Daniel 9, the bogus prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion, exposed by Rabbi Tovia Singer!

There are two anointed ones spoken here in this passage at the end of Daniel 9. There's one anointed one who comes after seven weeks, which means after 49 years, namely that Cyrus. How do you know? Because Toby says it. Forget Ovia, look at Isaiah 45:1. Cyrus is God's Messiah, God's Messiah. It says it explicitly.

But only here in Daniel 9 do they translate the word "meshia" as Messiah, and they—it goes further, they then capitalize the word Messiah. Open up your King James right now. Open up your New American Standard right now. Open up your New NIV right now. "Messiah" is capitalized.

Now, here is the, here is the ultimate brain, just the brain screw, and that is there is no such thing as a capital letter in the Hebrew language. In Isaiah 45, verse 1, do you think that the word "anointed" is capitalized or not capitalized? Until an anointed one, a prince, the Messiah the Prince, how the King James translated, will be seven weeks. Stop. There's a semicolon there. Here's what I want you to do. I want you to open up a modern King James, that means not the 1611. Let's go to the, the, the one that was just published yesterday, and notice. Wow.

So what happened? This is mind-blowing. I mean, your frontal lobe should be shooting through your cerebellum, and I don't even know what I just said.

[Music]

Ah, welcome back to The Gnostic Informant, and you are about to attain true gnosis. And I'm with Rabbi Tovia Singer. Now, uh, back by popular demand, as always. You know, after a couple weeks, people start, people start asking in the comments section, "Where is the Rabbi? Where has he been?" I am so, you know, I, I do what I'm told. You know, no, but, um, anyways, anyways, uh, I want to talk to you about Daniel. And this, so like I said before, last time you were on, right? I get these emails from people, and they watch my, they watch us, they watch you, and they're listening intently, and they want to learn. Like, "Oh, you guys are making good points. These are unfalsifiable points. You're making. We can look these up. We can check the Hebrew. And sure enough, you guys are right." But, and I always get these, you always get these "buts." And then there's a couple more questions added, tackled on. It's like, "Okay, Isaiah 53. Okay, you're right. It's the suffering servant. Sister, we got it. You guys, you guys are right." All right. And they'll say like, "Okay, the, the, the virgin thing. You guys are right about that. Okay, whatever. You're right." You know, "Alma betulah," you got that. "But now I got you. I got you in check now." I'm like, "Okay, what is it now? Daniel, Daniel 9. Who else could Daniel be talking about when he talks about the 70 weeks? The anointed one will be cut down." Right? It's so clear that that's Jesus. So I'm going to throw it right over to you. Take as much time as you need. Explain to us what this means, and how, how does it get so misinterpreted?

It should be said from the outset that if someone, um, concedes Isaiah 53, which they would have to, as you said, the context demands it, and concedes Isaiah chapter 7 is not talking about the birth of a Messiah 700 years later, you then can throw the New Testament in the place that it belongs, the garbage, because that demonstrates that Matthew was misappropriating passages from the Hebrew Bible. And both Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 53 are used in the New Testament. Philip famously uses that with the, with the eunuch from Gaza, and Matthew 1:23. But Daniel 9, you're right, stands out alone, very, very unique. Because Christians will say, "Daniel 9 is very different here because here we have a precise prediction of exactly when the Messiah is going to be killed, going to be crucified. We have the timing. It is perfectly set up and is outlined in the last four passages of the ninth chapter of Daniel. How could you deny Christ?"

Now, what's very striking about this, I brought up to Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 7, not just because you did, but there's something very striking about Daniel 9, and that is the writers of the New Testament did not consider that to be very important. In fact, nowhere in the Christian Bible did the authors think or record that Daniel 9 predicts the date of the Messiah's death. I mean, you would have to believe that Paul knew that Daniel 9 predicted that the Messiah would be cut off, killed after 70 weeks, and Paul just didn't think that was important enough to mention. You'd have to believe that the writers of all four Gospels and the letters of Peter and John, no one thought it was important. So it's mentioned nowhere. And in a moment, you're going to understand why.

There's probably no text in the Hebrew Scriptures that has been mangled more extensively than the ninth chapter of Daniel. And we're going to talk about what's going on there. Daniel is using a unit of time that you, the viewer, need to know before you can get started. And that is, he's using terms of days and weeks to represent years. So a week in Daniel 9 is meant to represent seven years. So 70 weeks is 490 years. And what the church had to do was to alter the last four passages of Daniel 9 in order to make it look like the Messiah is going to come, and he's going to be cut off, and he's going to be killed before the destruction of the Second Temple. This is exactly how it's going to be presented to you. But in order to accomplish this feat, they had to change the text.

Now, one point your viewers must understand. If you don't get this, you're going to be lost. The word "meshiach," anointed, Messiah, is mentioned 39 times in the Hebrew Bible. 39 times. As that word has appeared, as it turns out, it is never referring to the Messiah who we refer to as the Messiah. Never. It refers to—that's right. So this is like a huge surprise. If you don't get this, you're not going to get anything. The word appears in the book of Leviticus more frequently than any other, and there it's referring to priests, "kohanim," uh, the sons of Aaron. So I, people from my tribe, from my family line, are called anointed.

Now, in every other instance in the Hebrew Bible where the word "meshiach" appears, the Christian Bibles, the King James, the New International Version, all of them line up all the usual characters correctly. Translate the word "meshiach" as "anointed." But only here in Daniel 9 do they translate the word "messiah" as Messiah. And they—it goes further, they then capitalize the word Messiah. Open up your King James right now. Open up your New American Standard right now. Open up your New NIV right now. "Messiah" is capitalized.

Now, here is the, here is the ultimate brain, just the brain screw, and that is there is no such thing as a capital letter in the Hebrew language. I found that out the hard way. I found out that when I started looking into Hebrew, I said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Where's the, where's the capital?" There's no capitalized. No. And then I was like, "Okay, that changes a lot of things." You know, people wonder why I care about Christians so much, and why don't I get angry when I interact with Christians? The reason I don't is I feel so sorry for them. My heart goes out to them. And if I was in their predicament, that means I've read no Hebrew. I didn't say in a word of Hebrew. Even though Christians firmly believe that the Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures, was originally written in Hebrew, slash there's a little Aramaic, but it's, it's, even they believe that the Hebrew is the word of God, but they can't read a word of it. And they are utterly dependent on the translators. So much so, and you know this, right? Christians argue over which is the right translation. And there's some Christians that believe that only the King James. Like, what I mean, if it was good enough for Peter, who's good enough? We know all the silliness. But this is why Christians could, are so easily victimized here, is because they're reading Daniel 9, and it says "Messiah," capital M. And it gets worse. The word, the Hebrew is "meshiach." What the King James does is they amp it up, and they put in the definite article, "the Messiah." There is no definite article in the Hebrew. So therefore, when you're reading a Christian Bible, you're reading a commentary, you're reading a human iteration. And this is not just any translation, any translation is a human commentary. But in the case of the Christian Bibles, and the fundamentalist Christian Bibles, you're reading a corruption.

And just for a moment, just so you know, I want to tip my hat to the normal Christians, the mainline Christians. The Revised Standard Version, with the New Revised Standard Version, does not engage in this. Yeah, you're right. Idiotic process. They, they're straight ahead on this. And by the way, the King James only people, who was the tribe I came from, they thought these were demonic Bibles because they were correct. They think that Satan corrupted these Bibles. And I used to, I used to go along with this. This is what the pastor would tell me, "Oh, pull out your NIV, look it says, 'and anointed,' and it's not even in capital. It's 'the anointing.' Look at your King James, see they changed it." And then I did the courageous thing, the thing that you're not supposed to do, is I went online and looked up the Hebrew, looked up the, the manuscripts, looked up the Septuagint. It would try to check them all off, trying to compare them all. Found out that there is no V, there is no capital M. It's an anointed. It's somebody who's, somebody who's, uh, anointed as a, uh, a priest. This is going to loom very large here. And, you know, I'm going to say this to you, I can't think of another theological conversation. Well, what we're about, what I'm about to share with you is going to come up. So it actually, when people say they only follow the King James, the King James only people. So most people see that is completely insane. The King James was commissioned, this translation in 1607. Uh, 47 people ultimately completed it in 1611. And people really think today that when they're reading a King James Bible, that they're reading the 1611. If you had a 1611, which you could buy online, available, there was only 400 changes done from 1611 to like 1807 or something like that, right? And then there's another massive, and that's because the language changes, right? Grammar. I mean, when in 1607, um, the, the English is called Jacobian English. You can make it out, but it's, it's Jacobian English. It's not Chaucer. It's readable, but it's definitely not our King James. So the King James has gone through numerous revisions because grammar's updated, words are updated, uh, the, the colon, semicolon just came into fashion. I mean, think of it this way, the, the King James version was published just a dozen years after Shakespeare published The Merchant of Venice. Okay? This is really going back in time. So it's been so, like, which King James are you referring to?

Now, you might think, you, the viewer, might think that I'm just sort of sort of poking something at people who are King James only. I wouldn't waste my time with this, but this is going to become humongous in just a moment. So what Christians are saying is that, look, there are 70 weeks that are decreed upon the people and the holy city, and then six things to terminate transgression and sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision of the prophet, and to anoint the most holy, six things. And no one comprehends. Now, in a King James Bible, it'll, it'll read that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah, capital M, the Prince, capital P, its insanity, shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks, which means 62 weeks. How much? Seven, sixty and two, 69 weeks. And what will happen then? The streets will be rebuilt, street and moat, but tribulous times. Verse 26, after the 62 weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. Okay? So they say, here we have a clear prediction of Christ crucified. What Paul preached.

Now, let's go back, and I think the key question to ask, a question I've done this in many live debates that on YouTube where I've asked the question, like, "What is your calculation? When do you start? How do you, when do you start counting these 490 years?" Like, "Huh?" And Christians just have no idea. No, that's the key. I've stood in in huge audiences all over the world. And when Christians ask me about Daniel 9, I've always asked the simple question, "If there's a 490-year period or a 483-year period, eight-year period, because there's 69 weeks, at when do you start counting, and why do you start counting them?" And Christians just completely shut down. They have no idea. They're not bad people, they're just never taught this. Their pastors are not evil, their pastors have no clue. So what we're going to do is we're going to actually unpack what's happening here, because there's one other thing that Christians don't know. We've gone through this before when we've talked about Isaiah 7:14. Ask a Christian, "What does it say in Isaiah 7:13? What is the context?" When you read Isaiah 53, "What does it say in Isaiah 52?" And Christians just go, "The lights go out."

So what is happening here in Daniel 9? Daniel is in an extraordinary predicament. Here is a prophet that is standing. This is how Daniel 9 begins. In the first year of Darius the Mede. Why is that significant? If you don't know why that's meaningful, you can pack up and go home. What does that mean? What, what is, hap, why is, what is there is a prayer. Daniel is crying to God. He feels like the Jewish people are in an enormous amount of trouble. And you have no idea how serious the problem that Daniel's confronting. And I'm just unpacking Daniel chapter 9, verse 1 and 2. Daniel is standing at a time when the Babylonian Empire has just collapsed. Historians to this day are hard-pressed to explain how this could have happened. We talk about the Babylonian Empire, you think about the United States. This was a massive empire. Like, how did it last? And the Persian Empire suddenly explodes into a massive empire. How did it happen? To this day, historians are hard-pressed to explain how that could have happened. But Daniel is looking at two passages in Jeremiah. If you don't know this, you can possibly understand Daniel 9. The first passage is Jeremiah chapter 25, verse 12. It's a passage that looks very similar to Daniel chapter 29, verse 10, because both of them talk about a redemption of the Jewish people from Babylon. And they seem to be predicting the same exact thing. Daniel chapter 25, verse 12, Jeremiah is speaking, and he's conveying that the Babylonian Empire will collapse after 70 years. The audience needs to just understand this, because if you don't understand what's going on in this passage, Jeremiah is trying to convince the Jewish people not to rebel against Babylon. That's a huge part of the book of Jeremiah. People are saying, "Let's fight against the Babylonians," and Jeremiah is saying, "God is not on your side." And if you do fight against Babylon, God is not going to be with you. And in fact, they didn't listen to Jeremiah. And moreover, Jeremiah says the Babylonian Empire only has 70 years. So if you just shut up and wait it out, they're going to be gone. That's the message of Jeremiah 25:12, and that's the context.

There is another passage which I'll read to you in Jeremiah 29, verse 10. This is what Daniel is struggling with in that opening passage of Daniel 9. In Jeremiah 29:10, it says, "Thus says the Lord, at the completion of seven years of Babylon, I will remember you, I will fulfill my good word toward you to restore you to this place." It seems identical. So imagine Daniel is standing there, the Babel, the unthinkable, the Soviet Union, a massive empire collapses, the Babylonian empire, your nemesis collapses, but nothing's happening. The Jews are not going back. Darius the Mede has emerged. That means the Persian Empire has begun, right? And nothing. The Jews are not going back. And Daniel is going, "Oh my Lord, this is ominous." Daniel begins to think, this is in the text, in Daniel 9, begins to imagine that, "Whoa, the curse of Leviticus chapter 26, verse 18, which says, 'If you sin against me and continue to sin, I'll multiply your punishment seven times,' has emerged." And in fact, instead of this 70-year exile, there's perhaps a 490-year exile. And that's what he's struggling with. The angel Gabriel comes to explain to Daniel what is actually happening here.

I need one other short history lesson. It's fascinating. I love it. Okay. So I need you, the viewer, to listen like you've never listened in your life. This is a critical history lesson. We are talking about Solomon's Temple. That stood for 410 years. History lesson you must understand, or you can't approach this text. Nineteen years prior to the destruction of the First Temple, [Music] and the Babylonian Empire emerged. Pow! A massive empire emerged. It changes everything. Okay. So that's 19 years prior to the destruction of the First Temple. And in the very next year, which is now 18 years before the destruction of the First Temple, Nebuchadnezzar, who's called Nebuchadnezzar, I think in the Anglican, the English-sized version, Nebu, invades the land of Israel and he subjugates Jerusalem, which means the land of Israel becomes a vassal state of the Babylonian Empire. Very critical. Nebu then will seek to extra—he doesn't want to destroy a temple at that point. He doesn't want to do any of those things. He just wants the Jews to give taxes to him and be loyal to him and give up on any idea of rebellion. These kings usually, they're not like Nazis. They just wanted to kill. This is no genocide. He just warned the Jews to say, for them to say, "Okay, we surrender, and we are now gonna look like the Russians in Ukraine. Just surrender. Say, take it over, and you're now under the Russian Empire." Okay? It's the same exact idea. The Jews don't want to listen to Nebu, as any people, they would fight for their independence. And Nebuchadnezzar then begins waves of expulsion of Jews, multiple ways of expulsion of Jewish people during these 18 years. And the Jews continue to rebel. Jeremiah pleads with them, "Don't rebel." But bear this in mind, from 18 years prior to the destruction of the First Temple, Jerusalem already is a vassal state of the Babylonian Empire. There is no independence any longer.

Now, listen carefully. In the 19th year, from the Babylonian Empire, the First Temple is totally destroyed, and almost all the Jews are exiled to Babylon. A small number goes to Egypt, but that's not germane right now. The First Temple, Solomon's Temple, is utterly destroyed by the Babylonian Empire. Here's one other key element, a date you must know. For 50 years, from the time the First Temple was destroyed until the Persian Empire emerges, which means Darius the Mede, a very brief interlude, but then Cyrus the Great, is 50 years. A 50-year period, uh, spans from the destruction of the First Temple until the emergence of the Persian Empire with Cyrus, who God calls His Messiah. I'm giving you a wink. I'll give you a head to what's going on there. Back in Isaiah 45, it says that Cyrus, who was a king, who was an anointed prince, literally in Isaiah 45, Cyrus gives the command for the Jews to return back to Jerusalem and to rebuild it. Okay? So therefore, here's the key. If you're Daniel, and you're standing at when the Babylonian Empire's collapsed, but the Jews have not returned, because you're, it's Darius the Mede, you're counting 70 years from when? 70 years from the emergence of the Babylonian Empire, which means you just passed the 69th year, and you're going, "Okay, one part of this prophecy has been fulfilled, but we're not going back." It's like you can hear crickets in the background. Like, "What's going on?" Like, "Part one of prophecy is fulfilled, part two isn't fulfilled." The angel Gabriel is there to explain to Daniel that in fact, these two 70-year periods of Jeremiah 25, verse 12, and 29, verse 10, are two different 70-year periods. Because the Babylonian exile, that means for the time the First Temple was destroyed until the Second Temple was built under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua ben-Yotsadak, that's 70 years. So therefore, there are two 70-year periods that overlap with each other, and the overlap is 50 years. And now we can understand what's happening.

So Daniel was pouring out his guts and going, "Please, Lord, have mercy on us. Let us go back to our land. Let not this terrible curse come upon us," articulated in Leviticus chapter 26, verse 19. So the text actually reads, and I'm going now to chapter 9, verse 25. You should know and understand from the going forth of the word. What does that mean? From the going forth of the word. We know that from Daniel chapter 9, verse 1 and 2, that means from the destruction of Jerusalem to return and rebuild Jerusalem. Until an anointed prince, the Hebrew will be "shiva," seven weeks. How long is seven weeks? Remember what I told you? Each day is a year. I'm not going to go into why the union, there's a reason why each day is a year in this, in Daniel 9. It's not the only place. It's very similar to Leviticus chapter 25. If you know what that means, great. If not, I don't want to overload you with information. Seven weeks, which means 49 years, will pass from the destruction of the First Temple until an anointed prince. Nugget. Seven weeks. That's 49 years. What did I remember what I told you? From the destruction of the First Temple until Cyrus gives the command. See the opening passages of Ezra. This is why the Christian Bibles take the book of Ezra and they shove it away from the end because they don't want you to see. That's why they mix up the order. They mix it up. Yeah. They write, right, right in the Jewish Bible, after they finish Daniel, go to Ezra. That's a nightmare for the church because if you finish Daniel, remember Daniel's only 12 chapters, and then you open up Ezra. What does Ezra begin with? The book of Ezra begins not with Ezra, my friends, boys and girls. In the book of Ezra, we're not introduced as until chapter seven. Ezra begins chapter one, verse one, two, three, four, five, in a pronouncement of Cyrus the Great saying, "Jews, I have a word from God. You need to go back and rebuild Jerusalem. You've got to rebuild your temple." And I have it on word from God. Why is Cyrus saying that? Because he has a 200-year-old prophecy from Isaiah, and he's saying, "I have it on God that I've got to send you back." So therefore, what it says there is from the going forth of the word. The word is the word of prophecy of Lachry Yerushalayim. See Daniel 9, verse 1, 2. From the destruction of the First Temple until Cyrus the Great. Who is Cyrus the Great? He is an anointing. He's not just anointed, but he's a prince. Now, how do you know I'm telling you the truth, my friends? All you have to do is go to Isaiah chapter 44, verse 28, and Isaiah 45, verse 1. That's where the chapter break is. That chapter break is completely artificial. Who says to Cyrus? Says Isaiah 44, verse 28, "He is my shepherd." "All my desire be fulfilled in him." "To say to Jerusalem, it shall be built, and the temple shall be founded." So says the Lord. I want to say that again, and you can open up your King James, Christ, a Bible with 15 crosses on it, it doesn't make a difference which one you use. It will say to my anointed, to Cyrus. Yeah. The Hebrew is "mashiach." And interestingly, interestingly, my friends, take a guess before you look it up. In Isaiah 45, he did the exact same Hebrew word, "meshiach," to his anointed. Do you think in a King, based on what I've told you, in Isaiah 45, verse 1, do you think that the word "anointed" is capitalized or not capitalized in the King James? In the anything? Obviously Jesus Christ, right? In the Christ, Jesus Christ. Yeah, they're not marrying him. God. Yeah. Which this shouldn't be. Which is it? It's the same Hebrew word. Why are you doing? Why are you messing with you? You're right. That's exactly true. They're messing with the text. You Christians, I say this with love, you need to go back to church and demand a refund. You need to pull your kid. You're being lied to. I mean, you need to ask your pastor, "Why does the exact same Hebrew word which appears in Isaiah 45, is translated as 'anointed' with no capital A, and why don't you translate as 'Messiah' in Isaiah 45, verse 1?" Listen, listen, listen. Uh, please, please, please. If you doubt what I'm saying, ask your pastor. Ask any Christian apologist. Why does the King James Bible, why does the King James translate the word Messiah in Isaiah 41:5 as "anointed," but some for some reason in Daniel 9 as "Messiah"? Like, what are you doing? It's the same Hebrew word. Could you explain that? Because if you can't explain it, I'm out. If you can't explain it, I put a lot of money in that plate that passed around, and I'm out of here. And I'm leaving skid marks, and I'm pulling my kids out of this Christian school, and I'm going to start another kids' Hebrew. That is another prime example of somebody taking the word "batula" and changing it into, or I'm sorry, "alma," and making that virgin. But then in other places in the text where the same word is used, they don't use that. So they're doing, they're doing it again. They're finding somewhere in the Bible, in the Old Testament, where they need to emphasize certain words that have to be Christ-like, capital M, Messiah. But the same word is used earlier in the, in a different book to describe the same person. Isaiah and Daniel talk about the same person, and it's capital, it's lowercase A, anointed. It's the same word. Messiah is anointed. That's the same word. It's the Christ. If in Greek, in Greek, it should say Christ, the Christian one, right? I mean, although we have, right? That means why are you deliberately translating the exact same word in one, you're rendering as them, and you put the stuff, the definite article there, stuff, a capital letter there? Just please don't let, let, don't, please don't let your pastor or priest or a Christian apologist, whoever it is, don't let them like change, don't let them change the topic. Okay? You got to try. I need an answer. And if you don't get a satisfying answer, I think it's time for you just to consider what's happening to you. This is why I care because I know if I grew up in a Christian home, I don't know if I'd figure this thing out. I don't know because I wasn't, if I was grew up in a Christian home in Oklahoma, I wouldn't be taught biblical Hebrew. If I was brought up in a Christian home in Kansas, they don't teach kids. Kids are pretty conservative. A lot of evangelicals there. None of their schools for nine-year-olds taught Hebrew. When I was nine years old, I could read Hebrew like you read a newspaper. I mean, it's not, I wasn't just a spectacular student, I was very average. Any Orthodox kid, they learn. We learn Hebrew. I mean, we're just reading it straight through. And it's really easy. It's a small language.

It gets crazier than this. First, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you the final answer first, and then we're going to back up. There are two anointed ones spoken here in these passages at the end of Daniel 9. There's one anointed one who comes after seven weeks, which means after 49 years, namely that Cyrus. How do you know? Because Isaiah 45:1 says it. Cyrus is God's Messiah, God's Messiah. It says it explicitly. And then there's a subsequent anointed one who was cut off. He's not called the Prince anymore after 62 weeks. Now, I'm going to give you the answer now, and then we can backpedal this. The distance from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple is 490 years. 70-year exile, 420 for the for the length of the Second Temple period. When does, listen very carefully, when does the priesthood get cut off and the temple gets shut down? Let me at the end of the Second Temple period, when the Jews go to war with Rome. When does the war with Rome commence? 64, 66. 66, which is how long? It's a half a week. From 66 to 70 is how long? It's three and a half years, right? Bingo. There is your half a week.

So what hap, this is mind-blowing. I mean, your frontal lobe should be shooting through your cerebellum, and I don't even know what I just said. So in 66, what happens? The Jews go to war with Rome. It's a horrible, bloody war. People are surrounded. I, I'm a priest. That means I'm a director of Aaron, my father, father, father, going back. Just so you understand this, although, um, there are many rules that govern my life that are distinct from other Jewish people. As an example, I can't come into contact with the dead person. It's forbidden to me. There are rules that apply to me, okay? But I can't bring sacrifices. I can't work in the temple because there is no temple. That means when the Jews go to war with Rome, the whole temple gets shut down. Everything becomes isolated. It becomes a no, instead of a no-fly zone, it becomes a no-sacrifice zone. So then an anointed one is cut off. That's the priesthood. That means there are 130 commandments in the Torah, out of 613, associated with sacrifices. Bingo. That's cut off. The word "ikaris," "meshiach," means an anointed one. Means "karate." Doesn't mean killed. Now, it could be if someone's cut off, or it could be removed. It could be the kill, but it doesn't mean. There are many ways you could say "yahare." That's how you would say a Messiah is, is killed. "Karase" is removed. The literally, the, the root of the word means removed.

Now, how do, what does the Christian do with this? Because they want only one Messiah. And what they do, this tiny complicated, my apologies to you beforehand, but you need to know these numbers, or you'll never understand in your life. Daniel 9 is describing two anointed ones. One that comes after 50, 49 years, after seven weeks, and that's Cyrus. And a second subsequent anointed one, but he's not a prince, he's not Cyrus. He's coming 60, he's coming 62 weeks later, which is 434 years. That's three and a half years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and he is removed. The church hates this. They need to have both anointed ones as the same. And this is where it gets interesting. So if you're looking at a Christian Bible, whatever it's going to make it appear as though the period of time is 7, 60, and 2. So the text is going to read, "The Messiah the Prince." In a King James, shall be from going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, comma, and three score and two weeks, which means 62 weeks. That means it sounds like the text is saying 69 weeks. But it's breaking it up into a weird way that means it puts a comma there. But there's no comma there. It should be a complete semicolon there. This is where the King James version is gonna, is gonna blow your mind out the window. That means in any language, the way you say 69 is 69. It's not just English. In, in French, "soixante-neuf." In German, "neunundsechzig." You never say, you never say seven, two, and sixty. So what the church did was it compressed these two. It really is saying after 17 weeks, I'll translate, after 49 weeks we have Cyrus, and after a subsequent 434 years, you have an anointed one, which is the priesthood cut off. But they have to conflate it. So they remove the semicolon and they put, they put in a comma.

Now, here is the craziness. I don't think you have it, but if you have it, I'd be blown away, impressed. We don't prepare for our shows, so we just, we just wing it. If you had an actual King James from the 1611, and I discussed this extensively in Volume One, "Let's Get Biblical," and I have a picture, I have the 1611, 6, 16, 1611 King James. If you had a, I don't know if you could do this online or whatever. I have it online. I don't, I have the 18 for 1800 version, uh, but I have that. I can get it online. If you could, one, you could pull it up online, the actual 1611 Daniel 9, verse 25, right in the 1611 King James, not in the 19th century King James, not an 18th century King James, but the original 1611. In 1911, they actually pulled out the plates and republished it. Yeah. That, this Bible is not, I don't, all the King James only churches do not use this Bible anymore. It's not, right? Not even readable. But do you want me to read it? It's, uh, it's barely readable. But this is the mind blower. I'll show it on the screen while I'm reading it to it, so they can sort it, they can see the grammar and everything. Okay, verse 25 says, "Know therefore and understand with the V that from going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be suing weeks, seven weeks and three score and." Stop. Stop right there. Stop right there. What happens after seven weeks? Forget the, the crazy spelling that it's "you" instead of using. What do you see there? "Three score and two weeks." Well, before "three score" there is, in the Messiah, there's an unambiguous grammatical notation. It's in Hebrew. And what is it? In the, in the grammar there, there's a semicolon. Do you see that? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. There's a semicolon, which means it's a stop. Full-blown stop. So from the going forth of the word, listen, my friends, like you've never, from the going forth the word, which means from the vote, Yerushalayim, go back to Daniel 9, verse 1, 2, from the destruction of the First Temple until an anointed one, a prince, the Messiah the Prince, how the King James translated, will be seven weeks. Stop. There's a semicolon there. Because in 1611, they didn't come up with this whole deal. Now, they wanted you to think that's talking about Jesus, because that already goes back to the second century. But they never thought of compressing the two periods.

Now, here's what I want to do. I want you to open up a modern King James. That means not the 1611. Let's go to the, the, the one that was just published yesterday. Okay? And notice. Wow. You, seven weeks, comma. No semicolon, right? The same. You see what happened? It's crazy, crazy, crazy. That means just think about this for a moment. In what universe do you say 69 by saying 7, 60, and 2? That's that's ridiculous. And to prove it further, look at Daniel 9, verse 26, the next passage. Just, you want to make sure that Rabbi Singer is not some fanatic who hates Christianity and is coming on here in order to just make, just so you know for sure that Daniel is interested in Gabriel speaking here, that Daniel's interested in conveying a 62-week period. Look at verse 26. What does it say there? "And after three score and two weeks shall." It doesn't say after seven, three score and two. It says after three, three score and two weeks. After 62 weeks. 62 times seven is 434. Bingo. So when I said to you at the beginning of the broadcast that this is going to make a humongous difference whether using a 1611 King James or 2022 King James, I wasn't exaggerating.

So you need to ask the question, how do you play with this? And we have two anointed ones here. One after seven weeks, I mean 49 years, Cyrus the Great. How do you know he's the Messiah? It says so in Isaiah 45, verse 1. It's really, really famous. By the way, we've talked about this in the past. The people who are Trump supporters said, "Ah, Cyrus is a picture of Trump." And had the coin of, because Trump was was President number five, actually. Yeah. So, so there. So that's how it's kind of. So there are two different anointed ones. What the church does is it tries to compress it. There are more problems here than you can imagine. Because as it turns out, if you say that the anointed one who's cut off is Jesus, Jesus crucified, according to Christian tradition, either in the year 30 or the year 33. Well, that's not when the temple is destroyed. That means if, let's say Jesus crucified the year 30, probably it's not a consensus, but let's say mostly 30. So from 30 to 70 is that a half a week? What's the half a week? Like, what happened? That means from the time Jesus is executed by crucifixion in the year 30 until the destruction of the Second Temple is 40 years. 40 years is five and a half weeks. It doesn't work. The whole thing completely collapses. Wow. Wow is right.

So what happens is the whole thing doesn't work because remember in it, look very careful of Daniel 9:26. There's a prediction of the destruction. "The people of the prince will come," that's Rome, "and they will destroy what? The city and the sanctuary." This is not, this is not like Antiochus Epiphanes. This is the destruction of the sanctuary. We know when that happened in the year 70. Yeah. Really. It doesn't work. Whereas if it's a half a week prior to destruction of temple, that's the year 66. One point that's going to come, people are going to ask this question, so I want to head it off. The, the chronology of Herodotus for the period of the Persian Empire, which means the length of the Second Temple, I don't want to get too advanced in this, and the Jewish chronology are very different here. The Herodotus is the, he's either called the father of history, or as Xenophon fondly refers to him, and sister, as the father of lies. He says the people in the north are called the Hyperboreans, and they have one eye. They're like little, little tiny guys with one eyes on their forehead, and they have gold-guarding griffins that fly around, flying lines, right? And then he said that King Cyrus got killed for going up into the land of the Scythians and throw, chop his head off. But other historians, not like that, didn't happen. So yeah, that's just to give some examples. There are, this is, um, this is, it's a good geography story is referred to, uh, Herodotus as words I, but just completely insane. If you read, you could pick any article on Herodotus, any encyclopedia you want. I'm making this up. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing within, I'm fairly confident within 75 words, it's going to talk about Herodotus's lies and all the problems around us. He does stuff right. There's one of his maps. He makes a mess of the world. It's a little circle, right? It's like, it's just a little circle. It's like, right? There are places he said he's been. We know he hasn't been there. There are whole dissertations written, not one, thousands of dissertations. You said the ravens worship, right? I mean, it's not that he made a mistake. I mean, this is the digital world. No, no. He, so it is a fair consensus that he was just bat nuts out of his mind and just made up stuff, and he was lying through his teeth. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Yeah. So this is, so I, I want to explain this point that there is a con, there is a considerable difference between, and I write about this, unless biblical volume one, there is a considerable difference of the Jewish chronology of the length of the Persian Empire and the secular chronology, which relies on Herodotus. We don't. So just so you understand this. So the period therefore of, in sum, the period that we're discussing here is a 490-year period, 70 plus 420. And the anointed one who's cut off is my great-great-grandfather, and that's the priesthood. The term "cut off," not "yikaris," means cut off, removed. It could be killed. It doesn't mean. If he wanted to say killed, will be "yahare," will be killed. Doesn't say that at all. And that happens when a half a week. If you ask Christians, by the way, what do you do with the last week? They have no clue. If you ask a Christian, "But wait, there's another week, and then there's a half week. When did that week happen?" There's no answer. How is it that Jesus was crucified near 30, but the sanctuary is destroyed 40 years later, when you have a prophecy that happens immediately after? There is no possible answer.

I'll tell you this, I did the forensics on this. Means I wanted to find out who started this. When did, like, who made this? Who came up with the idea? Because as I mentioned at the outset, um, Daniel 9, this whole thing with the dating is not in the Christian Bible. They didn't think of this stuff. They didn't come up with this. And it basically comes down to the time of Irenaeus, meaning basically late second century. Yeah, you could tell. Yeah, right. And, and but it's funny because it almost makes you wonder if after, so after the temple is already destroyed, Paul writes his stuff. Paul doesn't do any of this stuff. He doesn't even get into the years or nothing. So, you know, that Paul is not talking about this or thinking about this like, like you mentioned before. But it makes you wonder if going forward, the church or early Christians are looking back in the text and trying to plug these numbers in. Because like, "Okay, Jesus, well, you know, the destruction of the temple is sort of close to when he was crucified, 40 years give or take." "Oh, he was probably born in the year one." Which wasn't the year one. I'm just saying that just so we could understand the year one didn't happen for like, what, 700 years? What is it? Like, it's way, way later. Anyways, but anyways, they're, they're, they're probably making these dates fit. And we don't even know when Jesus was born. If he was born in 4 BC, he had to have been at least born in 4 BC, because that's what Herod, Matthew, yeah, right? So like, have to be. So the numbers don't even matter. Less than two, right? Right. So, yeah, that's what I'm trying, that's what I'm getting at. Right, right. The guy who invented our year. That means like, we're in 2022. Like, who came up with that? And when did people start using that? So it was a sixth-century monk. His name was Dionysius Exiguus, which literally means Danny the Dwarf. I have no idea what, how that happened. That was sting. And that's what I'm, and that's what he was doing. He was trying to make the numbers fit to 70, right? Which he was close, but it just doesn't match. It's just literally impossible. I don't envy him because as it turns out, as you know, Matthew, Luke date Jesus' birth of more than a decade, as you've mentioned. Matthew has Jesus born while Herod the Great is still alive. And Herod the Great is saying in Matthew's infancy narrative that, "Look at, look, you know, kill all the kids who are two years, years older and younger." So therefore, 6 BCE would be, um, I had a rabbi who once said, "Isn't it interesting that according to Matthew, Jesus was born six years before Christ?" That's a whole different joke. [Laughter] That's so crazy. According to, according to Luke, Jesus was born during the time that the governor of Syria took over from Herod Archelaus. Uranius. So that's the year 6 CE. We know that. So they're actually 11 years apart. There's no year zero. So I mean, what was Dionysius Exiguus going to come up with? I mean, this is 6th century. I mean, the lights went out in the 6th century. You know, kudos to you for trying to come. He's basically trying to do a Tatian, you know, a a Diatessaron, where he's trying to merge everything together. It doesn't work. He tried his best. Yeah. And that's what I was just gonna say, like, it's one of those things that you look at and you're like, "Wow, they almost made that fit. They almost did." But it's like, but once you look at it, once you actually get to the numbers, and you actually plug in the numbers, look at Matthew, when he was born, when all this happened, you're like, "No, it's impossible. It literally is impossible for this to fit." And then you would have to ask yourself this question, if it's so close, oh, it's so close. Well, we're talking about God here. Is God going to be close? Is it going to be a couple of years?

Off, or is he going to be? This is going to be right on. So, it, you can't, it can't be that way. It's close enough. Come on, we're all four years, three years here. No, it doesn't work that way. It's not, it's not right. It's not on, right? So, it's, I'm heating up your point. So, it's not just a matter of how much time. So, 11 years, let's stop being so picky, Yoon. It's two different periods. Herod the Great dies in 4 BCE. His son, Herod Archelaus, takes over, and he governs over Judea. Herod, Herod the Great was insane. He was a maniac. His son was crazier than his dad. Yeah, was totally insane. That fits into Matthew where Joseph has warned, "Don't go back to Bethlehem. It's Herod Archelaus." Archelaus was so crazy that he was too nuts and too anti-Jewish and too violent for the Romans, and they fired him. This is the very big point. So, they were just of Augustus, right? That means they're all puppets. These are not really the king of the Jews. They call themselves that. They all are answering to upper Rome. But Paul, you know, as far as the emperor of Rome is going to call yourself what you want. I don't just pay the taxes and you're fine. That's what's going on.

So, Herod the Great dies in the four B, in 4 BCE. Herod Archelaus takes over the region called Judea, which essentially is everything south of Jerusalem. Herod Archelaus was a psychopath. Definitely inherited his father's craziness. There was no Haldol, there was no lithium at the time, and he went berserk and ultimately was a slaughter of Jews in the temple in the year 6 CE over a Passover massacre. The Romans go, "You are crazy." Imagine if you are so nuts that you're too crazy for the Romans. And the Romans say, "Herod Archelaus, you're out." Right? He's fired. We, this is like very well known. Yeah. And then he brings in, and he goes, "Let's take that gentile from Syria who's the governor there, Quirinius, and bring him in." And then he not only has Syria, but he also governs now over, um, over Judea. Okay, so we know when that happened. They mean they can't be the same. It's not about six, that's 40 years, right? Exactly. We know when all that happens. We have multiple sources on this. So, this is not like, and of course, Matthew and Luke go in two different directions, right? Luke has the family, you know, start off in Nazareth and then go to Bethlehem because of the census. That's the plot device that Luke is using. Following the birth of Jesus, he's not born at home, as in Matthew. He's born in a manger because there's no room at the inn. I just heard a Christian apologist, I'm not going to say who, but he's a fairly well-known guy, say in a debate with a really well-known non-Christian New Testament scholar that the, the Mary and Joseph had two homes. I'm not, I'm not kidding. I'm not going to name names because I don't want to embarrass anyone. Yeah, okay. So, I, I need to say this because I don't know if anyone's going to say this. In, you need to know this because I just saw this in the debate that just occurred like a month ago. I'm not naming names because this doesn't interest me.

So, what happens is the non-Christian New Testament scholar said correctly that Mary and Joseph, in Luke's view, start off their home is in Nazareth. The census forces them to move to Bethlehem, why? Because Joseph is a descendant of King David, okay? Just look at Luke chapter 1, verse 27. Okay, it's really right there. Now, they then, after the child is born, and they then go back to Jerusalem. Jerusalem, just so you know, if you drew a line from Nazareth to Bethlehem, it would basically pass through Jerusalem. The distance is not that far. Let's say it's 90 miles, something like that, okay? So, they, she then, after the month period, she then brings the necessary offerings in the temple and then heads back home. In Matthew, it's entirely reversed. The family is originally from Bethlehem, and then the family has to go down to Egypt and wait to the death of Herod, and then Joseph is warned, "You can't go back home because the new guy, Herod, is crazy and his dad." And therefore, they go to Nazareth. I saw this in a debate with this Christian who's in, who's a knowledgeable guy. This Christian apologist answered this by saying that actually Mary and Joseph had two homes. They had one home in, in Nazareth and another home in Bethlehem, okay? And I'm sorry that the non-Christian didn't respond, but he should have responded. That's completely ridiculous. Why? Because see Luke chapter 2, verse 7, it says in Luke, remember, they don't have a home in, they don't have a home in Luke. I'm giving this all away. They don't have a home in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth, and there's no room at the inn, right? Right, right. Where he's in their house in a manger. They couldn't have had two homes. The whole point of Luke is that Jesus was born in the most distressed, the most humble place possible, a place where horses eat from a manger, a trough. And why? Luke says, "Because there's no room at the inn." But if, as the Christians say, that Mary and Joseph had two homes, one in the Galilee and one in Judea and Bethlehem, why would they have to give, why would they have to go into a barn to give birth? Why don't you just give birth in your home? And I'm sorry that the non-Christian didn't get that one. Yeah, that's a, that's very obvious. That's like, right, I'd be a brain scientist to figure that one out, right? So, in Bethlehem, notice therefore, you can project from that. So, Matthew, would we expect in the book of Matthew to have any mention of a manger? No, because their home is in Bethlehem. That's what they originally, that's the starting point. What's happening essentially is Matthew, Luke are independently inventing, uh, two different infancy narratives or collecting an oral tradition of the infancy narrative in two different places and come up with two separate, incompatible devices to get Jesus to be born in the city in which King David was born. King David was born in Bethlehem. See, First Samuel chapter 17, verse 58. So, but they independently come up with this. So, this is an L source and an M source, and then the whole thing explodes. But it's too late to, to rectify because you have, I mean, people think that like at the end of the first century, people had a Bible like we have together. No, there were certain communities that had the book of Luke, some communities that only had the book of Mark, and some only Matthew. By the time he gets to the second century, it's too late. By the time Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon, saying these are the four, that's it. It's all locked up. Isn't that crazy? Yeah, that's, there's a lot. You just, I just learned a lot in this. Wasn't that intense? Yeah, right. And it turns out, I won't name names, but there are Christian evangelical scholars who, to their credit, could see that these are completely incompatible. Yep. Oh yeah, I've talked to those people. Yeah, I, you know, I don't want, but they're, they, they know this can't work, right? And therefore, the entire, it's very obvious what's happening here.

What's happening in Daniel 9 is, is they already have an idea, and then there's a biased confirmation, which means they want to have Daniel 9 predict the date of Jesus' crucifixion. They don't care how it's done. And then they go back, scour through text, and then twist the passages, change the, the "anointed" to "capital M Messiah," put the definite article, it doesn't exist there, and then just chop it up. Take out the semicolon that's done somewhere between 1611. Now it's done in the 19th century, and then the semicolon, poof, just disappears. There is the unambiguous, uh, grammatical device called an "es nachto," which is there. And if you're going, "Well, the eslather was invented by the Mesorites," meaning it's a, it's a grammatical device. But if you think that the Mesorites made it up, in what universe is 7, 60 and 2 the way you say 69? And in case you're saying, "I don't believe Rabbi Singer," just look at Daniel 9, verse 26. It says, "after the 62 weeks," doesn't say "after the 69 weeks." Bingo. Dead. It's over. This is why Christians do not teach their children the Hebrew language, despite the fact that Christians believe that the Hebrew language was used to convey, convey eternal oracles. I mean, they can easily, Christians could do exactly what the Jewish people can do, and that is, enough with the Latin and teach biblical Hebrew to young boys and girls. They don't. If Christians could read the Jewish Bible in its original language, they'd be leaving the church now. Christians can study Hebrew as an adult, go to college, take biblical. It takes years. I mean, when you're an adult, language doesn't come to you, but then it's too late. You're already bought into the system, and then you're reading everything through a Christological grid. It becomes really very difficult. But this is why, you know, Christian schools for kids that are not teaching, they're not teaching Hebrew to the kids. You want to take biblical Hebrew at Fuller Theological, Dallas Theological, wherever you're 19, you're 20 years old. I mean, if you want to be a pastor, I don't know how many semesters you got to do with biblical Hebrew. You're not going to be, you could barely make out a word, right? You're done. You're smoke. You're fraud. You have no chance at all.

And then I think, you know, you know, I think that's why the King James only, that's where they get their traction from. Like, why would anyone believe that, uh, that folks from the Church of England, that 47 men are good standing from the Church of England, that they would write something as divinely inspired? And to their credit, even though, you know, it's easy to mock the idea because they don't have a holy language, the King James has come to replace their holy language, right? Because they have no access to the Hebrew. I mean, even if you think that a movement is insane, like a King James only, it sounds crazy, you do have to ask the question, but like, why is the, what is generating the six, seven? What is, what is the spark? And if they don't have access to a holy language, then what happens? Then the, then the King James and the kind of Jacobean English, it's, it's not really anymore because it's been cleaned up a lot. Yeah, it's that King Val art and so on. Verily I say unto you, words that are, it gives people something that becomes the holy language. Yes, that's what's really going on. It's Shakespeare too. It's Shakespeare language. And that's what's so funny about it. It's like it becomes like, you say, it's the archaic English language. Do you know when the King James was written, there were no Jews in England? The Jews, there was not a single Jew in England in 1611. Wow. The Jews had been expelled centuries early. There were no Jews there. None. Not a Jew to be found in, in England. Jews would not return to England until 40 years after the death of Shakespeare. Shakespeare is alive during the time when the King James Bible is published. Yeah, as I said, just a dozen years after the Merchant. I mean, he's writing The Merchant of Venice having never met Shakespeare, never met a Jew in his life, right? Ever. By the Calvin, he was part of the Kingsman, which was a right. He was funded by King James. He was in the same court and had Shakespeare and all the plays that used all the plays that we know, all the, Macbeth and all those from like 1604 to 1610, they're on the same time. They're right in the King James Bible. It's all happening in the same decade.

I want to just submit one other thing for evangelicals to consider. Just ponder about this. Evangelicals are not fond of the Church of the Latter-day Saints. They consider the Mormons to be a cult, right? I'm not making this up. For those who are not familiar with this. Oh yeah, if you ever refer to a cult, of course, right? If you ever refer to a Mormon as a Christian in the presence of an evangelical or a Roman Catholic, they'll say they are not Christians. This is a, they're called a cult. They can't stand them, right? Personally, but theologically, they can't stand it. You can call a Catholic a Christian in front of a Baptist, and you can get away with that. But you will never get away with calling a Mormon a Christian. Like, uh, Senator Orrin Hatch just passed away. You know, they would never refer to him as a Christian because he was a Mormon, okay? This is, I want you to listen very carefully. I've never said this publicly. If you ask an evangelical Christian, "Why don't you believe in the Church of the Latter-day Saints? What's wrong with it?" So, they would give you a whole list of problems with it. They would say that it's in, uh, it's incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament. The Book of Mormon, they would say that Joseph Smith is whatever he was, a, he was quite a prankster and so on, blah, blah, whole bunch. But in that list, evangelicals will say to you that in the Book of Mormon, a ton of the Jewish Bible is quoted. That means the Hebrew Bible is quoted all over the place. More than 20 chapters of the Book of Isaiah appear in the Book of Mormon. And guess what? In the Book of Mormon, which version of the Bible is used? Was revealed to Joseph Smith through the angel Moroni, the King James version, the 1611 version. And the evangelical Christians were appealing to the Christian properly and correctly laugh and go, "Why would the angel Moroni be quoting the 1611 Bible?" Like, did the angels forget Hebrew? Like, why would the angels be, yeah, I'm not making this up. So, this is like a big deal because all over the Book of Mormon, huge swaths of passages, all over the Jewish Bible quoted, and it's straight King James. Yeah, King James 1611. And evangelicals, this is why I appeal to the evangelical, use that critical thinking. When you start quoting Septuagints, use that critical thinking. When you start quoting King James, I mean, if you understand that the Book of Mormon is a book that does not deserve you respect, attention, should not be, you should not be reliable, is not credible for many reasons, including that it's using the King James version, then apply that in the same angle. Holy moly, why would I think that the writers in the New Testament are relying on the Septuagint, right? Just like, wake up. And people don't think about such a good point. Yeah, right. Like, like if you reject, you're rejecting all these other iterations of Christianity, then use the same critical thinking and apply it to what you belong to. Apply it to your iteration of Christianity and go, "What, being the Holy Spirit was using the Septuagint to inform Matthew?" Had to write Matthew 1:23. Really? Like, God, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, just forgot how to read Hebrew and decided to be reading from a translation? Does that make sense to anyone?

Shouldn't this, this is clearly written for a different purpose and it's being repurposed by Christians, tweaked, even changed and altered in some areas, for example, capitalizing letters and changing. So, and you can see clearly that it, it just doesn't match. It doesn't, like, do the check. The numbers, the numbers don't match up. But for what you were saying in the beginning, it does match up where you talk about the temple actually being destroyed and the priesthood being cut down. That's right. It matches precisely with history. And I, I want to convey this again. You know, many New Testament scholars, even though I've done shows with them and, you know, they're much nicer than I am about this, I mean, they go, "Well, I had some way, no, this is, we're not talking about, you know, there was a wrong approach or whatever." This is chicanery. This is the kind of stuff that if you're an attorney in the United States and you played with the contract and that was discovered, you'd be disbarred for that. You'd be thrown in prison in the United States or any civilized country for engaging in this kind of tampering with contracts. And this is not an ordinary, this is not a real estate contract. This is, you believe the word of God. What does that say to you? I mean, why would you play with the word of God? And not only, and even outside of the Bible, like when you get this, the Josephus, the famous text about Josephus with the text, the Testimony and Flavium, we know that's been altered and interpolated and even basically just hacked up. And like, you've got other areas where Eusebius just makes up stories that didn't happen. Once you like, like you were mentioning, this was in a court case, there'd be people going to jail over this. This, you would be no longer a credible, a credible witness. There's nothing you could say anymore that we should listen to. You're getting caught all over the place. Being caught with the Bible, you're getting caught outside the Bible. The church is all corrupt like that. It just doesn't look like, if this is the real religion of a real God, he, you would think there would be some order going on here and not just a bunch of criminals making stuff up, getting caught left and right.

You're raising a very, very hot item. And that's Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities 18:33, right? The reason why this is insane that you brought that up because this is amping it up further here. All scholars, Christian or non-Christian, conceive that this text has been completely corrupted, right? The only argument is, is it a complete invention? That means the whole thing about Jesus being a Christ, who is a man, if you can call him a man. It means everyone agrees that this is a, this has been corrupted. This is not like some people going around. No, no, Josephus was really a Christian. Zero people say that. I mean, you have to really be drinking an enormous amount of propofol. I don't know if you could drink it. I mean, you have no idea how much Johnny Walker you have to drink to consume to believe that. I mean, Josephus wasn't the thing. I see in Crete, it's literally the Nicene Creed just injected into the text. What's so crazy about this though is that we all, even scholars and atheists and critical scholars, we all, and and believers alike, all of us, when we talk about this Testimonium Flavianum, we can get into this more on another day, but just real quick, what blows my mind and I don't understand this, I literally to this day, I'm like in shock that we talk about this like it's not that big of a deal. Like, yeah, they just, it just altered the text a little bit, but you know, so wait, hold up, pause it for a second. Shouldn't this, should this, should this be like all over the place? Like they, it doesn't matter if it was originally some skeleton version of this or not, whether it's all invented and all forged completely or if it's interpolated, that is a big deal. That should be like, holy crap, the church is messing around and trying to change things. If it's, if this is all true, they shouldn't have to do anything. Let the word be the word and let it, let God do his thing. Why are you have to, why to do all these extra stuff, right? That's what I'm getting at, right?

So, here, here's where it goes. If Christian scribes were perfectly willing to corrupt your own New Testament, for example, add in 12 verses at the end of the book of Mark because Mark has no appearances, resurrection appearances, it ends at chapter 16, verse 8. If they're willing to mess with their own New Testament, adding in the story of the adulterous woman in, in, in the book of John, to chain, to add in Luke 22:19, half of that passage and all of verse 20 is added in because Luke didn't have the Eucharist, didn't, doesn't have vicarious atonement. So, therefore, it wanted to, if they're willing to mess with their own Christian Bible, what do you think they would do to Josephus? Like, Josephus is not considered a holy book to them, right? And incidentally, loads of church fathers quoted Josephus. Origen was a genius. Origen was a third-century church father, no doubt, the brightest. He didn't even know that that verse was there. He wouldn't, that means there's some for, he's calling Josephus up and down. I, do you want this third-century Origen, just so you know, was only one of two church fathers that was completely fluent in Hebrew. Only him and Jerome. Yeah, Origen was really, was a genius. He was a, a prodigy. In his teens, already, he wrote, Jerome says that he wrote 2,000 books in his life. That might be an exaggeration, but he was just, he was really quite, he knew Josephus backwards and forth. He didn't think that was important enough. Moreover, Origen says in his commentary on Matthew chapter 16 that Josephus was not a Christian. Yeah, he said, "That's too bad. I didn't believe in Jesus." Right? He said, he says that, it means zero church fathers. Nobody. And suddenly at the same time of the council, I see approximately, you see obviously, as you said, the, uh, the historian of the church, right? Um, he, he's the one who's responsible for inserting, uh, Testimonium Flavianum. But this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone because you have a, a criminal endeavor already changing the Hebrew Bible in order to make it appear Christological, changing the Christian Bible in order so that Mark matches Matthew. And that's why, my friends, Luke didn't believe in vicarious atonement, didn't believe that Jesus died as a, as a sin offering, as a ransom for your sins. And that's why you'll have in Mark chapter 10, verse 45, in Matthew chapter 20, verse 28, the reference to Jesus died as a ransom for your sins, but it appears nowhere in the book of Luke because Luke didn't believe in that. And therefore, they had to corrupt Luke 22 in order so that the Eucharist, Luke matches Matthew and Mark. If they would do that to their own Bible, what do you think they would do to Josephus? I mean, this is a no-brainer. [Music]