Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Utterly false, Jerome never treated the Deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha. He used them authoritatively throughout his entire life minus a brief window of about five years where he held to a personal opinion because he never found them in the original language. Even post Latin Vulgate 382AD, he uses...

EcciusMaximus's profile picture

BIBLE SCHOLARMAXXING

43,525 subscribers

49,647 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."
3:43

The Cultural Tutor grew to 1.6 million Twitter followers in less than two years of full-time writing. He insists that his unique writing style comes from his unique reading style. He avoids new books and basically doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years. The problem with new books isn't that they're bad. The problem is that everybody else is reading them, which doesn't give you much edge as a writer. In the words of The Cultural Tutor: "The simplest reason not to read something published in the last 50 years is because that's what everyone else is reading. The only books that most people read are books published in last, not even ... In the last six years, in the last two years. I'm not disparaging these authors. They've done incredibly well for themselves, and I have no doubt their books are filled with marvels and wonderful, wonderful things, but the rest of the world is reading them. And it's a simple fact of life that if you consume, you read what everyone else is reading, then the likelihood that you will write what they are writing, and worst of all, think what they are thinking increases. It's not certain, but if we all read the same books, we all think the same things."

David Perell

96,667 views • 2 years ago

“The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity… Newton did not create gravity but recognized it” - J.I Packer (As cited in Kenneth J. Collins and Jerry L. Walls, Roman but not Catholic: what remains at stake 500 years after the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 21). By the time the church was having discussions of canon lists and what books did or didn’t possess the mark of inspiration. The books of inspired scripture had already been written, read, copied, passed around, and disseminated for some time. Paul is already being recognized as scripture within the 1st century by Peter in 2 Pet. 3:16, and Paul himself is quoting Luke as scriptural alongside Deuteronomy in 1 Timothy 5. And let’s not forget that the Christians in the first century had a Bible: we call it the Old Testament. When Paul says “all scripture is God breathed” in 2 Timothy, no one is confused about what Paul means when he uses the term “scripture.” Just because books existed as independent documents in the form of physical scrolls and books separate from one another prior to the fourth century with them being codified all in one single unit then, doesn’t mean that they weren’t the Bible prior to that point. We need to be careful not to read back an anachronistic perspective due to our modern privilege of being able to easily have all the biblical books in a single-bound-volume. This is largely due to the amazing and streamlined process of publishing today.
1:39

“The church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity… Newton did not create gravity but recognized it” - J.I Packer (As cited in Kenneth J. Collins and Jerry L. Walls, Roman but not Catholic: what remains at stake 500 years after the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 21). By the time the church was having discussions of canon lists and what books did or didn’t possess the mark of inspiration. The books of inspired scripture had already been written, read, copied, passed around, and disseminated for some time. Paul is already being recognized as scripture within the 1st century by Peter in 2 Pet. 3:16, and Paul himself is quoting Luke as scriptural alongside Deuteronomy in 1 Timothy 5. And let’s not forget that the Christians in the first century had a Bible: we call it the Old Testament. When Paul says “all scripture is God breathed” in 2 Timothy, no one is confused about what Paul means when he uses the term “scripture.” Just because books existed as independent documents in the form of physical scrolls and books separate from one another prior to the fourth century with them being codified all in one single unit then, doesn’t mean that they weren’t the Bible prior to that point. We need to be careful not to read back an anachronistic perspective due to our modern privilege of being able to easily have all the biblical books in a single-bound-volume. This is largely due to the amazing and streamlined process of publishing today.

Wes Huff

372,043 views • 11 months ago

Here’s my review after reading the Gospel of Thomas 😊 Background: Gospel of Thomas is one of the books found by farmers in old clay jars in Egypt in 1945. When the ancient Coptic writing style was compared to writing styles over the years, experts determined the book was likely written between the years 100 and 200 CE. Over the centuries, ancient Christians had quoted Gospel of Thomas here and there, but a full copy of the book had been lost until the 1945 discovery. The book is said to have been written by Doubting Thomas, the disciple of Jesus. Of course the copy found in Egypt was likely translated from Thomas’ original writing some years after he wrote it. After reading it myself, I was shocked to find how very many of the sayings are in the Bible. It is a book of parables only, not the full story of Jesus. Some of the parables in Thomas are not in the Bible. I’ve heard from Christians who are scared to read something about Jesus that’s not in the Bible. When I hear that, I always think of the last verse of the Book of John which says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” So John makes clear that Jesus’ whole story is not in the Bible. How delightful, after telling God I’d love to learn more of Jesus’ story, that I come across these sayings.😊🙏🏼 What’s your take?
4:25

Here’s my review after reading the Gospel of Thomas 😊 Background: Gospel of Thomas is one of the books found by farmers in old clay jars in Egypt in 1945. When the ancient Coptic writing style was compared to writing styles over the years, experts determined the book was likely written between the years 100 and 200 CE. Over the centuries, ancient Christians had quoted Gospel of Thomas here and there, but a full copy of the book had been lost until the 1945 discovery. The book is said to have been written by Doubting Thomas, the disciple of Jesus. Of course the copy found in Egypt was likely translated from Thomas’ original writing some years after he wrote it. After reading it myself, I was shocked to find how very many of the sayings are in the Bible. It is a book of parables only, not the full story of Jesus. Some of the parables in Thomas are not in the Bible. I’ve heard from Christians who are scared to read something about Jesus that’s not in the Bible. When I hear that, I always think of the last verse of the Book of John which says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” So John makes clear that Jesus’ whole story is not in the Bible. How delightful, after telling God I’d love to learn more of Jesus’ story, that I come across these sayings.😊🙏🏼 What’s your take?

Ivory Hecker

10,956 views • 1 month ago

I’ve been saying for years that the Democrat politician’s “book deals” has been a creative way for them to launder a bunch of money towards a candidate. This video confirms my belief and how it is actually done. Their books suck, are filled with creative spin (lies) and I would love to see the warehouses where Soros stores all the books he has purchased thru his laundering efforts. Or, does he use the books as firewood?!?!
1:42

I’ve been saying for years that the Democrat politician’s “book deals” has been a creative way for them to launder a bunch of money towards a candidate. This video confirms my belief and how it is actually done. Their books suck, are filled with creative spin (lies) and I would love to see the warehouses where Soros stores all the books he has purchased thru his laundering efforts. Or, does he use the books as firewood?!?!

C-Reason🇺🇸

16,596 views • 1 year ago

This is my facsimile copy of Codex Sinaiticus, the first few major codices like the original this is a photocopy of, are our very first versions of what we today would consider a Genesis to Revelation copy of the Bible. Codex Sinaiticus took upwards of nearly 400 sheep to make and would have cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s currency. By the 4th century when this was made, the perspective would have been that this contained the scripture more than that it was scripture. All of these major early codices operated as mini ancient libraries. And all of our earliest examples of them: whether that’s Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, etc., have Christian books included within the contents of their covers that we today don’t consider scripture. So it is completely incorrect to claim that early church inclusion in a codex equates to scriptural reception. That’s just not true unless you’re willing to argue books like 4th Maccabees, The Shephered of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, and 1st Clement and 2nd Clement, that no church today accepts as scripture, should be included within your Bible. Likewise, the church recognizing books does not mean that their ability to do so gives them the authority. To say that the church gave us our Bible is like saying that the postal service gave you your mail. Your letter carrier is not the progenitor of the mail you receive. Those were written prior to, and even despite, your mail man or woman eventually getting them in your mailbox. The church is the servant and subsidiary of scripture, not the origin. This is why I’ve said in the past that the Bible made the church, the church didn’t make the Bible. Watch the full video: See John Meade’s talk on canon lists:
1:24

This is my facsimile copy of Codex Sinaiticus, the first few major codices like the original this is a photocopy of, are our very first versions of what we today would consider a Genesis to Revelation copy of the Bible. Codex Sinaiticus took upwards of nearly 400 sheep to make and would have cost the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s currency. By the 4th century when this was made, the perspective would have been that this contained the scripture more than that it was scripture. All of these major early codices operated as mini ancient libraries. And all of our earliest examples of them: whether that’s Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, etc., have Christian books included within the contents of their covers that we today don’t consider scripture. So it is completely incorrect to claim that early church inclusion in a codex equates to scriptural reception. That’s just not true unless you’re willing to argue books like 4th Maccabees, The Shephered of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, and 1st Clement and 2nd Clement, that no church today accepts as scripture, should be included within your Bible. Likewise, the church recognizing books does not mean that their ability to do so gives them the authority. To say that the church gave us our Bible is like saying that the postal service gave you your mail. Your letter carrier is not the progenitor of the mail you receive. Those were written prior to, and even despite, your mail man or woman eventually getting them in your mailbox. The church is the servant and subsidiary of scripture, not the origin. This is why I’ve said in the past that the Bible made the church, the church didn’t make the Bible. Watch the full video: See John Meade’s talk on canon lists:

Wes Huff

61,209 views • 11 months ago

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. For over a thousand years Christians used a 73 book Bible drawn from the Septuagint the very Scriptures quoted by Jesus and the apostles. Then in 1534 Martin Luther moved seven Old Testament books out because they contradicted his theology especially faith alone. He called them useful but not Scripture and even questioned parts of Daniel and Esther. The Church did not scramble to add anything back. At Trent it simply reaffirmed what Christians had already been reading since the beginning. Catholics did not change the Bible during the Reformation. The Reformation changed the Bible.
1:22

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺. For over a thousand years Christians used a 73 book Bible drawn from the Septuagint the very Scriptures quoted by Jesus and the apostles. Then in 1534 Martin Luther moved seven Old Testament books out because they contradicted his theology especially faith alone. He called them useful but not Scripture and even questioned parts of Daniel and Esther. The Church did not scramble to add anything back. At Trent it simply reaffirmed what Christians had already been reading since the beginning. Catholics did not change the Bible during the Reformation. The Reformation changed the Bible.

𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚘𝚗𝚎 ♱🇻🇦

136,362 views • 6 months ago

Today’s #manuscriptmonday is the Crosby-Schøyen Codex which contains a letter of Melito of Sardis, a Christian author in the 2nd century. Melito wrote out a list of Old Testament books he considered scripture that aligns quite closely with the Protestant Old Testament. Melito’s list from around 170 AD included all Old Testament books except possibly Esther, whereas the standard Protestant Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. Since Melito excluded Esther, his collection would have contained approximately thirty-eight books—only one fewer than the Protestant canon. Along with the lack of Esther Melito inverted the order of Numbers and Leviticus compared to traditional Jewish arrangement, suggesting he may have reorganized material based on his own theological priorities. Despite these variations, Melito’s fundamental agreement with the Protestant canon on which books belong to Scripture demonstrates remarkable early Christian consensus. A Jerusalem list from the same period (c. 170) included all thirty-nine Old Testament books, suggesting that by the late 2nd century, the core content of the Protestant Old Testament was already widely recognized as authoritative, even if questions about Esther and organizational schemes remained unsettled.
1:04

Today’s #manuscriptmonday is the Crosby-Schøyen Codex which contains a letter of Melito of Sardis, a Christian author in the 2nd century. Melito wrote out a list of Old Testament books he considered scripture that aligns quite closely with the Protestant Old Testament. Melito’s list from around 170 AD included all Old Testament books except possibly Esther, whereas the standard Protestant Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. Since Melito excluded Esther, his collection would have contained approximately thirty-eight books—only one fewer than the Protestant canon. Along with the lack of Esther Melito inverted the order of Numbers and Leviticus compared to traditional Jewish arrangement, suggesting he may have reorganized material based on his own theological priorities. Despite these variations, Melito’s fundamental agreement with the Protestant canon on which books belong to Scripture demonstrates remarkable early Christian consensus. A Jerusalem list from the same period (c. 170) included all thirty-nine Old Testament books, suggesting that by the late 2nd century, the core content of the Protestant Old Testament was already widely recognized as authoritative, even if questions about Esther and organizational schemes remained unsettled.

Wes Huff

163,272 views • 5 months ago

Pastor Tolu, whatever Pastor Segun Onayinka was accused of was not merely an accusation. He has preached some of the most destructive heresies. The video below is an example. From minute 0:13–0:40, he says God cannot kill or does not kill. We have had this discussion before here on CT. Anyone who says God cannot kill or does not kill necessarily ends up holding one or more of the following positions: That the God of the Old Testament is not the true God. That He is evil. That Scripture is not inerrant. And Pastor Segun Onayinka holds all these positions, as we will see in the video. From minute 1:58–2:38, he says Jesus, the true God, when He came, hurt no one, killed no one, and made no one sick; therefore, that is the true representation of God. This is the heresy of Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament was evil and wicked, while Jesus alone is the true God. But God Himself says He kills and gives life. He is merciful, but He also judges with wrath. “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand.” — Deuteronomy 32:39 And when God revealed Himself to Moses, He declared both His mercy and His justice: — Exodus 34:6–7 This is God’s self-disclosure about Himself. However, Marcion created a new canon of Scripture for himself in order to uphold this heresy. He removed all the Old Testament books and retained only parts of Paul’s writings. He also removed portions connected to the Jews. That was deeply antisemitic. That same bitter antisemitism found in Marcion’s heresy appears to have been inherited by Pastor Segun Onayinka, as we will see in the video. From minute 2:57–3:12, he blatantly rejects that Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He says one of the twenty-four elders who called Him that was corrected because he was a Jew. Firstly, Jesus is the Lion. Secondly, no one corrected the elder. These elders stand before God’s throne. They are holy beings. But Pastor Tolu, this man whom you say was merely “accused” blatantly rejected Scripture, which says Jesus is both the Lion and the Lamb. But did Jesus kill? Of course He did. He is God. The One who gives life also has the authority to take it. They say Jesus was never recorded killing anyone in the New Testament. Well, Jesus did not begin existing in the New Testament. He is eternal. And Jude records Him killing the entire rebellious generation of Israel: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” — Jude 1:5 Jesus did kill. He can. He is God. But this is Segun Onayinka. By the way, this is one of his more tolerable heretical positions. He has said worse. He believes communion and baptism are not necessary. He believes Jesus is not coming back, no second coming, that He never left. Look, if Jesus is not coming back, then there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection, then we have no hope. As Paul said: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” — 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul even asked: “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” — 1 Corinthians 15:32 These kinds of teachings were condemned by the apostles. Paul cursed those who taught it. All of them. Peter cursed them so much in 2 Peter that the early church almost didn't add the book to the canon. This is precisely why Paul left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete: to silence those who taught such things. Finally, he held all these views while claiming biblical and theological scholarship that towered above every Nigerian preacher. He claimed he was part of a Bible translation committee. He has been asked which one, and till date, there has been no answer. We want to be moderate. But if the early church heard what he preached, he would have been declared anathema instantly. Pastor Segun Onayinka, unless he has changed and repented, has preached some of the most dangerous heresies in this nation. Preachers like him should not be tolerated in the community of the sanctified. He doesn't hold to sound doctrine. Scripturally, he is unfit to be an overseer. But you claim he was falsely accused. He wasn't. Pastor Segun Onayinka has preached has not preached the sound gospel of the faith. And God will put Satan under our feet soon. Amen.
3:36

Pastor Tolu, whatever Pastor Segun Onayinka was accused of was not merely an accusation. He has preached some of the most destructive heresies. The video below is an example. From minute 0:13–0:40, he says God cannot kill or does not kill. We have had this discussion before here on CT. Anyone who says God cannot kill or does not kill necessarily ends up holding one or more of the following positions: That the God of the Old Testament is not the true God. That He is evil. That Scripture is not inerrant. And Pastor Segun Onayinka holds all these positions, as we will see in the video. From minute 1:58–2:38, he says Jesus, the true God, when He came, hurt no one, killed no one, and made no one sick; therefore, that is the true representation of God. This is the heresy of Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament was evil and wicked, while Jesus alone is the true God. But God Himself says He kills and gives life. He is merciful, but He also judges with wrath. “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand.” — Deuteronomy 32:39 And when God revealed Himself to Moses, He declared both His mercy and His justice: — Exodus 34:6–7 This is God’s self-disclosure about Himself. However, Marcion created a new canon of Scripture for himself in order to uphold this heresy. He removed all the Old Testament books and retained only parts of Paul’s writings. He also removed portions connected to the Jews. That was deeply antisemitic. That same bitter antisemitism found in Marcion’s heresy appears to have been inherited by Pastor Segun Onayinka, as we will see in the video. From minute 2:57–3:12, he blatantly rejects that Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He says one of the twenty-four elders who called Him that was corrected because he was a Jew. Firstly, Jesus is the Lion. Secondly, no one corrected the elder. These elders stand before God’s throne. They are holy beings. But Pastor Tolu, this man whom you say was merely “accused” blatantly rejected Scripture, which says Jesus is both the Lion and the Lamb. But did Jesus kill? Of course He did. He is God. The One who gives life also has the authority to take it. They say Jesus was never recorded killing anyone in the New Testament. Well, Jesus did not begin existing in the New Testament. He is eternal. And Jude records Him killing the entire rebellious generation of Israel: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” — Jude 1:5 Jesus did kill. He can. He is God. But this is Segun Onayinka. By the way, this is one of his more tolerable heretical positions. He has said worse. He believes communion and baptism are not necessary. He believes Jesus is not coming back, no second coming, that He never left. Look, if Jesus is not coming back, then there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection, then we have no hope. As Paul said: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” — 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul even asked: “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” — 1 Corinthians 15:32 These kinds of teachings were condemned by the apostles. Paul cursed those who taught it. All of them. Peter cursed them so much in 2 Peter that the early church almost didn't add the book to the canon. This is precisely why Paul left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete: to silence those who taught such things. Finally, he held all these views while claiming biblical and theological scholarship that towered above every Nigerian preacher. He claimed he was part of a Bible translation committee. He has been asked which one, and till date, there has been no answer. We want to be moderate. But if the early church heard what he preached, he would have been declared anathema instantly. Pastor Segun Onayinka, unless he has changed and repented, has preached some of the most dangerous heresies in this nation. Preachers like him should not be tolerated in the community of the sanctified. He doesn't hold to sound doctrine. Scripturally, he is unfit to be an overseer. But you claim he was falsely accused. He wasn't. Pastor Segun Onayinka has preached has not preached the sound gospel of the faith. And God will put Satan under our feet soon. Amen.

Spiricoco Twittter

117,468 views • 2 months ago

📚🇲🇦 72-year-old Mohamed Aziz is the most photographed bookseller in the world, living in Rabat, Morocco. Aziz, who became an orphan at the age of six, had a difficult life; he could not even finish high school because textbooks were too expensive. In 1963, at the age of 15, he started his career as a bookseller with a pile of 9 books under a tree. Now, his bookstore sells thousands of books, and he spends his days surrounded by books, devouring the stories that emerge from them. He spends 6 to 8 hours a day reading, stopping only to eat, pray, smoke, and help his customers. All his remaining time is spent walking around neighborhoods in search of books to later display and sell in his shop. He says this is his revenge on childhood and poverty: “I have read more than 4,000 books in Arabic, French, English, or Spanish, which means I have lived more than 4,000 lives. Everyone should have such a chance! All I need to enjoy my day are two pillows and a book.”
0:39

📚🇲🇦 72-year-old Mohamed Aziz is the most photographed bookseller in the world, living in Rabat, Morocco. Aziz, who became an orphan at the age of six, had a difficult life; he could not even finish high school because textbooks were too expensive. In 1963, at the age of 15, he started his career as a bookseller with a pile of 9 books under a tree. Now, his bookstore sells thousands of books, and he spends his days surrounded by books, devouring the stories that emerge from them. He spends 6 to 8 hours a day reading, stopping only to eat, pray, smoke, and help his customers. All his remaining time is spent walking around neighborhoods in search of books to later display and sell in his shop. He says this is his revenge on childhood and poverty: “I have read more than 4,000 books in Arabic, French, English, or Spanish, which means I have lived more than 4,000 lives. Everyone should have such a chance! All I need to enjoy my day are two pillows and a book.”

MENA Visuals

40,682 views • 5 months ago

🇲🇦 72-year-old Mohamed Aziz is the most photographed bookseller in the world, living in Rabat, Morocco. Aziz, who became an orphan at the age of six, had a difficult life; he could not even finish high school because textbooks were too expensive. In 1963, at the age of 15, he started his career as a bookseller with a pile of 9 books under a tree. Now, his bookstore sells thousands of books, and he spends his days surrounded by books, devouring the stories that emerge from them. He spends 6 to 8 hours a day reading, stopping only to eat, pray, smoke, and help his customers. All his remaining time is spent walking around neighborhoods in search of books to later display and sell in his shop. He says this is his revenge on childhood and poverty: “I have read more than 4,000 books in Arabic, French, English, or Spanish, which means I have lived more than 4,000 lives. Everyone should have such a chance! All I need to enjoy my day are two pillows and a book.”
0:39

🇲🇦 72-year-old Mohamed Aziz is the most photographed bookseller in the world, living in Rabat, Morocco. Aziz, who became an orphan at the age of six, had a difficult life; he could not even finish high school because textbooks were too expensive. In 1963, at the age of 15, he started his career as a bookseller with a pile of 9 books under a tree. Now, his bookstore sells thousands of books, and he spends his days surrounded by books, devouring the stories that emerge from them. He spends 6 to 8 hours a day reading, stopping only to eat, pray, smoke, and help his customers. All his remaining time is spent walking around neighborhoods in search of books to later display and sell in his shop. He says this is his revenge on childhood and poverty: “I have read more than 4,000 books in Arabic, French, English, or Spanish, which means I have lived more than 4,000 lives. Everyone should have such a chance! All I need to enjoy my day are two pillows and a book.”

MENA Visuals

296,030 views • 7 months ago

THE ONE WORD JESUS NEVER SAID If Jesus only meant the Eucharist as a symbol, there is one word He could have used. He never did. That omission changed history. It still divides Christianity today. And once you notice it, it is difficult to unsee. In John chapter 6, Jesus tells the crowd something that shocks them more than any miracle He had performed. “I am the living bread that came down from heaven... the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The crowd immediately understands His meaning. Not symbolically. Literally. They begin arguing among themselves. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is the turning point. If they had misunderstood Him, this was the perfect opportunity to clarify. Imagine if Jesus had said, “You misunderstood Me. I only meant this figuratively.” Or, “My flesh simply represents My teaching.” Or, “This is only a symbol.” Instead, He does the exact opposite. He repeats Himself. Again. And again. With even stronger language. “My flesh is true food.” “My blood is true drink.” “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” The Greek text becomes even more striking. Earlier in the discourse, St. John uses the ordinary Greek verb for eating. Then, as the tension rises, he changes to another verb that literally means “to chew” or “to gnaw.” The language becomes more concrete, not less. Jesus intensifies the claim instead of softening it. Then something extraordinary happens. Many of His own disciples leave. Not His enemies. His disciples. They say, “This saying is hard. Who can accept it?” Notice what Jesus does next. He lets them go. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus often corrected misunderstandings. When Nicodemus thought Jesus meant physical birth, Jesus explained. When the disciples misunderstood the leaven of the Pharisees, Jesus explained. When people thought He was speaking about literal sleep instead of death, Jesus explained. But here, where His teaching causes many disciples to walk away... He gives no correction. No clarification. No apology. No pursuit. Instead, He turns to the Twelve and asks, “Will you also go away?” Peter answers with one of the most beautiful professions of faith in Scripture. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Notice that Peter does not say, “Now we understand.” He says, in effect, “We do not fully understand, but we trust You.” That is faith. About one year later, at the Last Supper, Jesus fulfills what He promised. He does not say, “This symbolizes my body.” He does not say, “This reminds you of my body.” He says, “This is my body.” “This is my blood.” The first Christians understood these words exactly as they were spoken. Around A.D. 107, while being led to martyrdom in Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch warned Christians about those who refused to believe that the Eucharist is truly the flesh of Jesus Christ. This is remarkable. He wrote this only a few years after the death of St. John the Apostle. The belief in the Real Presence was not a medieval invention. It was the faith of the Apostolic Church. A few decades later, St. Justin Martyr explained to the Roman Emperor that Christians did not receive ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but the flesh and blood of Christ made present through the words of Jesus. Generation after generation, the testimony remains the same. The Eucharist is not merely sacred. It is Christ Himself. This also explains something many people overlook. Every miracle Jesus performed restored earthly life. The blind received sight. The lame walked. The dead were raised. But every one of those people eventually died again. The Eucharist is different. It is the only gift Jesus gave that is ordered toward eternal life itself. “Whoever eats this bread will live forever.” No prophet could make that promise. No angel could make that promise. Only God.
0:26

THE ONE WORD JESUS NEVER SAID If Jesus only meant the Eucharist as a symbol, there is one word He could have used. He never did. That omission changed history. It still divides Christianity today. And once you notice it, it is difficult to unsee. In John chapter 6, Jesus tells the crowd something that shocks them more than any miracle He had performed. “I am the living bread that came down from heaven... the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The crowd immediately understands His meaning. Not symbolically. Literally. They begin arguing among themselves. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is the turning point. If they had misunderstood Him, this was the perfect opportunity to clarify. Imagine if Jesus had said, “You misunderstood Me. I only meant this figuratively.” Or, “My flesh simply represents My teaching.” Or, “This is only a symbol.” Instead, He does the exact opposite. He repeats Himself. Again. And again. With even stronger language. “My flesh is true food.” “My blood is true drink.” “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” The Greek text becomes even more striking. Earlier in the discourse, St. John uses the ordinary Greek verb for eating. Then, as the tension rises, he changes to another verb that literally means “to chew” or “to gnaw.” The language becomes more concrete, not less. Jesus intensifies the claim instead of softening it. Then something extraordinary happens. Many of His own disciples leave. Not His enemies. His disciples. They say, “This saying is hard. Who can accept it?” Notice what Jesus does next. He lets them go. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus often corrected misunderstandings. When Nicodemus thought Jesus meant physical birth, Jesus explained. When the disciples misunderstood the leaven of the Pharisees, Jesus explained. When people thought He was speaking about literal sleep instead of death, Jesus explained. But here, where His teaching causes many disciples to walk away... He gives no correction. No clarification. No apology. No pursuit. Instead, He turns to the Twelve and asks, “Will you also go away?” Peter answers with one of the most beautiful professions of faith in Scripture. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Notice that Peter does not say, “Now we understand.” He says, in effect, “We do not fully understand, but we trust You.” That is faith. About one year later, at the Last Supper, Jesus fulfills what He promised. He does not say, “This symbolizes my body.” He does not say, “This reminds you of my body.” He says, “This is my body.” “This is my blood.” The first Christians understood these words exactly as they were spoken. Around A.D. 107, while being led to martyrdom in Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch warned Christians about those who refused to believe that the Eucharist is truly the flesh of Jesus Christ. This is remarkable. He wrote this only a few years after the death of St. John the Apostle. The belief in the Real Presence was not a medieval invention. It was the faith of the Apostolic Church. A few decades later, St. Justin Martyr explained to the Roman Emperor that Christians did not receive ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but the flesh and blood of Christ made present through the words of Jesus. Generation after generation, the testimony remains the same. The Eucharist is not merely sacred. It is Christ Himself. This also explains something many people overlook. Every miracle Jesus performed restored earthly life. The blind received sight. The lame walked. The dead were raised. But every one of those people eventually died again. The Eucharist is different. It is the only gift Jesus gave that is ordered toward eternal life itself. “Whoever eats this bread will live forever.” No prophet could make that promise. No angel could make that promise. Only God.

Gilbert Dabari

32,180 views • 1 month ago

A common criticism of the ST is the choreography. But it actually fits the timeline. These characters were trained in the wild, decades after the fall of the Jedi Order. The 7 forms fell out of practice. Even LUKE didn't learn them from Yoda, he only had books later. So Ben Solo wouldn't have been trained in them either. There is no reason that these characters should fight like Prequel Jedi, and the ST duels are more similar to the OT duels, because they take place after the OT.
0:30

A common criticism of the ST is the choreography. But it actually fits the timeline. These characters were trained in the wild, decades after the fall of the Jedi Order. The 7 forms fell out of practice. Even LUKE didn't learn them from Yoda, he only had books later. So Ben Solo wouldn't have been trained in them either. There is no reason that these characters should fight like Prequel Jedi, and the ST duels are more similar to the OT duels, because they take place after the OT.

Retney 🔜 SWC LA 2027

76,535 views • 2 months ago

NEW: Zohran Mamdani recounts his time at the White House, says his meeting with Trump was as productive as it could have possibly been. Adam Friedland: Did he give you a tour of the White House? What was the weirdest thing he showed you? Mamdani: I sit down waiting for the time of the meeting. And in front of me are all these different coffee table books. And one of them is UFC at the White House... Friedland: That meeting could have gone in any direction. Did that feel best case scenario? Mamdani: It honestly felt like the most productive meeting we could have had. Video: The Adam Friedland Show.
2:53

NEW: Zohran Mamdani recounts his time at the White House, says his meeting with Trump was as productive as it could have possibly been. Adam Friedland: Did he give you a tour of the White House? What was the weirdest thing he showed you? Mamdani: I sit down waiting for the time of the meeting. And in front of me are all these different coffee table books. And one of them is UFC at the White House... Friedland: That meeting could have gone in any direction. Did that feel best case scenario? Mamdani: It honestly felt like the most productive meeting we could have had. Video: The Adam Friedland Show.

Collin Rugg

2,963,398 views • 8 months ago

Threadguy reveals the one trait every great trader he’s met shares “I’ve been having a lot of dinners with these CT legend trader guys, the ones who’ve really done well, and a lot of them are not that impressive. They’re not like these hyper genius guys. But the one common trait amongst all of them is they don’t lose money. Their drawdowns are tiny.” “It’s the same in the books. Druckenmiller’s whole bit is that he basically never had a down month, and they track it in months, not years. Paul Tudor Jones did this too, when he enters a trade, instead of thinking about how much he could make, he thinks about how much he could lose.”
1:11

Threadguy reveals the one trait every great trader he’s met shares “I’ve been having a lot of dinners with these CT legend trader guys, the ones who’ve really done well, and a lot of them are not that impressive. They’re not like these hyper genius guys. But the one common trait amongst all of them is they don’t lose money. Their drawdowns are tiny.” “It’s the same in the books. Druckenmiller’s whole bit is that he basically never had a down month, and they track it in months, not years. Paul Tudor Jones did this too, when he enters a trade, instead of thinking about how much he could make, he thinks about how much he could lose.”

Kai

55,155 views • 1 month ago

When Viggo Mortensen was asked to play the role of Aragorn, he almost passed up on the opportunity; at that time, he had never read the books, had never met Peter Jackson, and was asked to travel across the world the very next day. Fortunately, his son Henry Mortensen encouraged him to accept the role. Lucky for us! Viggo was perfect for the role: he was an outdoorsman and did most of his stunts. Not only did he read the books multiple times, but he also went as far as to learn some Elvish, encouraging the script to include more Elven dialect. As some would say, and we wholeheartedly agree, Aragorn was cast to play the role of Aragorn.
0:59

When Viggo Mortensen was asked to play the role of Aragorn, he almost passed up on the opportunity; at that time, he had never read the books, had never met Peter Jackson, and was asked to travel across the world the very next day. Fortunately, his son Henry Mortensen encouraged him to accept the role. Lucky for us! Viggo was perfect for the role: he was an outdoorsman and did most of his stunts. Not only did he read the books multiple times, but he also went as far as to learn some Elvish, encouraging the script to include more Elven dialect. As some would say, and we wholeheartedly agree, Aragorn was cast to play the role of Aragorn.

LOTR Universe

117,895 views • 3 months ago

This what all Christians want right? Your Utopia arrives when the Jews accept the jewish savior you worship, that was predicted in their fake books right? "I'm a Jew by birth" "I received Jesus and and believe that he is the son of God and he is also the Jewish Messiah" "The apostles. They were all Jews" "You have Jews, you have Gentiles. But once they are in the church, once they receive the Messiah, Jesus, once they receive Jesus as the son of God risen from the dead, boom, they become one together in the body of Christ" "You know, some people would say to me, how can you being a Jew read the New Testament? And I'm like, how can you being a Gentile appreciate the New Testament because it is so Jewish? When you read it through the lens of the Jewish perspective, you understand much better the things that that Jesus was teaching, the things that Paul was teaching, the Jewishness of it"
6:35

This what all Christians want right? Your Utopia arrives when the Jews accept the jewish savior you worship, that was predicted in their fake books right? "I'm a Jew by birth" "I received Jesus and and believe that he is the son of God and he is also the Jewish Messiah" "The apostles. They were all Jews" "You have Jews, you have Gentiles. But once they are in the church, once they receive the Messiah, Jesus, once they receive Jesus as the son of God risen from the dead, boom, they become one together in the body of Christ" "You know, some people would say to me, how can you being a Jew read the New Testament? And I'm like, how can you being a Gentile appreciate the New Testament because it is so Jewish? When you read it through the lens of the Jewish perspective, you understand much better the things that that Jesus was teaching, the things that Paul was teaching, the Jewishness of it"

Seethroughitall

39,156 views • 7 months ago

🚨 OH CRAP. Tucker Carlson scolds President Trump for not putting his hand on the Bible when taking his Oath of Office — Suggests Trump now rejects what the Bible teaches and thinks he’s God “That should have maybe been a clue that we need to pause and think about what is this? Why wouldn’t you put your hand on the Bible? — All president’s do it, why aren’t you doing it? — Right around January 4th, it became clear maybe he didn’t put his hand on the Bible because he affirmatively rejects what’s inside that book, and what’s inside that book are limits on human behavior. Because if there’s one theme that spans all 66 books in the Christian Bible, it’s that you are not God, and you cannot assume his powers.. because you don’t have them. You may convince yourself you have them, you may want them— but in the end, they’re not yours and you’ll never have them.” 🔻 Inauguration Day 2025 JD Vance was sworn in at 12pm, with his hand on the Bible. Trump was sworn in at 12:01pm… with his hand NOT on the Bible. Tucker Inauguration
3:07

🚨 OH CRAP. Tucker Carlson scolds President Trump for not putting his hand on the Bible when taking his Oath of Office — Suggests Trump now rejects what the Bible teaches and thinks he’s God “That should have maybe been a clue that we need to pause and think about what is this? Why wouldn’t you put your hand on the Bible? — All president’s do it, why aren’t you doing it? — Right around January 4th, it became clear maybe he didn’t put his hand on the Bible because he affirmatively rejects what’s inside that book, and what’s inside that book are limits on human behavior. Because if there’s one theme that spans all 66 books in the Christian Bible, it’s that you are not God, and you cannot assume his powers.. because you don’t have them. You may convince yourself you have them, you may want them— but in the end, they’re not yours and you’ll never have them.” 🔻 Inauguration Day 2025 JD Vance was sworn in at 12pm, with his hand on the Bible. Trump was sworn in at 12:01pm… with his hand NOT on the Bible. Tucker Inauguration

MJTruthUltra

71,203 views • 3 months ago

CNN NOW FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS THAT JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH BUT A PALESTINIAN. I have appeared with Father Edward Beck on National TV before. This is a disgraceful interview which is the very essence of fake news. JESUS was not a Palestinian as Palestine did not exist at that time. Clearly Father Edward Beck is utterly ignorant of Even the Christian Bible (New Testament). Jesus was a Jew who was murdered by the Romans for being a JEW and for proclaiming himself the king of the Jews. He was not an Arab, not a Palestinian. Islam did not exist until 700 years after Jesus. This is a disgraceful interview that undermines CNN's entire claim to any kind of truth. I have rarely seen such historical fiction and such fraudulents.
0:44

CNN NOW FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS THAT JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH BUT A PALESTINIAN. I have appeared with Father Edward Beck on National TV before. This is a disgraceful interview which is the very essence of fake news. JESUS was not a Palestinian as Palestine did not exist at that time. Clearly Father Edward Beck is utterly ignorant of Even the Christian Bible (New Testament). Jesus was a Jew who was murdered by the Romans for being a JEW and for proclaiming himself the king of the Jews. He was not an Arab, not a Palestinian. Islam did not exist until 700 years after Jesus. This is a disgraceful interview that undermines CNN's entire claim to any kind of truth. I have rarely seen such historical fiction and such fraudulents.

Rabbi Shmuley

403,064 views • 2 years ago

There are only two times in the Bible where we read that Jesus was amazed. The first was at the great faith of a Roman centurion who asked Him to simply speak the word and his servant would be healed. This was a man who was not raised on Scripture—quite the opposite. Yet somehow he understood authority. He believed that if Jesus just said the word, it would be done. And Jesus was amazed at his simple, confident, powerful faith. The second time Jesus was amazed was at the unbelief of the people in His own hometown of Nazareth when He declared Himself to be the Messiah. The contrast is striking—faith from a pagan soldier, unbelief from those who knew the Scriptures. More on that here…
2:28

There are only two times in the Bible where we read that Jesus was amazed. The first was at the great faith of a Roman centurion who asked Him to simply speak the word and his servant would be healed. This was a man who was not raised on Scripture—quite the opposite. Yet somehow he understood authority. He believed that if Jesus just said the word, it would be done. And Jesus was amazed at his simple, confident, powerful faith. The second time Jesus was amazed was at the unbelief of the people in His own hometown of Nazareth when He declared Himself to be the Messiah. The contrast is striking—faith from a pagan soldier, unbelief from those who knew the Scriptures. More on that here…

Greg Laurie

81,103 views • 5 months ago

THE TRUE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: "Millions of people in this country—whose lives have never been changed—believe themselves born again because we have so reduced the gospel of Jesus Christ, that it now means nothing more than a simple decision that will only take five minutes of your time. When it (Scripture) talks about receiving Christ, it is through repentance and faith. It is not taking Him in as some accessory. It is taking Him in as the very sustenance of your life! Christ isn't just something in your life that makes it better. Christ is your life!" —Paul Washer
4:27

THE TRUE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: "Millions of people in this country—whose lives have never been changed—believe themselves born again because we have so reduced the gospel of Jesus Christ, that it now means nothing more than a simple decision that will only take five minutes of your time. When it (Scripture) talks about receiving Christ, it is through repentance and faith. It is not taking Him in as some accessory. It is taking Him in as the very sustenance of your life! Christ isn't just something in your life that makes it better. Christ is your life!" —Paul Washer

Danny

37,843 views • 6 months ago