YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “You shall have no other gods before me” and commands exclusive worship with threats of punishment (Exodus 20:3-5). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27-28). The Elohim of Israel demands jealous exclusivity and vengeance; the alien Good God reveals universal love and mercy even for adversaries. Judge the fruit.

🔥🤣

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 23:34). The Elohim of Israel punishes across generations in jealousy; the alien Good God reveals immediate forgiveness and mercy. Judge the fruit.

For there is no good tree that produceth corrupt fruit; nor corrupt tree that produceth good fruit. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:43) This core saying in the New Testament exposes YHWH's flawed character through his Law’s “bad fruit” (violence, curses, contradictions), contrasting sharply with the wholly good Father God revealed in Christ.

Modern Christians freak out at the plain Hebrew of Elohim (plural, a class of divine beings) in the Hebrew Bible, screaming "You don't understand the Bible!" or blaming "bad translations" — all while dodging the actual Hebrew text. The irony is strong. In the Divine Council worldview (Psalm 82; Deut 32:8-9; Heiser's and Biglino's analysis), Elohim aren't a singular "God" in the later monotheistic sense. Elyon (the Most High) presides over a council of sons of God/Elohim — powerful spiritual beings assigned nations, some rebellious (Watchers, etc.). YHWH is one of them, allotted Israel. This isn't fringe — it's the ancient Near Eastern context, backed by the text, DSS, and Enochian material. Ignoring it flattens the Bible into modern assumptions and leaves you blind to what's coming: the powers of darkness, delegitimised rulers, and cosmic realignment. Grasping the Council view unlocks the Bible as it is — and the story still unfolding. It's time to read the Hebrew on its own terms

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): Commands the slaughter of the Amalekites, “kill both man and woman, child and infant” (1 Samuel 15:3). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:27-28). The Elohim of Israel demands genocidal violence; the alien Good God reveals perfect love and mercy for all. Judge the fruit.

YHWH wasn't a disembodied "spirit" — he was a physical, non-human Elohim. The Hebrew shows Elohim (incl. YHWH) as flesh-and-blood beings from a group of powerful entities — not omnipotent supernatural God. They walked, ate, smelled sacrifices, flew in vehicles (ruach/kavod), had offspring, and interacted physically with humans. The Hebrew Bible portrays YHWH with body parts — feet on the ground, hands, etc. — in concrete ANE terms, not abstract spirit. Later theology spiritualised him. The text shows otherwise.

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, Jesus came down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 3:1) This abrupt opening of the First New Testament’s Gospel emphasises the sudden intrusion of the Stranger from the Good Father into YHWH’s world—no preparatory prophecies or genealogies, just direct revelation in power.

YHWH (the Elohim of Israel): “I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil” (Isaiah 45:7). Jesus (revealing the Good Father): “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). The Elohim of Israel authors evil and death; the alien Good God sends His Son for life and mercy alone. Judge the fruit.

One of the biggest differences between the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Father Jesus reveals is this: In the Old Testament, YHWH makes almost no promises about an afterlife. There’s no clear teaching of heaven or hell for the average person. The blessings and curses are almost entirely earthly — land, wealth, long life, or destruction in this world. Jesus, on the other hand, barely talks about earthly wealth or political power. Instead, He constantly speaks about His Father’s Kingdom and eternal life. The focus of His message is life beyond death — relationship with the Father that continues after this life ends. It’s a striking shift in emphasis. One is heavily focused on this world. The other is focused on the world to come.

Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) was the first to claim there must be exactly four Gospels — and he “proved” it by linking them to the four living creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation (lion, ox, man, eagle). The connections were absurdly forced. He argued this imagery meant there could be no more and no less than four Gospels. It was a weak, ad hoc argument made to counter Marcion (who used only one Gospel) and other early Christian groups. This wasn’t ancient consensus — it was later propaganda that helped cement the four-Gospel canon as “obvious” and divinely ordained.

In John 8:55, Iēsous tells his opponents: “You have not known [ἐγνώκατε/ginōskō — come to know experientially] him. But I know [οἶδα/oida — full, certain awareness] him.” This is the climax of a debate over paternity (Jn 8:38–44). They claim God as Father. Iēsous replies: You’ve never known my Father — your god (whom I called “the devil, a liar from the beginning”) isn’t mine. The Greek verbs drive home the incompatibility.

“Marcion thus sees Christians and Jews as fundamentally antithetical, with the results that Jews follow their own tradition, while Christians look to the New Testament with its wholly different ethical framework.” — Resetting the Origins of Christianity (Dr Markus Vinzent)

“O wonder beyond wonders! It is rapture, power, and amazement that one can say nothing at all about the Gospel, or even conceive of it, or compare it with anything!”

Jesus taught something radically different from the “eye for an eye” principle found in the Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21). “Turn the other cheek… love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Luke 6:27–29) In the cultural context of the time, “eye for an eye” was the accepted standard for justice and retaliation. A backhanded slap to the right cheek was often an insult or act of domination rather than a life-threatening attack. Jesus directly challenged that mindset of revenge and personal vengeance. His teaching focused on refusing retaliation, not necessarily banning all forms of self-defence. Early Christians, including Marcionites, took these commands seriously. Many refused military service and rejected violent retaliation altogether. Marcionite communities were known for their strong stance against returning harm for harm. This stands in clear contrast to the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, who repeatedly commanded retributive violence and the total destruction of enemies. Importantly, Jesus’ words were aimed at stopping cycles of retaliation — not at forbidding someone from protecting themselves or their family when under attack.

David Trobisch argues that the New Testament as we know it today was deliberately shaped with an anti-Marcionite agenda. The four Gospels, the Book of Acts, the full collection of Paul’s letters (including Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles), the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation all reflect a redactional concept designed to counter Marcion’s earlier canon. In other words, the New Testament wasn’t assembled neutrally. It was edited and finalised, at least in part, as a response to Marcion.

Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) is the first Christian writer we know of who actively promoted exactly four Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — as the authoritative ones. Marcion (c. 140 CE), writing roughly 40 years earlier, already knew of these same four Gospels. However, he rejected them all, claiming they were later corruptions and plagiarisms of his own Evangelion. According to Tertullian, Marcion was the only person before Irenaeus to even mention all four Gospels by name. This timeline matters. The idea of a fixed four-Gospel canon wasn’t an early consensus — it was a later development pushed by Irenaeus and those who came after him.

For those who are new here, let me be clear — my original followers can attest to this. I started this account promoting Christian Orthodoxy. Then I discovered Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview, which completely blew my mind. I was posting enthusiastically about the Watchers, Nephilim, and the “blurry” parts of the Bible that mainstream churches are now being forced to confront because of the UFO/UAP conversation. Later, someone here shared Israel Anderson’s Two Gardens & a Snake, and for the first time I saw that YHWH was the one who lied in the Garden. That connected directly to Jesus saying the devil is a liar and murderer from the beginning. That discovery sent me much deeper down the rabbit hole. As I began sharing what I was finding, I was quickly labelled a heretic and a Marcionite — even though I had never even heard of Marcion before. That accusation actually led me to research him, which then opened up serious study into early Christianity and the first New Testament. My journey is fully visible on this account. If you go back through my older posts, you’ll see exactly how I got here. So when people claim I just have a bias and simply “hate YHWH,” that’s not true. I didn’t start with that conclusion. I followed the evidence — studying how the texts developed, what came first, what was changed, and who changed them. I’m not trying to pigeonhole anyone, and I’d appreciate the same courtesy. We’re all at different stages in our search for truth. May we all keep seeking it — because Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and He told us to knock and seek, and the door will be opened.

I've noticed people follow me, comment, and then bail/unfollow after a rebuttal (since I don't instantly agree with them). I'm not petty, so it doesn't bother me. But I choose to follow those who challenge me and with whom I disagree. Why can't this be the standard?

In the Evangelion (cf. Luke 18:9–14), Jesus tells the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The self-righteous, Law-observant Pharisee goes home unjustified. The ritually impure tax collector simply cries, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” and is justified. This isn’t how the covenant system of the God of Israel worked. It reflects the different principle of the unknown Good Father revealed by Jesus: grace over Law observance.