BibleU

From now on, I'll be posting at brax.me/ under @bibleu in my blog there. It seems that YT, and more others each day, will become so restrictive as to be unusable. I could do videos at Bit Chute or Rumble, but I'm not sure if I'll be doing those anymore anyway.

11 months ago | [YT] | 3

BibleU

Maybe this is why I feel so "done" with trying to make any difference online: https://youtu.be/J5ZmLvy_Jfg?si=FL0Zs...

11 months ago | [YT] | 3

BibleU

So I just found out about this Community feature in YouTube. Feel free to comment here about my videos.

11 months ago | [YT] | 5

BibleU

I've asked a question at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFHwh... :

At the 23:48 mark, note that neither Hebrew nor Greek has the definite article "the" before "covenant", "times", or "law":
— And he shall speak pompous words against the Most High, and shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law… (Dan. 7:12)
— And he shall confirm/strengthen covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he shall abolish sacrifice and offering…(Dan. 9:27)
Yet "change times and law" and "end sacrifice and offering" makes it clear that it refers to the Mosaic covenant. So I agree that the 7-year covenant that the AC enforces must be the Law of Moses.
But if the Gog of Magog invasion's miraculous end is what makes Israel accept the AC and this covenant, then what happened to invoke the invasion in the first place, since the motivation is to plunder "a land recovered from war, without bars and gates"? Could it be the protection of the US being removed (due to Rapture?), leaving Israel all alone?

11 months ago | [YT] | 1

BibleU

I've had a lot of cult expose videos on my YouTube feed the last few weeks, even though I use a browser where I'm not logged in to any Google products. You might recall I talked about the NAR in my videos about Chuck Missler (Holding to Account playlist www.youtube.com/playlist?list... ), and I wrote a rebuttal to WOF (tgnt.faith/index.php?pager=to&&fname=WordFaith ). But the unspeakable damage these demonic movements are doing to many people, and to the faith in general, needs to be made known. Jesus began his discussion of the end times with "See to it that you're not deceived" (Mat. 24:4, Mark 13:5), and we have many other warnings as well:
Mat. 7:15; Mat. 24:24; Acts 20:29-30; Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Titus 1:10-11; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 4:1; Jude 1:4;
This video on Testimonies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZbxL... ) shows just how much of a disaster this has been. These influential charltains and mega-organizations are either enslaving people or turning so far from Jesus that they'll never accept the true Gospel.

11 months ago | [YT] | 0

BibleU

At cbmw.org/2023/06/22/a-textual-lexical-and-ethical-… is an attempt to argue against the egalitarian position on Eph. 5.

Under Disagreement, Textual, the problem isn't whether there's a main imperative verb in 22 but what it means. The writer wants to make "submission" (hupotasso) change meaning between 21 & 22. Clearly in 21 it's 'all to each other', so the writer must make it mean 'some to others' in order to preserve male entitlement. He admits to having only "implication" for this as a "new unit of thought" completely detached from the larger context of the chapter. He openly states that "the mutual submission of 5:21 does not apply to Christian marriage in the same way it does in the church generally." This is BEGGING THE QUESTION. In spite of noting the "own husbands" phrase, he ignores the fact that women of the time hardly needed anyone to tell them to bow to male authority, so why would Paul need to tell this to Christian women at all? Is the writer unfamiliar with "the marriage without hand" law, whereby a woman's only loyalty was to her father for life? Thus Paul is telling Christians not to obey THIS LAW, rather than to make some Christians obey other Christians only in marriage. (I'm guessing a similiar exception would be made to elevate a clergy class the rest must obey.)

Under Lexical, concerning the word "head" (kephale), the writer claims that the mouth of a river isn't its source, even though nobody, anywhere, ever, would say a river starts someplace else. And are we supposed to blindly accept the opinions of Chrysostome only when he claims the Bible teaches male authority over female, but not when he says Junia was an apostle like any other? Again the writer BEGS THE QUESTION by first reading "authority" into vs. 22-24 and then insisting it's what the context says.

Under Ethical, the writer recognizes the unity of head and body, but then proproses the absurdity that somehow they're not interdependent! He then goes on to argue that since Paul mentioned marriage in the long list of the chapter, then some how he can justify BEGGING THE QUESTION to make it all about hierarchy ("asymmetry") only in marriage. Finally, he makes the colossal blunder of thinking equality means "sameness or interchangeability", which no egaitarian ever says, which of course is a STRAW MAN fallacy. Our hands are not interchangeable but they're not "asymmetrical" either.

———————
Where is this level of meticulous attention to Greek grammar in 1 Tim. 2, where there are two hapax legomena, one of which is only about hostile control rather than general authority? Or when Paul says "the woman" is still, at the time of his writing, in sin, and thus not Eve or all women for all time? Or when Paul says this woman can be "saved in childbearing"? Or when, in 1 Cor. 11, Paul says "but since then, all men have been born from women, but it all comes from God", destroying the claim that Adam being made first somehow put him in authority over Eve?

If this writer wants to expose cherry-picking on the part of egalitarians, he must not do this himself by only invoking Greek grammar when it's convenient.

11 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 5

BibleU

I came across a well-presented claim (jasonstaples.substack.com/p/babylon-the-great-in-r… ) that Babylon the Great cannot be Rome but rather must be Jerusalem. Now I've always agreed that it can't be Rome, for reasons we'll see in the article, but I've never thought it could be Jerusalem. So let's go through it and see if it makes a good case, keeping in mind that the primary focus of the article is to say it isn't Rome.

Under Babylon the Great as Rome I can dismiss point 1, the "city on 7 hills", as identifying anything, since the Greek of Rev. 17:9-10 reads, "The seven heads are seven mountains the woman sits upon. These are seven kings…". No problem with points 2-4.

I agree with the argument under The Beast Is Rome, that since the beast will later hate and destroy the woman, she can't also be Rome. But under We’ve Already Met this Woman, a connection is made to the woman of ch. 12, whereas I always drew a contrast. We agree that this one represents Israel, but I disagree with the claim under "the narrative framework" that the beast is somehow doing something the dragon couldn't, since the dragon is the spirit behind the beast.

Under The Great City, they draw a parallel between Rev. 17:18 and Rev. 11:8, where that exact phrase is clearly about Jerusalem. But is Jerusalem "the mother of harlots"? Certainly Israel has been described as playing the harlot (e.g. Jer. 3:2-3), but Babylon the Great is the "mother" of them. Yet Ezk. 16:46-48 and 23:2-4 call Jerusalem a "sister".

Under Bloodguilt for Persecuting the Holy Ones, both Rome and Jerusalem have been guilty of executing Christians. But notice the quotes of Jesus where he puts blame for the blood of all martyrs on Jerusalem. Then under Double for her Sins it shows the parallel between Rev. 18:6 and several OT references.

Under Sealing the 144,000 is the connection between Rev. 7's mention of 144k Israelites being sealed, and Ezk. 9:3-5. But note that the sealing is before the Trumpet judgments, 10 chapters prior to the destruction of Israel. When we see them again in ch. 14, they're not in "the place prepared" for those who flee after the Abomination (Rev. 12), but rather "following the Lamb wherever he goes".

Under The mark of the beast, they admit there's only speculation that this is what's on Babylon's forehead, since the text doesn't say that at all. I'm not sure why anyone would bother trying to connect a dot here.

As for "Come out of her, my people", it certainly is the case that only faithful Israelites will flee after the Abomination. But why would all the world's merchants, generals, and political leaders MOURN and DESPAIR over the destruction of Jerusalem, when they all were so hateful of her? As per the section "the beast consuming…", most of the world already hates Israel, but where would the lament of her demise come from?

11 months ago | [YT] | 6

BibleU

Good series on what "church" was meant to be: www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

1 year ago | [YT] | 1

BibleU

Never forget how corrupt and infiltrated "mainstream Christianity" has become: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnWI3...

1 year ago | [YT] | 1

BibleU

I think this article does a good job of showing that the city/state Babylon will be destroyed at the midpoint of the Tribulation, and that it must therefore be established before the Tribulation begins (but after the Rapture): www.bible-knowledge.com/rise-and-fall-of-babylon/ (standard disclaimer: I don't support other material there)

1 year ago (edited) | [YT] | 3