Wesley Huff

It says that Jesus is the Messiah, but he's not the Christ, indicating that the author had no idea what those two words meant and that they were the same words in different languages.

It says that Jesus is the Messiah, but he's not the Christ, indicating that the author had no idea what those two words meant and that they were the same words in different languages.

Yeah, I think it's a both-and situation. I think Billy's unusual in that he has brought forward arguments that I've never seen before. So usually you get kind of the typical... arguments that are repeated, and sometimes it's repeated ad nauseam. Accusations of the Council of Nicaea in 325 inventing the books of the Bible as the canon of Scripture. That's the sort of Da Vinci Code-esque argument.

Yeah, I think it's a both-and situation. I think Billy's unusual in that he has brought forward arguments that I've never seen before. So usually you get kind of the typical... arguments that are repeated, and sometimes it's repeated ad nauseam. Accusations of the Council of Nicaea in 325 inventing the books of the Bible as the canon of Scripture. That's the sort of Da Vinci Code-esque argument.

And you can trace where the paper trail of that goes to, because you can see that Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code got it from a previous book called Holy Blood and Holy Grail, and Holy Blood and Holy Grail appears to have got it from Voltaire, who used a document called the Synodicon Vedis.

And you can trace where the paper trail of that goes to, because you can see that Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code got it from a previous book called Holy Blood and Holy Grail, and Holy Blood and Holy Grail appears to have got it from Voltaire, who used a document called the Synodicon Vedis.

So there's actual links to where, okay, this is a false statement, but where's the false statement coming from? And you can see the dots and connect them. With something like using the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, or the accusation that Billy uses for the Sinai Bible, Codex Sinaticus, denying the crucifixion,

So there's actual links to where, okay, this is a false statement, but where's the false statement coming from? And you can see the dots and connect them. With something like using the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, or the accusation that Billy uses for the Sinai Bible, Codex Sinaticus, denying the crucifixion,

I think I can come up with a theory as to how he developed that, which is based on a misunderstanding of a textual variant at the end of the Gospel of Mark that is in Codex Vaticanus. Or sorry, not Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaticus. But to then repeat this constantly and say that the crucifixion isn't in the Codex Sinaticus entirely...

I think I can come up with a theory as to how he developed that, which is based on a misunderstanding of a textual variant at the end of the Gospel of Mark that is in Codex Vaticanus. Or sorry, not Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaticus. But to then repeat this constantly and say that the crucifixion isn't in the Codex Sinaticus entirely...

I'm not sure why he would go about that or where kind of the reasoning came from. As far as I can tell, a lot of these are original to Billy, and they sound sensationalistic, and a lot of people don't have the repertoire or the background to know what something like Codex Sinaticus is.

I'm not sure why he would go about that or where kind of the reasoning came from. As far as I can tell, a lot of these are original to Billy, and they sound sensationalistic, and a lot of people don't have the repertoire or the background to know what something like Codex Sinaticus is.

And so when he's throwing that out to you, or he's throwing that out to Andrew Schultz, or he's throwing that out to Joe Rogan, it's not in your, like... categories of information that you just kind of have off the top of your head. So you just kind of take it at face value, right?

And so when he's throwing that out to you, or he's throwing that out to Andrew Schultz, or he's throwing that out to Joe Rogan, it's not in your, like... categories of information that you just kind of have off the top of your head. So you just kind of take it at face value, right?

But if you take a seminary Greek class, it wouldn't be unusual to even open up Codex Sinaiticus because it's all digitized. You can go to codexsinaiticus.org and see the document and actually practice translating some Greek from Codex Sinaiticus because it is a prominent Greek manuscript. So, um,

But if you take a seminary Greek class, it wouldn't be unusual to even open up Codex Sinaiticus because it's all digitized. You can go to codexsinaiticus.org and see the document and actually practice translating some Greek from Codex Sinaiticus because it is a prominent Greek manuscript. So, um,

It's a combination of a few things where you have certain arguments that are repeated often enough and loud enough online that they kind of – people in their minds, it becomes true. And then you have other arguments that are more novel. And I find Billy's arguments are more novel than they're not.

It's a combination of a few things where you have certain arguments that are repeated often enough and loud enough online that they kind of – people in their minds, it becomes true. And then you have other arguments that are more novel. And I find Billy's arguments are more novel than they're not.

He does kind of throw in the Vatican is behind everything and the Council of Nicaea and the books of the Bible and Constantine is another one that kind of gets – everything gets pegged on Constantine for some reason. But there are other things like – a lot of what he talked about with you that I think are, as far as I can tell, Billy originals.

He does kind of throw in the Vatican is behind everything and the Council of Nicaea and the books of the Bible and Constantine is another one that kind of gets – everything gets pegged on Constantine for some reason. But there are other things like – a lot of what he talked about with you that I think are, as far as I can tell, Billy originals.