misunderstanding of what both the Old and New Testaments reveal about the nature of God. Another way of expressing this same basic thought is when people say, “The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is a God of love.” The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments, it becomes evident that God is not different from one testament to another and that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both testaments.For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”In a similar way, throughout the Old Testament we see God’s judgment and wrath poured out on sin. Likewise, in the New Testament we see that the wrath of God is still “being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). So, clearly, God is no different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament. God by His very nature is immutable (unchanging). While we might see one aspect of His nature revealed in certain passages of Scripture more than other aspects, God Himself does not change.As we read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is the same in the Old and New Testaments. Even though the Bible is 66 individual books written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years by more than 40 authors, it remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful men in all kinds of situations. Truly, the Bible is God’s love letter to mankind. God’s love for His creation, especially for mankind, is evident all through Scripture. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it, but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God who is the Judge of all those who disobey His Word and refuse to worship Him, turning instead to worship gods of their own creation (Romans chapter 1).Because of God’s righteous and holy character, all sin—past, present, and future—must be judged. Yet God in His infinite love has provided a payment for sin and a way of reconciliation so that sinful man can escape His wrath. We see this wonderful truth in verses like 1 John 4:10: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” In the Old Testament, God provided a sacrificial system whereby atonement could be made for sin. However, this sacrificial system was only temporary and merely looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ who would die on the cross to make a complete substitutionary atonement for sin. The Savior who was promised in the Old Testament is fully revealed in the New Testament. Only envisioned in the Old Testament, the ultimate expression of God’s love, the sending of His Son Jesus Christ, is revealed in all its glory in the New Testament. Both the Old and the New Testaments were given “to make us wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). When we study the Testaments closely, it is evident that God “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).Read more:Page on gotquestions.org

Yeah, well that’s nonsense I’m afraid. It is the UK that has proposed level playing field commitments in line with the EU-Canada (CETA) agreement. The UK’s negotiating mandate is available here: Our approach to the Future Relationship with the EU. It explicitly links its LPF approach to CETA. (These points are made at the answer referenced in footnote 1 below).[1]Honestly, I can’t believe people say such things as “The EU’s LPF approach is in line with CETA”. Such a point is so easily disproven. You might as well state that black is white. Yet some people do say things like that. It’s either shocking ignorance, or a lazy “I’m gonna side with the EU whatever the truth is”. Or it’s a feeble attempt eg gaslighting. If the EU’s LPF approach were in line with CETA, we wouldn’t have a problem, because the UK’s LPF approach is too.But the EU’s LPF approach is not in line with CETA. Here’s what the EU negotiating mandate says (my highlight):[2]Note that it says “with the Union standards as a reference point” and “high standards over time”. That basically means dynamic alignment with EU law. Now the real sting in the tail is the sentence that says “It should include for each of those areas adequate mechanisms to ensure effecive implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement, including appropriate rememdies”. It then states that the EU must be able to apply “autonomous measures” ie punishments.What this basically means, is that in the above areas, the UK must apply EU law AND adopt new EU laws when they change AND the institutions enforcing them within the UK are subject to oversight by the EU. The last bit in particular, is an extremely dangerous sentence. It would allow the EU to play a part in the UK’s internal governance.Now, often it’s a bit difficult to interpret legal documents, so you have to rely on what each side has said about its intentions, as well as expert commentary from other sources. So here’s what the EU parliament had to say (reporting courtesy of The Guardian): [3]The European parliament has called on Michel Barnier to keep Britain permanently tied to its employment, environment and competition laws as the price for maintaining free trade with the EU.In a resolution adopted by 543 votes to 39, with 69 abstentions, MEPs said there needed to be “dynamic alignment” with EU standards across a range of issues.As MEPs gave their seal of approval for the maximalist position, the European commission for the first time wielded its powers under the withdrawal agreement to order the British government to change its domestic law, despite the country having left the EU two weeks ago.To state the obvious: there is nothing in any of the EU’s existing trade agreements, even remotely close to the position set out above. If you want to see what CETA says, its level playing field measures are distributed throughout the document. Look at Chapter 23 for example, for what it says about Labour.[4]The Institute for Government compared the EU and UK approach to level playing field commitments, as follows:[5]The UK doesn’t want commitments that go beyond normal agreements with EU partners; the EU argues that the UK should be treated differently due to its geographic proximity and the economically interdependence of the two sides.The EU appears to want something close to what Theresa May agreed to as part of the previous Withdrawal Agreement: including non-regression of current standards, and for the UK public bodies taking the place of the EU Commission to enforce them.Now, the negotiating positions were set out in February, but after that, they became fluid. The EU is understood to have realised that dynamic alignment would not fly in the UK, so it is understood to have dropped it.But what’s in its place?That’s where you have to rely on reporting, not on official sources. The official negotiating position is not updated dynamically. There is no official statement of the EU’s current position in the negotiation. Thankfully, Remainer rag The Times seems to have its finger on the pulse of what’s going on. It states:[6]The European Union is demanding a potential veto on Britain’s post-Brexit laws and regulations, senior government officials have claimed.In what is described as the “single biggest stumbling block” to a deal, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier is said to be insisting that the government must agree not to implement any change to UK legislation that could distort trade with the bloc without first consulting Brussels.The obligation, which the EU wants written into any trade agreement, would potentially delay the government from implementing reforms to Britain’s environmental, social or state aid rules until they had been through a formal dispute resolution process.So having dropped dynamic alignment, it’s now saying “you need our OK before you change your laws”. The EU’s position is still toxic. And nothing similar exists in any of its other relationships. In my opinion, the UK is right to resist, even at the expense of a trade agreement.[7]Footnotes[1] Barnaby Lane's answer to What is the difference between the level playing field provisions the UK are willing to include in an FTA and the level Playing Field provisions the EU are asking for which the UK won’t accept?[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/42736/st05870-ad01re03-en20.pdf[3] UK alignment on EU standards price to pay for trade deal, say MEPs[4] CETA chapter by chapter[5] StackPath[6] Brussels accused of derailing talks by seeking UK law veto[7] Barnaby Lane's answer to Does Boris really mean that no deal is a good option, as he said yesterday?