 Well as a Christian, I guess that it would be easy for you to recite the Lord's prayer Is that we're resorting to here gestapo tactics? I would like to hear the law Our father art who is up in heaven Aloe vera be thy name forgive us for trespassing and Do not lead us to the temptations Because we are tired of them and they're dancing and deliver us from evil with your mighty sword and Falcon forever and ever and ever. Amen That's Zach Galfinakis and of course will Ferrell in the movie the campaign and you know Actually my favorite part of that clip, but I wasn't able to get it comes right after that When the crowd of kind of stereotyped Bible belt Christians is booing because he doesn't know the Lord's prayer and Ferrell protests and says I got the gist of it and I've been working through these shows on Christianity and Judaism and social engineering by the Romans and I have to wonder to myself I'm I may be making too big of a deal about this because at the end of the day I do kind of feel like Christians do get the gist of it, right? I mean, it's all about love and light and forgiveness and compassion and for the modern liberal mainstream Protestant in America that is what Jesus is all about. That's what his message is all about That's what Christ consciousness is all about. So what's the big deal? They got the gist of it, right? So and I've kind of said this before but I'll say it again I'm trying to go past that. I'm acknowledging that. I'm acknowledging how awesome that is especially in the context of a society we have that basically denies spirituality at every turn either through science or through wink and nod Hollywood Luciferian Satanism, whatever that thing is. So where I'm trying to go is the next level of saying, okay What's beyond the gist of it? If we were going to try and get to some kind of factual thing like I say and I know that's slippery and tricky What would we leave in? What would we throw out? Now none of that would be a problem as you'll hear for today's most excellent guest Matt Whitman and I have to stress and this is just straight up the truth I can't tell you How far Matt stands above so many of the biblical scholars religious scholars comparative religion Professors all that stuff, you know, I've talked to a ton of those people Matt stands head and shoulders above them in terms of standing up and Dealing with the data and sorting through it and being able to push back with a well-reasoned Supported argument of his position. So I'm gonna play a couple of relatively long clips from this interview because the interview is Very long and goes a lot of different places And I want to give you at least as Will Ferrell says the gist of it What do you think the chances are that the gospel writers had access to Josephus? I think 100% that Luke had access to at least the early publications of Josephus I don't think Mark had access I think he wrote earlier than that and drew his details from Peter We've got a ton of historical evidence and tradition that points to Mark just writing down Peter's teachings in Rome I think you'd have a tough time making a case that Mark drew anything there John I think may have wrote An early edition and then some questions were left lingering and maybe he came back Later to round things out answering the question of what happened with Peter things like that in that final chapter So John would have had access at least by the time we get to the finished version of John And maybe there is no finished version. Maybe it was all just one version. I don't know. I'm just speculating Matthew there's more debate about the early church father who lived in close proximity Papias Suggests that Matthew was actually the first to write its gospel modern scholarship Supposes that Mark wrote first But if that's the case then Matthew if papias is right Matthew didn't have access to Josephus because Josephus was still wet behind the years and a kid and hadn't published anything when Matthew Was doing the bulk of his work if we go with the more traditional slightly later date for Matthew He would have barely had access to Josephus and if we go with the much more Skeptical and traditionally it's called the more liberal read on the dating of Matthew than he would have had access So sure, I think they had access. I just don't see the correspondence Happening to such a degree that that it's in any way historically compelling. Are you at all? surprise curious About the Bible being as pro-Roman as it is Those are those the fingerprints of Josephus No, I'm well, maybe I have to say maybe again because I didn't write this I don't know but based on what I see the the orientation One strategy for how to deal with Rome in the situation in hand amongst Jews amongst Gentiles amongst Hellenizers amongst would be non-Jewish rebels amongst Christians was play along use the Roman infrastructure play along and Don't pick a fight because you're going to lose the fight Now there are people I completely agree with right now who Or completely disagree with right now who look at the situation in American government or the situation in People cracking down on any kind of creative speech on the internet and maybe for completely different reasons We would say I don't like that and I want to push back on that but right now it would be best to appease So I won't crack this joke. I won't deal with that subject matter I'm not looking to jab that bear and pick a fight now. We might not know each other We might not influence each other But if we're both people of common sense, we might look at the same playing field and say this is probably the right way to play it at the moment Welcome to Skeptico where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers thinkers and their critics I'm your host Alex Sikaris and today we welcome Matt Whitman to Skeptico Matt is the creator and host of The very excellent 10 minute Bible hour, which he says is the Bible without the sermon Which is really quite an amazing show He also has a podcast of the same name and he has a very excellent YouTube channel that you can check out all Kind of the same way. He he does a great job. He's a great presenter and he also Produces some really high quality content about I guess The expanded version of what you'd expect from a Bible hour. I mean he does deep dives into apologetics He has some pretty amazing interviews and I was just complimenting him, which anyone will see that it's not just kind of Idol Fluffing up the guests. I mean the high quality content and the production value that he puts into this is Pretty impressive. So we are going to have a conversation today And I'm really really appreciative that Matt who's coming from a Christian perspective used to be a pastor is Willing to engage in this dialogue ongoing dialogue. We've been having about Kind of next level spirituality. So Matt welcome to Skeptico. Thanks so much for joining me Yeah, I'm honored. Thanks for letting me hang out with you. I like and I got to say That was a really crisp intro. Nice job, man. I can tell you've been doing this for a while Wow Honored I love when people say that they're honored to be on Skeptico Never know quite what to make of that. So I'll tell you what before we get to chummy here Well, you know, can I tell you can I tell you what to make of it when I say it? It means that I'm about to sit and talk with somebody I get to unwrap a present here because I don't know you We we didn't workshop all of this in advance to get all our answers straight and make everything Just super tidy and crispy so so I'm unwrapping a present here as I get to learn more about the The mindset and how ideas and experiences have shaped how you come at things how you wrestle with an idea It feels like we're on a tennis court and we got a ball labeled ideas And you're about to put it in play and we're about to bounce it back and forth and so when I say I'm honored And I mean anybody who's willing to sit and really process through an idea Uh is automatically my friend. So thank you Totally get that and totally feel the same way in a very very deep way because you know, it's funny I was just thinking of this before we started because in these discussions You always have to kind of stake out your position if nothing else so that the audience can understand Gee, why are you having a guy who does a former pastor? Could be a pastor tomorrow for all you know has the degree in divinity has all those qualifications And then it is doing a christian apologetics You know, why is he coming on your show to speak to an audience who's primarily spiritual but not religious and somewhat Not down on the christian kind of version of things and I kind of see it the other way I kind of see it as wow You know anyone who's digging into this stuff at the level that you are like You know, I just pulled up on the screen. Who is Pontius Pilate historical proofs and legends? You know 100,000 view 20 30 minute no one hour and 10 minute video on youtube with it has as I pulled up on the screen Oh, here's a guy who went to Rome and is videotaping himself in front of the Archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. Here's somebody's dug through and found the coins that proved that Pontius Pilate existed so There's just a lot going on there in terms of someone who truly is seeking at that next level Which I am too in a different way, but as you just said and I think there's a lot to that hats off to someone who is Seeking in a way that already says Your mind can't be totally made up My mind is not totally made up like I might come through this and I might go Oh, shit. You know what everything I thought I knew Is a little bit off because matt changed my world. That is exciting. That's why I continue to do this And you know bro, that's why it is super fun to talk to you. I feel like it's going to be a good thing Hey, so tell us tell folks a little bit more. I give a very brief bio You know who is matt whitman and how did you reach? This point in this whole thing that you're doing What an awesome way to get the ball rolling. That's a great question I'm weird. I know on paper What people are going to expect is someone who probably holds a certain set of political views a certain set of social views And the only part of the introduction that in a friendly way I would push back on would be the term Apologist I I always get lumped in with those crowds I get invited to things, but I just don't think I am I think what I am is trying to do eyes wide open faith So my dad is a first generation christian And a baptist pastor. He was part of a mainline baptist denomination growing up Mainline meaning You know at this point That group would lean a little bit more left politically ranging from a little bit left to really really hard left progressive would be your mainline churches He found that unsatisfactory and gravitated toward a more conservative Traditional baptist church for the remainder of his career after I was out of the house So that was my experience. I watched him go to seminary. I watched him go through several iterations of Faith and understanding about the miraculous the divine all of that, but steady faith throughout so My uh My upbringing then was an idea upbringing. Okay, everybody teaches their kid the family business One way or another and my dad's business was ideas. It still is and he's he's just brilliant brilliant, man And so yeah, we'd stay up till 2 in the morning every night school nights and everything and we would workshop ideas what's on the news What that point in church history or scholar philosopher thought this and what do we do with it And that's just what we did and you know, dad didn't do much in terms of teaching me how to turn a wrench That was mostly mom who taught me how to do things with my hands and fix stuff Which I really enjoy as well um But dad taught me about the world of ideas where most dads teach their kids how to fish I learned that one on my own and Dad and I bandied about thought and so I thought No, I don't I think he did a great job Of conditioning me to do eyes wide open faith. I was raised around that I went to a Pentecostal ish Christian high school where my mom got a job as a music teacher. That's the only reason I went there the dominant theology of that high school was very much what now looks more like your health and wealth Your joelosteen tv preacher here's a very Nebulous miraculous claim about having an idea in your head that you say is from god Or being able to do Inconsequential and not vettable miraculous things that didn't move the needle for me as a kid and bred a lot of skepticism for me not about God so much but about miraculous claims stuff on the fringe it just didn't It didn't square with the reason that I was getting taught at home. So I get out of that school situation I went to law school. That was my plan Be a lawyer do political stuff my kid brother got killed in a car wreck, which just sucked He was awesome. Now. I don't have a brother. I loved having a brother. I miss him And dad had trouble Making church work not because his faith fell apart not not at all his Faith was bolstered by that tragedy But he was just sad because his kid died and you know all Beliefs and politics and everything else aside I think it's very easy for any human to be empathetic to a dad who lost his baby boy and Had his heart broken and so it's pretty tough to muster creative energy when you're in that place so I moved home from Law school and I jumped in with dad and I helped cover the bases I had like a minor in biblical studies at that point My undergrad degrees were history philosophy that kind of business So so I helped out. I'm not sure I was any good at it, but I helped cover those bases and was around church a little bit Did one more round of that? But I better understand this a little bit more because I got some real questions here. So I went to seminary Um a good seminary one. I probably didn't have any business being at I was definitely Bringing down the average scholarly ability level of that place. So I went to I went to trinity in chicago and Um That's where a lot of things really clicked being around that historical academic Christian tradition Where the bottom line of every class was not believe it more be better behaved Vote this way and just none of that came up the bottom line of everything was Be a better scholar Have more eyes wide open faith or not faith if that's where you end up and that stuck That was that was the thing that really stuck was the okay. I've now seen what it looks like to have modeled for me academically honest eyes wide open faith with varying degrees of an understanding of a threshold of belief on this issue or that issue and I felt like I had permission at that point to To find my tribe and think really honestly about this stuff and and not worry about letting people down I took another church after my first graduate degree that went very very badly It was the exact opposite of what I experienced at seminary in that rich academic setting and I remember driving away from That awful experience at church with my brand new baby girl Moving van full of stuff. I quit with no job. I quit on principle. I can't do this and we always had a deal we're not We're not going to lie to ourselves about god We're not going to lie to ourselves about bible things and miraculous things if we believe it and it's stupid Okay, at least it's honest, but we're not going to say we think things. We don't think that destroys your soul So we quit with no job. I left I moved to live in a friend's guest bedroom in Nebraska with no plan and no money and a wife and a baby girl And I think around grand junction colorado for the first time ever it occurred to me I wonder if there's just not a god at all It would have every last bit of this is wrong and my dad's a great guy and other religious people i've known are lovely people but what if it's just a coping mechanism for dealing with death and what looks like the complete chaos of the story of history and ideas I started balling man. I in the moving van. I I was it was very very painful to even Not entertain the idea academically. I'd done that but to entertain the idea In a way that I would allow myself to just go where the evidence leads and the whole thing broke and it just did for um really a pretty significant chunk of time and Ultimately it was Deconstructing a bunch of that. I think pretty indefensible unsustainable Kid faith that I had brought with me without reexamining Into adulthood and parenthood that it just wasn't sustainable. It wasn't going to work. Those ideas are incompatible with these other ideas and So that youth group evangelical light sort of intentionally skeptical of Deep thought and the intellectual side of of christianity version of christianity That they're really heavily focused on altering a few behaviors in young people It just broke and with it broke my belief that there was any kind of deity or order To anything at all and this is after I'm Ordained and this is after I'm You know, I've worked with thousands of people and tried to help them out and Look, I know there are people sitting in on this conversation. Alex who are like, well serves you right jackass I mean you go and you tell people a bunch of things that are dead wrong I'm glad you had to feel the sting of that but I would You know to my to my friends who I don't know yet on the internet who are maybe Going there in your head. I would ask for grace on that Like you're doing your best. I was doing my best You get served up what you get served up you do your best to sort it through and it would be fun, wouldn't it? If we could just Thanos snap and all of our ideas and all of that data could just be processed in one lightning fast buffer bar And all of it comes into fruition and like right there in front of you like there Now i'm on build 8.1 of my faith and my understanding of the world and ideas and philosophy And my ethic of other people and politics, but the buffer bar is slow There's a lot of complex calculations that go into it And I don't want to wait until I have everything figured out to try to Be redemptive and help people and so I don't regret How I came at it during those first 10 years of adulthood before I got into this crisis of faith or period of disbelief, I would call it the latter um I tried to teach them intellectual honesty. I tried to model intellectual honesty and I didn't get everything right and I don't know That's okay. But what if I done nothing for those 10 years and I hadn't helped anybody and I just sat in my Little tower and thought thoughts. Well, I don't want to be that guy either. I want I want to I want to try to be redemptive as well as I understand redemptive at any given moment So then I know this is a long answer and thank you for even being curious. No, this is an awesome This is an awesome story. I'm loving every bit of it. So cool. You built it up now, man Act three or act two. I don't know how they do those things. Okay. All right. All right so So I come back around My earnest lived experience Which I'm sure people will express skepticism toward and that's fine is I was really sure there was a god I was absolutely positive there was not a god and then Gradually I began to think about that in different categories to a place where Yeah, I I think there's something behind all of this. I don't think it just happened. I am with Aristotle in thinking that there is a first cause There is some originating force and that I think you can reason out from there To at least a basic framework of what the attributes and skill set of that originating cause Can't be Could be and maybe even must be so I I I have gotten to my place of faith in a Really weird way. Well, whatever the case um I decided I was going to really triple down coming out of that experience on if I'm doing the faith thing I'm doing eyes wide open faith 100 honest I cannot process this in a way where my primary concern is someone else might hear one little fragment of it And the spell might be broken for them and they might feel sad and go through a bad process of doubt Doubt is faith. Faith is doubt. So eyes wide open faith Absolutely hard ground rule go where the evidence points go where the data points And so the most probably the most hurtful thing that I hear from people in the history of my internetting And now I'm going to tell everybody how they can make me feel sad if they want to but it's It's the charge in the comment section and the angry email most of which doesn't get through the armor at all You know, I get a gillian things like that every day. Whatever, but there's one that gets through the armor and it's the The accusation of dishonesty because It's not true, but it's just it's not true and the accusation of incompetence I can handle better because because yeah, I mean Maybe I mean the claims of Christianity are enormously complex The character and and lifetime of Jesus Christ I mean heck the political background of Jesus would take lifetimes to understand Just the backdrop of what his life is in relief against It's crazy complicated. So is a neptitude on my part probable Of course I don't know all this stuff. I'm thinking about it. I'm working on it. Um But I'm trying to do it honestly because I don't want to lie to myself about something with stakes like that And I don't want to lie to other people about something with stakes like that and the way that Has formed my style when I was at church and with what I'm doing on the internet is Well, I'm really empathetic to people who've looked at the same data. I have and have come to a different conclusion I I like you. I'm not threatened by you I to me it seems like we're doing the exact same homework project and wherever we are in the process here we are We're deciding what to do with that data a little differently But but that isn't threatening And so and all my stuff I just try to take into account and assume and all of my my podcast data and my youtube data indicates This is true that people who do not think what I'm think are hanging out with with me and that We're processing this through together and I assume some people watch and listen to my stuff Because they would just like the raw data, please could you just give me the raw materials of christianity? I'll decide what to do with it. I don't need your help with that Thank you very much But without all of the persuasion and the angle and the you telling me how to behave and what to do And how to vote and what to think Could you just Break it down and could I hear what your thought process is as you break it down so that I can get some kind of objectivity on the thing So I would like to be that guy on the internet who full disclosure. Yeah, I'm in but the reason I balk at the term apologist is I'm trying to game out the arguments for and against i'm trying to game out multiple positions on any issue that i'm talking about and I don't know man. I'm pretty libertarian minded. I just I don't try to close the deal I just don't feel like that's my role in this whole conversation Lots of people On all sides of the discussion feel like that's their role I tip my hat cool takes all types. You knock yourself out Um, it's not where i'm at if somebody Looks at the data Has several conversations metaphorically with me over the internet and they get to a place where they're like, you know what? Like looking at that thing on its merits and not on the merits of internet rumors Yeah, I think I want to give that a try but that adds up I think it's more likely that there's a god than there's not I think The version of that historically that includes jesus makes more sense than the other ones I'm in I wanted to do that because they just took their time like jesus said to do count the cost Thought about it real hard and we're like i'm gonna give it a go and with the feedback I get is that people who decide to be christians from corresponding with me while not corresponding but Listen into my stuff watching my stuff They don't usually tend to sign up for a version of church that looks much like the version that I do Are they going to figure it out very independently? They go and do their math on it and they land where they land and we high five and they get on with their life and that's cool and so I might be a disappointing guest in that regard alex because i'm i'm in a weird place here and i'm I'm in a place where I think a better ethic On the part of christianity for how to interact with people who don't hold the same views Is needed for a long time that ethic has been formulated out of a position of strength I mean Roughly Protestant-ish christianity dominated the 20th century kids got raised around it They didn't really think about it much that wasn't encouraged but you know they get the gist and um And that's that and you just grew up with this vague assumption the socially easy thing for 100 years was Be kind of how I was raised Now the socially easy thing and I predict it probably will be for the next 50 or 100 years Is I don't know a default position is probably no on the god thing probably no on the organized religion thing okay, so So christianity was operating from a position of I think misused strength I think it it squandered an opportunity to invite people into the richness and complexity of this whole thing Uh, and now it operates from a position of relative weakness But the clumsy ethic I still see being played out on tv and on the internet from christians Is that we're still operating like everybody owes us something or like Like this is the default position. No, it's not. No. No, it really isn't at all There are people who do not think what we think and arrived there through a process of hard work and dedication and consideration That was people deserve our respect Well, I'm with you. I'm with you right up till the end there I said there are people I did not go. Okay. I did not go the whole crowd and so So I'm trying to operate the thing in such a way where instead of people who don't believe what I believe being a cautionary tale That I hold out as a negative example for good christians to avoid falling into I would rather hold out a caricature of the people who don't think what I think as People of goodwill who I haven't met with who deserve the benefit of the doubt until they don't earn the benefit of the doubt Who might like to talk about the same ideas I like to talk about and come to different conclusions So try to underscore what I do with that tone so that I can be outside my bubble and benefit from putting together multiple processors That can run more equations than my single processor can run at any given time and try to benefit from the work of others and Accelerate my ability to game out what I think really is the key question Of human existence. What's the point? What are we doing here? Where'd we come from? Where are we going? And that answers or speaks to the question of what do I do with you? I mean, how should I view alex? What value do you have? How should I conceive of you? How should I treat you? So to me, it's a big deal and I suppose all of this internet stuff that I'm doing is My way of inviting other people to process something. I'm really passionate about processing That's a long answer to your question. Thanks for indulging me Absolutely. That's fantastic. You touched I mean, you just ran the gamut there, you know the the sub title kind of ethos of this show is inquiry to perpetuate doubt And uh, because the term skepticos and I was a great raiser in the greek orthodox church The greek tradition in my family and stuff like that's why I picked this name skeptic because those were the ancient greek philosophers And I didn't even realize this mad at the time. I just picked the name basically It's you could really I'm sure you can relate to this in a lot of ways in your story that we could get into but It wasn't until a few years later that I actually read what these guys were all about and I ran across this thing they were about inquiry to perpetuate doubt because I believe as you do The doubt is a spiritual thing Right because if you are decided if you have these beliefs if you have faith That's a barrier. That is a barrier to your I think in my opinion to your ultimate connection because That is always in the kind of etheric realm of kind of being rediscovered and is that rediscovery It's a zen mind beginner mind zen mind But not to digress too far because I want to pick on about a couple other points you said That you know, I love when you put what had you say it homework project like You know for me I started skeptical After I had kind of done the business thing I that was my upbringing was hey get the fucking money, you know, so That was my dad That was my family. That was the value system of you know, those Greeks that were getting together at the Greek Orthodox Church They're about hey, are you getting paid during the week? You know, it's a different It's a different value. It's much closer to I don't know the Jewish tradition that much But it's much closer to their kind of thing like a fell. Are you getting paid? You know now we can come and worship But during the week you're getting paid, right? So My value was make the business stuff happen. So You know, I did the MBA I went back to get a phd and artificial intelligence because I was pretty good at the computer programming stuff started a company Failed miserably, but eventually found a way and then I did the homework project Because kind of like you in a way the whole time I'm thinking Well, certainly this is just to get to the point where we can discover who we are and why we're here I mean that's that's what everyone's doing, right? Everyone's trying to get enough Free time money resources, whatever to do the homework project. Who are we? Why are we here? So You know connecting with you right now one of the things I think is so really cool is that To me I've got a big headache sometimes I was surprised to find That no not everyone is down with the homework project that that is the primary directive, you know find out why we're here Who we are why we're here? Well, that's an old school greek school of thought as well I mean your hedonists your sophists They all had a different angle on what you make of the homework project and how much attention It actually Deserves your stoics had a different read on that your epicureans had a different read on that and so Yeah, we're not all wired the same, but I think you and I are wired similarly Well, you know the other way that that I related to your story that I thought was really cool And I like all the computer references and the buffer Isn't moving fast enough. I thought was great But I always have the feeling that me and everyone else Is processing all this information at a very high rate And then they are internalizing it and expressing it Kind of in a slower way. So when you broke, I mean, that's the cool part of your story I think you know is you broke and to me the breaking is When our internal rapid processing of all the information Comes up that does not compute that does not compute And then it relates to us in an emotional level so I think those kind of stories to me are exciting because I try and create those broke moments for myself all the time So on this show Many many years ago. I hate to even acknowledge how many years I've been doing this, but I love it. I love it I love it. I love it. So I don't I love this I love the chance to connect with people who I would never have a chance to connect to and I really have no reason to Connect to I don't have any Financial interest or you know promoting or anything like it's just like wow that is cool And then how awesome is this internet thing that I can call up, you know last week? I was talking to a New York Times Journalist and best-selling author and stuff like that. I never get the chance to talk to that guy But I got a chance to talk to him because I do this thing and and that's cool expanding the knowledge So here is how the path Maybe getting back to where we're at right now and Pontius pilot Pontius pilot so cool. I love all the stuff you do with that So I started out saying okay Who are we? Why are we here? And since I'm kind of a sciency more guy, I said let's look at science now I had I have to admit in the back of my head I had Pretty good idea that the science people the skeptical people the atheist people were full of shit But I couldn't really prove it. You know, I didn't feel like I could prove it from a scientific standpoint and I think I did that and I even wrote a book about that why science is wrong about almost everything And I talked to people like dr. Rupert Sheldrick Cambridge biologist who wrote the intro and the forward to that book And I talked to dean raiden who did a six sigma You know result experiment that shows that consciousness is fundamental and that consciousness exists Which is you know the tricky part like a big part of this project I spent 50 shows and sorting through this kind of stuff is The mental gymnastics that the atheist goes through to support their idea that you are a biological robot in a meaningless Universe and that your life essentially has no meaning because there's no meaning in the universe I mean, it's not just your life. It's like there is no Meaning in the universe so there can't be any meaning in your life accidental Is it possible that that is a social engineering project? And that's what we're going to talk about when we talk about the romans because the romans were all about social engineering and all about How to control people However, you're going to you know, hey just path path at least resistance If I can control you with the the spear if I can control you with the gun That's good, but if I can control you and not have to do that if I can get you to control fight amongst yourselves and control each other Hey, that's just better man. I said less use as a resource No one kind of comes at me. I sit back and go The romans are famous for doing like hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, they start the fight and then they'd come in and go Okay, come on. Hey, let me You're gonna need more authority from us. We can't have this kind of chaos. We gave you a chance After stoking the fire at charles bark exactly just called that out During the ncda final four last week. I mean they're doing A pretty standard issue virtue signaling segment It happens to be that they were virtue signaling some of the virtues that I think are virtuous still Right, still still the one black guy on the stage is the one who comes back and he's like, you know I can't do it. Charles Barkley in person, but I think most white people are good people I think most black people are good people and it's these democrats and it's these republicans You don't live in our neighborhoods who want to make us fight over money fight over race and it's I mean it's just The emperor has no clothes and charles barkley is going to be the one Who's willing to point out that the emperor has no it was an amazing Set of remarks that he just threw out off the cuff while giving everybody the benefit of the doubt appealing to some something that is bigger than than a collectivist group dynamic rooted in Materialistic behavioralism. He was saying now there's Some more meaning to who we are and there's some more Intrinsic value regardless of what you look like or where you came from or what you believe that people bear and what that produces historically is massive competition and Individualism in the marketplace That can be a destructive system that what about spiritually. Oh, what about That is spiritual That is spiritual The what does it produce see what does it produce spiritually is what i'm interested in and I think sometimes when you can make better Stuff that you could help other people that you could invest in something bigger than yourself That you could build a podcast that a whole bunch of people would want to tune into And connect with that instead of processing this privately you could share that experience with a bunch of people what you what you do is spiritual one way or another And and what I resonated with so much about what you just said alex is that uh I think it's the university of hawaii their department That does the study on democide murdered by government not war Like a government saying for the greater good these people need to go what they come up with like 217 270 million people over the course of the 20th century and just into the 21st murdered by their own government for the greater good Like collectivism is not this panacea It is a there's a spiritual assumption behind it And that spiritual assumption greases this kids for some very destructive stuff that does not Give a pass to a very different version of destructive stuff that can be born out of theistic assumptions And those are worth exploring as well, but the idea that somehow collectivism and materialism creates this Non-conscious Meatbag robot mentality that brings us toward a better Jean Roddenberry style looking forward to the future panacea. It just doesn't bear out historically It's fraught with problems too and to deny that I think is silly and I I appreciate your points on it You know man, I just wrote a book not to pump books. I just wrote a pump up Why evil matters how science and religion fumble the big one and the real It was kind of like a follow-on to the first one if you understand that science is The the the real drive of science is to create Separate you from your connections separate you from The extended consciousness realm that you just live in, you know, even if we don't understand what that Extended realm is and where Jesus is whichever one wants to go and where satan and all of that How about just acknowledging that Yeah, there is consciousness and there seems to be this extended consciousness realm can't say that for sure But again follow the data as soon as you make that big leap Over the crevasse and say oh consciousness does exist news flash like every Culture throughout time hasn't known that, you know, but that's been the thing there Right, then you look at evil and to me evil is Evil is interesting Because think about how evil has been kind of scrubbed from the conversation, you know Because it doesn't fit with where we really want to go in terms of understanding some of these fundamental questions Like is there a moral impairment unless it's politically expedient then there's evil and What would that so but see the reason I pull up I'm going with the politics or even going there Is that if it is a social engineering project if that's in play not everything But if that's in play Then you also have to consider that that might be in play In this extended realm, right? So I don't want to go there too far, you know, the occult The satanic the all that stuff, but that stuff's real. I mean you want to look at that, you know, it's like a satanic panic, right? It's like, yeah, satanic panic is a hell of a thing, but Every one of those cases There's real satanic rituals going on so mcmartin preschool. Yeah, that's bad satanic panic, but That guy was doing that And you know the little kid maddie johnson who was victim number one They took him to uc li medicine medical and the doctor said this kid's been sexually abused And then they took him to the police and they said this kid's been sexually abused We better go talk to guy mcmartin's preschool because Little maddie says that's who did it to him So we can spin it. They can spin it. They being we know who they are as satanic panic and it was I mean some people got panicked and kind of wrongful accusations and wrong all that stuff. It's that's real but the core of it so Anything on that before we jump into punches pilot Yeah, a couple thoughts on stuff you said there uh one I think there is much more shaded area in the den than the venn diagram when it comes to What gets you to a similar starting point for moral philosophy now moral philosophy and natural philosophy which we now call science Post 16th century post bacon and Descartes They were more or less the same thing for a few thousand years in the west prior to the scientific revolution I I'm a little more optimistic in how I would characterize science I mean what you described sounds like it can be the hubris of human knowledge that may be mythically or If you want to go theologically is warned about in the early chunks of the book of genesis But yeah in general, I mean it's like aerosol said by all by nature all men desire to know Well natural philosophy or the hard sciences as we now call them It's just an extension of that and people want to know I want to know what that thing is in the sky. I want to know how that bridge works and why it doesn't collapse I want to know why when I plug this thing in and I get electricity I want to know how flicking a light off and on can somehow communicate sound Fiber optics is all that stuff. It's just baffling And so I don't want to know for any agenda like oh that proves my thing or now I can Have that in the ammo belt next time I get in a debate with this kind of person I just want to freaking know because I can't help but want to know now for me. I would say that is part of the cultivative mandate That is either mythically or literally described early in the book of genesis. It's it's not a burden that humans bear It's something beautiful that defines me. We want to know that's 99 percent of science, right? But but when you call up something when you call up something to do it you don't yep It's it's not like if you pick up. What is your least favorite news source? I don't know, you know pick your pick your one. Whether it's mpr or fox or cnn. I don't know pick your one It's not all fake Right, it's not all fake. It's just shade most of it. Yeah, it's just shaded You know go to like if you want to know to a catcher framing a pitch to make an umpire Think a ball just off the plate was actually catching the edge of the plate Yeah, exactly and how much do you know about what's going on in north korea right now? I don't know shit. So if I want to know nothing, so if I wanted to go read the official Kind of news source that's coming out of north korea That would have a lot more facts in it than I would be able to give you about north korea But I'll belt you it's just full of shit because I know it is so I know it's I would assume so Well, Kim Jong-il shot an 18 on his first ever round of golf So what does come out is enough for me to say now I just refuse to accept that that pudgy 16 60 year old was better at golf than tiger woods I just so I don't buy it. So, you know, and and that's all I'm saying about science I mean, of course, you know, we got the iphone we're on this all that shit works But so so the only thing is what we're going with that But where I'm going with that is that Because of a healthy skeptus. I mean skepticism drives science. It's why we do it. No incorrect Incorrect. I have to jump in there with that. No, it is it is not necessary to be skeptical To do science all you have to do is do good science It's like this idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that is meta science It is not scientific method Just do the work. Just do the work. Just do the science. If you believe something is true Prove it true replicate it send it to another lab. Have them replicate it And everyone will acknowledge that that is a move forward in science It doesn't matter if you're starting beliefs were skeptical or non skeptical talking about classical skepticism I think you're talking about internet 2021 skepticism skepticism is just a general orientation of evidence-based Approach to the natural physical world that dates back to 600 years before the time of Christ. We're just talking about the scientific method. We better get on to just see Okay, all right pilot All of that though connects to moral philosophy and that's what it comes down to Moral philosophy is either going to be a product of the belief that people own their bodies and have value because of consciousness and some Intrinsic value that is bestowed upon us by the universe by the maker of the universe specifically by god Either there is some unique value held by humans by merit of that or We are robots in need of leadership and guidance and being moved around on the chess board The entire equation of moral philosophy is completely different depending on which one of those two assumptions you come to It sounds like you and I have arrived at the belief that there is something intrinsically valuable about people Even if we don't look like them or sound like them or agree on everything You still have value because of this larger external truth And we're not coming at that from the same theological perspective, but we're arriving at that same moral foundational position so rightly people right now Are putting a lot of thought energy and discussion energy Into racial equality Awesome slavery is seen as is almost worse than murder like the worst thing that ever could have been done in all of history It was pretty bad. It was pretty bad But when you start to push on that You get to the depth quickly of where a person is coming from in terms of their moral philosophy See the person who believes that moral philosophy is a product of consensus and once you Roll over that inflection point to where one more than half of the people in a society Say slavery is bad. Then it becomes bad They scare me. I think slavery is bad because it's intrinsically evil It's evil to imagine that you can buy sell trade even breed Another human being you don't own that person's body because they have consciousness and value that is equal to mine So I just I can't do that crap to you. I can't take your stuff. I can't hurt you. I can't kill you I certainly can't write a check to buy you It's it's an abomination before the order of the universe and in my conviction before god Now I'm not scared of a person who arrives at that conclusion through a completely different set of theological assumptions than me Because there's a reason that they could say this is why slavery is wrong And even if I was the only person on earth who said it was wrong It's still wrong by merit of the nature and order of existence in the universe who scares me Is the person who citing science and being in love with collectivism and who diminishes the value of the human Effectively can only say that that deplorable practice is wrong Because yeah, we came around and finally a majority of people said it was wrong And we did some paperwork that changed it from being right to wrong and now it's wrong and it's just it's just obvious Well, it wasn't always obvious Like I need something more than we did some paperwork and then it became immoral As a foundation as an assurance from the person i'm talking to that if it becomes fashionable to enslave people again We won't do it again like what if what what if we get to a place where One more person than half in our society is like no we might want to try slavery again Does that suddenly make it right? Have you lost your mind? Of course not But it's stunning when you get into conversations with people who are otherwise very reasonable and likable When you push on that moral philosophical foundation You get into some crazy dark stuff because you realize There is no foundational Conviction or belief that would cause them to see a value of the human that inspires their ethic of how to interact with others Or what might make something right or wrong? And so when we talk about when we inch our way toward state coercion and the strategies and and Mind jobbiness of the romans and all of this that we're going to unpack I still think all of that is undergirded by moral philosophy and the foundational assumptions that anybody In this conversation right now 2000 years ago that anybody has about the nature of humanity And one of the places where I appreciate the collegiality we share is that through very different processes We both think people have some kind of value that shapes our moral decision making That was uh quite Beautiful and really really well said that again if I pick on things because that's what I like to do pick We're here to do The last part of that You know, I think it's part of the brainwashing to say the nature of humanity I just go and follow the data and say consciousness exists Because science proves it does Extended consciousness seems to exist overwhelmingly the best evidence we have suggests that it does So the burden of proof would be on someone to say that extended consciousness doesn't it doesn't exist Once we get into that realm what we find people consistently coming back and saying yeah, there's a moral imperative Deal with it. It's called god if for lack of a better term you can call it god spirit light You can call it whatever you want there these guys who bullshitted us through all this nonsense of Social construct. It's a social construct. It's not a social construct No, if you're all alone if it's 51 vote or if you're sitting alone in a tent A hut in thailand You know doing your yoga sutras You're coming to the same conclusion without the 51 percent because it's just it's a moral imperative It's who you are at this extended consciousness level I love what you just said though about the burden of proof Because the stakes here Are are very high and so for example, I remember when I went through driver's ed There was a question on there. It was like if you see a cardboard box On the road and you're pretty sure it's empty. Would it be okay to hit that? And I was like, well, yeah, you're pretty sure it's empty. Yes. I got it wrong And the the person teaching the class was like well, no because It's a mystery box. You don't know what is in the box There's a chance something you don't want to hurt or kill is in the box Therefore, if you don't know it's worth making the move with your wheel in any way possible to avoid hitting that Likewise I think the burden of proof is on the person who says no It's okay to make central moves that involve mass death Or curtailing of freedom or life or rights or anything Because we're pretty sure there's not consciousness who the burden of proof is on dramatically shapes what is and is not acceptable policy Because on the outside chance that you alex are an actual conscious being with value Even if I'm only like 95% sure you're not and that you are just a meatbag robot There's still a 5% chance that if I mess with you, I am violating that which gives me value I am violating a peer and a transcendent beautiful Fluke or ordered component of the universe I mean your threshold of action against another person and certainty that there is nothing to them I it's got to be a hundred percent and it's got to be demonstrable You just I'm not going to go if kids are playing behind the the curtains at the tennis center where I work out I'm not going to go up there and know that yeah I probably won't stab any kids and run a big long blade through that curtain in a couple places This is a very low chance. I'm going to get them I'm just not going to do it on the outside chance that I mean the kids back there I think the same logic applies and I think the burden of proof in this case is not just a semantic throw away I don't sense laziness on your part. I think it has serious moral implications as to whom The burden of proof is assigned and I agree with your assessment Okay, so matt Who was Pontius pilot historical proof in legends. So I just for folks who are interested I pulled up Really good video you did really really great video. Thank you man. It's high quality stuff, but on youtube Why first of all feel people in on the background. Why do this video? What what is this about on that level and then? What did you find and then allow me to tear it apart? Yeah, perfect sounds good. Good luck. So The the thing about Pontius pilot is he's one of three names that comes up in one of the most foundational oft-repeated christian statements of belief One of the foundational creeds. It's called within christianity mentions three human characters mary jesus and Pontius pilot So Pontius pilot is this this very important character In the new testament. He comes up in the gospels the accounts of the life and that deeds and death and resurrection of jesus He is the local roman governor of judia the roman client king state of judia Which had been so since pompe the great rolled in in the middle of the first century bc And the way this works for people who aren't in the know is this client king system meant that you've got Local ethnic governorship. So a lot of people are probably like wait, wasn't harrid the guy who governed judia Well, the answer is yes the harrid family Wielded tremendous influence as a local indigenous ethnic ruler as was the habit of the romans when setting up a client king state And he operated in partnership with a different list of responsibilities And jurisdiction than the roman governor who was present And in this case a guy who would otherwise have a pretty forgettable tenure as governor of this roman state of judia Is the most famous one ever the one everybody can name and that's Pontius pilot mid 20s to mid 30s ad is the time frame we're talking about here He's a political no-namer from a political no-name family And a region called samnia just a few clicks outside of modern-day rom His name is even confusing. It might have been that he was militarily effective with a pike Pilliam, I don't know. We don't really have anything to compare it to the The only theory I can develop for how he gained a prominent position like this Was an association with a political benefactor named sejanus This sejanus character was duplicitous and he has jainus in his name. The two-facedness is right there I don't know how anybody missed it at the time, but the sejanus guy Curried favor with a couple of different courts, particularly with the emperor tiberius and It looks as though at least some contemporary sources Ascribe anti-semitic motivations as well as obviously politically upwardly mobile motivations to this sejanus character and so My theory goes that he thought pilot was politically weak enough Familially unconnected enough that he was someone who sejanus Who was sitting in for an absentee emperor in tiberius who just wanted to do booze and sex parties On the isle of capri down by naples and wasn't really focused on governing for a period of time in the middle of his reign I think sejanus handpicked this pilot guy because he was controllable I think he sent him to judia to Carry out whatever political motivations sejanus had him. I'm not totally convinced on the anti-semitism charges And I don't think pilot was up for it. I think he gave him a complex. I think he Always felt like he needed to Demonstrate that he was a real boy who really earned this job And okay, but mad he killed he sentences jesus to death, right? I mean, that's why we all know a bunch of other political blunders yeah so You know in the in the youtube one of the things that you go through in in very, you know Snappy little fashion is How we know what we know and one of the first things you come to is our friend Flavius Josephus And yes, you do that in none of super confersial way. You just say here is the guy Well, you tell us who do you understand flavius josephus to be because I have a very different Understanding of who he is based on the data nothing about him seems maybe the least bit believable He is a top to bottom roman propaganda agent and really can't be understood to be anything else in my opinion he probably sold his Information to vespasian rather than this wacky story about he prophesied that he'd be emperor and that's somehow got him a free trip to rome. Yeah, of course, that's nonsense So yeah, okay. Let me speak to that I do disagree with you and I think I can make a good case for it But uh, ultimately the fate of earth doesn't hinge on what we make of flavius josephus. So I think we're gonna have fun the Josephus is a jewish guy. Um oh joseph ben Matamata, yeah, yeah, something's his name with the jewish acidic rapper. It's not matasyahu, but it sounds like that um The flavius is obviously a latin name that he receives later on after currying favor with a couple of roman courts and So he's a jewish guy during a time of tremendous turmoil At times he seems to be aligned with the more conservative Miracle believing Pharisee sacked at times. He seems to be aligned with the more liberal Hellenizing that is greekifying. Let's roll with the culture More like the equivalent of your mainline churches type of sack at times It looks like he's more aligned with the kumran crowd people out the escapists who went out to the dead sea and give us the dead sea scrolls or a large percentage of them Who are more aesthetic in their lifestyle and we're kind of rejectionist of all of this His thoughts Let me interject one piece on what you just said because this is also to me tell tale fake josephus, right? There was no one who was friendly to all those different sects Those people were completely at odds. They were killing each other as as they ultimately go in and seize, you know Jerusalem and attack the temple both guys are still killing each other within the group So his idea his claim, you know go to the preface of War the jews his book primarily we're going to talk about the josephus very important to note that is his First book. Yes, it is right very important to know that and very important to know Very important to note his preface to that which says, you know what? There's a lot of bad history out there So i'm going to straighten all that out rely on me I'm going to tell you the truth no matter who gets hurt on it And then he says of course i'm going to he says i'm going to tell you the truth about the glorious romans And about these other folks that you know, we're pretty doing the best they could to called the jews But he then goes about lying in jewish wars in jewish wars in jewish wars, right? His antiquities reads very differently Which is kind of doesn't doesn't help the claim that this guy is trustworthy, right? It does not help the claim that he has he sees things differently. What do you say? I think you're making alex Well, hold on hold on because we got to build it We got to build a piece. We got to build it piece by piece and that is that josephus is telling you Believe me trust me and then he's saying stuff that is completely unbelievable is completely not trustworthy One of the things you just alluded to is to understand him through Well, that's let me make my case Let me make no let me make my case and then you can you can contradict okay, but The the reason I don't see it that way is like even the point that you just made about him being in all these different sects Read it I read it from my perspective Which is this guy's purely a propaganda agent if you read it from that perspective it totally makes sense Because it fits in with this other thing that he claims is that he's a super jew, right? He says hey, i'm friends with all these different sects. They highly respect me and he says by the way I know the law, you know jewish law at 14 I was in the temple and I was telling those old rabbis And they all sat down on bended knee and listened to me because I knew the whole thing Well, this is josephus's account, right? So his preface says hey Trust me everything. I'm going to tell you don't listen to those other historians. They kind of make stuff up They exaggerate they play one time I'm going to tell you the truth and then he goes on to tell you these things and like The thing I always point out I haven't a couple of shows here is that if you talk to people now who are Scholarly in the jewish cult what they'll and they've read the law and all that stuff What they'll tell you is josephus kind of contradicts himself He says he knows the law quote unquote and then he doesn't he demonstrates by his writing that he doesn't really know the law So again, my claim is that the only way to really understand josephus is as a roman propaganda agent Okay Okay, first of all I think you're headed for a disappointment on this because I think you're assuming that i'm more optimistic about josephus than I actually am I don't feel like anything about my faith or belief in any way hinges on josephus The one excerpt that was often cited through right on up into The 19th 20th century from josephus regarding jesus is Clearly a later edition There are elements of that that hold up to manuscript study and the early manuscript evidence seems to support the idea that josephus Somewhere in there acknowledged jesus in a few of the foundational details that Would have been accepted as common historical fact at that time However, the more embellished version that seems to support christian theology I think even though I'd like it if josephus wrote that it would be wonderful for my case Is somebody who thinks that jesus is legitimate and that the religion is filled with answers I still have to be loyal to the data because i's wide open faith the data Doesn't support that that more robust version of josephus's account of jesus is defensible. So I don't think it is Josephus is somebody who does not provide value first and foremost because everything he said was true Anyone who's read josephus can tell this is compromised history Josephus provides value If we work with him Through those lenses. Okay. Okay. Who is this guy? What's he doing? What could you get away with? What could you actually write and still have this published and still have people view it as worth preserving Or circulating it who was preserving it and who was circulating it? I think those are the wrong questions. The question is is he a propaganda agent because if you're a propaganda agent Well, if he is then that points to the what i'm saying Let me interject really quickly and then I want you to comment on it If he is that north korean Press release guy press secretary historian for north korea We look at him differently than if he's kind of tried to do his best with the history I think he's that north korean guy Okay, so first of all Dolly, I like hitting the tennis ball around with you man. This is really fun really fun. You hit it. Well Secondly, I don't think that's analogous north korea is a closed communist nation That doesn't even allow communication inside and outside of its border. Yeah, but you get the ball Is well, but I don't think the point holds those are apples and oranges Rome is operating out of the far west in terms of people's consciousness There's a reason they moved east 300 years later because they couldn't keep a grip on the eastern mediterranean From that position this story is all unfolding In judia in galilee in trans jordan the de capillus. That's where all the stuff that The josephus is writing about is unfolding now. That's all vettable for a first century audience They can just go and look. It's not like these are far away stories They can either say no, that's not what happened or that is what happened and that's going to affect Its circulation and its interest level whereas with north korea The reason I think that analogy doesn't hold is you can't cross-reference it with anything It's happening if a north korea propaganda is happening in a far away place You can't visit you can't vet you can't investigate and in this analogy All of the data is coming out of the center of power Whereas in the historical event you and I are talking about Josephus is writing about something in the far east of the roman empire in those four provinces primarily and The roman authority is headquartered in the very very far west. He's writing about stuff that happened in their backyard They know people who were there they can vet this stuff themselves. So I think there is There's a degree of difference in terms of what the propagandist can get away with In the north korea example versus here, but I think you're absolutely right and you make a great point By his own admission Dude is is positioning himself To have his accounts questioned as being that which advances the cause of the roman ideology We're almost we're almost there in terms of coming together But let's take one step further because here is the money shot and I sent you this I can't I can't wrap my head around how many biblical scholars genuine Biblical scholars and you've read a lot of them and so have I and a lot of them are totally full of shit And go through an entire career just saying a bunch of nonsense This to me is the most important thing that josephus says that completely I think shuts the door on this issue of whether he's a propaganda agent and This is from war of the jews and he's describing His people right because a lot of people in the jewish tradition consider josephus a traitor I you know, that's after the fact. He wasn't traitor. He was just trying to advance what he was trying to advance Here's what he writes. Sure But what more than all else incited them to war was the ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred scriptures So what he's saying is the reason why these jews of which he is one He was a jewish general fighting against the romans in galilee if you believe his story and that part of it is probably true So it's kind of even the language is weird You have to wrap your head around it when he says what incited them. He's saying the jews, which he is one But anyways He says the scriptures to the effect that at the time one from their country would become ruler of the world So he's saying look the reason that the jews are kind of holding out and fighting so strongly against the romans is They had this belief That the messiah was coming And the messiah would come from their soil. That's what they believed now This is josephus's spin is that that's why they're so mad at the romans And here super jew josephus steps in and says They understood it to mean that someone of their own race and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it But really the oracle in reality signified the sovereignty of vespasian Who was proclaimed emperor on jewish soil now again you you is this is all over you I mean, this is like you said you're having fun conversation with me I am loving this dude because you do have this deep knowledge But to just deconstruct that most people won't even totally get that so let me just say He's saying look they had this idea that there would be a messiah and he would come from judaea What they didn't realize is that when vespasian Is named which is really kind of a fluke in history that he was named emperor While he was still in judaea kind of a fluke So josephus is trying to blow that up and saying hey, you know what that's really What the oracle prophesied this can only be understood as propaganda because what it is is a social engineering project to tell the jews Hey, man. What are you complaining about? You got exactly what you wanted. This is the messiah It's vespasian you idiots. You didn't see it. Here it is So rather than looking at this as a trader, which we do in present time because it didn't work It's just a failed social engineering project He was trying to pull off what the romans tried to pull off all the time Which was like hey if we can co-op the religion and get them to come over to our side that way all the better There is in my opinion No other way No other way to read this quote than that I Think you're exactly right. I wish we could disagree on it because it would be more fun and make for a better radio but Clearly This is propagandism and the reason why let me take just imagine a parenthetic here brief aside Is that people had messiah fever In the time in roman judaea roman gallally Acts chapter. What is it four or five where you've got Gamaliel the head of the sanhedrin speaking up and saying hey guys I don't know what we do with peter and this christian cult thing that we have going on But remember a while back when judas the gallilean rise up and when theodos rose up and of course There's debate about the timeline regarding the reference to theodos whether we're talking about the one well known to history Or some other guy with the same name. He referenced two rival messianic claimants pilot Put down a messianic uprising born out of the samaritans on It was a mount garazine Some people came to believe that moses was up there something moses had buried That was one of the things that really hurt pilot's political careers that he violently botched That little messianic uprising there john the baptist Had a huge messianic following that persists all the way into the the 50s or 60s ab that is referenced When apollos of alexandria makes his way to emphasis and Corinth then he gets to know Paul's buddies aquila and priscilla And they engage with him and he's like I only know the baptism of john So there were still people even coming out of john the baptist who viewed him as some sort of messianic figure You have got Uh, what's the guy's name nicolas of pariah? There's a guy from pariah who has a similar messianic claim There's a dude from crete moses of crete a little bit later on But then that so then what do we do with josephus? Well, this is what i'm driving at so you've got a dozen of these messianic claims that are hanging around And how many of those have held up with any With any in any meaningful way over the last 2000 years one that does that automatically make it right? No, lots of things get traction and pass the test of time Not because they're true because they got lucky. Is it possible? That that's what jesus is as a messianic claimant. Well, sure you have to explore that possibility, but everybody else Made quick claims and did nothing they were violent But I think you're jumping you're jumping ahead in the story a little bit more than the spacian But the spacian Nobody viewed him as a messiah It's no it's a we just we just saw we see again you're jumping ahead in the story and Respectively, I think you're misinterpreting it. We're just having fun here, but it's like no The most important guy in the world Thought that he was the messiah Josephus for him for a minute for that's right. Well, but that's all All that matters is that is that minute all that matters is Josephus is the guy. This is the history. This is the official word that's coming out and he's saying so again No, you can't I mean, okay. They're all right fine fine But if you acknowledge That this is roman propaganda and that the only purpose behind it can be the purpose that It clearly has which is to subvert Judaism Then that puts this moment in time that you're just saying which is way in the west and all that thing It puts it in a completely different light and my point is that we must then Look at everything that Josephus says Through this lens because he's already played the ultimate card This idea like in his preface where he says he's an honest broker of the truth He clearly now is not an honest broker of the truth There can be no doubt on that and this is a a stumbling block for so many historians. They go Yeah, Josephus is full of shit, but you know the light over here out in the street is really better So that's where i'm looking for my keys. Even though I lost him over in the dark parking lot I'm gonna look over here at Josephus. No, you can't Josephus is out the window. So the next thing I'd go to is No, oh, oh, oh, he's out the window. Don't take me the wrong way like you did on on science He is of course Spinning 95 percent real stuff, but it's always through the lens He is he has only one purpose which is to propagandize Rome He doesn't have any other purpose He's the guy who led him to the gold if you go look at the arch of titus where they're hauling away all that gold He went and got all that stuff for him. It wasn't pretty prophesized. So he is totally that's what it looks like So he's totally in their pocket. He's doing their bidding and we must understand that when we look at anything He writes particularly what he writes about Pontius pilot Well, what historical Writer throughout history. Do you not have to apply lenses too? I mean, well, let's just take you and me for example Have you ever shilled for something? I don't know you but you've lived a long time. You've shilled for something at some point. I promise Something where you got paid. Maybe this wasn't really what you believed in or your first thing But yeah, sure, whatever I have people have it just happens Even if it was just when you were a kid and you weren't even really thinking about it I mean humans at times are in positions where they advance something But I don't sense you're shilling for anything now I sense your pursuit is honest and not that I'm the arbiter of that who cares what I think But I like the way you come at it. I like the way It seems like you come at it with integrity So she might not take you seriously now because at some point Somewhere else you were in another place in life and you said this because Josephus's later writings Look like he's all over the map in terms of taking other positions. He comes back It's like he wants to give a makeup call to the Jews and antiquities And wants to talk about how beautiful this tradition has been It's like there's been a political shift that has occurred He's no longer feeling the pressures under the court of the spacian To advocate for the stuff he had been and so now he's willing to go a different direction. Does it make him a shill? Yes, but he's a moving target shill Who's shilling for different things and we can reestablish that with some historical context Which means that you can't you can't throw out somebody because they're a shill You just have to know how you know how to know how to read them I don't really disagree with you. I think this is like the real real finer points of this thing But it's to me. It's where it gets interesting. It's really where the rubber meets the road Yeah, yeah, yeah to all the things you're saying to the transformation You know and the other thing I always throw into this and I have to throw it in here is that One of the things I think is missing from our history Is this understanding that we're all leading rich spiritual lives So josephus is leading a rich spiritual life If I'm calling him a shill if I'm calling or propaganda agent If I'm calling him somebody who cashed in for the money to go live in the townhouse in rome It he still woke up at two o'clock in the morning and wondered who if he if those he loved loved him back He wondered if there was god. He wondered how his soul would be weighed because We all that's the experience of being human vespasian when he was running his sword through those druid those beautifully spiritually druid priests in britannia That was weighing on his soul because the things we do weighs on everyone's soul. So of course josephus is complicated But we must bring the lens back to this period. We must bring the lens back to Pontius pilot to what josephus is doing right now. He is trying to fool you He's doing and he's played the ultimate card now, which says Screw your religion judeism is out the window. It's about vespasian So when josephus starts popping up in the new testament and when he starts popping up or not popping up in the account of Pontius pilot, we need to take notice and we need to focus on that period not his whole life not his rich spiritual life and not his transformation just on what he's saying right now and we by absence We know that Jesus didn't get a sit with Pontius pilot You don't get a sit with Pontius pilot And not show up in in josephus's book Hell josephus wrote about the aqueduct riot. Have you ever heard of the aqueduct riot? Of course in my video See i'm trying to trying to trump you man, and i can't do it Pontius pilot is a real guy your video makes that clear You have the coins you have the video of you in rom where he's on there There is no way that jesus met with that guy and it doesn't show up in josephus Because josephus wrote about stupid shit like the aqueduct riot. So why do you write about that? Do you think? Because it makes it makes Pontius pilot look kind of cool Hmm, I think you've got it exactly backwards, and I think I might I think I might have more homework on this one than you but I could be wrong So i'm going to make my case and you tell me yours I would offer this thesis it did not advance josephus's purposes in writing about Pontius pilot for the larger point that you have rightly pointed out the exultation of the romans It did not advance his purposes to include anything about jesus sitting with Pontius pilot What he's doing here is not that tough. I keep my copy of josephus really handy I've burned through this multiple times. I'm not an expert on josephus by any means but For centuries my world I just it's fascinating. I like it. I'm not an expert. I just love it And so you read through this Without any of the oh man, I hope this makes christianity looks good or oh man I hope it makes it look bad If you step away from that and just do the historical exercise You see a dude who I think you've rightly identified as someone who played his hand And the better hand was with the romans. He made a very shriveled case For the messiah's ship of this the spacian There are all these tests that would have to be passed for messiah isaia chapter 35 lays those out jesus references them mathu references them Clearly even if you don't believe there was a jesus or believe in the gospels We know that that demonstrates what the expectation was in terms of messiah from the old testament scriptures and the prophets So that's there. The spacian doesn't take any of those boxes It's a totally cynical thing that josephus is doing there because he knows Vespacean doesn't heal the lame or make the blind to see or raise the dead like isaia said the messiah would Maybe not cynical just a lame attempt at propagandizing, but yeah for somebody that smart very weak attempt Compared to his accomplishments. Well his own self-acclaimed accomplishments So josephus is advancing an argument the argument is That the the roman Governorship leading up to the the collapse in the east that required Rome to get off of its butt bring legions and solve all of this problem One of his theses for what went wrong was inept leadership We just had bad political leadership all this time So the accounts we get from josephus both in the antiquities and the jewish wars of conscious pilots time in office Paint him as weak fumbling dumb Trying to impress tiberius and doing a terribly sloppy job of it And I give this a very concise treatment for about seven eight minutes in the video that you're referencing here And so you've got the issue of you've got the the crisis of the shields the crisis of the banners The crisis of the aqueduct. You've got the crisis of the Samaritan prophet in all of these things Pilot is held out by josephus as getting it exactly wrong And botching it on this front and then we move on from pilot who we care about because of the long shadow Jesus of nazareth casts over western history And if you keep going with josephus's argument, you realize he wasn't really that concerned with pilot The stuff that comes up because it overlaps with the bible is disproportionately represented In in josephus studies, but you keep reading with him And he's like and then this guy was inept and then this guy was inept What you had were weak crappy leaders and someone strong like the spacious like titus These are the kind of people who had to come in and restore this thing and get it squared away and point out to the jewish people That all of this floundering around that was going on over here in just a wash society you had going on You should be thankful that now the real roman presence is here To get this straightened out. This is the way forward In light of that it doesn't advance his thesis at all to be like, oh and also There's this guy jesus and he was there for a trial for a minute. Who cares? It doesn't help his point. So I don't find it to be in any way Threatening to the historical claim that jesus got a trial If anything it makes more sense that he would get a trial because The pilot of the bible looks like a lot like the pilot of josephus and just kind of overwhelmed By a political mess back in rome with sujanus and an absentee emperor in tiberias Kind of floundering in his job historically. We know he effectively got relieved of duty by a pier That was the governor of syria in the 35 36 ad something like that And so yeah, I think jesus got an audience. Well, yeah, absolutely I do that isn't weird or threatening at all and it doesn't mean christianity has ultimately proved true But yeah, yeah, I already fumbled three Ugly incidents and wouldn't have wanted to fumble that one either. Well, you know We're in now this range where we can just kind of I kind of get your point and point taken that josephus There could have been a meeting and josephus could have left it out It doesn't undermine my point that There wasn't a meeting and that's why josephus didn't write about it But either way the what do we call it the testianum flavionum? Is out the window right because if he's going to talk about jesus He's going to talk about it one Yeah, well the exaggerated one But it really kind of calls into question the whole thing because if he's going to talk about jesus He probably would have talked about jesus now, but that's still a matter of conjecture Here's where we can move to the version though. The manuscript evidence does support. So there we just have data The way we have some we have some so we'll get way too bible geeky We probably already have but if we don't go over the moon too far So the other the other problem with josephus is that He shows up in the new testament So what biblical scholars will say is that he shows up the new testament Let me make my point The new testament gospels a lot of scholars will say are dependent upon josephus Which means they look to be writing they look to be written By someone who has access to those writings, right? So point by point. I mean Jesus's ministry starts in galley The three guys on the cross one dies one's left down all this stuff parallels And then the main thing that parallels that is is just glaring Is that josephus? Says okay, they seized Jerusalem and then they destroyed it and no stone left unturned. This is exactly what jesus says But as it's written in the gospels when jesus says it it's prophecy. So look Maybe it's prophecy But when you can pick when you can pick up a historical semi quasi as we're saying historical account like josephus and it is play by play Kind of describing the same things that are said in the gospel At some point you have to say what a lot of biblical scholars say is Gee It looks like the gospel writers had access to josephus and maybe Just maybe because we're all human They kind of wrote stuff as a prophecy when it was really just history Maybe or here's another possibility Starting from the beginning of your points and moving forward to the specific phraseology of not one stone on top of another Maybe that was just such common parlance for the total destruction of a people that it dated all the way back to The third punic war in the roman destruction of carthage That's the language that was used there if that language was something that is a metaphor for That is completely what it is to completely wreck a place That wouldn't be far-fetched at all that jesus josephus hundreds of other people that now non extant writings Would have used the same phrase without it being this like whoa, that's a that's a really unique plagiarized phrase Well, it wasn't a unique plagiarized phrase. We see that in other places But it's still popularized Well, it's going to be viewed that way by someone who believes that jesus is the messiah And that that happened before 70 ad and it's going to be viewed not that way By somebody who believes that jesus was not from god and that that was written after 70 ad We're all from god. So that's not the point. The point is back to the data like when I was kind of disin the Flavium the tithonium that sounds like harry potter stuff. I can never get that Latin stuff right But you know you were saying hey, we have we have sources on that well here We have sources you like josephus side by side with the gospels and they play out like that walk me through that in what ways That's going to be another show if you ever come back We will lay that out but it's the centerpiece of your argument Well, I already gave you I already gave you one give you the quick version No, I already gave you I already gave you two the the the meeting of the three guys Who are being crucified right and that's right out of josephus? It's right out of the gospels and then you'll see jesus Sitting in prophesizing, you know His prophecy about the siege of jerusalem and then the sacking and the turning up I mean you got a couple of data points in there that would have to line up So again, you know, maybe it's prophecy, but it just seems given all the see My point is that We're in a different soup now And the soup is that all this shit is up for grabs because it's all being manipulated And you've already bought into that because you've you've agreed that there's no other way to read That thing so now this is in play in my opinion. It's in play. So and you're fair with it I This again, I'm being opinionated about you now But that's my read of it is you're not like throwing up the laser defense beams and going You're going hey, maybe you know, maybe not prove it to me more and i'm saying The fact that the bridal is pro roland The fact that the one hints of josephus's fingerprints on it through access of the Gospel writers and then the fact of like this prophecy that has three or four elements in it that are right out of josephus's history Again Kind of lean me in that direction We're at a minute 50. That's the only reason I said if we do it again, I'd love to do it again But we're in it or not We're at an hour 50. So that's the only reason I said we might have to because we go into depth Which is what you got to do on this stuff. Well, can I respond to that stuff because I mean, of course That's like where our entire conversation is leading to so um I'm I'm not totally tracking with the reference to The criminals on the cross from josephus um I would have to look more closely to to understand What that reference is to? The description of jesus in josephus from the antiquities The one that everybody thinks of as the testimonium flavian Or flavianum, I think they say is is really pretty ambiguous. It's something like You know jesus was a great guy if indeed it's right to call him a guy that might be a later interpolation he did amazing or surprising deeds and Some people thought he was the christ and he died on the cross and I think pilot is specifically mentioned there, but there's not There's there's not any of the specificity of the gospels there So if you were if you're sitting down in the first century ad or if you believe those gospels were written much later by anonymous authors You know or not the authors whose names are attached and you're like i'm going to go off at josephus Man, you're gonna have to build out a ton from there because there just isn't That much core material So matthew's a book that I spend a ton of time with and i'm fascinated by it because of the cultural intersection of Romanism and helanism and judaism and the old testament and everything that's going on and the build up to what we're talking about here with the jewish wars uh finalizing in 70 ad and I look at the gospel of matthew And the detail that is included here matthew and luke It's just massive The detail about what jesus said teta tets. He's having with religious leadership His travel itinerary going up north to tire and side on And coming back down and hanging out on the east side of the sea of gallilee and the decapolis And then he goes in a boat across the sea to a town nobody even has heard of anymore called magadan You've got all of these Ultra specific details Throughout the book of matthew that I mean it's just a very robust document regardless of what you think of its origins it To say that that is somehow a parallel with josephus or that its credibility Hinges on the the political elinches. This is just josephus. I I just objectively don't see it because of how Sweeping the account even if we rejected his pure fiction That matthew for example gives of the life of jesus and I don't even see a framework there as I look at the testimonium Flavenium I have trouble with it too. Well, it's not it's not just it's not just in the harry potter part It's like here is here is the part I was referring to josephus. This is titus because of Jerusalem So wars 512 titus naked without his armor escapes attack at the garden of uh, what is that? guesemain Get 70 Okay, that's right out and that's parallel right out of the bible, right? Um a naked man escapes at the garden of guesemain. Okay, so the next thing in uh, Yeah, that's there's the the naked part doesn't track for me. I mean doesn't track. Okay. All right So then Peter runs out of there. Jesus gets arrested there. Well near there Okay, right out of wars again josephus War the jews 512 Titus builds a siege wall around jerusalem titus pitches camp at jerusalem exactly 40 years after the start of jesus of a jesus's ministry supposedly So again, we're all On board with that that that's written then as a prophecy, right? Here's the next thing from josephus now again And this will ring true with the bible three men josephus Uh 75 420 421 three men are chris are crucified at the village of the inquiring mine One man is taken down from the cross Uh by josephus josephus goes and says hey kind of let that guy down and miraculously survives. Okay, so We can't get into all of them, but this is what i was saying Point by point you go through josephus and strangely enough these are showing up in the gospels So maybe maybe not well not they're showing up. There's something like it That looks similar. I mean roman executions were happening off and he's not calling the person on the cross jesus It chronologically doesn't align with jesus. We're talking about decades of space between it chronologically it depends it's not it's in a different time slot, right? But it's like chronologically these things are showing it's not like josephus wrote I'm not stringing together random quotes from josephus if you remember and listen to the this is like one right after another What josephus writes it looks to me like Again, my only point is is not that it's uh You know stern to stem Or writing off of josephus Which i'm just saying i'm just saying what a lot of biblical scholars say is that gee it sure looks like The gospel writers had access to josephus And that once you combine that with what we do agree on which is that josephus was A propaganda agent. I don't go with the shill. You know, I go with uh, he was intentionally trying to subvert Judaism for political I'm semantically comfortable with that distinction. Sure. So so then I think we're just in a different a different soup You know in a different soup in understanding all this stuff Yeah, well scope and scale wise I remain Unpersuaded I think if somebody wants to build a really strong case against the reliability of the gospels They're not going to get good traction With the josephus angle and when we say a lot of scholars My guess is that without googling you'd struggle to come up with more than one name Without googling yeah, I would definitely struggle. Okay, so and that's that's not an indictment of you or your preparation in any way my point is if you asked for the name of 25 or 50 scholars who would read it the exact opposite way. I think i'm ready with those names Now and maybe that's not fair because this is what I do for a living in this particular narrow tiny little field And you're covering a billion things But I mean I can just as easily hit that tennis ball back and say like well I can name a ton of scholars who see that differently and are very fair-minded and well respected inside and outside of religious circles So the a lot of scholars thing it doesn't carry a ton of weight. My source. My source on that is the ultimate truth In the internet where you're going wake up wake up Good man. Good. That's a very useful place And so I think if you want to criticize the gospels like hey, here's my insider take on where the vulnerable points are One, I think they're reliable. I think they're written by the people whose names are on them I'd love to break all that down sometime. I don't feel a vigorous need to defend it But if you want to jab at it jab at the fact that formally none of the four actually put a name on them So all of that has to be ascribed to church tradition Now you want to be careful not to make an anachronistic assumption like oh well Rome was very powerful as a catholic church They inflicted those names. No those names are attached Way before roman Catholicism has any kind of traction Or structure to it to be able to inflict that kind of a change on a very Decentralized distribution of these documents. I mean, it's kind of a blockchain style distribution Nobody owned Matthew or Luke or john in the first two centuries of christianity. It was just Distributed and in the ether so to speak but I mean christians have to admit None of those four gospel authors wrote their name on the top. They all give us hints about who wrote it But none of them say it. So there's a place where I think you can get a little bit of purchase and saying I don't know about this. I think you can get a little bit of purchase In pushing back on some of the early manuscript evidence. There are a couple of key passages There's a pericope and a story and john a very famous one about a woman caught in adultery Well, the early manuscript evidence doesn't support that should that be in there that raises questions about How the bible unfolded over the years? I'm very satisfied with the critical answers to those questions But they're valid questions for the skeptical person to push back on and I think there's more purchase to be gained there additionally I think there's purchase to be gained in critiquing the gospels and the new testament in something I referenced earlier You have a couple of historical questions that look a little quirky What's the deal with the census with her corineas? There are historical responses to that but I don't find them to be wildly satisfactory And it's it's a valid question for the person who's unsure of what to do with those or critical of those documents to push back on You've got the question from acts and this theodis fellow It looks like theodis and his rebellion would have happened after That conversation with gmalial would have occurred. So what gives is there another guy named theodis? Maybe is it a mistake? I'm inclined to not think so, but maybe it's a valid question at least What's the deal with the two accounts of? What happened to judas? It's a valid question to ask exactly how that went down the timeline of the resurrection there It's reconcilable But there's certainly enough there that any honest minded christian should be able to say well, that's certainly worth considering I think a couple of those Internal points are a place where you can get more purchase And I think the manuscript evidence though very strong For almost all of the new testament does leave a couple of vulnerabilities acts 837 being one The johannin pericope the final chapter of john The long ending of mark all of those points a couple verses in the first third of matthew You know all of those points There are there are good questions to be wrestled with there and I think you get A stronger pushback From that then you do by by what I would what I think just really is a stretch In trying to connect the dots on the josephus front What do you mean a stretch a stretch on the josephus front? I mean one you already agreed You already agreed on the most important point the josephus has to be understood as a propaganda agent The most important point is did he Hold up because the the you know all that I kind of boil all that down to You know Do you think What do you think the chances are that the gospel writers had access to josephus? uh, I think 100 that luke had access to at least the early publications of josephus I don't think mark had access. I think he wrote earlier than that And drew his details from peter. We've got a ton Of historical evidence and tradition that points to mark just writing down peter's teachings in rome I think you'd have a tough time making a case that mark drew anything there john I think may have wrote An early edition and then some questions were left lingering and maybe he came back Later to round things out answering the question of what happened with peter things like that in that final chapter so john Would have had access at least by the time we get to the finished version of john and maybe there is no finished version Maybe it was all just one version. I don't know. I'm just speculating Matthew, there's more debate about the early church father who lived in close proximity papias Suggest that matthew was actually the first to write its gospel modern scholarship Supposes that mark wrote first But if that's the case then matthew if papias is right Matthew didn't have access to josephus because josephus was still wet behind the years and a kid And hadn't published anything when matthew was doing the bulk of his work If we go with the more traditional slightly later date for matthew He would have barely had access to josephus and if we go with the much more Uh skeptical and traditionally it's called the more liberal read on the dating of matthew than he would have had access So sure. I think they had access I just don't see The correspondence happening to such a degree That that it's in any way historically compelling. Are you at all surprised curious About the bible being as pro roman as it is No, i'm not. I did a video on this. Are those the are those the fingerprints of josephus? No, i'm well maybe i have to say maybe Again, because I didn't write this. I don't know but based on what I see The the orientation One strategy for how to deal with roman the situation in hand amongst jews amongst gentiles amongst hellenizers amongst would be non-jewish rebels amongst christians was Play along use the roman infrastructure play along And don't pick a fight because you're going to lose the fight Some people retreated some people wanted to fight some people chose this route To me the book of romans, which is written by paul To the church in rom or mail would have been even sifted through potentially especially the very controversial chapter 13 of romans It looks like it's being written with an attempt to Anonymously persuade or make nice Now I don't think it's far-fetched at all to imagine that josephus And the apostle paul who had no influence on each other Both would have looked at the playing field and said well, there's no point in jabbing that bear The right play would be to do it this way now. There are people I completely agree with right now who um Or completely disagree with right now who look at the situation in american government or the situation in uh People cracking down on any kind of creative speech on the internet And maybe for completely different reasons we would say I don't like that and I want to push back on that But right now it would be best to appease So I won't crack this joke. I won't deal with that subject matter I'm not looking to jab that bear and pick a fight now. We might not know each other We might not influence each other But if we're both people of common sense, we might look at the same playing field and say This is probably the right way to play it at the moment. So is it possible that that Pro-roman play along mentality is something that Josephus informed the bible and the bible informed Josephus I mean it could be but statistically just in terms of how many humans were on the earth and how much they interacted It seems more likely that those are two relatively sophisticated shrewd groups of people Who read the playing field and said this would probably be the best way to play it pro-romanism in the roman empire is in and of itself no evidence of Collaboration or corroboration between two sources It was the status quo Matt you are fantastic I love you, buddy. This is a lot What's going that you know I never even asked you the 10 minute bible hour. That's such a That's such a little riddle right there. It's 10 minutes. It's never and it's an hour and then it's never even an hour So but what's going on at the 10 minute bible hour? What what can people expect and find out and What are you doing? Where can they go and see you? I think you do you do do you get out there and Beat the bushes and give presentations. Yeah, I've got I've got more of that coming up starting this summer and fall I mean I laid low for the last year like a lot of people Thank you for asking by the way The 10 minute bible hour is something I started about six years ago Because I wanted to have a different sounding conversation about the bible and church history and christianity and all of those things philosophy morality I tried to pick a goofy name that was a bit of a self-riff. I'm not sure I got it right That joke slays with people who used to listen to old tiny bible radio stuff Everything was the bible hour and I was like, well, I'll just do it faster and quirkier the tone of the show is Hopefully it's we get into the deep water We respect the time of the viewer or the listener But also we screw around like it's it's the bible and also fart jokes It just I want to take a thing that we all want to fight about and that makes people on edge And I want to emulate the tone of this conversation with people of goodwill people who can have a laugh about something People who like picking up a thing and looking at it from a bunch of different angles at the end of the day Just like we're about to do. Yeah, I might not see it the same way high five What a blast this was and so that's the tone of the show If you're looking for something that is quick and punchy and fun where I don't presume to tell you what to do or how to be But i'm happy to think through ideas with you. I think you'll like my youtube channel I go around I visit other expressions of christianity I point at things in fancy churches and ask the priest what that means and why they wear that outfit What do you do there and how does this work? What do you believe and we have a really good time with it? I walk through books of the bible in sort of a Lighthearted but deep divey daily show style format And then the daily podcast is completely separate from the youtube channel I was just describing the daily podcast is straight through the book of matthew in Finite detail. I mean we talk about historical context literary context. Josephus comes up all the time We're talking about roman politics. We're talking about hasmoni and politics the end of that dynasty All of these cultural assumptions historical theological philosophical assumptions going on behind the text We're trying to get into that and a huge percentage of that audience are people who don't believe anything like what I believe But we just enjoy kicking it around together. It's 10 minutes a day every week day it's there in the morning people work out with it commute with it and And I have a blast with it and thank you for letting me. Thank you for letting me talk about my stuff Oh, absolutely. I do check it out folks and uh, even if you're not Totally down with the christians a lot of people listen to the show who are christian And they really let me hear it. All right. I do one of these shows be good to him my friends. Yes Yes, be here. Let's hear that. I can make them say it again But you know also even if you are it's it's such It's very rich in content. It's super well produced Very very watchable listenable. So it's been fantastic getting to know you matt Thanks again so much for coming on skeptico Likewise, what a blast. Thank you, alex Thanks again to matthew wittman from the 10 minute bible hour for joining me today on skeptico So many questions I could tee up from this interview, but I'm going to go real specific bible geeky Do you think jesus met with ponches pilot? And do you think because we didn't really hash this out? But I think there's kind of an interesting argument here If you think jesus met with ponches pilot And josephus didn't document it in war of the jews And at the same time you think the testimonium flavianum that is the writing by josephus where he says Wow, this jesus guy if you can even call him a guy He was so great that is written down in josephus's second bestseller antiquities that comes a lot of years later Well, if you think that passage is Authentic which kind of matt is arguing that at least part of it is the spirit of it is I would suggest that you really have a hard time reconciling those two points Those two places in history, right? So if he wrote about it In antiquities then he knew about it When he wrote war with the jews So why didn't he write about it when he was writing about ponches pilots other exploits Now again, I know that's bible geeky and it's almost might seem like overkill But this is the beginning of digging that next level deeper to where we can have Some degree of confidence with what we're saying about How all this came into being Because you know where i'm going with that I think it's all about social engineering by the romans, but that's what i'm building up to I can't close the book on it yet So let me know what you think love love love to hear the feedback To hear the comments hear what your thoughts are and that Track me down come over the skeptical forum track me down any way you like And then please stay with me for more of this there's plenty more to come Until next time take care and bye for now