7 Bible Myths That Will Blow Your Mind

What if everything you thought you knew about the Bible was wrong? Today, we're blowing the lid off seven shocking misconceptions about the good book. And each revelation is more jaw-dropping than the last. By the end, you're going to question everything you've ever been taught. Ready to have your mind blown? Let's go. All right, let's start with this first shocking truth. Lucifer is not in the Bible. Let me say it louder for the pews in the back. Lucifer is not

in the Bible. Seriously, go grab a Bible. Any modern one will do. and start flipping. Oh, wait. Find it yet? No, of course not, because it's literally not there. So, how the hell did we end up with Sunday school teachers pointing to some poor fallen angel named Lucifer like he's some kind of Anakin Skywalker turned Darth Vader? >> Okay, kids. Where is Lucifer? >> Uh, where the hell is he? >> I remember being a kid in church and hearing about Lucifer falling from

heaven. Even though Lucifer doesn't appear at all in most modern translations of the Bible, and it shows up once, one time in an old version, the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611 from Latin. >> Your legal name is Morning Star. >> Yeah, Satan was just my gamer tag, bro. >> See, in Isaiah 14:12, it does say, "How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, son of the morning." All right, sounds like a big deal, right? like Satan the big baddy himself. But here's the twist.

heaven. Even though Lucifer doesn't appear at all in most modern translations of the Bible, and it shows up once, one time in an old version, the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611 from Latin. >> Your legal name is Morning Star. >> Yeah, Satan was just my gamer tag, bro. >> See, in Isaiah 14:12, it does say, "How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, son of the morning." All right, sounds like a big deal, right? like Satan the big baddy himself. But here's the twist.

Lucifer is Latin, not Hebrew. And the original word in that verse is hel meaning morning star or shining one. And Lucifer isn't even a name. You see, it's not a person. It refers to the planet Venus in the morning. Hence, morning star. Furthermore, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with an angel, demon, or any kind of supernatural being at all. The prophet Isaiah was actually making fun of a Babylonian king, comparing him to the planet Venus, the morning star that shines brightly but

vanishes when the sun rises. In context, it's kind of like ancient trash talk, rage baiting about the pride and downfall of a king and has nothing at all to do with Satan. So, how the hell did Lucifer get in there? Well, thank or blame St. Jerome. See, he translated the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate, in the 4th century. Now, Jerome took Hel, morning star, and translated it as Lucifer, which literally means lightbearer in Latin. So, here's what happened. Jerome looked at the Hebrew

Hel and said, "You know what? Morning star. Yeah, let's just go with Lucifer. That's easier." No, I'm serious. This guy literally admitted that it wasn't accurate. He flat out confesses, "We have interpreted it for ease of understanding. Oh, Lucifer who used to rise in the morning." Okay. Now, not only does he say he translated Lucifer for ease of understanding, but notice that Lucifer isn't even capitalized in his translation. That's because it was a common noun, not a proper name. But then

Jerome continues by admitting that the original Hebrew meant something different. Jerome writes in Hebrew to express the phrase word for word, it is read, how you have fallen from heaven, wailing son of the dawn. Wailing son of the dawn. not Lucifer, not Satan. And doesn't wailing son of the dawn make a lot more sense in the context that this is being used to insult a fallen king? Isaiah is basically calling him a crybaby whose kingdom is fallen, not talking about some fallen angel named

Lucifer. Great. Thanks a lot, Jerome. You just accidentally created the devil's fake backstory. No big deal, right? >> So, I am confusion. Why is this one cancers? America explain. >> Now, fast forward to the King James translators in 1611, who apparently didn't feel like double-checking the Hebrew either. >> You sure about Lucifer? It just sounds cooler. >> So, not only did they copy Jerome and leave Lucifer in there, but they also capitalized it into a goddamn proper

Lucifer. Great. Thanks a lot, Jerome. You just accidentally created the devil's fake backstory. No big deal, right? >> So, I am confusion. Why is this one cancers? America explain. >> Now, fast forward to the King James translators in 1611, who apparently didn't feel like double-checking the Hebrew either. >> You sure about Lucifer? It just sounds cooler. >> So, not only did they copy Jerome and leave Lucifer in there, but they also capitalized it into a goddamn proper

name. And because it's capitalized, suddenly we've got a character, a villain, a being, a whole mythological arch nemesis, and the church just went with it, all from one word. Okay, now hold on to your rosaries because this is where it gets absolutely insane. We've already seen that Lucifer wasn't supposed to be in the Bible in the first place, that it was a Latin word chucked into Isaiah 14 as poetic flare by St. Jerome, who admitted it didn't even match the original Hebrew. But what if I

name. And because it's capitalized, suddenly we've got a character, a villain, a being, a whole mythological arch nemesis, and the church just went with it, all from one word. Okay, now hold on to your rosaries because this is where it gets absolutely insane. We've already seen that Lucifer wasn't supposed to be in the Bible in the first place, that it was a Latin word chucked into Isaiah 14 as poetic flare by St. Jerome, who admitted it didn't even match the original Hebrew. But what if I

told you the same word was also used to describe Jesus? Yeah, Jesus, the son of God, the savior, the light of the world, is also the lightbearer, Lucifer. >> Are you Lucifer or not? Depends on the translation. >> But don't take my word for it. Check out second Peter 1:19. It says, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place until the day dawn, and the morning star rises in your hearts." Now, did you catch that? The

morning star rises in your hearts refers to Jesus. Well, guess what the Latin translation, the one Jerome wrote, says right here? Lucifer. Yeah, Lucifer rises in your hearts. So, here Jesus is Lucifer. Hm. Now, that would be pretty strange if Lucifer referred to a fallen angel or Satan, huh? But doesn't it make perfect sense if it just refers to a light in the day, a day star? But wait, there's more. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus himself calls himself the morning star.

I, Jesus, am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star. Jesus just called himself the morning star. The same title Jerome translated as Lucifer. That's mine. That's mine. Read the Bible, bro. Now, before the pitchforks come out, to be fair, this verse was not translated to Lucifer in Latin. But it just goes to show that the term morning star was never inherently evil. It was never a demonic name. It referred to Venus, the brightest thing

in the sky before the sun shows up. Only later did it become associated with a fallen angel in the Christian tradition. In other words, they made it the up. And guess what? Almost every modern Bible today correctly says morning star or day star instead of Lucifer because they finally realized it was never meant to be a name. That means that in many modern Bibles, Lucifer appears exactly zero times because they know it was a goddamn mistake. So Lucifer as a fallen

angel is not originally in scripture. That means a huge piece of what we think is Satan's origin story is totally made up and built on a mistransation of literally one word. Now, the question is, if Lucifer was never in the Bible, what else did they make up? Well, what about Satan? Surely Satan's in the Bible, right? Well, brace yourself because the next one's even more shocking. Number two is Satan isn't the enemy of God. Yeah, Satan is in the Bible. That's true. But Satan was not

originally the enemy of God. Wait, what? Isn't Satan basically the ultimate bad guy? God's arch enemy, the Joker to God's Batman. Well, that's what most of us were taught. It was what I was taught. But no, the early depiction in the Bible of Satan is totally different. >> You think you're my greatest enemy. >> Yes, you're obsessed with me. >> No, I'm not. >> Yes, you are. >> No, I'm not. >> Yes, you are. >> First, let's talk language. Remember how Lucifer wasn't originally a proper name

at all? Well, guess what? In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word Satan isn't a name either. It's a title or a common noun that means accuser or adversary. Let me prove it with a verse that no one ever mentions. In 1st Samuel 29:4, David, you know, the guy who threw a big rock at Goliath, he's about to go fight alongside the Philistines. But the Philistine commander gets nervous and says, "Send the man David back lest in the Bible he become an adversary, Satan, to us." David is literally called a

at all? Well, guess what? In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word Satan isn't a name either. It's a title or a common noun that means accuser or adversary. Let me prove it with a verse that no one ever mentions. In 1st Samuel 29:4, David, you know, the guy who threw a big rock at Goliath, he's about to go fight alongside the Philistines. But the Philistine commander gets nervous and says, "Send the man David back lest in the Bible he become an adversary, Satan, to us." David is literally called a

Satan in this verse. As in King David, God's favorite harp playing, Goliath slaying golden boy. Yeah, because again, Satan just means adversary, not the devil. So, if Satan could be used for David, then clearly it wasn't a name for some eternal cosmic villain. It was a label slapped on anyone who stood in opposition. Still not convinced? Well, let's go deeper. Sometimes when the word Satan appears, it has the in front of it. In Hebrew, it's hasatan, the adversary. Now, think of it less like a

personal name. Hi, my name is Satan. Nice to meet you. And more like a job title, the accuser. So, has the accuser was like the prosecutor in God's courtroom. In other words, his job title was the accuser. And he literally worked for God. Don't believe me? Go read the book of Job. God is holding a staff meeting with the angels and Hassatan strolls in with them. Job 1:6 says, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan, the adversary accuser

personal name. Hi, my name is Satan. Nice to meet you. And more like a job title, the accuser. So, has the accuser was like the prosecutor in God's courtroom. In other words, his job title was the accuser. And he literally worked for God. Don't believe me? Go read the book of Job. God is holding a staff meeting with the angels and Hassatan strolls in with them. Job 1:6 says, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan, the adversary accuser

also came among them." So they chat a bit about Job and God actually authorized Satan to test Job. But in the original Hebrew, it's not just Satan like a name. It'san as a title, the accuser. So, let me ask you something. If Satan is supposed to be God's sworn enemy, why the hell is he attending divine boardroom meetings and getting assignments directly from the boss? Why is he called the Satan? Like a job title, not a personal name. If you're picturing some rebel angel shouting,

"I'll never serve you." That's not what's happening at all. In Job, >> excuse me, don't drag my good name into your sick fantasies. All right. >> Now, see, in Zechariah 3, it's a very similar setup. Hasatan stands at the right hand of the angel of the Lord accusing the high priest Joshua. He's basically doing a courtroom prosecution divine style. He's saying this guy's guilty God. Meanwhile, the Lord rebukes Hassatan, but it's in the context of a legal process, not a cosmic battle. In

the Hebrew Bible, the Satan is not running his own evil empire in opposition to God. Growing up, I was taught that Satan was the ultimate villain, not God's employee. I hate that guy. >> Don't worry, he's going to be God's enemy. >> Spoilers. >> Now, but what about the serpent in the Garden of Eden? Wasn't that supposed to be Satan in disguise? Genesis literally never says that. No, really. Go read it. In Genesis, it's just a snake. A really chatty one, sure, but it doesn't say

Satan possessed him. It doesn't say it was Satan. Doesn't even hint at it. So, where do we get the idea of Satan as the horned, pitchfork wielding lord of hell plotting a coup in heaven? Well, guess what? that came way later. Many scholars point out that it was only in the couple of centuries before Jesus and then in the New Testament period that Jews and Christians started to view Satan as the capital E enemy of God, this independent evil force. By the time of Jesus and

certainly in later Christian theology, Satan had morphed into the devil we know today. Now, the New Testament does talk about Satan as a rebel against God, a roaring lion seeking to devour, the father of lies, and eventually gets associated with the serpent in Eden. But it's critical to realize that was a later development, a later Christian reinterpretation. >> Could it be Satan? >> So, in the Old Testament text itself, the Satan works for God as the accuser.

Satan as the enemy of God is basically a Christian retcon. It was worse than when Rise of Skywalker brought Palpatine back from the dead with zero explanation. >> Somehow Palpatine returned. >> All right, so now you're probably thinking, "Okay, fine. Lucifer was a translation error. Satan wasn't a proper name. He worked for God." But surely Jesus got everything crystal clear for us, right? Jesus said we're all sinners and we need to repent or burn. Right. Right. Well, about that. Get ready for

shock number three. Jesus never said, "Repent." If I had a dollar for every street preacher yelling, "Repent. The kingdom of heaven is near." I could tithe on the megaurch level. Repent and be saved is basically Christianity 101, right? I heard it all the time in church. Except it's totally wrong. Because here comes the next big twist. Jesus never actually said repent. At least not in the way we think he did. See, the English word repent carries a lot of baggage. like feeling sorry for

your sins, promising to never do it again, maybe whipping yourself on the back a few times for good measure. Yeah, some people actually used to do that. >> Repent and thou shalt be saved. >> But guess what? When you read the original Greek of the New Testament, Jesus's message is not about guilt tripping at all. Yeah, just like Satan and Lucifer weren't originally proper names, the word repent is based on a word that means something totally different than we've been taught. The

Greek word that gets translated as repent is actually metaninoa. Literally, meta means change, beyond, transcend, and noa comes from the word for mind. So, it literally means change of mind or a new way of thinking. It's like Jesus was saying, "Wake up. Change your mind." mind. The focus isn't on graveling or feeling like dirt. It's on waking up, seeing things differently, expanding your consciousness. So, what Jesus was actually saying was, "Change your mind

because the kingdom of God is right here at hand." Well, that hits pretty damn different, doesn't it? So, how did metaninoia become repent with all its hellfire connotations? Short answer, another bad translation. Yeah, here comes St. Jerome again. Seriously, this guy is like the ancient world's worst autocorrect. So he ended up translating it as another word which means to do penance as in perform religious deeds to atone for sins which is not at all what Jesus said. That's like taking the

phrase open your third eye and translating it to flick yourself in the eye and feel bad. And by the time that got filtered into English, the word repent was soaked in hellfire and brimstone. Total shift in meaning because metaninoia is about a mindset shift. Jesus was basically a spiritual teacher trying to get people to see higher truths and saying, "Guys, change your damn perspective. The kingdom of God, more on that soon, isn't entered by moaning at the altar about how bad you

are. It's about metaninoia, a shift in consciousness." Total gamecher. But if you need to change your mind to reach the kingdom of God, well, then what is the kingdom of God anyway? But I want you to remember, if you're ready to help people change their minds, you're at the right place. Because this isn't just a channel. It's a revolution of consciousness. So, if you're ready to tear down the lies and wake people the hell up, hit like and subscribe to make enlightenment go viral. If you want to

are. It's about metaninoia, a shift in consciousness." Total gamecher. But if you need to change your mind to reach the kingdom of God, well, then what is the kingdom of God anyway? But I want you to remember, if you're ready to help people change their minds, you're at the right place. Because this isn't just a channel. It's a revolution of consciousness. So, if you're ready to tear down the lies and wake people the hell up, hit like and subscribe to make enlightenment go viral. If you want to

help out even more, become a member for exclusive videos and downloads. And check out my book on inner transformation. Links are in the description. All right. Now, we come to number four. That heaven isn't a place you go, it's inside you. We've been conditioned to think of heaven as the ultimate like vacation destination, a perfect place up in the sky where God's people will kick back on clouds and play harps forever. Well, hang on to your halo because Jesus himself delivered a

shocking truth that totally flips that on its head. >> This will take a few minutes. Don't turn off your soul. >> Heaven is not a place you go to. It's a state of being within you. Now, this is not new age hippie talk. This is straight from the gospel. Let's go to Luke 17:20. The Pharisees ask Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. And Jesus says, "The kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say here it is or there it is." Because the kingdom of God is within

you, within you. Now, some translations say in your midst, but the Greek word entos literally means inside, within. It's the same word used when Jesus talks about cleaning up the inside of a cup in Matthew 23:26. So Jesus is pretty damn clear about this. Do not look around for a physical place or an apocalyptic sky event to announce God's kingdom because it's internal. It's a reality or level of consciousness. It's a spiritual dimension that's right here and within

each of us when we wake up to it. >> Inside me like my spleen. No, Steve, not your spleen. >> And this changes everything. And guess what? It gets crazier because remember what we just learned about that misunderstood word repent. The Greek metaninoia means change your mind. Well, then that means the verse where Jesus says, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Could be interpreted to more correctly mean, "Change your mind. A new way of seeing reality is here." So

all those preachers on the sidewalk with the repent, the kingdom is near signs, who knew I'd actually agree with them? They just have no idea what it means. Think of how this reframes everything. If heaven is within you, then it's here within reach now by undergoing metaninoia, a transformative change of mind. You enter the kingdom, which means you start to perceive and live from that higher consciousness of God's perspective. In John 3:3, Jesus said, "I tell you that unless a person is born

again from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." That's not about saying a magic prayer or joining the right church. That's code for you need a consciousness upgrade. But hold on. If heaven is within you, if the kingdom of God is a state of inner being, then what about hell? Is hell within you, too? Well, number five is hell isn't what you think? On your left, folks, the original hell Jesus talked about. >> Smells like sin and garbage. >> The word itself makes you think of

medieval torture, right? Staffed by red devils with trident or some eternal lake of fire where the damned ry forever. When I was a kid, I had actual nightmares about hell all the time. It was like a horror movie that never ended. But it's time for possibly the biggest twist yet. Hell is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. And the hell that Jesus talked about is not what we've been taught. First off, in the Old Testament, the concept of a fiery pit of torment for the wicked simply is not

there. The Hebrew word often translated as hell in older Bibles is actually shol. And it literally means the grave or the pit, but it's where everybody goes. The wicked and the good both say in the Old Testament, I will go down to Shol. There's no eternal conscious torment of the damned, just death. Now, in the New Testament, Jesus does warn people about something that gets translated as hell. But the word he actually uses is Gehenna. And what is Gehenna? It's quite literally the valley

there. The Hebrew word often translated as hell in older Bibles is actually shol. And it literally means the grave or the pit, but it's where everybody goes. The wicked and the good both say in the Old Testament, I will go down to Shol. There's no eternal conscious torment of the damned, just death. Now, in the New Testament, Jesus does warn people about something that gets translated as hell. But the word he actually uses is Gehenna. And what is Gehenna? It's quite literally the valley

of Hinnam, which is a real physical location just outside Jerusalem. See, back in the Old Testament days, this valley was where some would perform human sacrifice to pagan gods. Jesus's audience knew this place. visit scenic Gehenna now with 15% less human sacrifice. >> So here's the thing. Jesus always talked in parables and stories and tapped into gehenna as a symbol. Think about it. In Mark 9:47, Jesus says, "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out.

It's better to pluck out your eye than for your whole body to be thrown into Gehenna." So obviously Jesus was not literally saying that you should pluck your eye out. And he wasn't literally saying, "You're going to be thrown into Gehenna." The fact is, his listeners knew that valley. And so Jesus used a concrete actual local horror site as a metaphor. It'd be like a modern preacher saying, "Better to lose an eye than end up on death row." Crucially, Jesus loved to teach in parables. So when he

describes outer darkness or flames or undying worms, he's using symbolic language that's meant to shock you, to urge you to repent. But that's metaninoia, remember? So repent so you don't end up in hell means transform your life or you'll destroy your life. It'll be like you're in Gehenna. But the later church morphed gehenna into a detailed doctrine of a metaphysical hell dimension with demons in charge. So what is hell really? Well, if heaven is a state of higher consciousness, then hell

is a state of lower consciousness. Have you ever met someone who's living in their own personal hell because of hatred, addiction, or despair? It's like their inner world is on fire and full of darkness. That's a taste of hell. And it's very real, but it's a state, not a place. Speaking of consciousness shifts, let's apply that idea to one of the oldest stories in the book. Literally, the oldest story, Adam and Eve, because our next misconception is going to take

us right back to the beginning. Number six is Eve didn't come from Adam's rib. You know the story, Adam takes a nap and God yinks out one of his ribs to create Eve. Thus, woman is essentially a byproduct of man, which conveniently turned into 2,000 years of sermons about women being secondary, derivative, or created to serve. That's what I was taught growing up. But what if I told you this story has been totally misinterpreted thanks to a single Hebrew word. The Hebrew word in question is

cella. Now, this word appears dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible. Everywhere else it means side, but English translations decided to translate it as rib. See, what Genesis actually says is this. While he slept, God took one of his sides and closed up the flesh at that sight. And God fashioned the side that had been taken from the human into a woman. So if cella means an entire side, and the text said that God took one of the sides to make Eve, then the picture is not about God surgically

cella. Now, this word appears dozens of times in the Hebrew Bible. Everywhere else it means side, but English translations decided to translate it as rib. See, what Genesis actually says is this. While he slept, God took one of his sides and closed up the flesh at that sight. And God fashioned the side that had been taken from the human into a woman. So if cella means an entire side, and the text said that God took one of the sides to make Eve, then the picture is not about God surgically

removing a tiny bone. It's more like God split the human in half. One half became male, one half became female. And that's a radically different interpretation.

>> Wait, let's talk about this. >> In fact, some non-cononical texts that the church condemned saw Adam and Eve as originally a single androgynous being until they were separated. In a gnostic text called the apocalypse of Adam, Adam says, "We resembled the great eternal angels for we were higher than the God who had created us. Then God divided us in wrath. Then we became two and we served him in fear and slavery." The idea here is that Adam and Eve were originally a single androgynous being

unified until they were split and enslaved in duality. But even if you reject the non-cononical texts, you can't get away from the fact that rib is a mistransation and the original verse sounds a hell of a lot more like God divided them in half. It's an image of equality and unity. It's like yin and yang. You complete me. Anyway, whether you buy the originally androgynous human interpretation or not, the fact remains translators did Eve dirty by calling her

origin a rib. It might seem trivial, but it's fed the narrative that women are an offshoot of men rather than an equal counterpart. Understanding Tela as side restores a sense of balance. >> You complete me. >> All right, one final shocker and trust me, I saved the biggest for last. I have a question for you. Were the Gospels really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because number seven is the Gospels were written anonymously. See, today most scholars agree that the four

gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were originally anonymous texts. Now, to be fair, the earliest surviving manuscripts we have do say according to Matthew or according to Mark, etc. But here's the thing, the earliest ones that actually have those titles don't show up until around 200 CE. That's about a century and a half after Jesus was crucified and decades after the Gospels were likely written. So, we're not talking original scriptures here. These titles were very

likely added on later. The New Testament scholar Bartman writes, "There is no concrete evidence that the Gospels received their familiar names early on." But wait, it gets juicier. Because if these gospels always had those names, why didn't any of the early church fathers mention them? I mean, you'd think if they had a gospel written by the Apostle Matthew himself, they'd be named dropping like influencers at Coachella, but nope, just crickets. When Justin Martyr is writing in the mid 2nd

century about 150 CE, he talks about the memoirs of the apostles, but he doesn't say which apostles. Only when we get to Erynaeus around 180 CE do we finally see someone go, "Oh yeah, the gospels. That's Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." But guess what? Irenaeus was a heretic hunter. So that's kind of convenient, isn't it? When the early church needed to squash all those gnostic gospels that were floating around. Suddenly we have a nice neat fourack of divinely approved

biographies. You know what that sounds like to me? Branding. And don't even get me started on the logic he used. There are four wins, so there must be four gospels. >> We're rebranding. Four wins, four gospels. Boom. marketing genius. >> Okay, dude. Now, let's talk about those gospel titles, the Gospel according to Matthew, according to John, etc. You see that and you think, "Oh, cool. This must be Matthew's personal account." But hold on, think about it. If Matthew himself

biographies. You know what that sounds like to me? Branding. And don't even get me started on the logic he used. There are four wins, so there must be four gospels. >> We're rebranding. Four wins, four gospels. Boom. marketing genius. >> Okay, dude. Now, let's talk about those gospel titles, the Gospel according to Matthew, according to John, etc. You see that and you think, "Oh, cool. This must be Matthew's personal account." But hold on, think about it. If Matthew himself

wrote the Gospel, why would he title it the Gospel according to Matthew? That's not how people talk about themselves. See, what's happening is that it's someone else saying, "This is the version we're attributing to Matthew." It's not the author's voice. It's an editor's label that very likely got added later. If Matthew actually wrote it, you'd think he'd say something like I Matthew, but there isn't a single first person I Matthew or I, John reference in the body of the works at

all. And think about this. The Gospel of Matthew tells the story of Matthew being called by Jesus. And it refers to him in the third person. Matthew 9:9 says, "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth." "Follow me," he told him, "and Matthew got up and followed him." Now, wouldn't you think if the author were Matthew, he'd say, "And then Jesus saw me at the tax booth looking cool as hell in my accountant robes."

all. And think about this. The Gospel of Matthew tells the story of Matthew being called by Jesus. And it refers to him in the third person. Matthew 9:9 says, "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth." "Follow me," he told him, "and Matthew got up and followed him." Now, wouldn't you think if the author were Matthew, he'd say, "And then Jesus saw me at the tax booth looking cool as hell in my accountant robes."

But no, he saw a man. Third person. No, I no me. No, this is my story. Now, look, to be fair, not everyone agrees on this. There are still people out there who will argue about all this, but here's what most modern scholars, and I'm talking actual experts who read ancient Greek for fun, agree on. The Gospels were originally anonymous. Not kind of, not maybe, fully anonymous. The names we know today came later, added by the early church to give these texts authority and to make sure everyone was

reading the right version. Because when you got a bunch of wild mystical narratives and alternate gospels floating around, slapping some authorative names on four of them is a great way to shut down the competition. You can just ignore those other ones. These are the official ones. Trust me, bro. This one's from Matthew. The reality is the formation of the New Testament was a process. They didn't just drop out of heaven. The Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus.

Think about that. They used sources, memory, oral tradition, and shaped the material for their audiences. The anonymous author of Luke even openly says he was not an eyewitness, but is compiling others accounts. Luke 1 1-3 says, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated

everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account. In other words, he's saying, "A bunch of people have already tried writing stories about Jesus. Those early eyewitnesses passed down stories to us, and I've done my research, so I'm adding my own version to the mix." The author of the Gospel of Luke flat out says he wasn't there and admits that he's using secondhand sources. Are you really going to trust an ancient game of telephone? But it gets way crazier. Not only were

the Gospels originally anonymous, but a lot of stuff got added or changed over time. Scholars widely agree that Mark's gospel originally ended at 168 and the longer ending was a later edition. So yeah, plot twist, your Bible has an alternate ending. It's like a DLC. But guess what? The Gospel of Matthew even copies Mark a lot, word for word in many places. If Matthew the disciple wrote it, why would he lift so much from Mark who wasn't even a disciple? So Lucifer

not in the Bible. Satan originally worked for God. Jesus didn't say repent. He said change your mind. Heaven not in the sky. It's inside you. Hell not a torture dungeon. It's a metaphor. Eve not made from a rib. She was half of the whole. And the Gospels totally anonymous. The version of the Bible you were handed has been translated, edited, repackaged, and oversimplified for centuries. I used to be terrified of asking questions. But when I finally started looking for myself, that's when

everything changed. So maybe, just maybe, it's time we all stop taking everything at face value and start thinking for ourselves. Because to find the real truth, all you have to do is repent. I mean, change your mind. But if you thought that was crazy, you have to check out the greatest secret of Jesus that was banned by the church. It changes everything. Go watch the video I did on it

everything changed. So maybe, just maybe, it's time we all stop taking everything at face value and start thinking for ourselves. Because to find the real truth, all you have to do is repent. I mean, change your mind. But if you thought that was crazy, you have to check out the greatest secret of Jesus that was banned by the church. It changes everything. Go watch the video I did on it