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.

YHWH commands the Levites to slaughter 3,000 of their own people after the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32:27–28). In the Gospel, when a Samaritan village rejects Jesus and his disciples, James and John want to call down fire on them. Jesus sharply rebukes them and simply moves on (Evangelion; cf. Luke 9:54–55). YHWH demands the killing of his own people for idolatry. The Good Father does not retaliate with violence when rejected.

The “Church Fathers” who trash Marcion weren’t neutral historians — they were later polemicists writing decades (sometimes over a century) after the earliest sources. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius and the rest had their own agendas such as building institutional power, defining orthodoxy, and smearing rivals. Their accounts of Marcion are full of distortion, exaggeration and outright invention. Many of these same Fathers had serious issues themselves — theological backflips, poor historical accuracy, and in some cases their own later “heresies.” If you actually want to understand early Christianity, stop treating the victors’ propaganda as reliable history. Go back to the earliest Gospel layer we can reconstruct. The picture looks very different.

In the Greek text of the Gospel, Jesus’ name is Iēsous — not Yeshua, and certainly not YHWH. The attached image from Strong’s Concordance (entry 3442) shows that the name Yeshua simply means “he will save.” It does not contain or mean “Yahweh saves.” Some people point to the longer Old Testament name Yehoshua (Joshua), which does mean “Yahweh saves.” However, by the time of Jesus, the name had been shortened to Yeshua. The divine name element had already dropped out. The Greek Gospels reflect this later, shortened form — not the older Yehoshua. This matters because Jesus did not come to serve or represent YHWH. He came to reveal a previously unknown Good Father whose character stands in direct opposition to the jealous, wrathful, and violent God of the Hebrew Scriptures. As Jesus taught: judge the tree by its fruit. YHWH’s fruit is wrath, jealousy, and death. The Father Jesus reveals produces mercy, healing, and life. The name doesn’t override the fruit.

A lot of Christians struggle with the plain meaning of the Hebrew text. It doesn’t present YHWH as the abstract, all-loving, all-powerful “omni-God” of later theology. It presents him as one powerful member of the Elohim — a category of non-human beings — whose actions often include extreme wrath, jealousy, revenge, and regret. At the same time, many non-Christians dismiss Jesus as “Jewish controlled opposition.” But the first NT tells a different story. Jesus did not come to affirm or serve the god of Israel. He came to reveal a previously unknown Good Father — one whose character and ways stand in direct contrast to YHWH. Attacks are coming from both sides of the aisle. The earliest Gospel refuses to fit either narrative.

YHWH sent an evil spirit to torment Saul: “Now the Spirit of YHWH departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from YHWH tormented him.” (1 Samuel 16:14) In the Gospel, when Jesus encounters a man tormented by many unclean spirits, He commands the spirits to leave — and the man is restored to his right mind (Evangelion, cf. Luke 8:29, 35). YHWH afflicts people with evil spirits. The Good Father sets them free.

YHWH’s Law declares a woman with an ongoing issue of blood to be unclean. Anyone who touches her also becomes unclean (Leviticus 15:19–27). In the Gospel, a woman who had been bleeding for twelve years touches Jesus. Instead of making Him unclean, she is instantly healed (Evangelion, cf. Luke 8:43–48). YHWH’s system contaminates and excludes. The Good Father’s power heals and restores.

Why “Elohim” should never be translated as “God”: In the original Hebrew, Elohim is not a name or a title meaning “God.” It is a plural category — a class of powerful non-human beings (like “Anunnaki” in Sumerian texts). YHWH is one specific member of that group. That’s why the text can say “other elohim,” why YHWH is jealous of them, and why Elyon assigns nations to different elohim (Deut 32:8-9). Translating it as “God” erases the plural reality and forces later monotheism onto the text. Leave it as Elohim.

YHWH commands total destruction of the Canaanites: “You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction…” (Deuteronomy 20:16–17) In the Gospel, Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan — a despised foreigner — and concludes: “Go and do likewise.” (Evangelion G 10:37; cf. Luke 10:37) YHWH demands the complete annihilation of outsiders. The Good Father teaches radical mercy, even toward those considered enemies. Two completely different spirits. Two completely different gods.

Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 6:38) In the Father’s kingdom, the way we treat others — with mercy, generosity, and non-judgment — determines how we ourselves are treated. This is not the Law’s retributive justice, but a new measure of grace.

Another misused “prophecies” about Jesus is Daniel 7:13–14. In Daniel, the figure comes to the Ancient of Days and the kingdom is given to the saints as a collective (vv. 18, 22, 27). There is no individual descending Messiah. In the Gospel, Jesus announces the opposite: the Human One coming down from heaven with power and great glory (Evangelion, cf. Lk 21:27). The direction is reversed. By the late 3rd century, orthodox writers were already forcing the two together. Adamantius claimed: "This is similar to what Daniel says: ‘I saw One like a son of man coming on the clouds.’ And in the Gospel it says, ‘As lightning comes out of the east… so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be’." The Marcionite Megethius pushed back with Daniel 2: the stone has not yet smashed the kingdoms of the earth, proving the Christ of the Law and the Prophets has not yet arrived. He added that John the Baptist — a prophet of the Creator God (YHWH) — did not recognise Jesus: "Now when he had heard in prison the works of Christ, he sent his disciples to Him, saying, ‘Are You He who is to come, or look we for another?’"

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm. (Evangelion, cf. Luke 4:35) Unclean spirits must obey the son of the Most High.

Fact: Marcion’s Apostolikon contains only 10 of Paul’s letters and lacks the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) entirely. Scientific evidence from stylometric and lexical analysis shows these Pastorals have significantly different vocabulary and theology, consistent with 2nd-century anti-Marcionite redaction to strengthen links to YHWH’s established church structure. Marcion’s collection reflects the earlier circulating letters.

Fact: Marcion’s Evangelion has no infancy narrative, unlike canonical Luke. Scientific evidence from textual criticism shows Luke 1-2 was added later as an anti-Marcionite expansion to link Jesus directly to YHWH. Computational analysis of vocabulary and style confirms these chapters as secondary redaction. Marcion’s version came first.

And amazement seized them all, and they glorified God and were filled with awe, saying, “We have seen extraordinary things today.” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 5:26) Jesus is awesome—literally.

And they were all amazed and said to one another, “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!” (Evangelion, cf. Luke 4:36) Jesus wielded absolute authority over darkness. No rituals. No struggle. Just raw, sovereign power.