Tweet Disematkan
Caleb ☧
11K posts
Caleb ☧
@meCal3b
Follower of Iēsous, child of the unknown Good Father. Citizen of the Father’s Kingdom. Unashamed heretic. Husband to @Myst1cMead0ws
[email protected] (PGP Key in Link) Bergabung Temmuz 2023
1.6K Mengikuti1.2K Pengikut
Not idolising any man — Trobisch is just one scholar highlighting what patristic sources already show: Marcion’s Evangelion + Apostolicon came first, and the larger NT was edited in response. No single “man” invented that history; it’s textual evidence.
Jer 17:5 (“Cursed is the man who trusts in man”) cuts both ways. I’m not trusting any human for salvation — I’m letting the earliest texts speak plainly, without later orthodox agenda blending YHWH with the Good Father.
The Spirit of truth doesn’t fear evidence; dogma does.
English
@meCal3b That name again... There is no one man I can give credit to for putting together what I believe in; the Spirit that gives me the strength to continue every day. You rely on this man who I've never heard of. An idol?
Interesting that Jeremiah 17:5 is the next page I was led to...
English
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.
English
"First and Last" doesn't prove Jesus = YHWH.
Isaiah 44:6: YHWH (LORD of Heavenly Armies) claims it — classic jealous creator language (cf. Isa 45:5-7).
Revelation 1:17 applies it to the risen "son of man" (Jesus). But Revelation is a later Judaized text heavily drawing on Daniel 7 (and Enoch). It reframes titles for Christ in Divine Council contrast, not identity.
Ego eimi ("I am") is ordinary Greek (Jn 6:20; 9:9). John 8:58 highlights pre-existence, not Exodus 3:14.
Where does Jesus himself ever say he or his Father is YHWH? Show the direct quote from the Evangelion or even the canonical Gospels.
English
@AndySimedik That isn't what the text or context shows. x.com/meCal3b/status…
Caleb ☧@meCal3b
A popular claim that Jesus is YHWH hinges on John 8:58, where he says, “Before Abraham was [genesthai], I am [ego eimi].” Yet this declares his eternal existence, not his identity as YHWH. The Greek ego eimi appears in everyday, non-divine contexts elsewhere: John 6:20 (“It is I”), John 9:9 (the blind man’s “I am he”), and Acts 26:29 (Paul). The present-tense “I am” simply contrasts with Abraham’s past “was” (genesthai) to highlight Jesus’ timeless being. The surrounding dialogue (John 8:53–58) centres on Jesus surpassing Abraham in precedence, not on claiming a divine name. Moreover, the divine name at Exodus 3:14 can be rendered in the future tense—“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”—as noted in many Bible footnotes.
English
@AndySimedik Jesus (Iēsous) never said the Father/God of Israel was His Father or Himself.
English
Isaiah 57 nails the antithesis.
YHWH exposes worthless works, mocks idols, and offers conditional land to trusters (YHWH-logic: Law, reward, judgment).
Jesus reveals the alien Good Father: unconditioned grace and life abundant (Jn 10:10), not merger with the Elohim’s wrath (Isa 45:7, Rev 2).
No “different Bibles” strawman either — I use the same one, but the evidence shows Marcion’s First NT (Evangelion + Apostolicon) came first. The current canon was largely a reaction to it (per David Trobisch: Gospels, Acts, expanded Paulines, Catholic epistles, Revelation shaped with anti-Marcionite agenda).
First NT keeps the distinction. Different sources, different fruit. Judge by it.
English
@meCal3b thou criest, let thy companies deliver thee; but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take them: but he that putteth his trust in me shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain...."
English
@yellowbee0 Nah, not twisting—just quoting the texts.
If Isaiah 45:7 ("I create evil") and John 10:10 ("I came that they may have life abundantly") aren't showing two different gods, then whose fruit is the evil and death in this world coming from?
The Good Father or YHWH?
English
Fair point on the mission phase, but it reinforces the antithesis.
John 12:47-49 and Matt 26:53 show Jesus during his earthly mission refusing judgment and legions of angelic wrath—precisely because he reveals the alien Good Father, not the creator's violent ways (cf. Isa 45:7). His "not judging now" isn't temporary delay of YHWH-style punishment; it's the nature of the wholly good God who sends life, not death (Jn 10:10).
Hebrews 5:8-9 is later orthodox redaction, not in the First NT's pure Pauline gospel. The stauros accomplished deliverance from this YHWH-ruled world, not merger with its wrath.
The Good Father isn't biding time for child-killing or tribulation (Rev 2); that's the Elohim of Israel. Jesus' mission exposed the contrast. Judge the fruit.
English
@meCal3b John 12:47-49 is the reason for the lack of wrath. He was sent on a mission which He accomplished, Heb 5:8-9.
Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
English
Mate, that's exactly the point.
This world—slavery, taxes, plutocrats, wars, dead kids—is under YHWH/the Elohim of Israel (the god of this age, who forms light and creates evil, Isa 45:7). He's still running his domain of law, judgment and death.
The alien Good Father is not of this world. He sent His Son to reveal mercy and deliverance from it. "Life abundant" isn't worldly utopia under YHWH—it's the promise of the age to come, rescue from this madhouse via the stauros and resurrection (Jn 10:10; 2 Cor 4:4).
Seeing horror doesn't disprove the Good Father; it proves we need Him. Judge the fruit: one god authors the mess, the other offers escape.
English
@meCal3b We don’t really have either bro, unless life abundantly means slavery, taxes, oppression by plutocrats and all the other horrible things that happen down here. YWHW is still in control of this world. I tried to find the good father but instead see 6 month old kids killed by IDF
English
Revelation is rightly excluded from the First NT as a later anonymous apocalyptic rehash of Daniel—full of Judaized YHWH wrath (e.g. Rev 2:22-23's punitive child-killing)—with none of the pure grace and life-abundant fruit of the Good Father revealed in the Evangelion and Apostolicon.
English
@meCal3b Is the book of Revelation excluded from your bible also?
Rev 2:22-23 sounds a lot like the God you speak against.
Job 38
... Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me...
English
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.
English
People who assume all insults and invective are "not Christ-like" immediately show their unfamiliarity with the Church Fathers who frequently used insults against their opponents in their *heated debates.*
x.com/i/grok/share/d…
English
I study the earliest sources in early Christianity and what the text itself actually says — including distinctions that later theology tried to smooth over. That’s not the same as making Marcion my “god.”
I respect that the Bible had a powerful impact on your life. Personal experience like that is real for many people. But personal experience doesn’t automatically make every later interpretation or harmonisation correct.
I’m not trying to convince you to abandon your faith. I’m pointing out what the earliest Gospel and the Hebrew text actually show when read on their own terms. If you’re no longer open to examining that, that’s your choice. We can leave it here.
Note: my own journey.👇🏻
x.com/meCal3b/status…
Caleb ☧@meCal3b
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.
English
@meCal3b You have much knowledge, but it appears your god's name is Marcion.
All I know is I would be dead or worse if not for the words I read in that Book 20 years ago, but didn't truly hear them until 5 years ago. Now no man can convince me otherwise, and you shouldn't want to.
English
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.
English
Jesus never wrote anything down, and He never instructed His followers to read or follow “the text.” Instead, He promised to send the Holy Spirit, who would “teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). For the first several decades, the Christian faith was transmitted almost entirely through oral teaching, preaching, and community memory.
When written Christian scriptures first began to be collected into a defined body, the earliest clear evidence we have of such a collection comes from Marcion in the mid-second century: his single Gospel (the Evangelion) together with a collection of Paul’s letters (the Apostolikon). The four-Gospel canon that later became standard only emerged afterward — and was actively shaped in response to Marcion’s earlier collection.
More fundamentally, Jesus Himself is the Word — the living Logos, the full and final revelation of the Father. He is not a later collection of books and letters assembled by human hands over centuries. The canon is a human product, developed through debate, selection, and theological conflict.
So when someone claims they accept “all the Word of God” while accusing others of accepting only “a portion,” they are equating a later, humanly constructed canon with Jesus Himself. Yikes.
English
@meCal3b Yes, essentially the same thing: "Keep My commandments." There are differences like your post about "an eye for an eye."
But I believe the biggest difference is that I love, believe in, and rely on all the Word of God, "dividing the word of truth", and you just a portion.
English
Based on everything you’ve said so far, you’re arguing the standard mainstream position — that Jesus and the God of the Hebrew Scriptures are saying essentially the same thing, and any apparent differences are just people failing to “see spiritually.” That’s the classic harmonised view held by the majority.
I’m not interested in voice spaces right now. I’m keeping things anonymous, and voice is one of the easiest ways for someone to be identified. Text is perfectly suitable for this discussion anyway.
English
@meCal3b I am far from mainstream, but, would you like to discuss this in a space some time?
English
The irony here is thick, Christopher.
You’re accusing me of being on the “broad way” and unable to see, while defending the standard, mainstream interpretation that tries to harmonise the entire Bible into one seamless message. That’s the view held by the vast majority of Christians for centuries.
Meanwhile, I’m pointing to distinctions that are visible in the earliest Gospel (the Evangelion), the different Greek words Jesus uses for “life,” and the clear lack of afterlife teaching across most of the Hebrew Scriptures — things that don’t fit the usual harmonised reading.
It’s usually the harmonised, “everything is the same” view that has the broader appeal. The more precise, textually grounded reading is the narrower one.
English
@meCal3b It's not there to you, and many like you. The broad way...
Matthew 13
... Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand...
English
That’s reading something into the text that isn’t there.
The Gospel doesn’t say the rich young ruler was lying or secretly breaking the commandments. Jesus doesn’t correct or rebuke him for that. He accepts the man’s claim and then gives him a new and harder demand: “Sell everything you have and give to the poor… and come, follow me.”
The point of the story is the cost of discipleship, not that the man was already disqualified by breaking the Law. That’s why Jesus immediately says how difficult it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom — because following Him requires letting go of what the man valued most.
Colossians 3:5 is Paul making a later theological point. It doesn’t change what the Gospel itself records Jesus saying and doing in that encounter.
Even if we accept your reading, it still doesn’t erase the bigger contrast: the Hebrew Scriptures tie blessing and life primarily to obedience in this world, while Jesus repeatedly calls people to radical surrender for the sake of the Kingdom and eternal life with the Father.
English
@meCal3b You're just too blind to see he wasn't keeping them. He was breaking the 10 which also breaks the 1st, according to Paul (Col 3:5). That's why He went on to speak about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom. The man loved his money and possessions more than God.
English
That passage actually works against your point when read carefully.
In Matthew 19 (and the parallel in Luke 18), Jesus tells the rich young ruler that keeping the commandments is the answer if he’s asking about entering life in the normal sense. But when the man claims he’s kept them, Jesus raises the bar: sell everything, give to the poor, and follow Him. The story shows that commandment-keeping alone wasn’t enough for the deeper call Jesus was making.
More importantly, the earliest Gospel (the Evangelion) preserves a clear distinction that later canonical versions blur:
- When someone asks about ζωή (this-life abundance/prosperity), Jesus answers with the commandments: “Love God and neighbour… do this and you will live” (cf. Luke 10:25–28). This matches exactly what YHWH promised under the Law for obedience in this world.
- When someone asks about ζωὴν αἰώνιον (eternal life), Jesus gives a different answer: sell everything and you’ll have treasure in heaven (cf. Luke 18:18–30).
The Evangelion keeps these two different Greek words and two different answers coherent. Canonical Luke merges them and creates the appearance of contradiction.
Ecclesiastes 12:13–14 is still focused on this life and present obedience. It doesn’t teach about eternal life or the Kingdom Jesus constantly proclaimed.
YHWH’s covenant centred on earthly blessing and curse through the Law. Jesus repeatedly pointed people toward the Kingdom of His Father and life beyond this world.
English
@meCal3b Yes. Their message is clear throughout:
Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
You're talking like a man of the world.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
English
That’s moving the goalposts.
The original point was straightforward: the Hebrew Scriptures overwhelmingly promise earthly blessings and curses (land, wealth, long life, or destruction in this world), with almost no clear teaching about heaven, hell, or eternal life for the average person. Jesus, by contrast, makes the Kingdom of His Father and life beyond death central to His message.
You’re now saying it’s “about faith” and quoting verses where Jesus contrasts Himself with what came before. That actually supports the distinction, not the idea that He was just giving a “deeper spiritual meaning” to the old promises.
John 1:17 itself highlights the contrast: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Jesus repeatedly says “You have heard… but I say to you” because He was bringing something new, not just clarifying the old system.
If someone wants to claim that “long life in the land” secretly meant eternal life all along, the burden is on them to show where the Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach that. Faith doesn’t erase the plain reading of the text.
The shift in emphasis between the covenant of YHWH and the message of Jesus remains clear.
English
@meCal3b I know the Father I worship (John 4:22; Acts 24:14).
And according to John 6:44-45, you're worshipping something false, because if you haven't heard and learned from the Father, you don't know His Son.
English
