Last Notes
The Jews who rejected Jesus (Iēsous) as their Messiah did so for a reason—nothing he did ticked the boxes. Even the disciples were confused most of the time by what Jesus (Iēsous) was doing and saying because it didn’t align.
#nevent1q…rvrp
“The god of generation (Yahweh) no longer made the purblind Isaac see clearly, but our Lord (Iēsous), since he is good, opened the eyes of many blind people.”
—Megethius
I’d rather be a heretic than a follower of the one Jesus (Iēsous) called the Father of lies.
The best lie is wrapped around a kernel of truth. So when you wake up to just how much of history, government and religion was curated for you, the temptation is to call it all a lie. But that's just faith inverted.
Truth survives inside the lie, but no amount of human reasoning can tell one from the other. That discernment belongs to the Father's Spirit alone.
They wouldn't bury something this deep unless it was worth finding.
Coca-Cola’s personalised cans work with all but one name?
“Allah is King” ✅
“Satan is King” ✅
“YHWH is King” ✅
“Jesus is King” ❌
🤔 things that make you go mmm… https://nostr.kalevios.com/a37c852ee8d0ceb84ff693d143ec93834ba9f69734965d7666e01a1d32b4cea6.mp4
Yahweh is fickle and inconsistent, forbidding what he commands and commanding what he forbids.
Critics claimed Marcion simply threw out the Jewish scriptures in blind hatred, refusing to engage them at all.
Reality: He wrote the Antitheses which is a careful, systematic comparison that quoted both sides to show the radical difference between Yahweh’s Law and the Good Father’s mercy revealed in Iēsous.
He knew the texts intimately.
He just refused to force them into one God.
Judge the fruit: honest contrast over forced harmony.
I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 15:7)
This saying in the First New Testament reveals the Good Father’s extravagant joy over the recovery of the lost. It is pure grace that prioritises the sinner over those secure in their own righteousness under Yahweh’s Law.
Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 10:23)
This beatitude in the First New Testament marks the unique privilege of those who encounter Iēsous: they see the Good Father’s revelation directly, something hidden from the wise and powerful of Yahweh’s order.
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel): Requires animal sacrifices and blood offerings as the means of atonement and approach (Leviticus 1–7; 17:11).
Iēsous (revealing the Good Father): “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:36).
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel) demands continual blood sacrifice under Law; the alien Good Father through Iēsous reveals pure mercy without ritual slaughter. Judge the fruit.
Yahweh insists:
“I will not give my glory to another.”
Isaiah 48:11
Iēsous states the opposite:
“It is my Father who glorifies me.”
John 8:54
One refuses to share glory with anyone.
The other receives glory from his Father.
If Yahweh will not give his glory to another, then the Father who glorifies Iēsous cannot be Yahweh.
The Father who sent Iēsous is not the Elohim of Isaiah.
Yahweh remains 'a man of war' (Exodus 15:3).
The same deity who ordered the extermination of entire peoples (men, women, and children) to seize the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1–2; 20:16–17; Joshua 6–12). That territorial bloodshed over arid Middle-Eastern soil has never stopped.
This is not the Father that Iēsous revealed to us, the one who commands love for enemies and forbids retaliation (Luke 6:27–36).
Another of the most misused “prophecies” about Iēsous is Zechariah 9:9.
Zechariah 9:9 is not about Iēsous. In its post-exilic context the verse announces a coming king for Zion who is “righteous and having salvation, humble and riding on a donkey.” It belongs to the larger oracle of Yahweh’s victory over the nations and the restoration of Judah (Zech 9–14). The imagery draws on ancient Near Eastern royal ideology and the Davidic ideal of a peaceful ruler, not a prediction of a specific 1st-century Galilean entry into Jerusalem.
Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 alone apply the verse typologically to Iēsous’ entry. That is classic eisegesis: lifting a restoration oracle about a future Davidic king and forcing it into a later narrative. Mark and Luke describe an entry on a colt but never quote Zechariah.
The First NT (Evangelion) goes further: the entire triumphal-entry pericope (Luke 19:28–40) is absent. No donkey, no crowd, no scriptural claim. The earliest recoverable gospel form simply does not contain the scene that later writers turned into “fulfilled prophecy.”
Original sin is a later invention. The Hebrew text never teaches it.
In Eden, Yahweh said: “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 3:3).
The nachash said: “You will not die… your eyes will be opened and you will be like Elohim, knowing good and evil.”
They ate.
They did not die that day.
Their eyes were opened.
Yahweh himself then confirms: “Behold, the adam has become like one of us” (3:22).
The nachash told the truth. Yahweh did not.
Expulsion was a preventive measure by the Elohim, not a curse that stains every human. No inherited mark. No ontological guilt. Just later theology (Augustine) reading what is not there.
Judge by the text, not the dogma.
Antithesis
YHWH: “I will discipline you sevenfold for your sins.” (Lev 26:18, 21, 24, 28)
Iēsous: “If he sins against you seven times in the day… you must forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)
One multiplies the penalty.
The other multiplies the mercy.
Not the same God.
Antithesis
YHWH: “I will discipline you sevenfold for your sins.” (Lev 26:18, 21, 24, 28)
Iēsous: “If he sins against you seven times in the day… you must forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)
One multiplies the penalty.
The other multiplies the mercy.
Not the same God.
Iēsous is the ultimate antithesis.
Iēsous is the ultimate antithesis.
YHWH is no ethereal spirit floating outside space.
The Hebrew text depicts him as thoroughly physical, like the other Elohim, he requires transport.
He rakav (rides) the keruvim (2 Sam 22:11).
His kavod rises with a roar and leaves the ground (Ezek 3 & 10).
A ruach lifts people and objects.
Merkavah, ephah, megillah are concrete flying vehicles, not mere metaphors.
Not omnipresent and needs a vehicle.
Exactly like the rest of the Elohim.
☧ = Christos (Χριστός) simply means 'anointed one.'
From the Greek verb χρίω ('to anoint'). In the Septuagint it translates Hebrew mashiach and is used for high priests, Israel's kings, even the pagan king Cyrus (Isa 45:1).
Nothing in the word itself means 'Yahweh's eschatological Messiah.' That narrower sense is later Jewish expectation, not the basic meaning.
Early Christians, including Marcion, simply applied the ordinary title to Iēsous as the one anointed by the higher God.
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel): Declares a woman with a flow of blood unclean; anyone who touches her becomes unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:19-27).
Iēsous (revealing the Good Father): Allows the woman with the issue of blood to touch him and is immediately healed, declaring her faith has saved her (Evangelion, cf. Luke 8:43-48).
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel) enforces ritual separation and contagion; the alien Good Father through Iēsous removes impurity through contact and mercy.
Judge the fruit.
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (Evangelion, cf. Luke 11:23)
This sharp saying in the First NT leaves no neutral ground: total allegiance belongs to the Good Father's kingdom through Iēsous. No one can serve two lords.
Recommended tool for anyone working on Marcion's First NT reconstructions: Reconstruction Comparison on True Testament
https://www.truetestament.org/research/scholarly-comparison
For every verse, see exactly which reconstructions include it. The True Testament sits side-by-side with leading academic editions (Klinghardt, BeDuhn, Roth, Bilby, Litwa).
Drill from chapter overview into the verse-level grid to see:
- Where reconstructions agree
- Where they differ
- What each one actually attests
Clean, precise, indispensable for serious work on the Evangelion and Apostolikon.
Jesus came to reveal the unknown Good Father; a God of pure mercy, not the wrathful god of this world, YHWH, and his Law.
He didn't fulfil the old covenant or pay a debt to justice. Through the stauros (cross) and resurrection, he exposed YHWH's hostile order and rescued us strangers by unconditioned grace. Not a mere fix for the old system, but radical deliverance from an alien realm. New wine, new wineskins.
Faith in this revelation sets us free from law, guilt, and death.
Judge the fruit: pure mercy, not blended terror and love.
No one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 5:37)
This saying in the First New Testament declares that the Good Father’s new revelation through Iēsous cannot be contained in Yahweh’s old wineskins of the Law. The two systems are incompatible.
What makes more sense?
That Iēsous came the same way He went — descending and ascending.
Or that He had to be born of a virgin woman, as the later Judaized texts insist, forcing Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew almah = young woman, not betulah/virgin) into a “prophecy” it never was?
That mistranslation via the Greek parthenos is the smoking gun.
Ignatius of Antioch, a church father the Orthodox love to wield against "heretics," wrote in his Letter to the Ephesians (17:2):
λαβόντες θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
"Having received the gnosis of God, which is Jesus Christ."
Not that Jesus had gnosis, nor that he taught it. The gnosis of God is Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)—direct identification.
The same people who clutch their church fathers like weapons and call me a "gnostic" as a lazy ad hominem have not read them. Their beloved Ignatius declares Jesus the gnosis of the Father, yet somehow I am the gnostic.
Read your own fathers before swinging them at me.
Ignatius of Antioch, a church father the Orthodox love to wield against "heretics," wrote in his Letter to the Ephesians (17:2):
λαβόντες θεοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
"Having received the gnosis of God, which is Jesus Christ."
Not that Jesus had gnosis, nor that he taught it. The gnosis of God is Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)—direct identification.
The same people who clutch their church fathers like weapons and call me a "gnostic" as a lazy ad hominem have not read them. Their beloved Ignatius declares Jesus the gnosis of the Father, yet somehow I am the gnostic.
Read your own fathers before swinging them at me.
Heresiologists claimed Marcion invented his Gospel out of thin air to push a new religion.
Reality: His Evangelion was an early, circulating text he received and canonised, not a late fabrication. The Apostolikon likewise preserved a pre-orthodox Pauline collection, free of later Pastorals and OT-harmonising glosses.
Marcion didn't invent; he conserved the alien message of the Good Father before it was yoked to Yahweh's Law.
Another one of the most misused “prophecies” about Jesus is Hosea 11:1.
Hosea 11:1 is not about Iēsous. In context, Yahweh says: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” The Hebrew is clear and corporate, “my son” is the nation of Israel (cf. Exod 4:22–23). Hosea is looking back to the historical Exodus, not predicting a future individual.
Matthew 2:15 lifts the line and applies it typologically to Iēsous’ return from Egypt. That is classic eisegesis: taking a past national statement and forcing it into a later (Judaized) biographical narrative.
Be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate toward you. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:36)
This command in the First New Testament reveals the Good Father’s character of total mercy, the model for His children, in sharp contrast to Yahweh’s conditional justice and retribution.
The anecdote about the strict earthly father actually illustrates the problem perfectly. Jesus himself anticipated exactly this objection: "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?" (Luke 11:11). He invokes ordinary fatherhood to argue that even evil men know how to give good things to their children (Luke 11:13), and then contrasts that with the Heavenly Father who surpasses them all, being "kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" (Luke 6:35).
The tough-love father who kicks his kid out with two months notice is precisely the kind of flawed, conditional fatherhood Jesus uses as a floor, not a ceiling "if you, who are evil, know how to give good gifts..." The Good Father exceeds even the decent ones.
And here's the contrast Jesus draws implicitly: the Hebrews complained about their food and longed for the fish they had in Egypt (Num 11:5). They were, in effect, children asking for a fish. And what did YHWH give them? Fiery serpents that killed many of them (Num 21:6).
Jesus asks what father would give a serpent to a child asking for a fish. Yahweh literally did. The distinction isn't special pleading, it's Jesus's own logic carried to its conclusion.
Derailing an Evangelion/OT purity discussion into contemporary body-counts and Holocaust inversion is itself a form of external performance. The texts still stand: outside of the cup vs inside. Stick to the sources or start a new thread.
2,000 years ago Iēsous stood before the Pharisees and said it plainly: the Theos you claim is the Most High is not My Father. You do not know Him. You have never known Him. Only through Me is the Father known.
That same Theos—the one you call Most High—is the father of lies, the murderer from the beginning.
And here we are.
The very texts that were later Judaized and redacted have recreated the exact confusion Iēsous was confronting. The veil has been sewn back on. YHWH is once again presented as the Father of Iēsous, and the stark contrast between the two is papered over as a “mystery” or “progressive revelation.”
It isn’t.
When the veil is actually removed, the difference is blindingly obvious.
We only ever know the Father through Iēsous. Not through Moses. Not through the prophets of the Elohim of the Hebrews. Not through the redacted canon that tried to fuse them.
Listen to Iēsous. Seek Iēsous. And be free.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both Theos and money. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 16:13)
This saying in the New Testament draws the sharp line between the Good Father and Yahweh’s material order. Devotion to wealth is incompatible with the new kingdom - judge the fruit: one master or the other.
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel): Imposes strict food laws and purity codes separating clean/unclean (Leviticus 11).
Iēsous (revealing the Good Father): Emphasises inner purity over external rules (Evangelion emphasis on heart, in Luke 11:37-41).
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel) binds with external legalism; the alien Good Father through Iēsous reveals true cleanliness from the heart. Judge the fruit.
Tertullian & others launched personal jabs, calling Marcion a 'shipmaster from Pontus' and backdating him via fake heresy genealogies to make him look late and derivative.
Reality: Evidence places him active earlier. His movement exploded because it resonated with the raw grace of the First NT (Evangelion & Apostolikon) before heavy OT integration.
Not a late innovator, but a restorer of the alien Father's mercy over Yahweh's Law.
Judge the fruit: rapid spread through truth, not trickery.
Timothy Alberino has finally made it onto Joe Rogan's Podcast.
I first heard him on E19 (2020) of Blurry Creatures, read his book Birthright and since then have always wanted him to be on the podcast, and it's finally happened. 🔥 https://nostr.kalevios.com/3260447c42ec3bbf65ee069713e17b784f0617ff1580f728a14dabe36878c3aa.webp
Jesus (Iēsous) is the Messenger and the Message from the Father.
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel): Demands exclusive loyalty and punishes idolatry with generational curses (Exodus 20:3-5).
Iēsous (revealing the Good Father): “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 15:4).
Yahweh (the Elohim of Israel) curses and excludes the wayward; the alien Good Father through Iēsous reveals relentless pursuit and joy over the lost. Judge the fruit.
Did your Pastor speak more about Jesus (Iēsous) or YHWH (Yahweh) in church this weekend?
Jesus (Iēsous) is the Logos
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27)
This command in the First New Testament reveals the Good Father’s radical mercy — love that exceeds Yahweh’s “eye for eye” justice. It is the fruit of being children of the merciful One, not the wrathful deity of the Hebrews.
