FOR THE MASTER

Responding to Boykin's article titled, "When Faith Hijacks Politics: Are We Losing the Republic We Were Meant to Be?".

Dishonest Dan McClellan is up to his dastardly deeds again in his latest video titled, "Where did Cain’s wife come from?" In this video, Dan rejects the idea that Adam and Eve had other children that are not mentioned in the text and some of them must have been daughters and Cain married one of his sisters.

<p>Last week, I posted this graphic and asked a simple question: “Is there a KJVO who will defend this graphic by Jack McElroy using Biblical Hebrew and in light of the other creatures that are described in Job? It is arguments like this graphic that helped me see that KJVO is an emperor that has [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Since the start of the Israel-Iran conflict that began on June 13 as Israel launched a preemptive strike on dozens of sites in Iran including nuclear facilities, a heavy water nuclear reactor, top Iranian nuclear scientists, and top brass in the IRGC or Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; there has been nonstop discussion about the modern [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There are roughly 3,036 textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels:Matthew: 656Mark: 597Luke: 791John: 1022 70-80% of these differences are due to the presence or absence of the movable nu. The movable nu is a grammatical feature in Greek where the letter ν is added to the end of certain words (e.g., verbs [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Penal Substitutionary Atonement Defended As a Key to Understanding Calvinism and Limited Atonement &#8211; What is Calvinism Series In this third video in my series on Calvinism, I will discuss and defend the death of Christ as a penal substitutionary atonement. The premise is simple. The death of Christ is an atonement. The death of [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Today I want to cover the importance of understanding different atonement theories and especially Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a prerequisite for comprehending the Calvinist&#8217;s understanding of Limited Atonement. In the last video in my Calvinism series, I said that most of the disagreement towards the Limited Atonement doctrine of Calvinism is rooted in differing views [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There are two issues that really seem to boil the blood of some believers today. They are both the proverbial third-rails of theological discussions. One is King James Version Onlyism. I am certainly no stranger to that debate. The other one has to be Calvinism. While I abandoned King James Onlyism relatively recently in my [&hellip;]</p>

<p>As we continue discussing the many reasons why the crusades should not be glorified, I want to talk about the infighting, deceptions, plans within plans, and the real goals of the leaders of the First Crusade. If you think you knew a lot about the crusades, wait until the end of this video. CONTACT INFORMATION:DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/give or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.comPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh

<p>In the first two videos, we set the stage for the First Crusade. We discussed the false premises and exaggerations that it was predicated upon in the first video and we looked at the ulterior motives of both Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and Pope Urban II. In this video, we are going to begin exploring [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Donatists are only mentioned four times in Carroll’s “Trail of Blood” and never with any specificity. Donatists do play a significant role in Carroll’s trail because they bridge the gap between the early Montanists and the Paulicians. To have nothing detailed said about them in his book is striking given that the Donatists span from [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In the first video, I addressed Pope Urban II’s stated reasons for calling for the First Crusade and then demonstrated that many of his reasons were either false, greatly exaggerated, or simply actions of the Mad Caliph who had been dead for 74 years. After addressing those falsities, it still left us with the question, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There have been some heated conversations about how some in the Reformed Christian community have glorified the crusades and are advocating for modern crusades against what they believe are muslim invaders of Europe and to some extent, the United States. This is an extension of the Christian Nationalism debate and is driven by a number [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Over the past few weeks, I have published multiple videos on the Septuagint. My first video, “Is The Septuagint a 4th Century Forgery or Myth?” was my first public work on Old Testament textual analysis. Last week, I continued that video with a follow-up. That second video addressed a question asked by a friend who [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A dear brother and friend asked me about the responses I have been getting to my video on the Septuagint. The crux of his question is this: “While they are forced to admit that there was a Greek translation of the Old Testament available before Christ, the pushback is the LXX we have now is [&hellip;]</p>