- the author of the Book of Revelation is not the same author as the Gospel of John. The Greek writing style and grammar in the Book vs Gospel are completely different. The Gospel author has great Greek grammar - the author of Revelation has horrible Greek grammar. The Gospel doesn't attribute itself to John, others did that much later.

- The author of Revelation calls himself John, but leaves no hints that he would be the same John (nothing like "...the son of Zebedee, the same who was with Christ") yada yada. If there was a historical John son of Zeb, he wouldn't be the author of either - he would've been an illiterate Aramaic-speaking fisherman. The Gospel has many Greek word-plays which do not make sense when written in Aramaic - meaning, the original Gospel author was extremely fluent and educated in Greek. (for example, using a wordplay allusion with the Sun [big sky fireball] and the Son [Christ] only work in English because the words sound the same, things like that, but in Greek) Even Dionysius in the 3rd century rejected the notion that they were one and the same author - this isn't a new concept...

- The Book is not meant as anything more than coded references to the persecution his particular followers (specifically his audience in the 7 churches in Asia, see 1:4) were facing right then and there.

- The author makes it abundantly clear these things he's writing about are imminent - for instance, see bookend verbiage in verses such as 1:1 "must soon take place", 1:3 "because the time is near", and at the end with 22:20 "I am coming soon". It would be preposterous to assume the author was referring to events that would take place after the lifetime of his actual intended audience (ie those people in the 7 churches in Asia living around 95 CE). What would that audience need with writings that would be intended for people living 2,000+ years in the future from them - when they're facing persecution NOW. It was intended (as all ancient apocalypses are) to give them hope now.

- the coded references the author of the Book are obviously pointing to Rome and Nero Caesar. Babylon originally persecuted the Jews and destroyed the temple. "Babylon" here (see 17:9) is Rome built on 7 mountains (Mons Capitolinus, Mons Quirinalis, Mons Viminalis, Mons Esquilinus, Mons Caelius, and Mons Aventinus). The "woman" is also Rome (17:18, 18:3, etc)

- 13:17 "the name...or the number of its name", 13:18 "...for it is the number of a man" (ie "mark of the beast") is most likely a reference to Nero Caesar. Some ancient manuscripts have 666 and some have 616. In Hebrew, all characters correspond to a number (gematria), and you add up the numbers of a word to get its numeric value. The Greek version of the name and title (Neron Caesar) when transliterated to Hebrew adds up to 666, and the Latin version (Nero Caesar) adds up to 616.

- As Tertullian (160-240 CE) stated in his Apology, Nero was: "the first emperor who dyed his sword in Christian blood, when our religion was but just arising at Rome". Despite Nero committing suicide, out of the collective horror among early Christians, a superstition arose that Nero wasn't dead, or if he was, he would somehow return.

Well, it's that time of year where people read the "nativity story" as found in the early chapters of the Gospel of Luke.

However, did you know there's considerable internal & external evidence to call the story into serious question? The overwhelming data suggests Luke 1:5-2:52 is not original to the gospel and was a later insertion.

Here are some things to consider:

1. the gospels attributed to Matthew & Luke(1) both include "infancy gospels", a genre that rose to fame in 100-200 CE. The gospels of Mark & John begin at Jesus' baptism, well into adulthood.

2. the virgin birth in infancy gospels depend on the mis-interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Greek Septuagint/LXX translation(2), wherein "young woman" in Hebrew (עלמה, ʿalmah) was translated to the Greek word parthénos (παρθένος), which could mean either “young woman” OR a woman who has not yet had sex. However, if it was explicitly a virgin, the Hebrew would've clearly been betulah (בתולה), which only means a “virgin" - but it wasn't.

3. for context, the author of the first portion of the book of Isaiah(3) spoke with King Ahaz stating that the young woman IS with child (i.e. now, currently) (4), and that by the time that unborn baby reaches adulthood(5) Jerusalem will have not been conquered and will be prosperous(6). i.e. the "prophecy" Isaiah refers to about the kid, Immanuel "God is with us", was already fulfilled in King Ahaz's day and was not born to a virgin (and that kid is also very likely Hezekiah, but that's another story)

4. "Dialog with Trypho" in the 2nd century (100-200 CE) even calls out the error of the misinterpretation of the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and virgin birth narrative - this is not a modern concept

5. Early Church Fathers reference sects with versions of Matthew that omit the virgin birth story. Tertuliian & Irenaeus both make reference to versions of Luke in popular circulation at the time (~150 CE) that don't include chs 1-2

6. Luke 3-24 & The Acts of the Apostles(7) are written in standard koiné style of Greek. Luke 1:5-2:52 is written in the Semitic form of Greek

7. No details from Luke 1:5-2:52 are ever referenced again in Luke+Acts or any of the epistles, speeches of Paul, Peter, Stephen, etc. (why doesn't Paul ever refer to the virgin birth?? That'd be huge!)

8. The beginning of Luke 3 reads like a proper biographical introduction then jumps straight to his baptism(8)

9. John the Baptist is for some reason re-introduced in the narrative (3:2) despite having already been introduced in 1:44, when no other "Johns" have been mentioned in the story.

10. It's incredibly strange that Jesus' genealogical lineage is not declared in chs 1 or 2 around his birth, like in Matthew. In fact, it isn't given until AFTER his baptism in adulthood.

11. Some of the earliest manuscripts have God referencing Psalms 2:7 at Luke 3:22 when Jesus is baptized, “You are my Son. TODAY I have begotten you”, which doesn't make sense if he was already begotten thru a virgin birth of God+Mary as in Luke 1-2. However, it does make sense amidst the context: Jesus became God's begotten upon his baptism, and Luke 1-2 aren't original to the text.

12. This also makes sense why the author of Luke declares Jesus' lineage via Joseph (again, AFTER his baptism). If Luke 1-2 is legit, then Joseph has ZERO blood relation to Jesus, and this lineage shouldn't be here at all. However, it makes perfect sense for this linage to be here if Jesus is actually just the literal blood son of Joseph+Mary - and the virgin birth/nativity story found in Luke 1:5-2:52 is a late addition and truly not part of the original text.

Needless to say, there is overwhelming data within & without which suggests the content of Luke 1:5-2:52 was not originally part of the Lukan gospel.

As is what we have now as the 4 gospels are at best 25yrs removed from Jesus' lifetime (most likely much later). They are definitely not firsthand accounts and in many places contradict one another. There were other gospels proposed to be included in the canon, however the early church (around 397 CE) decided to only include these four because they were attributed to either an initial disciple (the tax collector [Matthew/Levi] & John) or traveling companions of disciples (Mark for Peter & Luke for Paul)

So, based on the above data, what do you think?

Subscribe now

Crowdsourcing life.

There is only one (1) me, only one (1) Brad Wilson.

I am deeply curious and boy do I still have a TON to learn!

I’ll be sharing a lot about myself - what I do & how I do it - and I’m looking to engage with YOU to hear what you know, and thus we can all improve each other.

We all only have one (1) life to live, we only get one (1) shot at this. Each of us only have one (1) body we were born with. So lets improve each other as we go and make this one (1) a force to be reckoned with!

Why this, why now

I’m launching this space to crowdsource all things lifestyle & health/wellness.

Some of you out there are absolute pros at the things I’m weak at and still need to improve upon. (Here’s to hoping I have things to share that might benefit you as well :)

Maybe its a “mid-life crisis”- or maybe its just me wanting to ensure that the next half of my life is the best it can possibly be. I’m looking to be INSPIRED by you, and who knows, maybe I can be someone’s inspiration out there myself.

No holding back

This will only work if we’re raw and vulnerable with each other, willing to put it all out there - even with the mundane, everyday things we do. Please don’t hesitate to share and give feedback on what you’d like to see or learn about.

My goal is to post something each day.

So, on that note…here we go!!

Subscribe now